Pun intended!
Thursday and Friday have been busy days getting cases on both sides of the topic prepared. On Thursday morning, we began with a lecture on rebuttals that included how to respond to arguments, weighing, and strategies to be employed. On Thursday afternoon, we spent time in the library perfecting the first case which was due on Thursday night. Then on Thursday night we worked on the second case which was due on Friday. Ben already has answers to arguments typed up and ready to go while Megan's AC is pretty solid. Adrienne is writing an AC that says the pursuit of economic gains uniquely harms the welfare of women workers and the environment which they depend on in developing countries for their subsistence. Sushi's AFF is about how valuing the welfare of workers will promote U.S. soft power which is key to U.S. hegemony.
On Friday, we did a rebuttal drill in lab where Ben read his AC, the lab flowed it, wrote out responses with 4 minutes of prep time, and then gave the speech aloud in a corner of the room. After their one practice speech, each student stood at the front of the room and gave the 1NR in response to the AC. Tyler did a very good job multipointing arguments in response to Ben while Cameron weighed arguments based on the propensity they would occur. Jason was the first to do the drill in front of the group and helped the rest of the group think about other responses to the case. Semmey made some really good arguments in the rebuttal drill and has cut probably some of the best cards in the lab. Andrea is continuing to cut more evidence even though most of the lab has moved to concentrate on cases. And Jesse has so many arguments in his AC that he needs to cut about half of them... but he's thinking.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
"You are all winners"
Wednesday: The morning began with a lecture on cross-examination given by Mr. Beard. He stressed the importance of CX, which is somewhat of a lost art. CX is so important to perceptually winning a round and pinning your opponent down in a difficult situation. During the afternoon, the lab met in the library to continue to cut evidence. The group had 20 pieces of evidence due on Wednesday night and every single person had a lot of work to do in the library to meet that quota. Semmey did a very good job cutting cards for the first time and found some quality evidence. Ben was ahead of the group being the first to produce his 20 cards. Jesse and Cameron made a lot of progress in the 4 hours in the library - starting with few cards and ending with many.
After dinner, the lab met to work on cases. We brainstormed AFF and NEG ideas by splitting into two teams: the Battle of the Sexes. The girls (Blue Team) produced more arguments than the boys (Pink Team), but the boys had some *interesting* arguments.
The group ended the night by beginning to work on cases. Some of the students already have complete cases and we will continue to edit them Thursday.
After dinner, the lab met to work on cases. We brainstormed AFF and NEG ideas by splitting into two teams: the Battle of the Sexes. The girls (Blue Team) produced more arguments than the boys (Pink Team), but the boys had some *interesting* arguments.
The group ended the night by beginning to work on cases. Some of the students already have complete cases and we will continue to edit them Thursday.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
"Risky" Strategies are like Carnival Rides in the Parking Lots of Malls
...They can be exhilarating, but dangerous. Bad analogy - I know.
We started the day in lab at 9am by brainstorming what the affirmative and negative ground was on the trade agreements topic. The lab was broken into three groups and each group decided how they thought ground should be divided. We spent a substantial portion of time talking about to develop a framework, weighing arguments, and the difference between rule-based and consequence-based cases using the demo round between Shane and Liz the day before as a reference.
In the afternoon lab, Mr. Beard gave an affirmative casing lecture with methods to appeal to all types of judges. The lecture also included variable writing skills that would be applicable on any assignment such as using active voice: The government killed the workers. Afterwards, Gary gave a lecture on negative casing including ways to use syllogisms and burdens in replacement of criterion and how to develop the criterion to preclude blippy responses from the AR. The title of this entry is a reference to negative cases which depart from the traditional structure (hence "risky").
Then it rained. A lot.
In the evening lab session, we did a flowing and CX drill. And discussed the demo debate from the day before by going over the flow and arguments made.
Tomorrow night the students have 20 cards due. We will be spending 4 hours in the UNT library tomorrow afternoon.
We started the day in lab at 9am by brainstorming what the affirmative and negative ground was on the trade agreements topic. The lab was broken into three groups and each group decided how they thought ground should be divided. We spent a substantial portion of time talking about to develop a framework, weighing arguments, and the difference between rule-based and consequence-based cases using the demo round between Shane and Liz the day before as a reference.
In the afternoon lab, Mr. Beard gave an affirmative casing lecture with methods to appeal to all types of judges. The lecture also included variable writing skills that would be applicable on any assignment such as using active voice: The government killed the workers. Afterwards, Gary gave a lecture on negative casing including ways to use syllogisms and burdens in replacement of criterion and how to develop the criterion to preclude blippy responses from the AR. The title of this entry is a reference to negative cases which depart from the traditional structure (hence "risky").
Then it rained. A lot.
In the evening lab session, we did a flowing and CX drill. And discussed the demo debate from the day before by going over the flow and arguments made.
Tomorrow night the students have 20 cards due. We will be spending 4 hours in the UNT library tomorrow afternoon.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Meeting the Lab For Real
In the first real substantive meeting of our lab, the students began the morning with a thorough topic analysis lecture in lab including general ways to analyze any topic. We also brainstormed some examples of the topic and trade agreements in real life with particular emphasis on sweatshops and child labor. Later, the students went to have their pictures taken for their ID cards they will use to check out books from the library. Before lunch, the lab leaders took the JB Lab to the library where we searched for books and began the researching process. Each student checked out at least one book already, so they all have somewhere to start. When the lab met again in the afternoon, we went through the steps of running an effective JSTOR and Lexis Nexis search. We concluded that lab session by doing a flowing drill where Gary read a case and the students flowed the arguments being made.
In Article Group, we used our knowledge of impacting arguments to discuss the magnitude of some of the arguments made in the article. Ben, Jesse, and Sushi did a particularly good job of drawing clear and persuasive impacts.
In Article Group, we used our knowledge of impacting arguments to discuss the magnitude of some of the arguments made in the article. Ben, Jesse, and Sushi did a particularly good job of drawing clear and persuasive impacts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)