We Rock!

The last two days have been filled with tournament rounds and the competitive KLO lab wouldn't have it any other way. Despite competing against much more experienced debaters, we did quite well. Our best finish was Hailey Lopez who had a record of 4 wins and 1 loss which combined with her speaker points to put her at 17th seed, one away from breaking to elimination rounds. On Wednesday we took a break from the tournament rounds to have an official lab lunch. While eating with your lab was a first for some of the other labs, it was part of a daily routine for KLO. Thursday was a bit more intense. With the end of the practice rounds coming up, we decided to employ some of Beena's intimidation techniques. Instead of socializing before the fifth round, we spread out around the lobby and did speaking drills to prepare for the round. Overall it was a fun tournament, and we are looking forward to the last day of camp.

What can we azzume about this?

We can all say that as 9 PM grew closer, our attention spans grew considerably smaller. This was definitely understandable due to our extremely informative and intense debates with the Melin/Thompson/Abell lab. While we debated with the MTA lab yesterday, we got input from Mr. Timmons on a few rounds. Hailey learned that her negative case could make an affirmative squirm with her definition of "ought," but also learned how important a crystalization can be for a rebuttal. Mark had his first debate with someone outside our lab, and did an excellent job defending Societal Welfare on the negative side. Nick and Kayla both learned the importance of CX, as well as dropping arguments, as they attempted to debate over economic gains and worker welfare.

Everyone participated in lectures again today. Some of us chose to learn more about Social Welfare from Eric Melin, others focused on time allocation and issue selection from David McGough, a few got drilled to the max with Shane and Gary Johnson, while still others focused on their persuasive speaking skills through presentation from Liz Miller and Jennifer.

Despite the rain, many participated in a game of football after dinner. While no one suffered after-dinner cramps, some of us did get a bit dirty. Wild Will, Knarly Nick, and the ladies of the class took on the rest of the boys in a truly astounding and physically challenging game (anonymous sources have informed us that Brian Kim is quite the tackler, and it takes at least 3 full-grown gentlemen to bring Wild Will down). 

The tournament begins tomorrow, and we're ready for war! 

Let's switch it up!

We did not meet as a lab very much today. We were too busy making doorMATs out of the Melin, Abell, Thompson lab. In all seriousness, it was great to gain additional experience by debating a different skill set and receiving feed back from different lab leaders.
After lunch we had a lab meeting where we discussed the different arguments we had heard and various problems that occurred in our practice rounds. Then we practiced giving rebuttals in a time efficient manner with a few drills directed by Beena.
Next was dinner followed by elective lectures and then a camp lecture over preparation by Beena and Mr. Timmons.

Bring It On

The day was filled with some very serious argumentation... the good productive kind, that is. We debated with the AM (alston and mullins) lab today. It was terrific to hear some new arguments as well as get new perspectives from Liz Mullins and Jonathan Alston. Mr. Alston gave Preethi excellent suggestions on time allocation, and Eric learned how to use on case arguments to his greatest advantage from Shane and Jennifer.

Everyone also got the chance to go to an elective lecture today. Many of the students were enthralled with Mr. Alston's Introduction to Logic. Many students enjoyed what Mr. Alston had say, and expressed interest in seeing speak again.

Lab was spent discovering the weaknesses in our cases, and also finding which arguments we had trouble attacking and defending.

 

We can't help it if we're just really, really ridiculously good looking

We did yet another flowing drill to begin the morning. After listening to Jimmy very assertively read his Affirmative case, Nick gave a negative rebuttal, keeping good focus on the value/criterion. After that, Beena gave a speech on presentation. We learned why we shouldn't go to a debate round trying to stand out like Cher, also focusing on gestures and eye contact. Using Brian's awesome hair, we learned how important it can be to be able to see your eyebrows. As Beena spoke about etiquette, Gidget asked about how to handle a judge who knows your opponent well.

After lunch we finished a debate between Karl and Knarly Nick, where, while we struggled to get to all of the arguments, provided some good clash. We then got to watch Shawnwei and Reena debate an entire round. Jennifer and Shane worked on ensuring an understanding of the flow and improving arguments. Reena provided excellent arguments to most of Shawnwei's case, but Shawnwei tried carefully to defend. We then attempted to have a debate between Wild William and Carrie. Carrie read her Affirmative case attentively while Will defended strongly on the negative! The class then worked collectively to provide rebuttals to William's case.

In the evening, Shane gave a lecture on rebuttals, reminding us of the importance of claim/warrant/impact. The entire class then worked on the rebuttal drill, despite its challenge to many. Jennifer then led the class to discuss blocks on possible arguments that will likely rise in the round. Once we decided a few of us really did the extra on cases, Jennifer went to the library, while Shane continued working on blocks to arguments. Finally, we all met up at the library, tweaking values, criterions, contentions, evidence, etc. for our first round tomorrow!  

Having too much to say and too little time to say it in

is every debater's greatest challenge.

Luckily, we started the day off with a lecture by Shane and Jennifer over crystallization. We learned that sometimes too much of a good thing, like arguments, can be a bad thing. At the end of the lecture, Shane thought he was going to make us do a crystallization drill, but we quickly turned the tables on him by making him go first. After the drills came KLO's most exciting event yet: our first actual debate round!
Two of our more experienced members, Preethi and Sammy, volunteered to be the first to debate and did so in front of the entire group. For some of us, this was the first formal debate round we had ever seen and it was quite the experience. Preethi and Sammy did an excellent job and so did the rest of the lab when we broke off into three smaller groups after lunch, and everyone got a chance to debate.
Once the debates finished, we were rewarded for all of our hard work by being given the rest of the evening off.

Fitter, Happier, More Productive...

After four days of lab love, the KLO lab is progressing on the topic of worker welfare rather nicely. We began the day with a flowing drill. Shane kept track on the board, and everyone compared what they'd written to what super  Shane had.

The morning progressed with Beena giving an informative lecture on rebuttals. While the students always look forward to Beena's witty quips and phrases ( i.e. "Nay, Nay Fluffy!"), they also learned the importance of impacting every argument, following the flow, etc. In response to Beena's lecture Marshall asked outstanding questions concerning the value premise. After listening to Karl's case, which included ideas such as The Good Samaritan Law, we got a few fascinating rebuttals. Eric very persuasively convinced the class that we should negate in a rebuttal drill. Pondering Preethi added to the debate with a rebuttal on cultural relativism.

Post-Lunch library research began with a very enthusiastic huddle. Everyone was told to have a rough draft of both of their cases today. While that may have seemed like a lofty goal, everyone has done a great job getting things together. Brittany mentioned some very noteworthy theories on the US economy on Neg. Hailey offered evidence of a framework debate with ideas on "ought."

The day concluded with more cases and more rebuttals. Everyone got a chance to give a rebuttal, where we all the had the chance to hear some very unique and thought-provoking arguments.