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.

Wouldn't you agree that voting Affirmative is the only logical conclusion?

Now that you put it that way, I concede.

If cross examination was this easy, we wouldn't have started the day in the KLO lab with a fantastic lecture by Beena, along with her lovely assistant Jennifer, that covered effective Cross-X strategy. We learned to trap our opponents with yes or no questions, always keep eye contact with the audience, and five maneuvers guaranteed to help you escape the overaggressive debater who is gesturing far to close to your head. After learning the techniques, we played a riveting game of try to trap Beena. Though the drill was only supposed to last for a minute, some of the participants were unwilling to admit defeat. Marshall tricked Beena into at least three different cross examination sessions, and Hailey kept firing questions for four minutes.
After a well deserved break for reading groups and lunch, we went to the library to work on the one thing that every good CXer needs: a case. The assignment from yesterday was for everyone to come to the library with an outline for a case on both sides of the resolution. Under the careful guidance of Beena, Shane, and Jennifer one of those outlines became a full fledged case. Everyone had some great ideas. Sammy and Karl chose to start on the affirmative side and argue that the U.S. government should respect the humanity of workers in other countries as much as it does its own citizens. Eric countered with an argument from John Locke's social contract which states that a government is obligated first and foremost to those that sacrifice their property for the government to exist.
After all the time it took to write the rough draft and get it edited, the lab time before and after dinner was completely used up. Hopefully, everyone will come back tomorrow ready to tackle the other side of the resolution.

A Finely Educational Day

The day has been long, yet we've all walked away with something more (even it was just some additional paper). We began with affirmative casing, flowing, and a discussion of last night's debate. Many learned something slightly new about flowing. Shawnwei experimened with keeping the paper vertical instead of horizontal, while Michelle demonstrated an excellent synopsis of cards in her flow. We then listened to an extremely informative lecture by Mr. Anderson (Happy Birthday!) on globalization, where Ryan asked a few very interesting questions.

After lunch, everyone got to meet with their new Article Groups, where every debater in camp got mixed together, adding more perspective to the topic for all of us.

Back in lab we worked on understanding the value and criterion. While Sam disagreed with Karl on whether or not Societal Welfare could be used as a value on the negative side, we were stunned as Marshall disappeared from one seat to another like a ninja, and Jimmy made him reappear with his invisible hand. Mark asked excellent questions about human worth, and its relevance on either side of the resolution. Hailey also showed excellent initiative with ideas on the government's participation on both sides.  We concluded the day with an assignment to have an outline with a value, criterion, thesis, contentions, and four arguments (along with justifications for the value and criterion) due tomorrow. It seems inevitable that we will be writing entire cases very soon!

Our Fun Filled First Day

The Koshy, Love, O'Neal lab began the day with a fun ice breaker in which each person was told to pick an adjective that describes themselves and starts with the same letter as their first name. We learned that Broken Beena lost part of her index finger to her vicious brother when they were young, Rock Star Reena clearly enjoys music, and Wild William lived up to his persona throughout the day.
Next we jumped right into it with a flowing drill. For some of our lab members, this was their first time hearing an actual debate case. Luckily, everyone caught on quickly and all of them are sure to be excellent note takers in no time. Following the flowing drill, we learned the basic structure of an argument in the claim, warrant, and impact lecture by Shane. For example, we learned that Genius Jimmy is smart because he gets good grades which will help him get into college. After a quick introduction to our reading groups, it was time for a well deserved lunch break.
After lunch and a lecture on how to research, a debater's most valuable skill, the lab met up again for a topic analysis lecture by Beena. We did a good job of getting a good idea of what the topic means and throwing some initial argument ideas out there. Preethi and Brittany seemed particularly impassioned by the discussion of whether we should value the welfare of worker's in developing countries over our own economic gains. We concluded lab time for the day with a discussion lead by Jennifer that delved more deeply into our first reading assignment about the camp topic.
After dinner, we attended a camp wide topic analysis lecture lead by Dr. Robinson, Mr. Babb, Mr. Anderson, and Ms. De La Cruz. Finally, the evening ended with a demonstration debate between Shane and Liz Mullins.