And Then There Were Practice Rounds

The BA lab hasn't seen each other much over the last few days. Most of our time has been occupied by six practice rounds designed to prepare students for the fast approaching camp tournament. The practice rounds have been complimented by lab sessions where students read their cases to the rest of the lab and were put through 6 minutes of cross examination by everyone, including the lab leaders. The students have recently learned this and many other drills designed to prepare them for a tournament. In our most recent meeting we learned the value of crystallization drills and knowing before the round what your in round strategy will be. On the brink of the tournament students are asking lab leaders the most effective ways to respond to the arguments they are anticipating. We wish all of the members of the BA lab luck, and hope to see them all in elimination rounds.

Bring on the Debates!

The Communitarianism lab began today's meeting with a demonstration round between Rodrigo Hernandez and Megan Foreman. Megan choose the affirmative side of the resolution and Rodrigo the negative. Megan began by reading a fairly traditional case, arguing that health care should be provided in order to protect the right to life. Rodrigo, never one to follow the crowd, countered with a negative case that claimed that since every country contained so many diverse groups with different conceptions of justice it is impossible to determine what a
just government is, in an absolute sense. This round catapulted the lab into a heated discussion over whether Rodrigo's position was fair and debateable. Hopefully, this meeting prepared the debaters for the practice rounds set to start on Monday.

The first week of workshop comes to a close

Saturday marked the end of the first half of workshop. While the lab regretted not being able to spend much time together, the time out of lab was well spent. Students attended lectures dealing with rebuttal strategies and international relations. During the lab meeting students worked in the computer lab to put the finial touches on their cases which is becoming increasingly important as official practice rounds start on Monday. To conclude the day the students were treated to a demo debate by staff members Tanya Choudhury and David Wolfish. The debate was followed by a brief lab in which we discussed the various strategies employed by the debaters. Both students and staff look forward to the late start tomorrow morning, and the chance to catch up on some well deserved sleep.

A Day in the Lab

Friday began with a lecture on vocal theory and presentation followed by lab drills that focused on techniques effective in improving delivery. We then had a brief lab that covered schedule updates and an evaluation by the students detailing what they like about lab so far and what they would like to focus more on in the future. Following lunch the students endured a large block of intense case writing, trying to edit and finish their cases for the practice rounds to come the next day. At 5 everything started to wind down with some optional activities. Students choose to either watch a demonstration debate, play basketball, or do more work on cases.

Cases are in but the pressure never ceases

The vast majority of lab time for the Communitarianism lab was spent either in the library or the computer lab today. It was the deadline for first drafts of cases on the camp topic, and the pressure mounted as the 6:30 deadline neared. Instructors were riddled with questions about where to find that last piece of evidence and the best way to word a value criterion. Once cases were complete each student had some one on one time with a lab leader to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their case. Much to the student's dismay, the feeling of relief was short lived. Mr. Alston informed them that the second case is due at the end of the day tomorrow, along with revised versions of their first drafts.

Day 3 Comes to a Close

It is 10:30 on the eve of day 3 and students are still hard at work. This was the most intense day yet for students with C-X drills, three lectures over subjects ranging from effective cross-examination strategies to moral relativism, and research time devoted to making their first case writing deadline. In the BA lab we began by discussing the finer points of communitarianism. Patrick and Mr. Alston discussed the difference between individualism and communitarianism. Jessica and Daniel helped break down a particularly difficult passage from the assigned reading. To round off the discussion, Courtney questioned the potential link between communitarianism and the social contract leading us to the conclusion that a good social contract would be largely based in a communitarian framework. The rest of lab time was devoted to topic analysis and preliminary case writing. Hopefully, everyone will have at least one case done by 6:30 tomorrow evening.

Day 2 lab comes to an end

While the majority of the day was spent at lectures, reading groups, and case work the Communitarianism lab made the most of their midday meeting. After reviewing the homework of discovering a basic definition for communitarianism, the students found out that some of the best answers cam from their parents. This was followed by a brief introduction to communitarianism by Mr. Alston and a reading assignment to help facilitate their understand of this school of thought, so prevalent in debate. The lab meeting was concluded with a flowing (note taking in non-debate terminology) drill which consisted of lab assistant Shane O'Neal reading a case from a previous topic to determine how much students could get down. Everyone left the lab with assignments not only to read about communitarianism but also to begin preliminary research and case writing on the camp topic.

First Day of Lab

The communitarianism lab began the day with an introduction reflective of the distinction UNT makes between being a workshop versus a camp. After giving the standard information (name, grade, school) each student was asked to list the ten most important rights, according to them, and give justifications for those rights. In keeping with the stereotypes for their age group, the most popular rights where the right to unrestricted access to media and to change any rules they did not agree with. After everyone was sufficiently acquainted the lab got straight to work. They engaged the camp topic by analyzing the most important part, how to define Justice. The lengthy first meeting concluded with a brief introduction to other key words in the resolution such as "citizens", "provide", and "government." After lectures, reading groups, a demonstration debate by the staff, and of course meals the lab met a again to close out the day with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses exhibited by the debaters in demonstration debate and further topic analysis. Of course it was not a day of all work and no play for the BA(Bexley, Alston) lab. The seriousness of the issues discussed in topic analysis was always lightened by the antics of Mr. Alston who employed cultural references as a technique for remembering student's names. Many were surprised to learn that they could be linked to such characters as Jordan Baker of The Great Gatsby, female members of the Catholic Clergy, and the timeless western "Shane."

Jonathan Alston

Jonathan is a high school English teacher and the Lincoln-Douglas debate coach for Newark Science High School in New Jersey. He graduated from Yale University. He has coached five N.J. State Champions and has had debaters make it to late elimination rounds at Stanford, Emory, Greenhill, Wake Forest, Harvard, and the Tournament of Champions, among others, in his ten years as a coach. Jonathan is a gifted lecturer and teacher, consistently getting the highest evaluations from his lab students year after year in addition to being highly requested by coaches to work with their students to get them to maximize their potential. His attention to detail, diversity of teaching methods and the ability to instill both confidence and improved skills into younger students trying to make the transition to the next level of competition is second to none.

Tyler Bexley

Tyler debated for 4 years in San Antonio for Winston Churchill High School. During his senior year, he was one of the top debaters on the national circuit, clearing at every tournament he attended including the TOC and winning the University of Texas and Grapevine Tournaments. He was a finalist at St. Mark's and a semifinalist at Greenhill and The Glenbrooks. He also took 2nd at the MBA Round Robin, 3rd at the Greenhill Round Robin, and 1st at the Iowa Round Robin. Tyler brings teaching experience from the University of Iowa Summer Institute and Victory Briefs Institute. He is currently at junior at Baylor.

Shane O'Neal

Shane debated for four years at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Texas. As a junior, he began his success on the national circuit by placing second at the University of Texas. During his senior year, Shane won the Churchill Classic, was a semi-finalist at the University of Texas, Dulles, and Colleyville tournaments, and competed in elimination rounds at St. Marks, Apple Valley, Grapevine, and the VBT. Shane also won first place speaker awards at Colleyville and the University of Texas. As co-president of a nationally competitive team, Shane has already helped many students compete on a more serious level. Shane enjoys his King Ranch, Whataburger, and good CDs about gifts.