Debate #3

It was the morning of Dec 15^th, 2008 and the class was slowly starting to fill with students once again. After a long weekend of relaxation this debate had the makings of a brilliant affair. The topic that was up for debate today was did Gertrude betray both Old Hamlet and Young Hamlet. The judges for this bout were Stephanie Wilson, Megan Marshall and Jayme Bedall. Fighting for the affirmative side was Adam Young, Mathew Brown and Stuart Gendron. Their opponents fighting that Gertrude didn’t betray both Hamlets were, Tyler Kieth, Alex Van der mout and Jon Hughes. This scene had the makings of a legendary debate, in order to find out we would have to wait and observe.

As the debate kicked out the Affirmative side came out with a strong argument lead by Adam. He began by stating Betrayal! Betrayal is used to twist the plot of ones story. Gertrude indeed is guilty of betrayal. After concluding a decent argument for the affirmative side Adam took his seat and the power shifted to the negative side. Tyler bravely stood up and lead his group into their argument. Tyler stated “Hamlet feels betrayed, but everyone is different” . He followed up this statement by saying Getrude was just like everybody else but she got over Old Hamlet in a short period of time. Tyler then concluded his argument and returned to his seat.

Shortly after the opening arguments had finished the rebuttals commenced. During the rebuttals the two sides took their turn and tried to penetrate holes in their opponents arguments. Both sides performed really well and were able to find things against their opponents arguments. After the short rebuttals the power then shifted back to the affirmative side. It was no Mat’s chance to lead and he projected his argument to the judges and the on looking crowd. Shortly after Mat concluded his arguments it was now Alex’s turn to present. He masterfully countered Mat’s argument in his own and gained the upper hands. After the argument had finished the rebuttal followed and held the same intensity as before.

The final encounter between the two teams came from the free for all. During this round the rule of dueling came into play. Any heated arguments between two individuals would be decided in a light saber duel. Most of the light saber fights fell to a decision for the negative side which would later turn out to be the match decider. One interesting comment Jon made during the free for all was the their team contained “a jehova witness, a Mormon, and me how could we possibly lie”. This fact later proved true as the judges announced who had taken the fight. Although it was a closely fought match the negative side took it by only a fraction. The debate ended and both sides were giving a chance to cool down and interact amongst one another.      

    

Debate #2

It was the calm morning of Friday, December 12, 2008 and the students were slowly finding their way into the class of room 204. Today their was a grand debate schedule to commence at approximately 8:30am. The topic up for debate today was whether Hamlet from the play Hamlet  written by William Shakespeare was “crazy” or not. The judges refereeing this debate were Yannick Lee, Nicholas Leblond and Jennifer Ross. The affirmative side, fighting to prove Hamlet was indeed crazy consisted of Micheala Blaser, Mary Collins and Ilayda Williamson. The side countering their argument in favor of Hamlet not being “crazy” consisted of Melissa Watson-Shotton, Kelsey Campbell, and Jessica Barton. The students finally found their places within the court room and the debate was now ready to commence.

To begin this debate the judges announced their rules which included some interesting ones. After the rules of the debate were discussed the judges called upon the Affirmative side to present their argument. The affirmative side came out with the most basic approach to things by announcing loud and clear the Hamlet was indeed “crazy”. The Affirmative side went on to back their opening statement with interesting facts about Hamlet and the way he acts. After completing their opening argument the power then shifted to the negative side to state their argument. Like their opponents the negative side clearly laid out their opinion in saying that some might think Hamlet is crazy but he is not at all. The negative side went on to hit the affirmative side with facts such as he deserved every right for revenge and his mood is just a way of coping with his fathers death. There argument soon came to an end and the two sides prepared their rebuttals.     

During the rebuttals many accusations were thrown around. One of these accusations came from Ms Collins when she declared as use of Hasty Generalization. The reason she called this fallacy was because she felt Kelsey had a lack of facts to support her argument. To this Kelsey responded it was a mere opening statement like a thesis I presented my three arguments we will be discussing in the debate. After the rebuttals a second set of arguments ensued. With these following arguments came more attacks on Hamlet’s sanity and more declarations of fallacies by Ms.Collins. Throughout the finishing arguments the two sides did not show any signs of letting up on the research about Hamlet available to them as we lead into the free for all.

 

            As the free for all began the amount of loudness quickly grew inside the room. Many points such as What’s the point of a hallucination were raised throughout the debate. To counter argue the point raised by the other team they stated that this hallucination was a way for Hamlet to find closure. The battle continued for a solid 10 minutes and no side gave their opponents an inch. After the free for all had finished the debates gave both side a chance to congratulate one another and catch their breaths. When everyone was settled and ready the judges announced the close finish. The judges announce the winner of this debate by only a hair was the negative side.    

Debate #1

BLONDE #1: "Have you ever read Shakespeare?"

BLONDE #2: "No, who wrote it?"

In modernist literature, the definition of tragedy has become less precise. The most fundamental change has been the rejection of Aristotle's dictum that true tragedy can only depict those with power and high status. Arthur Miller's essay 'Tragedy and the Common Man' exemplifies the modern belief that tragedy may also depict ordinary people in domestic surroundings.

Meaning of Modern Tragedy: ordinary people in tragic situation, Modern Tragedy: dark scenes, dark faces, everyone is destroyed or die, Modern Tragedy: funny at the loss of humanity, laughter without substance. Modern Tragedy: everything is simplified. People are stripped down to what is essential. Modern Tragedy: must fall from the throne. Modern Tragedy: they don't have to look real, real in essence, any action is simple.

For a modern tragedy to occur one must fall from the throne. Person in high position, falls to great depth. All central characters die or are destroyed. They don't have to look real, real in essence, any action is simple. Tragedy has to go beyond Drama. Tragedy has to bring on emotionally more than drama, it has to bring catharsis. This has got to be an enormous impact on the audience. The audience has to feel disemboweled at the end of the play. That is what tragedy has to achieve. And drama only has to move the audience. The difference between a drama and Modern Tragedy: modern tragedy is to fall from great height all central characters die, no way out of dilemma. Has to be done in stylized manner.(this gives it a stylish sense which is more appealing to the generation today) Very stylish Modern Tragedy.

What sense does this make a tragic love story who would be interested in that nowadays people watch romance movies or tragic movies its one or the other not both when you place both together it does not appeal to an audience today. A Shakespearean tragedy is the polar opposite of a comedy; it "...exemplifies the sense that human beings are inevitably doomed through their own failures or errors, or even the ironic action of their virtues, or through the nature of fate, destiny, or the human condition to suffer, fail, and die...." In other words, it is a drama with an unhappy ending. Who would honestly be interest in something were everybody dies?

Shakespeare is written in a different pronunciation of English than what we are used to so it loses the interest of the readers. Rhetorical question, how many people honestly enjoyed reading a book they didn’t understand at first and had to reread a bunch of times to actually understand it. Shakespeare’s drama dwells on the fact that bad things happen to good people which shouldn’t be true. Good people deserve good, what is appealing about a good person being punished for a crime or act he has not committed?

Early criticism was directed primarily at questions of form. Shakespeare was criticized for mixing comedy and tragedy and failing to observe the unities of time. This proves that Shakespeare was even sometimes looked at as a sloppy writer even in his generation.

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.4.2

Assignment 1.4.2

Activity 1.4.1

Activity 1.4.1