Big I, Eye, Aye.

Luke, En Garde!

December 17, 2008

By Ilayda Williamson

              Betrayal. A common theme through the ages, and the topic of the debate in Mr. Murray’s Grade Twelve English class on Monday December 15, 2008. Two teams met, the Affirmative (Adam Young, Matt Brown, Stuart Gendron) and the Negative (Jon Hughes-Khatib, Tyler Keith and Alex Van der Mout) to argue whether or not Gertrude betrayed both Old and New Hamlet. The judges presiding over this debate were Megan Marshall, Stephanie Wilson, and Jayme Bedell.
              The debate began, as usual, with a recitation of the rules. The rule which made the audience giggle and the debaters whip our the light sabers provided to them was the one that during the free for all, the debaters must end every major argument with a sword fight. All anticipated this with bated breath. The Affirmative began the debate at 10:09 a.m. with a quote from Osho (as well as an appeal to authority) and the things which may qualify betrayal (lying and decieving). They also then outlined how Gertrude fell into these qualifications – her involvement in certain death plots, as well as eavesdropping in order to further Claudius’ plans.
               The Negative then began to lay out their points. They first highlighted the difference between modern marriages, which are for love, and marriages in the time of the play, which were for status and safety. This invalidates a speedy remarriage as proof of betrayal as it was probably more of a political move – to strengthen Gertrude’s and Hamlet’s position on the throne, as well as have them remain in court more securely. They also pointed out the possibility of her pragmatism – that she simply saw the need to move on far more quickly than Hamlet. Finally, they took the Ghost’s words as proof. Old Hamlet’s ghost told his son not to harm Gertrude. The Affirmative took this to mean that Old Hamlet did not see Gertrude as guilty of betrayal. During this argument, anaphora was used nicely to help the audience accept the points.
            The rebuttals and following arguments centered around young Hamlet. The fact that young Hamlet makes jabs at his mother for almost the entirety of the play was brought up, as well as the inconsistency of the point of Gertrude safegaurding Hamlet’s future safety by remarrying – as the man she remarries and aids is the one planning to kill her son. An interesting suggestion made by the Negative team was the one of Gertrude’s play-acting, just as her son was. They proposed that Gertrude was playing along simply to save her and her son’s necks. To not go along with Claudius’ plans was to show a crack in her guise, which would ruin her.  The first rebuttals were finished with a Shakespearean insult, which made the audience laugh a little.
         The most interesting part of the debate was the free for all. This period of time was rife with sword-fights. Sadly, one of the judge’s beloved light sabers was broken during the final sword fight, but it was a single casaulty in a war of point-winning tricks. Tyler Keith begun the free for all with an impressive soliloquy written by himself and performed very dramatically. Not surprisingly, given the preceding debates and debaters, it was cut short by an ad hominem delivered by the opposition. This led to a sword fight, and Tyler quickly redeemed himself with a win. Stuart, the flinger of the first ad hominem and apparent antagonist of the free for all, begun another fight with Jon, managing to win this sword fight. Following this, a burden of proof fallacy was utilized, as a “You prove it! You prove it doesn’t!” quarrel erupted. Following this fallacy, one of the teams said that a Queen could show no emotion, because she is the Queen and is watched far too closely. This was a strong point made, which could be verified by looking back at history. Amusingly, throughout the free-for-all Jon used an appeal to fear. This garnered giggles from the audience. The last fight had had epic music in the background provided by Jon’s laptop, and Tyler once again was the victor. This intense free for all was ended by a point made by Jen (who was speaking for this reporter, who was too shy at the moment) about the political nature of marriage in those ages. One simply did not marry for love then.
             Betrayal, even when defined by a dictionary, does not make finding the guilty easier. This was shown by the debate. One side had the strong point that she did have a heavy hand in helping Hamlet be driven out. The other side, however, made the earnest argument that she was the Hamlets’ mother and wife – that all loyalty and devotion should go strictly to them, and that all passions should be felt for them. In the end, the negative team won by an additional point. A fair fight fought, with light sabers and clean arguments on both sides.

Adulations and Ad Hominem

December 17, 2008

By Ilayda Williamson

                 On December 11, 2008 at Rockland District High School in Mr. Murray’s Grade Twelve English classroom, an awesome display of fallacies and some debating took place. The first few minutes were taken by the judges, who included Seth Epps, Colton Bissonette, and Logan Lubuk. They introduced the topic of the debate – Miller’s definition of modern tragedy is appropriate for modern ages – and laid out the rules. An interesting rule thought up by the judges was to say “Argument, Engage” with a Transformer-like extension of the arm before beginning each argument. The audience of reporters and the participants were then allowed a few minutes to chat amongst themselves as the judges prepared for the ensuing debate. They took them happily, and the low familiar chatter of a classroom rose in the air.

                  The debate began at 1:37 p.m. with the first argument of the Affirmative team, which consisted of Justin Sweeney Cadieux, Ben Cousins, and Dawson Lybbert. Justin first took the podium, so to speak, to deliver his points. He began by utilizing an appeal to flattery by complimenting the judges prodigiously. Having buttered up the judges, he then went on to point out that tragedy is simply tragedy. And that modern tragedy, which sets the average man as the tragic hero, allows modern people to relate to them. Shakespearean tragedy doesn’t, Justin said, because the tragic heros were noble. The Affirmative team then dissolved under the intense heat of the room and perhaps the opposition’s intense gaze. With one minute left, Justin uttered: “Argument disengage” and took his seat.

                The Negative team then took to their first argument. This team, made up of Stephanie Boucher, Stephanie MacDonald and Rebecca Ritchie, had come prepared. They shucked off their sweaters, and revealed shirts adorned with the phrases Golden Oldies, Original Trendsetter, and Versatile Vintage on the front, and each with a name of a judge in the center of a heart on the back. A clever and useful appeal to flattery executed by the Negative Team. Stephanie Boucher stood, and with a very self-confident and empowered voice, began her argument. A fine show of quick, concise words followed. One of the more interesting points outlined was the one that nobles were tested in Shakespearean tragedies, and through this testing showed the public the important questions of life and human potential. Other interesting points included the artistically enhanced language of Shakespearean plays and the fact that a noble does not need to be a Prince or King, simply someone who acted nobly.

                The debate continued much in this manner, with the Affirmative team starting strong, but sometimes faltering, and with a good number of points built up by the Negative Team, who was most strongly led by Stephanie Boucher. The Negative team continued with points such as the famousness of Shakespeare’s works, the love the modern ages have of blood and gore, and the greatness of Shakespeare, claiming that modern plays were watered down attempts at Shakespeare. The Affirmative team continued with points such as a formulaic plot found in Shakespearean tragedies, a more civilized modern audience, and the antiquity of Shakespeare. They also, surprisingly, pointed out the length and depth of vocabulary. Does this perhaps implies the laziness of the modern ages? An interesting point to use by the Affirmative side.

                  The free-for-all was truly a lunge at the jugular by both teams. Any attempt at meaningful argument quickly devolved into a screaming match usually headed by Stephanie Boucher. Destructive images of the Affirmative team were brought up by the Negative team in the debate as well, to poison the well and invalidate their opponents. Several biting (and possibly foolish) cracks made towards blondes and women were made by the Affirmative team, which the female portion of the audience did not respond well to. The Affirmative team apologised post-debate, a wise move. Although several things which may have be regarded as hurtful were seen by all, the debate ended with a friendly group hug by both teams.

                This debate was truly a lesson in tact and preparation, or lack thereof. Although a tremendous amount of fallacies and rhetorical devices were utilized in this debate, few strong arguments were solidly given. The Negative team appeared to be the more prepared team, and the judges awarded them the win ultimately.  This day, at least, Shakespeare still rules. But he was fought for very bloodily.