Dec 19 2008
News Article One – Adulations and Ad Hominem
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.
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
