Debate 3 Article (not to be marked)

Debate # 3 – Gertrude’s Betrayal.

On Monday, Dec 15 at approximately 10:10 am at Rockland District High School in room 204 in Rockland, Ontario, two teams of three debated that Gertrude has betrayed Old Hamlet and Hamlet. The affirmative side of the debate includes Adam Young, Mat Brown and Stuart Gendron. The negative side of the debate includes Alex Van Der Mout, Tyler Keith, and Jon Hughes-Khatib. The judges presiding are Megan Marshall, Jayme Bedell, and Stephanie Wilson. The objective is to win the overall opinion of the three judges and score the highest grade possible. The negative side overall won the debate.

The affirmative side started the debate claiming that because Hamlet was lied to, he was betrayed. They claimed that betrayal is any form of deception. The negative side claimed that he endured only felt betrayed by his mother’s re-marriage. They then furthered their argument by stating that while Gertrude may not have been close to Old Hamlet. They also assert Gertrude’s qualities and that she worked for Hamlet’s benefit. Also the ghost of Old Hamlet showed that he was not betrayed when he asked for Gertrude to not be harmed.

The affirmative side’s rebuttal claimed that Gertrude betrayed Hamlet when she told Claudius of his plans. They claim that the ghost would not know if Gertrude helped murder him. Also, that Hamlet insulted his mother because of her betrayal. The negative side rebutted by claiming that ghosts could go back in time. Also, that betrayal is a lack of trust, and that Gertrude never lied. She therefore did not betray.

The affirmative side’s second argument claimed that Gertrude was not in love, not faithful and did not mourn. Therefore she had no feelings and betrayed Old Hamlet’s feelings. The negative side’s second argument claimed that Gertrude just secured her political rank and drank the poisoned wine. If Gertrude betrayed Hamlet, she would have known the wine was poisoned.
The affirmative side’s rebuttal claimed that a ghost does not prove anything. Also, that Old Hamlet was in love with Gertrude. He was blinded by love and thus thinks she is innocent. The negative side’s rebuttal claimed that there is no proof of the affirmative’s arguments. They also claim that because of their religions, they could not lie.

The affirmative side’s final argument asserted that Gertrude was selfish and that she ignored Hamlet’s needs. The negative side claimed that she does not have a baby, which would cause Hamlet to lose his royal status. They claim that she knows it is poison and tries to stop Hamlet from drinking it.
The affirmative side rebutted that Gertrude may have deceived, she married someone who wanted to kill her son, and thus that she may not have betrayed Old Hamlet, but did betray Young Hamlet. The negative side claimed that Gertrude did not know about Claudius’ desire to kill Hamlet. Also that she was caught up in deception.
In the concluding statements, the affirmative side of the debate did not conclude and instead only shot insults at the negative side. The negative side however concluded their arguments. They concluded that revenge and grief were factors which caused Hamlet’s behaviour. They claim that since Claudius killed Old Hamlet, Young Hamlet would of course seek revenge. They claim that if there was no reason for revenge, he would be insane, but he was seeking revenge and is thus not insane.
In the concluding statements, both side summed up all arguments.

Firstly, both sides insulted each other. This is a form of appeal to ridicule. The negative side of the debate committed appeal to belief when they claimed they could not lie due to their religions. The only other evident logical fallacy committed was post hoc ergo propter hoc, when either side asserted that events lead up to and caused the betrayal.

Overall, both sides presented good arguments. The negative side however sometimes presented opinions as rebuttals. This did not prove anything. Even due to this, the negative side won due to better arguments.

Debate #2 Article (To be marked)

Debate # 2 - Miller’s definition of modern tragedy is appropriate to the modern age.

On Friday, Dec 11 at approximately 8:30 am at Rockland District High School in room 204 in Rockland, Ontario, two teams of three debated that Hamlet was actually mental and therefore not responsible for his actions. The affirmative side of the debate included Mary Collins, Ilayda Williamson, and Michaela Blaser. The negative side of the debate included Jessica Barton, Melissa Watson, and Kelsey Campbell. The judges that presided were Nick LeBlond, Yanick Lee, and Jennifer Ross. The objective was to win the overall opinion of the three judges and score the highest grade possible. Although both teams presented strong arguments, the negative side won. Hamlet was mentally stable.

The affirmative side started the debate by listing the events which lead to Hamlet’s insanity. They claimed that he talks to no one, spoke morbidly and just plainly needs help. The negative side claimed that he endured many emotional events and intense revengeful nature. They then furthered their argument by stating that while Hamlet may have seemed insane, he was actually just undergoing the grief process.

The affirmative side’s rebuttal claimed that there was a hasty generalization, and that some can changed internally due to grief. They furthered this by asserting post dramatic stress syndrome; a type of insanity caused by grief, and then furthered this by claiming that perhaps he may have been insane before the events. They then claimed that Hamlet could not create a plan if he was grieving. The negative side rebutted by claiming that because he was also revengeful he could concoct a plan. They also claimed that there was no evidence of their arguments.

The affirmative side’s second argument consisted of a list of types of insanity along with symptoms of each. They asserted that Hamlet fit these descriptions. The negative side’s second argument claimed that emotions do not prove insanity, that the mother sees that Hamlet is not insane, and that studies show grief can last longer than a year.

The affirmative side’s rebuttal claimed that the ghost was a hallucination and that the guard’s were superstitious. They claim the mother was in denial. Also they claim that love, which Hamlet feels for Ophelia is a euphoric state and that he is also irritable. This is a sign of mania schizophrenia. The negative side claims that since the hallucination was seen multiple times, it is a ghost. Also, since Hamlet is grieving, one cannot assume he is insane. The free for all followed. During the free for all, the audience supported the negative side of the debate. The affirmative side’s arguments seemed to crumble.

The affirmative side’s final argument asserted that although Hamlet may not qualify for medically insane, he is under definition legally insane. Due to this he is not responsible for his actions. The negative side asserted that his mother’s betrayal, father’s and lover’s deaths caused Hamlet to grieve. Also that Hamlet may be an auditory learner, which would explain why he spoke aloud.

The affirmative side rebutted that Hamlet thinks of suicide and is thus insane. The negative side asked whether superstition would make a person see a ghost.
In the concluding statements, the affirmative side of the debate did not conclude and instead only shot insults at the negative side. The negative side however concluded their arguments. They concluded that revenge and grief were factors which caused Hamlet’s behaviour. They claim that since Claudius killed Old Hamlet, Young Hamlet would of course seek revenge. They claim that if there was no reason for revenge, he would be insane, but he was seeking revenge and is thus not insane.

Firstly, during the Affirmative side’s first rebuttal, the negative side’s use of hasty generalization was ousted. The claim stated that it is a hasty generalization to state that many people would change due to grief. The affirmative also claimed that the negative side committed the following: guilt by association, rhetorical question and appeal to pity, with the statement; would you allow (better) a single, broke father to rob a bank to save his ill preteen child than a normal robber? The affirmative side also pointed out post hoc ergo propter hoc. All of these claims are correct.

Secondly, in the first argument from the affirmative side committed post hoc ergo propter hoc, when they listed events that they claim caused Hamlet’s insanity. They followed this with a rhetorical question in the first rebuttal; how can he concoct a plan if he is going through intense grief? In the affirmative’s conclusion they committed appeal to ridicule when they insulted the other team.

Overall, the affirmative side committed multiple undetected logical fallacies; the negative side committed multiple fallacies, but were mostly detected by the affirmative side. Even due to this, the negative side won solely on argument.

Hamlet Activities

ISU

Week 12-14

November 17 - Logical Fallacy/ Rhetorical Device Test - I chose King's speech for the test. I kind of underestimated the test in general. I got to the test and blanked on some of the definitions :(.

The rest of the weeks we watched Henry V, Hamlet and now, The Crucible. We also discussed the definitions of various types of tragedies.

I started my ISU, pretty much right after discussing tragedy. My thesis "Tereza and Tomas defied the gods by committing the 7 deadly sins. Therefore they had to die."

We watched Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, an old like 1940-ish movie. It was well, interesting to say the least. There was a lot of fill in the blank plot gaps.

Week 11

Presentations,lectures on Shakespeare, and Pep Rally (which I missed). An overall basic week.

All Presented Rhetorical Devices

Anaphora - repetition of a same sound or group of words near the beginning of successive sentences, clauses, or lines

Antirrhesis – an argument is rejected because it is evil, incorrect, or simply insignificant.

Assonance - The use of similar vowel sounds repeated in successive or proximate words containing different consonants. Day, Ray, Rave, Dave etc.

Bdelygmia - Is a ramble on, or expression of hate towards a person or thing. Winter is dark, cold,grey, depressing and it sucks.

Catachresis - outlandish comparison is made between two things. As tall as the CN tower.

Categoria – Opening the secret wickedness of one's adversary before his face. Reproaching a person with wickedness to his face.Direct exposure of an adversary's faults.

Commoratio – Repeating an idea several times in a different way.

Encomium - a formal practice of writing or speaking words in a tribute or praise, or an elaborate eulogy of someone or something. Ex. At an award ceremony, where the winner would give their co-stars long encomiums, as a way to say that they couldn’t have done it all without them and they deserve some of the credit. (acceptance speech)

Energia - A general term referring to the “energy” or vigor of an expression, or a clear, lucid, vivid description. (lots of detail)

Enthymeme - An enthymeme is an argument in which the meaning is implied.

Epiphora - When one or more words are repeated at the end of two or more consecutive clauses, phrases, or verses.

Epiplexis -Asking questions to reproach, rather than to elicit answers. If you can do x, can I?

Epizeuxis - repetition of the same word over and over again. Ex. Really, really, really want...

Euphemism -the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt

Hypocrisis – parody. An exaggeration used to mock.

Invective – an abusive, reproachful or venomous language used to express blame or censure. Ex. A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats etc.

Irony - an incongruity or discordance between what one says or does, and what one means or what is generally understood

Kairos – presenting an argument at the right or opportune moment.

Litotes - A figure of speech. Instead of making a certain statement directly the speaker says it more effectively. Usually using the words not. Ex. Brittany Spears is not unintelligent, but she’s not intelligent

Meiosis - an understatement of an event or person

Metonymy - a figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated.

Mondegreen – misuse of words, causing the phrase to take on new meaning.

Paradox – A statement that contradicts it’s self. Ex. I always lie.

Pathos – persuasion. an element in experience or in artistic representation evoking pity or compassion

Pleonasm - Pleonasm is the use of more words then is needed for the explanation of an idea. (cold ice)

Polyptoton – using different forms of the same word (ie face facing)

Prolepsis - anticipation of an argument. It is where an argument is answered before it is brought forth.

Rhetorical Question – a question posed for persuasion, without the intent for reply.

Synathroesmus - A list/grouping of adjectives or phrases about a particular noun. Low life, two faced, yellow bellied, insensitive idiot.

Synecdoche - A figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole (as hand for sailor), the whole for a part (as the law for police officer), the specific for the general (as cutthroat for assassin), the general for the specific (as thief for pickpocket), or the material for the thing made from it (as steel for sword).

Tapinosis - when words or sayings are being thrown at a person/concept/object, to make it seem less good and make it less credible.

Trope - rhetoric devices that use a play on words:

Week 10

Rhetorical Device Presentations... nothing else.