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.