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.