We've made it to the finish line

Well english this semester went by like the blink of an eye. It was slow going at first but ended up seemingly accelerating and now its over. I think its only fair to thank mr. murray for bestowing his wise knowledge on to us and making it an enjoyable semester for all. Well, I came, I saw, I conquered, learned lots and had fun. Thanks for everything Murray.

Journalist report! (do not mark this, mark my previous post)

High School Debate- Scene Of Many Sexist Jokes
By: Yanick Lee

On Thursday December 11th , it was a day like no other. The audience was shouting, the judges were ready and at approximately 1:30 p.m. a kafuffle went down. A debate was taking place at Rockland District high school to determine whether or not Miller’s definition of modern tragedy is appropriate to the modern age. The affirmative side was comprised of Dawson, Justin and Ben while the negative side was made up of Stephanie, Rebecca and Stephanie. The debate was being judged by the honorable Seth, Colton and Logan(the mute). The judges issued their opening statements and the debate was engaged!

The affirmative side began with Dawson presenting his very weak argument in an exceptionally creepy and annoying voice. It was evident that no real research was done, the affirmative side was just going to wing it. The negative side came on strong but soon lost the whole audience. A comical remark was made by the affirmative sides Ben Cousins as he called the negative side on a fallacy that being “Appeal To Boredom”.

The debate went on and no real points were arising, besides sexist remarks being made by the affirmative side, in hopes of poisoning the negatives sides well. Although this did not do much, the audience seemed to enjoy it and it made the debate a bit more tolerable. At one point during the debate Dawson committed an appeal to popular belief as he stated that “God created us all”, which some individuals do not believe in, making his comment fallacious.

As the debate progressed and it was time for the free for all, Nik Leblond- a classmate, tried to save the debate by presenting a few valid points but none were really taken. Near the end of the debate, the affirmative side committed special pleading as they stated that they had no access to internet and this was why they were not prepared, this just being an excuse for a crappy debate.
When concluding remarks rolled around, the affirmative side had none and the negative side simply stated that Shakespearean tragedy was better. The overall victor was deemed to be the negative side although the debate was an overall poor one, aside from the comical fallacies and sexist remarks.

Debates!

I completely forgot about debates, therefore my posts are very late. I did actually complete the activities on time, I simply forgot to post them. This is my report for when I judged a debate, I believe it is my stronger report (compared to the journalist report) so this is the one that I would like to be marked.

Final Judgment:
Is Hamlet Crazy?
Judging the debate on whether Hamlet is mentally unstable and therefore not responsible for his actions proved to be a task harder than first anticipated. The groups were comprised of members who all avidly participated and had something logical and appropriate to contribute during arguments and rebuttals. The affirmative side consisted of Michalea, Ilyda and Mary and the negative side being Kelsea, Melissa and Jessica. Right away I was impressed with the negative side as they dressed up in costumes embodying dark themes. This being part of the rules that were established by myself and fellow judges (these can be found following this report), so the negative side earned themselves a few bonus points. As the debate began, both groups came on strong with very good introductions. The affirmative side stated that Hamlet was definitely crazy and this could be seen throughout the play in his soliloquies, while the negative side argued that Hamlet can’t be blamed for his actions because of the death of his father. I was awed with the amount of research both groups did for this debate –the affirmative side especially. They researched possible mental disorders that Hamlet could have had and they did a bit of a diagnosis on his situation. Throughout the debate, the groups also both used good amounts of logical fallacies (the majority being straw mans and various appeals), yet no one called each other on them. At one point Mary even told the negative side she was committing a straw man and they just sat there and took it. Both groups also used vast amounts of quotes to further emphasize their points, making the judges jobs even harder by making it unclear who was going to come out victorious. The rebuttals were also fairly strong on both sides, the affirmative side usually having more constructed and stern ones though. About half way through the debate both teams were tied for points, this changed though when Mary said a particular comment. She told me that she didn’t care about the debate anymore. This revealed a lot about her character and her comment lost her group many points. The negative side seemed to be determined to come out on top and this is exactly what they did. In the end, it was a hard decision to make but this decision can surely be understood. Who would you choose? A group who does indeed have strong arguments, who played by the rules but who’s one member simply didn’t care about the debate, or a group who had exceptional arguments, who truly played by the rules and each member clearly put their time and effort into the debate and they actually cared about it. In this case, I chose the latter.


Rules for Tools: How to become the master debater.
1- Bonus points will be awarded to debaters for wearing costumes. These costumes must reflect your respective side, ie: affirmative side should wear something that embodies good, such as a superhero and the negative side should wear the opposite.
2- Debaters should be very stern, clear and concise about their arguments, they should stand while presenting arguments or rebuttals.
3- Points will be deducted from your group if you do not have a successful rebuttal.
4- Offensive language is not permitted at any extent towards the judges but is encouraged to a certain degree towards the opposing side.
5- Points will be awarded for using and identifying the other teams logical fallacies and rhetorical devices, but points will also be deducted if the accusation is false. If assonance or alliteration is present in your argument and it is three or more words, bonus marks will be awarded.
6- Bonus points will be awarded for rhyming in your argument.
7- You can only speak if you are holding a cup of water. You must pass it to other group members if they wish to talk (this will be exempt in the free for all).
8- Instead of referring to Hamlet as Hamlet, you must call him Paul. Points will be lost if the name Hamlet is mentioned.
9- Groups should end their arguments with Onomatopoeia.
10- “That’s what she said” jokes in rebuttals will end up in additional bonus points where appropriate.
11- Insults from Shakespearian times will result in additional bonus points.Each group will start with 25 points, which will be added or subtracted upon through the debate.

Blogger Shmogger.

Blog spot postings messed up all of the formatting in my deliverables so I will just hand them all in on paper.

Activity 1.7

Hamlets transformation into a madman is one that at first sight seems to be very excessive yet this is due to the fact that Hamlet is simply a good actor (He even gives a speech on how to be a good actor which shows the extent of his acting ability). His transformation is one that is more external, this meaning that it was more of a physical madness more than anything. Mentally, Hamlet remained slightly the same character throughout the play, there were smaller alterations seen in his mental state than in his physical form. I actually seem to have gained respect for Hamlet as the play progressed because he used his logic against everyone. He put on a show and everyone believed he was simply mad, outrageous, and ludicrous!
Hamlet utilized many basic human activities as his main source for showing his madness. First of all, his speech greatly changed throughout the play. He went from being a well spoken, good natured man into someone who could be clinically diagnosed as being insane. He demonstrates this in one scene when he is taking to his mother and he witnesses his father’s ghost. The severity of the description given by Hamlet of the ghost he see’s is simply stunning:
On him, on him! Look you, how pale he glares!
His form and cause conjoined, preaching to stones,
Would make them capable. –Do not look upon me,
Lest with this piteous action you convert
My stern effects. Then what I have to do
Will want true color; tears perchance for blood.
(Act 3, scene iv, 126-131)

Once again, Hamlet is simply using his logic and education to make everyone believe he is crazy. Secondly, his actions are also a good reflection of his supposed ‘madness’. He kills Polonius simply out of fright. It’s not like Hamlet murdering Polonius was pre-meditated, but Hamlet still used this as an opportunity for him to look mad. He used the body as a kind of focus point when talking to Claudius. Claudius kept asking Hamlet where he put the body but Hamlet would simply mock him, making him all the more look crazy as he is laughing at death. Furthermore, Hamlets thoughts can also be looked at as a reflection of his transformation into madness. As the play progresses his soliloquy’s become more and more random, sinister and vivid, this sparking madness all around him. He constantly questions what mankind really is, this provoking thought to be put into how mad Hamlet actually is. Hamlets appearance also changed accordingly. At the beginning of the play, he simply looked like a man who was grieving the death of his father:
Good Hamlet, cast thy knighted color off,
And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.
( Act 1, scene ii, 68-70
As the play progresses, the people around Hamlet begin to believe that he has gone completely mad. There is a transformation in the way people perceive Hamlet; this being what Hamlet wants everyone to believe.
heavy deed!
It had been so with us, had we been there.
His liberty is full of threats to all,
To you yourself, to us, to everyone.
Alas, how shall this bloody deed be answered?
It will be laid to us whose providence
Should have kept short, restrained, and out of haunt
This mad young man.
(Act 4, scene i, 12-19)

This is the king’s impression on what Hamlet has turned into. It is a very dark and vile description of a man who appears to be insane (although not at all). Hamlets feelings are also indicators that he had been theoretically transformed into a madman. At the beginning hatred was something Hamlet was not quite accustomed to. As the play went on, Hamlet and hatred soon became best friends. Hamlet often acknowledged his hatred towards his uncle and it would remain this way until the death of this uncle. All in all, Hamlets intents at becoming a madman proved successful.
The people around Hamlet were good indications that Hamlet was successful in becoming a madman. His mother didn’t want to believe that Hamlet had gone mad. She simply believed that he was mourning the death of this father and this was his own way of doing so. Further on in the play, she also acknowledges the fact that Hamlet’s madness may be derived from her re-marrying very quickly after her husband’s death, especially to her deceased husband’s brother. Claudius believes that Hamlet has become completely mad and will not believe otherwise. Hamlet is stirring up some trouble in paradise and Claudius doesn’t like this so he plots to kill Hamlet. It is hard to determine whether or not Ophelia actually believed Hamlet was mad because she herself is mad. It seems as if she took Hamlets madness, combined it with the grieving process she is going through over her father and simply went crazy herself. Horatio is the seemingly the only one who is actually in on Hamlet’s transformation into a madman. Hamlet uses Horatio as his side kick in the whole plot and Horatio goes along with this and explains it indirectly to everyone at the end of the play. Even Hamlet’s supposed best friends: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern aren’t even aware of Hamlet being crazy. They act as henchmen for the king and they themselves end up dying because of Hamlet. Could a madman really devise an ingenious plan to put two people who were burdened with the task of killing him, to death? I think not!

Activity 1.6

Maslow’s Hierarchy greatly relates to the play Hamlet because each character lies at a certain level on this pyramid of needs. It is hard to determine which level they are all at, for they all have different needs. At the beginning of the play, I believe that none of the major characters in Hamlet fall under the first stage(Physiological) of Maslow’s Hierarchy as they all have basic human needs and necessities, even though some needs such as sex are not seen, it is fair to assume that everyone is getting a piece of that pie. This concept drastically changes throughout the play though. Firstly, Hamlet is a character that may fall in the middle of two stages, those being stage two (Safety) and three (Love/Belonging). This is because when his father (Old Hamlet) was still alive, Hamlet could have been considered to be at stage three (Love/Belonging) or maybe even four (Esteem). The reason behind this being that Hamlet is a character that seems to have a large amount of self-esteem and confidence as well as respect from his peers (until he pretends to be crazy), but he does not seem to have a lot of respect for others as he appears to be a pretty overconfident person therefore not needing to show respect to others. Since Hamlet does not fall under each category of stage four, it is fair to say that he cannot be fully considered at this stage. Hamlet does show all signs of stage three, that is Hamlet demonstrates friendship, family and quite possibly sexual intimacy (with Ophelia). As Claudius killed his father, Hamlet kind of lost the family aspect of that stage, so he must therefore drop to the next stage, that being the second. Hamlet sees Claudius as the enemy and would love nothing more than for him to be out of the picture. He knows that his mother is a good person and does not understand why she loves Claudius so much. In Hamlets eyes, no one is to be trusted. He acts insane so that he can get away with more, and this was not seen by the others. He no longer feels the security of family (and some could argue mental health) therefore he tries to regain this sense of family. He does so by seeking to avenge his father as he promised to do so, and therefore he will be content with his actions and security can once again be restored in his family life. This in turn bumping Hamlet back up to stage 3 of the hierarchy (although this stage is very short lived as his mother dies, and Hamlet ends up dying also).
Secondly, Claudius being quite a bit older than Hamlet is further up in the Hierarchy because he has had more time to complete each stage. Claudius is probably on the fourth level, because he has good self-esteem, a high level of self confidence and he not only has the respect of the people but he also demonstrates some respect in return. Claudius will not make it to the top of the hierarchy because he killed his brother, this demonstrating flaws in his morality, therefore he cannot be considered anywhere above stage four. I believe that Hamlet’s mother Gertrude can also be considered to be on stage four of the hierarchy for the same reasons as Claudius. It can be assumed that Gertrude had something to do with Old Hamlet’s death, therefore causing moral issues (her believing that taking a person’s life is right).
Thirdly, I believe Polonius can be considered to be one of the only characters who is on stage five of the hierarchy. I say this because he definitely demonstrates the requirements of all of the first four stages of the hierarchy. He also demonstrates that he has good morals as he gives a speech to his son Laertes before his departure to France:Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportion’d thought his act.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch’d, unfledg’d comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,
Bear’t that the opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice:
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy:
For the apparel oft proclaims the man;
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are most select and generous chief in that.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be:
For loan oft loses both itself and friend;
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all,—to thine own self be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. (Act I, scene iii (59–80) In this speech, Polonius gives useful advice to Laertes, among his advice the most important points being: keep your thoughts to yourself and do not act recklessly, hold on to old friends and be don’t be quick to trust new ones, avoid fighting but if it is unavoidable be brave, be a good listener, learn to accept criticism but do not be too judgmental, preserve an appropriate appearance, do not borrow or lend money and most importantly; be true to yourself. This speech reveals a lot about Polonius and what his stance on a lot of morals is. In this case, it is a positive outlook of what Polonius believes in, hence him being on the fifth level of the hierarchy.
Ophelia starts off being on the same stage as Hamlet (fourth level) but she is quick to drop to the first stage as her mental health spirals down into the ground. At the end of the novel she is on the first stage as she only has simple necessities and not all of them at that (sex), and then she dies. I believe that her brother Laertes is part of the fourth stage at the beginning of the novel but this gradually begins to change as the play progresses. He is slowly making his way to the fifth stage but throughout the play ends up moving down to the first stage like his sister. He lost his family as well as his security of family, his respect from others, his friendship and his morality. This bumping him down into the first stage, until he dies (which is shortly after he reaches this stage).

Activity 1.5

Thesis: Would Ophelia have gone mad, even if her father had not died? No Ophelia would not have gone mad. (it is impossible to find examples from the text for this thesis, it is simply a prediction therefore only explanations are given).

Reason #1: If changes are made in the past, this will drastically alter the future.
Explanation: Ophelia had gone mad from the result of both her father dying and her losing the love of her life: Hamlet. If changes are made in the past, this will drastically alter the future. If you go back to the scene were Hamlet was having a heated conversation with Gertrude, while Polonius stood hidden behind a curtain, since Polonius didn’t die (change in past) than this would mean that there would have been drastic changes in the future, ie: Hamlet not becoming a murderer.

Reason #2: Since Polonius did not die; Hamlet did not kill Polonius this meaning he would not have been shipped out to England. This in turn meaning that Ophelia would not have lost her lover, this being the only other factor that could have influenced her mental instability. Explanation: Since Polonius was not killed by Hamlet, Hamlet would not have to be shipped out to England. This meaning that Ophelia would not have lost the love of her life. This resulting in no changes in her life meaning that she would not have gone crazy.

Reason #3: Ophelia has not lost her father nor the love of her life, therefore she has no reason to become mentally ill simply out of the blue.
Explanation: Before losing her father and Hamlet, Ophelia was a very mentally stable person. Throughout the play there were no other factors that could have impacted Ophelia’s mental stability besides her losing her father and Hamlet. Since her father didn’t die and she didn’t lose Hamlet, she would have no reason to go crazy.Conclusion: If Polonius hadn’t died than Ophelia would have no reason to go crazy. Polonius not dying means that Hamlet would not become a murderer and get shipped out to England therefore Ophelia would not be losing her love and her life would simply go on. There are no other factors in Ophelia’s life that could have influenced her mental stability.

Reasons for believing otherwise: Hamlet would have still killed Claudius even though he didn’t kill Polonius and this might have affected Ophelia’s mental stability slightly. She may have simply looked at Hamlet in a different perspective, she would not completely go full blown crazy.