Tuesday, February 3, 2009
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.
Friday, January 2, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
