A Path to the Dark Side: My Personal Decision

            A Jedi must always remain neutral when it comes to politics. They may provide safety or council but they cannot get involved in wars or political struggles. However, when the Sith are somehow involved in these political conflicts the Jedi have complete jurisdiction.

            As a judge, it was my duty to first remain neutral, much like the force itself. As good and evil was presented and exploited I could sway in a certain direction, lending the ways of the force to a certain team. Whichever team ended up presenting the best arguments and receiving the most points would have the force with them.

            Unlike Lucas’ epic saga, the negative team (or the Sith) won the debate, however, it was a close race as there were masters on both sides.

            The topic was whether or not Gertrude betrayed both her husband and son. The affirmative stuck to notions of what betrayal meant in terms of its affect on the play as a whole, while the negative spoke of tricks of the mind. They believed Hamlet only felt betrayed because of certain actions, but in fact was not, while the affirmative tried to argue the actions as a direct form of deception.

            Gertrude’s actions can be compared to those of Anakin Skywalker in Revenge of the Sith. He strangles Padme when he notices Obi-Wan aboard her ship and believes that he has betrayed her, however, just because he believes this does not make it true. The affirmative would argue that Padme’s actions were in fact a betrayal because of tense relationships and plot twists. The truth is clearly found within the first assumption.

            The affirmative tried to argue that Gertrude was selfish throughout the entire play, that she tricked hamlet and twisted the plot, but are those not properties of a Sith lord?            

             The Sith would not be what they are without their ability to manipulate, (and ultimately create Darth Vader through such manipulation), which was proven by the negative’s more elaborate arguments. If marriage during the time of Hamlet was not about love than Gertrude did not betray her husband through re-marriage, and she clearly cared for the mental health of hamlet. While the affirmative relied on their use of language and jokes (clearly Yoda was with them) the negative won every light saber battle, and enticed the judges to the dark side with a wonderful soliloquy.

            Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes, and the negative side of the force absolutely won.

A Sense of Sensibility: A Well Prepared Debate

By Stephanie Wilson

            On Friday, December 12^th, 2008, at approximately 8:30 AM several members of Mr. Murray’s Grade 12 English Class performed a well-prepared debate, complete with arguments upon arguments and piles of quotes. The affirmative team made up of Ilayda Williamson, Mary Collins and Michaela Blaser were equally matched by the opposing team of Jessica Barton, Melissa Watson and Kelsey Cambell, and were ultimately defeated thanks to the decision made by judges Nick Leblond, Jennifer Ross and Yanick Lee. Taking place in Mr. Murray’s English classroom, the group was assigned the task of debating whether or not Prince Hamlet was crazy, and the result was an explosion of possibilities.

            Both teams represented their opinion using quotes and points of view from a variety of fields (ex: medical, legal and psychological). The affirmative began by illustrating that all of Hamlet’s qualities pointed to a mental disorder. They brought into light Hamlet’s ramblings, his murders and all of his actions that endangered the other characters. The team appeared well prepared and confident.

            The negative team then presented points, in a slightly shaky manner. However, the deliverance did not take away any of the poignancy. The team made note of how all of Hamlet’s changes could be explained and categorized by the stages and methods of grieving.

            As the rebuttals began, each team seemed to remain cool, and presented well though-out ideas. They involved hasty generalizations, various definitions of insanity and the topic of hallucinations.

            During the free for all, some of the audience members ganged up on debaters (ex: Mary Collins) and that resulted in some anger and frustration, but overall the debate members stuck to their arguments.

            Overall, the students found the debate less interesting than expected, but those who listened were given great insight into the question at hand. Seeing as such a wide array of viewpoints was presented the audience gathered a clear understanding of both possibilities, which allowed them to arrive at their own conclusions. Despite the expectations of the audience, all that was presented on Friday was a well-prepared debate.