Thesis Hamlet was irrational not insane
Introduction- The play hamlet...
Reason 1- His strange behaviour throughout the play is justified by his emotions.
Example - Anger towards Claudius for killing his father.
Example- Everyone seems to notice his grief for his dead father.
Reason 2- He sees the ghost of his father.
Example- Seeing his father is very emotional for Hamlet.
Example- His father later on talks with him and fills Hamlet with many emotions.
Reason 3- He wants to seek revenge for his father.
Example- wants to kill Claudius because he killed his father
Example- He just wants to make things just
Conclusion- Hamlet was irrational because of his blind anger and other emotions.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Activity 1.7
Hamlet not only goes through internal transformations, he also goes through external ones as well. Hamlet's external transformation goes as far as the way he looks. Nearing the end of the play Hamlet looses his calm well-respected look when he starts to have more of a complex disturbed look. Gertrude notices Hamlet’s transformations in a negative way assuming he is becoming mad or crazy. While Gertrude thinks this Claudius is aware of Hamlet’s transformation and attempts to have Hamlet killed by poison. Horatio is more understanding and considerate of Hamlet’s transformations and helps him out letting him complete his goals. Hamlets love is disgusted of his changes and ends up taking her own life as a result.Hamlets internal transformations change his view and outtake on a lot of things. His views and morals change throughout the play. He starts putting his priorities first the majority of the time instead of his usual charming way of putting others before himself. Overall internally Hamlet becomes irrational.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Debate 3
Sword fights; threats, deadly stares and much more all were components of a heated debate between John Hughes, Tyler Keith, and Alex Van der mout (negative side) and Adam Young, Mathew Brown and Stuart Gendron. The debate on whether or not Gertrude betrayed Hamlet took place in none other but Mr. Murray’s ENG 3UE classroom. The introduction and opening arguments mostly consisted of ad homonyms and other fallacies instead of cold hard information and facts. Adam was shut up on many occasions just by the fearful look Jon would give him which could be considered appeal to fear. The affirmative side was at a downfall because Alex had a copy of all of Mathew’s notes and new exactly everything he was going to argue about. This allowed Alex to use many fallacies multiple of times such as poisoning the well and straw man.
The negative side seemed to be in the lead going into the free for all but it was anybodies guess what team would take it because of the lack of well thought out arguments. Within the free for all three sword fights broke out, two being between Adam and Tyler (Tyler winning both of them) and one being between Jon and Stuart (Jon one defending his mothers name from Stuart). Mathew and Alex did not sword fight until after the debate, Mathew lost because the difference in wingspan between him and Alex. The concluding arguments followed the pattern of lack of cold hard facts and weak arguments but still consisted of loads of intimidation and fallacies. Although it was a close debate the negative side took the lead by winning over two of the three judges (Stephanie Wilson, Jayme Bedell, and Megan Marshall). It was really anyone’s win up for the grabs but it seemed that the negative sides arguments were stronger and they had the other team very intimidated thanks to Jon.
The negative side seemed to be in the lead going into the free for all but it was anybodies guess what team would take it because of the lack of well thought out arguments. Within the free for all three sword fights broke out, two being between Adam and Tyler (Tyler winning both of them) and one being between Jon and Stuart (Jon one defending his mothers name from Stuart). Mathew and Alex did not sword fight until after the debate, Mathew lost because the difference in wingspan between him and Alex. The concluding arguments followed the pattern of lack of cold hard facts and weak arguments but still consisted of loads of intimidation and fallacies. Although it was a close debate the negative side took the lead by winning over two of the three judges (Stephanie Wilson, Jayme Bedell, and Megan Marshall). It was really anyone’s win up for the grabs but it seemed that the negative sides arguments were stronger and they had the other team very intimidated thanks to Jon.
Debate 2
Judging the debate on whether or not Hamlet was crazy was a difficult task. This debate was between Kelsey Cambell, Melissa Watson, and Jessica Barton group (negative) and Mary Collins, Ilayda Williamson, and Michaela Blaser’s group (affirmative). Myself, Yanick and Jennifer created a system to determine the winner, it was based on a point system with corresponding rules, which both teams were aware of (rules posted earlier). There were chances to gain or loose points by following the rules as both teams quickly found out. Melissa and her group started off strong by wearing costumes that awarded them extra points. Along with these extra points the negative side started off with a very strong introduction explaining how Hamlet (or Paul as he had to be referred by) just had been through so much emotional changes like extreme amounts of grief that this was the cause to all of his irrational decisions and actions. The affirmative side started their debate with pointing out many actions that gave the suspicion of Hamlet being crazy like thoughts of suicide seeing ghosts and more. Although both side’s opening arguments were very strong and well thought the negative had a slight lead because of their patience to wait their turn to talk.
Both affirmative and negative sides were fairly even in the points department going into the free for all; the negative side was still slightly ahead of the affirmative side. With the free for all started both teams went at it but it seemed Mary and Melissa were the ringleaders of the battle. Although the majority of the audience took the negative teams side the affirmative side held up strong. Many fallacies were thrown around but no one would take the time and effort to call them out (bonus points were added if you did). The free for all calmed down for the last couple minutes allowing everyone to take a deep breath. Coming out of the free for all with a significantly great lead now were the negative side. The negative side held up their lead throughout the end of the debate and it had looked as if all hope was lost for the affirmative side. But as the debate drew to the end Mary started calling out fallacy after fallacy, she couldn’t be stopped! She pulled her team back from the hole and gave her team a standing chance to take the cake and beat the negative side. Although Mary was great at pointing out fallacies something she was not great at was keeping her mouth shut. She (and her whole group) lost many points by talking at in appropriate times, which resulted in a massive deduction of points. This concluded the debate on whether or not Hamlet was crazy. The negative side won because of their willingness to follow and obey the rules resulting in a minimum of point deductions and their very well thought arguments and fallacies.
Both affirmative and negative sides were fairly even in the points department going into the free for all; the negative side was still slightly ahead of the affirmative side. With the free for all started both teams went at it but it seemed Mary and Melissa were the ringleaders of the battle. Although the majority of the audience took the negative teams side the affirmative side held up strong. Many fallacies were thrown around but no one would take the time and effort to call them out (bonus points were added if you did). The free for all calmed down for the last couple minutes allowing everyone to take a deep breath. Coming out of the free for all with a significantly great lead now were the negative side. The negative side held up their lead throughout the end of the debate and it had looked as if all hope was lost for the affirmative side. But as the debate drew to the end Mary started calling out fallacy after fallacy, she couldn’t be stopped! She pulled her team back from the hole and gave her team a standing chance to take the cake and beat the negative side. Although Mary was great at pointing out fallacies something she was not great at was keeping her mouth shut. She (and her whole group) lost many points by talking at in appropriate times, which resulted in a massive deduction of points. This concluded the debate on whether or not Hamlet was crazy. The negative side won because of their willingness to follow and obey the rules resulting in a minimum of point deductions and their very well thought arguments and fallacies.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Debate 1
A vicious and brutal battle took place on Thursday, December 11th, 2008 in Mr. Murray’s ENG 3UE class. What was first supposed to be a debate arguing whether Shakespearean tragedy or Modern tragedy was better quickly turned into a full out brawl between guys and girls. Defending the side of modern tragedy were Justin Sweeney, Ben Cousins and Dawson Lybbert. On the opposing team which were defending Shakespearian tragedies were Stephanie MacDonald, Rebecca Ritchie and last but not least the queen bee of the team Stephanie “the unforgiving” Boucher.
Round one began with the girls quickly getting into the judges (Colton, Seth and Logan) good books with appeal to flattery by wearing fan t-shirts complementing the judges. Unlike the girls the guys let the heat get to them (literally the room was on fire). The guys approach for the introduction was to lighten the mood a little bit with humour; this resulted in unleashing the beat otherwise known as Stephanie Boucher. If there was one thing the male team did not want to do, it was making Stephanie Boucher mad (the guys would have been better off slapping a bear in the face with a steak). Making her angry resulted on attack upon attack on the guys, no matter what left anyone of the guy’s mouth. Justin Sweeney seemed to be at the wrong end of these attacks the most though. At one point Ben Cousins attempted to phase the endless information and facts in Stephanie’s Introduction with calling out “Appeal to boredom” which may either classify as appeal to ridicule, or just a stupid mistake. It seemed like Stephanie Boucher fed off of all the guy’s ad homonyms and fear.
The free for all started and the girls did not let up on their massacre. Even the other two members started to have strong points to throw in against the guys. Although the guys had some decent points to throw in now and then they usually got negated from all the sexist woman jokes that coming out of Dawson’s mouth… yes they came out of the Mormons mouth! These blond and woman jokes really affected the guy’s team in a very negative way, which intend resulted in them not even being able to recover. By the end arguments and conclusions after the free for all the guys had lost all hope (Ben tried to join the other team) because of their sexist antics. Stephanie Boucher and her team of angry females took the gold by a landslide of 24-4 leaving Dawson with out a chance of getting a girl friend ever again, Ben utterly ashamed about partying past and Justin with a very low self esteem.
Round one began with the girls quickly getting into the judges (Colton, Seth and Logan) good books with appeal to flattery by wearing fan t-shirts complementing the judges. Unlike the girls the guys let the heat get to them (literally the room was on fire). The guys approach for the introduction was to lighten the mood a little bit with humour; this resulted in unleashing the beat otherwise known as Stephanie Boucher. If there was one thing the male team did not want to do, it was making Stephanie Boucher mad (the guys would have been better off slapping a bear in the face with a steak). Making her angry resulted on attack upon attack on the guys, no matter what left anyone of the guy’s mouth. Justin Sweeney seemed to be at the wrong end of these attacks the most though. At one point Ben Cousins attempted to phase the endless information and facts in Stephanie’s Introduction with calling out “Appeal to boredom” which may either classify as appeal to ridicule, or just a stupid mistake. It seemed like Stephanie Boucher fed off of all the guy’s ad homonyms and fear.
The free for all started and the girls did not let up on their massacre. Even the other two members started to have strong points to throw in against the guys. Although the guys had some decent points to throw in now and then they usually got negated from all the sexist woman jokes that coming out of Dawson’s mouth… yes they came out of the Mormons mouth! These blond and woman jokes really affected the guy’s team in a very negative way, which intend resulted in them not even being able to recover. By the end arguments and conclusions after the free for all the guys had lost all hope (Ben tried to join the other team) because of their sexist antics. Stephanie Boucher and her team of angry females took the gold by a landslide of 24-4 leaving Dawson with out a chance of getting a girl friend ever again, Ben utterly ashamed about partying past and Justin with a very low self esteem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
