report it!

.. it took me TWO DAYS to remember my password, in the last hour it came to me.. pathetic I know.

Debate #1 (December 11th, 2008)
Judges: Seth Epps, Colton Bissonette, Logan Lubuk
Affirmative: Dawson Lybbert, Ben Cousins, Justin SC
Negative: Stephanie Boucher + MacDonald, Rebecca Ritchie
We were arguing that Shakespearean tragedy has more value than modern tragedies.
“Golden Oldies”
“Versatile Vintage”
“Original Classics”
Our Points Made:
- better fits Miller’s definition
- are originals, influencing all that followed
- use of language and themes in more sophisticated ways
- less predictable, more exciting
Theirs:
- .. newer is better?

Debate #2 (December 12th, 2008)
A Case of Lunacy?
On December 12th of 2008, two teams went head to head to discuss the inner workings of.. Hamlet’s head. At 8:30 that morning, Nick Leblond, Yanick Lee, and Jennifer Ross buckled up their belts to judge a sure to be well thought out debate. Affirmative arguers Mary Collins, Michaela Blaser, and Ilayda Williamson started of declaring Hamlet/”Paul’s” craziness through medical speak and backing up those symptoms with valid reasons judging by the plotline. However, our negative brains of Melissa Watson, Kelsey Campbell, and Jessica Barton stood up for themselves by simply stating that the other team was way off base with their accusations, being unable to understand what Hamlet has been through in the story. Continuing on throughout the debate these theories from either side were discussed and torn apart, with proof flying everywhere of just how much of the students’ time that had been put into these arguments. With a close tally at the end, it was decided that the negative team had won, being most successful at highlighting Hamlet’s sanity. Taking into account the “name rule” which had been set up for our main characters recognition (calling Hamlet Paul), it was an interesting decision for the audience, finally ending with staring at the teacher wide eyed, everyone trying to decide for themselves what state of sanity was currently present.




Debate #3 (December 15th, 2008)
Give A Dog a Bone
Many would say Rockland District High School is a place of education, where knowledge of all sorts floats freely, and on December 15th, even more words of wisdom were thrown out into that scholastic air. Megan Marshall, Jayme Bedell, and Stephanie Wilson were rulers over this debate, setting down the ground rules before any geniousness could be swapped. Topic of interest for today’s folks; betrayal. Did Gertrude betray her son and old husband in Shakespeare’s play Hamlet? Arguing that she had done no wrong in their eyes were Tyler Keith, Alex van der Mout, and Jon HK. These boys quickly attacked whatever was thrown at them from the affirmers; Matt BT, Adam Young, and Stuart Gendron. With the word and meaning of ’betrayal’ under manipulation, definitions were given round to suit all needs that may arise. Love was often brought into question, whether about Gertude’s love for herself, her family, or for the whole lifestyle. The debates defining moment peaked when TK got into a worked up monologue depicting the rights and wrongs of everything being stated, whle still being able to throw in a good punch or two at the opposing side. It was done in a classy manner, so it was obvious it had to be followed up by a class-less duel moments later. Physical victories being awarded to the negative side each time a saber was raised, the debate ended on a high note for Gertrude‘s honour. She was determined non-betraying towards her boys and perhaps was credited for being more intelligent and cunning of her actions then thought beforehand. Each of the all male teams survived betrayal nicely as observed by the ladies.