Could Shakespearian Tragedy Be Better Than Modern Tragedy?

Debate Report #1



Could Shakespearian Tragedy Be Better Than Modern Tragedy?


In the early afternoon of December 11th, it was proven that newer isn’t always better; the modern tragedy was declared second best to its Shakespearian counterpart in what turned out to be a strong and loud offense from Steph Boucher, Stephanie MacDonald and Rebecca. In defense of the modern tragedy, Dawson, Justin and Ben were weak in their arguments, but quite strong in fallacies and jokes towards the opposing girls. Opening the debate with flattery to the judges, Seth, Colton and Logan, the affirmative team was interrupted by the girls who took off their sweaters to reveal shirts for the judges. Unfortunately, however, interruptions were not allowed during the debate. Justin went on to explain how modern tragedy fits today’s society better, however there was some contradiction present in his argument.

The offensive side came strong into their argument with Stephanie Boucher defining what exactly can be considered tragedy. Describing what the main character must be like and giving a solid base for their point of view there was a lot of information to contain. She went on to explain why people might like Shakespearian tragedy better but had to be cut short as her argument would have gone over the time limit. Ben began the rebuttal by calling a fallacy, ‘appeal to boredom’ and although not considered a true fallacy, it still got a lot of laughter from the crowd, and it no doubt appealed to the judges.

Stephanie showed she was not at all fazed by the opposition as she reminded everyone what tragedy was, and gave some good insight into both Hamlet and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Even if there was a lot of talking going on, one can’t help but agree how Shakespearian tragedy better fits the definition. The rebuttal came and the affirmative team argued that modern tragedy was something new, original; something people would like better. There was, however, some confusion as the speaking got too quick to be completely audible. Apparently everyone is also so civilized blood and guts are not wanted in stories and such anymore; the negative side pointed out that we clearly would not have horror movies and the likes if that were the case. The debate points are slowly dwindling from the negative side now, (the affirmative having been somewhat dwindling the entire time.)

As a defense, blonde jokes were sent at the offensive team, who all happened to be blonde. During the free-for-all a lot of the audience joined in during this time, but the person who was heard the most was still Stephanie Boucher. It was also stated by the negative team that the affirmative side did not have much to argue, as they were making more jokes that valid arguments. Fairly and inarguably, the negative side won: they didn’t have too many point losses, and they definitely had the better arguments.