Charnique v. Asia

Charnique really impressed me today with her sound arguments and excellent cross examination. Asia deliver what is now considered the traditional backbone of the economy and better off as slaves arguments. They were good. However, we have heard them so much that opponents are finding it easy to rebut them. Will this be the way the rest of the debates go or will the next opponents bring something new to the table? Congratulations to both debaters.

Marina v. Miquel

Miquel came to the podium prepared with two arguments. Marina brought one. In the end, it was a debate between inhumane treatment and versus better off. Judges felt that Miquel's better off argument was more powerful. What do you think?

Eric R. v. Malika

Mr. Prosser makes his second attempt at a win and does. With such a powerful revolutionary war argument, not many opponents can handle such inconsistencies. Malika did a great job during cross examination when discussing that returning to Africa would not be any better. In the end, eric's economic argument was left untested. Congratulations to both speakers, this was a fun debate.

Bria v. Erik

Erik, fearful of not being prepared, got up there and delivered two arguments. Bria delivered a strong inhuman argument. Erik's rebuttal was strong enough to sway the judges. Congratulations to both debaters.

James v. Shante

Not a good day for Shante, but she will be delivering her argument soon. James delivered the inhumane treatment argument. This was left untested and ended up being enough to win. The student judges were very good at discussing the issues with this debate while maintaining an environment of respect.

Ishaiah v. Erica G

Round 2. Much much better. Erica really impressed me with her three arguments. They were well thought out, written, and delivered. Ishaiah delivered a passionate inhumane treatment argument and did such a nice job using the Middle Passage as ammunition. In the end, Erica's "existed for centuries" argument was left untested. Congratulations for both speakers coming back up and doing a great job!

Furber v. David C

Round 3 for Steven. This time he was unable to take the gold, but neither did David. Steven tried to overwhelm his opponent with 4 arguments! He dropped the ball on one of them but convinced 4 judges out of 8 that he was the better debater. David dropped two arguments on steve and delivered a good rebuttal against Steven's christianity argument. An interesting last debate.

Jade (Lorenz) v. Stephen C.

Both debaters delivered two strong arguments. Stephen emphasized that there is a pecking order in society and Jade attacked Stephen's loyality to the Mudsill Theory. A crack was made. This debate will continue on Monday.

Daisey vs. Katerri

Another fantastic debate. With much better decorum, an actual conversation took place. Daisey illustrated her points with visuals, making her arguments very engaging and powerful. Katerri delivered three on-point arguments as did Daisey. This was a very close debate but in the end Katerri was able to prove that slaves were better off and that not all people are equal. Congratulations to both debaters, you showed the audience how to debate with class.

Zarinah v. James

Three-Fifths. What does it mean? Are African Americans the same as a "whole" person? Do they deserve to get the same benefits as an American citizen? Zarinah effectively challenged this idea and connected it to her inhumane treatment argument. James delivered an excellent better off as slaves argument but should have defended the aims of the Revolutionary War being that he was part of it and Zarinah challegned him on this point. Congratulations to both speakers.

Eric R. v. Laborah

This was a fantastic debate! The very confident Eric found his match. Laborah has been quietly watching the debates for over two weeks and came out of left field with incredible cross examination. Eric's strength was in his preparation and strong speech but was unable to corner Laborah during cross. When being crossed, Laborah was able to strengthen her arguments. The rebuttals from both of these students were the strongest rebuttals to date. I thoroughly enjoyed this one! Congratulations to both speakers.

Oriana v. Kendall

What a great debate! Kendall, her second time up, really showed the audience that practice makes perfect. Oriana, with the disadvantage of debating for the first time, really held her own. In fact, Oriana challenged the fact that the bible holds no legal authority over the question of slavery because it is not a legal document. Kendall took this debate in the end because of the amount of evidence and logical reasoning used during the opening and cross. Congratulations to both debaters.

Elicia v. Jasmine W.

Elicia used logic as a way to trap Jasmine's better off argument. It worked until Jasmine responded with a challenge to Elicia's "lack of evidence". A pretty even debate mostly, although some judges, rightly so, thought Jasmine should have used a variety of documents to support her argument. Some rules were broken during this debate which can decide the outcome. The 13th/14th amendments, although excellent arguments used after the Civil War, are not permitted. In addition, inappropriate name calling is unsportsmanlike. You can call someone ignorant if they in fact are, or a lier if they are lying. But attacks against character is a different story. We will clarify decorum in the next debate session.

Jankai v. Michael P.

What an exciting debate! Both debaters were so well prepared. I keep thinking that we just saw the best debate and then the next one knocks us on the floor. Michael used speed to deliver his arguments because all 3 were well thought out. Jankai used lots of evidenced to support 2 arguments. The rebuttals in this case were extremely important. Jankai did a fabulous job proving inhumane treatment, add an additional piece of something inhumane and it would have been a grand slame argument. Jankai in the end was unable to defuse Michael's bible argument with appropriate evidence. Congratulations to both debaters.

Paulette v. Alex

Are slaves property or do they have the right to choose? This theme came out in this debate today. Paulette quietly delivered her well researched and organized arguments. Alex did the same, although a little more evidence would have helped his cause. Cross examinations were a little short and both speakers could have used that time to critique the values driving each debater. What do they believe is right or wrong? Why? Do people really deserve the right to choose? Can people be property? Congratulations to Alex for proving to the judges that slaves are property.

Briana v. Kris

We all have been waiting for this one. So much hype, so much anticipation. The audience wasn't disappointed. Both debaters brought complete arguments. Briana wrote one of the best abolitionist argument I've heard in a long time. Briana also was able to control the cross examination. On the other hand, Kris pushed the theory of natural selection which Briana later challenged as just an assumption (all theories that is). This was a very hard debate to score and decide on. It almost came down to decorum issues and who was more convincing: are there real rights or are the subjective?

Channell v. Erica I.

Flowing and paying attention matters. Channell had 3 well prepared arguments and therefore puts any opponent on the defensive immediately. This was Erica's situation. Erica came to the podium with a good "better off as slaves" arguments but without 2 more, she had a mountain to climb. She was also accused of being a rapist (James Hammond) and a heathen by her opponent Sojourner Truth. This accusations were ignored leaving the judges no choice but to vote for Channell. Take notes at all times, even during cross examination.

Shayana v. Jessie

This was an evenly matched debate. Both debaters came strong with one argument each. The problem is that each argument canceled the other out and therefore it was very difficult to judge. All Jesse had and did do was throw in two more arguments and the rebuttal was strong enough. Congratulations to Jesse. Preparation is the key to success as the debate has taught us.

Dylan v. David

Dylan wrote a really good argument. His "inconsistent with the tenets of Christianity" was one of the best we have heard up to this point. He clearly made the link between the Ten Commandments and slavery. Well done Dylan.

Nafis v. Shannon

This one wasn't even close. Nafis 3 arguments were logical and supported with evidence. Shannon, although did not deliver a strong opening statement, really tested Nafis's coolness during the cross examination. Is it really better to import whites since they are "superior"? Great question Shannon! In the end, both debaters dropped the ball during the rebuttal but it was Shannon who had the mountain to climb, not Nafis. Congratulations to both speakers!

Brian v. Jazzmon

Judges were nearly split on this one. Both students wrote excellent speeches. Jazzmon showed us today fantastic opening remarks about the history of the problem (slavery). Very impressive Jazzmon. Brian, in his systematic way, discussed in a matter-of-fact tone why slaver is absolutely necessary. It was close but the majority of judges were convinced that raping occurred and there for inhumane treatment cannot be denied. Those facts are still contested. A stronger rebuttal would have made the difference for Brian. Congratulations to both speakers for a entertaining and thought provoking debate.

Jeff v. LaBria

Jeff introduced a new type of argument to the debates. Jeff relied heavily on asking questions and answering them in a logical fashion. More emphasis on the answer with more evidence would have made this a harder speech to counter. However, using "why freedom" as a theme was very interesting. LaBria's command over the documents, especially the Hugh Jones document, proved to be the foundation to win this debate when she was able to prove the blacks have no need for slave masters. Congratulations to both speakers, it was a great debate!

Ruby v. Kayla

As Jeff pointed out, this debate was highly anticipated! It lived up to all our expectations. Kayla's training proved very useful during cross examination. Using the technique of asking "yes/no" questions, Ruby was backed into a corner which Kayla took advantage of during rebuttal. Both speakers had great speeches, however, one speaker was a little less organized because of not having a fully typed speech. Lots of "um" as she was trying to pull the pieces together. Bother speakers did fantastic during rebuttals and finally the class saw how it is done! I tip my hat to both speakers!

Erica G. v. Ishaiah

The first tie ever. Round 2 Monday!

Barbara v. Steven F.

What a fun debate. Steven has been one of the first students to challenge the authority of a document. That is, who was James Hammond (Mudsill Theory, etc...) and is he lying? Impressive Steve, impressive. Barbara did a great job projecting her voice and speaking plainly to the audience. In the end, Barbara did not respond the fact that slaves were rebelling due to inhumane treatment. Kudos to both speakers.

Chelsea v. Cabreca

An amazing debate. Chelsea delivered a stinging attack on slavery with strong reasoning and evidence. It better speech might not have been written. However, Cabreca systematically was able to break Chelsea's armor with the contention that slaves are property and are taught by slave masters. Kudos Cabreca; not an easy thing to do. Congratulations to both speakers. The high level of expectations has been maintained.

Brittany v. Sharifa

Sharifa's powerful approach was evident in her speech and decorum. Almost too aggressive. Brittany, a much lighter speaker, was able to control Sharifa. Sharifa's ability to handle the rice/slave prices document proved to be Brittany's Achilles Heel. Congratulations to both debaters!

Marcus v. Khadijah

Opening speeches should be awesome. This two have lots of abilities and would love to see them debate again. Marcus attempted to nail the religious argument while Khadijah nailed the economy argument. Khadijah would have put the nail on the coffin if she described what is was like to be free. Perhaps also debaters would be interested in discussing the differences in color skin and hair (polygenism arguments). There is evidence in the Richard Wells document to counter it!

Lauren v. Briana

These two young women came up prepared! Almost too prepared. Both students had such elaborate arguments that they were unable to deliver all of them. Practice your timing. You want to learn how to research an argument, go to these two girls. It was amazing. Lauren did not respond to Briana calling her out on Madison owning slaves. Ouch. Listen and take notes during CX as well. Well done ladies!

Kendal vs. Imyah

After the dust had settled from the Sarah vs. Stephanie debate, Kendal (Marie-Therese Metoyer) and Imyah (Elizabeth Freeman) stepped up as our next two competitors. Kendal started off with better off as slaves, slaves actualize the full potential of American farms, and African Americans ae the backbone of the economy has her three arguments. Imyah responded with two strong arguments that slavery was inconsistent with the tenants of Christianity and the Revolutionary War. During the cross examinations, Imyah attacked Kendal's economy argument, but ran out of time. On the other side, Kendal started to chip away at Imyah's Christianity argument, but she ended up giving Imyah and out which she took full advantage of. In the rebuttals, both debaters pointed out flaws in each others arguments. Kendal made a point by saying that the economy would fail without the use of slave labor, but didn't back up her cause. After everything was said, Imyah walked away the winner due to her use of documents to back up her arguments. Congratulations to both debaters.

Stephanie vs. Sarah P

In the first debate of the day for 3rd period, Stephanie took on Sarah in a match that pitted Martha Washington vs James Forten. Stephanie started off with a strong opening, using two arguments as the crux of her statement. She effectively used the slave population and Abraham Lincoln documents to her advantage. Sarah fired back in her opening statement, using her character's background and the price of rice and slaves. In the cross examinations, Stephanie effectively caught Sarah in a contradiction which weakened her argument. She asked Sarah that if being a slave was so good, why would you free them? Sarah did not know how to respond and things started to look grim. However, during the rebuttals, both competitors each effectively pointed out the weaknesses in each others arguments. Some chinks were placed in the armor of the two debaters, but in the end, Stephanies two strong arguments, effective cross examination, and her use of the documents let her stand strong and take the victory. Congrats to both debaters!

John N. v. Olivia

Nervous at first, John showed the room that he was a force to be reckoned with today. His use of evidence and cross examination was stinging. Olivia surprised bother of her teachers (Mr. Brasof and Mr. Coyle) by delivering an incredible "blacks are the minority but make the majority of this country wealthy through labor" argument. This was a unique argument never used in the history of Constitution High School. Also, her description of the middle passage really captivated the judges. John was unrelentless when crossing Olivia about her use of the bible and chipped away at her Christianity argument. Olivia was able to effectively respond to John's challenge that blacks were not intelligent enough to rebel during the rebuttal (an advantage of going first in the debates and last during rebuttal). Congratulations to both speakers for an outstanding job!

Mierra v. Shaquille

Are opening debate was a great one! This debate was at least 2 weeks coming. Both speakers were eloquent in their delivery and kept each other on their toes. With 3 arguments, Mierra started off with the advantage, however, throughout the debate Shaquille slowly was able to punch holes in Mierra's arguments. This debate was so close that it came down to a technicality in which Mierra presented more arguments in which one was not contested strongly enough in the Shaquille's rebuttal. Strong rebuttals are extremely important. Kudos to both debaters today for the served as wonderful models for the rest of the week. Make speeches flow, create a theme such as "if it is not broken, don't try to fix" (Shaquille)

Janiece v. George

It was the beginning of the day, the class was tired. These two debaters fired the group up and showed us what it would take to win. Janiece was prepared. Her argument made sense. George was a fabulous speaker and made complex arguments look simple. George nailed his first argument but did not support his second argument with evidence. Afterwards, he spoke of being confused of the format. Being first up, this is not unheard of. Perhaps he will have another chance. Janiece hammered away at the necessity to give slaves the right to choose. That is, the right to choose is part of the promise of the Declaration of Independence. George made a brilliant counter to Janiece's inconsistent to the ideals the drove the Revolutionary War when he tried to reframe what she said as the purpose for that war. Was it really about slavery? Did the colonists just use the slaves to help win? Did they really mean to free them? Well done George. With more evidence this might have been a closer debate for George. Congratulations to both debaters!

Kahleah v. Nick

A very close debate. Kahleah delivered one of the best inhuman arguments I have seen in years. She used both the textbook and reader to overwhelmingly prove that inhumane treatment towards enslaved African Americans existed. However, Nick was able to effectively counter this by discussing the reasons for such treatment as well as using Kahleah's character, Crispus Attucks, as a perfect example as to why punishment is necessary. Kahleah attempted to attack the monsterous backbone of the economy argument through the discussion of death and diseases but without making the leap and discussing the effect on prices, and thus the economy, her heroic argument did not hold. Kudos to both debaters!

Jackie v. Elbert

Wow, what a debate! Both speakers had well researched speeches and knew their material well. Elbert's backbone of the economy argument was convincing and included a connection to the transatlantic economy. Kudos! Jackie's revolutionary war and inhumane treatment arguments were incredible. This debate was really close and only because Jackie was able to counter that children did work, thus defusing Elbert's better off as slaves argument a bit. In the end, both speakers were respectful and modeled to the rest of the audience what it takes to win. Congratulations to both speakers!

Gold v. Brasof

In a close 2-1 decision, Mr. Brasof's evidence held the day. Ms. Gold's use of James Forten's persona and eloquent word choice created a powerful and emotional argument. Mr. Brasof thought that his economic argument would be left unchallenged by Ms. Gold proved otherwise. If she had continued using the rice prices/population statistics, perhaps the backbone of the economy argument could have been shattered. However, Mr. Brasof was able to effectively counter Ms. Gold's "inconsistent with the tenets of Christianity" argument with logical reasoning and supporting evidence. Flowing and rebuttals matter. In addition, Mr. Brasof was able to control the cross-examination by evading her pointed question and used her language of "if" in rebuttal. Mr. Brasof bet that his argument would win based on evidence not theory (if). What do you think?

-Mr. Brasof/Ms. Gold