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