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.