Regarding Kellie+Ashley vs Gracie+Maria debate:
(Thesis: Freewill vs Fate)
> Used a lot of textual support
>I appreciated the use of Shakespeare's view point on his freewill to give Macbeth the ending he was given.
>"Dagger Scene" was a great example of fate.
>(Freewill) of Macbeth to kill Duncan, that was a good point.
>Freewill was the guide of Macbeth's destruction (amazing point)
>The biblical reference to Adam and Eve on how it was freewill that influenced those actions and the introversion vs extroversion view on those actions.
Overall, it was an insightful debate regarding the different elements and viewpoints you brought to the table and the execution of them using relevant textual support.
Markus, this should be in paragraph form and not be a comment on the actual debate, but rather the topic.
Debate #2, Ryan and Pedro vs Sarah, Rebecca and Cassie. Super ego vs id.
The side of the id was very well supported by the examples of impulsive action demonstrated by Macbeth when he killed Duncan, Banquo and others. The id was expressed as a powerful instinct within every human being shown through lady Macbeth when she emasculated Macbeth and pressured him into killing the king, and the id was demonstrated as a successful impulse when it was stated that if you never gave into the super ego, you would continue to live a proud and successful life.
As well, the side of the super ego was also very well demonstrated in the example of if Macbeth had listened to reason as opposed to his wife or his subconscience, he never would have run into the predicament of having to kill others, or the eternal guilt of seeing Banquo's ghost throughout the play. A perfect example of how the super ego will lead to success in the everyday life was when Sarah stated that if everyone always listened to their super ego, and did the right thing, then the world would be a peaceful and safe place full of success and happiness.
For the debate regarding Intrinsic Motivation vs. Extrinsic Motivation.
Although the three witches had a strong influence on Macbeth, it seems that the tyrannical leader was ultimately intrinsically motivated. Macbeth was a self-conscious and insecure individual. The idea of usurping King Duncan made him feel better about himself and provided him with a confidence boost. He became aware of his id which fueled his subsequent villainous acts to achieve more power. The witches did instigate a desire to kill Duncan within Macbeth but essentially it was Macbeth himself who acted upon this desire. Macbeth also proves that he always held an inclination to achieve power through brutality when he mercilessly butchers a soldier while in combat. Alternatively, Lady Macbeth proved herself to be a strong, unrelenting figure which Macbeth felt convinced to please. She motivated him into killing Duncan with the intention that it was for both their sakes. No matter who influenced him, Macbeth held the ability within himself to act on these external forces. Consequently, Macbeth undeniably set himself up for a tragic downfall through acting upon his desire to kill King Duncan and acquire more power.
Debate Number 4: Elena and Priscillia versus Eimhin and Daniel
Thesis: humans have the obligation to fulfill their own desires versus humans have the desire to fulfill their relationships with others
Although throughout the play it could be argued that Macbetg did everything for others I do believe that Macbeth did everything for himself to succed in life. Lady Macbeth helped Macbeth get the idea to kill Duncan to become king but he did it. For himself eventually he realized that it needed tone done for his success to happen and for him to be king. When Lady Macbeth kills herself he does not really show remorsefor what he did for her to follow through with this action and is not apologetic until he was finally killed. Donaldbain and Malcolm left but their own desires to not be killed bye Macbeth which turned out for the best so Scottland could have a proper king. Refering to a Tale of Two Cities Mme. Defarge did everything for her people to be free and she ended up getting killed by not thinking about what was the best for herself. Finally it is neede in the world to follow your own desires and to be selfish so sometimes.
Debate thesis' :In order to be successful one must be Machiavellian and Machiavellianism leads to downfalls.
The team that debated that Machiavellianism leads to success had strong points. They incorporated that because Macbeth was a Machiavellian he still got crown king. Again, Lady Macbeth demonstrated that she had used Machiavellianism, when she successfully got Macbeth to kill Duncan and become king. Finally, the team had used an example of Jesus. They mentioned that he had no power like a king, although many people followed and listened to him. This team protrayed that Machiavellianism can lead to success.
The side that argued that Machiavellianism leads to downfalls gave a strong compelling argument. When Macbeth was reaching the power of king, the team mentioned that he had to do a fair amount of killing. Although, the Macbeth's reached their status of power, it lead them both to unhappiness and their death. Finally, the text to text support demonstrated that in A Tale of Two Cities, Mme Defarge was willing to do anything so that Lucie and her family was dead. Sadly that lead Mme Defarge to her ultimate downfall. This team gave a well compelling argument that Machiavellianism does lead to downfalls.
In the debate about how either one's id or superego leads to success or a better life, both sides were well supported by several points. The id, or the thoughts which lead to pleasure or satisfaction of desire was demonstrated to be successful by points such as Macbeth's id, which allowed him to gain a position of power. Although following the id may seem to cause issues such as guilt for killing a person, it was mentioned that if one fully sided with their id, they would not feel any negative feelings for the actions which they had committed. If one follows their id to achieve their goals, they can definitely be successful and feel good about doing it since they would not think that it is wrong. However, when determining success, the long term must also be considered. While following the id to achieve goals through unscrupulous means can lead to immediate success, in the long term, if one does not fully side with their id, they will live with eternal guilt like how Macbeth can see the ghost of Banquo who he killed. Living through the id can deteriorate one's life in the long run if one must live with negative emotions due to what they have done. By living by the superego, although immediate success may not be as great at living by the id, one can achieve their goals while still remaining at peace because they have done what is considered right. Like what was mentioned in the actual debate, the world would be much more peaceful if everybody lived by their superegos, and did what would be right for their community. If everybody lived by their id instead, people would most likely end up hurting each other in order to achieve their goals, which would lead to a chaotic environment.
Emasculation leads to success vs. emasculation leads to downfall.
Throughout the play, emasculation had a huge effect on Macbeth and had led to his success and downfall. For instance, the hallucinations he was experiencing could have been interpreted in different ways. Some may see it as a good experience that led to his success by reminding him that killing Duncan would lead him to being king but can also be bad experience as Banquo shows up to remind him of his mistake of killing him instead of Fleance. Secondly, Lady Macbeth’s emasculation on Macbeth made him feel low self-esteem, leading to his demise but is also viewed as making him toughen up in order to be a strong leader of the country. Success and downfall had a lot of controversy when talking about how Macbeth was emasculated because people have very different opinions on what success is and whether it is long-term or short-term. Most agreed on the fact that Macbeth’s downfall was his death by Macduff. Blood was also symbolic in the play as it represented how he was emasculated but led to success. In some people’s eyes, every time Macbeth had blood on his hands, he was one step closer to either success or his demise.
The debate about how listening to the id or the superego is the best way to live one’s life had many excellent points however, there were also some problems. Firstly, the thesis did not seem to be specific enough. There were some times when the groups were arguing whether the id or the superego lead to success and other times when they were arguing whether it was the best way to live from a moral point of view. These inconsistencies made the debate difficult to follow at times. The group arguing for the id began with the idea that Macbeth could not have become king without following his desire for power. The group defending superego countered with the idea that while the id lead Macbeth to be king it also made him ruthless and this turned the nobles of Scotland against him which ultimately lead to his demise. The idea that following the id can lead to guilt was also brought up, but the group defending the id explained that this guilt can be avoided if one fully follows their id and completely ignores the superego. Before making a decision one should consider whether they will follow their id completely or their superego completely. This is the only way to make a decision without feeling guilt later because one who follows theirs id may make some decisions going against their morals. If this person later considers their actions with the superego, they will feel guilt because of the unscrupulous actions that they performed. Siding completely with either the superego or the id is the only way for one to make a decision without guilt.
Debates: Protagonist’s obligations to others/their relationships vs.
Humans have a moral obligation to fulfill their own desires.
It is evident throughout Macbeth that the protagonist demonstrates a moral obligation to fulfill his own desires. The groups demonstrated the understanding that Macbeth ultimately wanted to be king because of the suggestions Lady Macbeth enforced on him. Macbeth also proves that he is constantly searching for power because of his own desires. Macbeth berated by his wife to kill Duncan in the end decided by himself that he should kill him. This was demonstrated when Macbeth imagined the dagger. Macbeth also demonstrates that it was his own desires that he was fulfilling because, unlike Lady Macbeth, he didn't sleep walk because of the guilt he felt. This demonstrates that Lady Macbeth's guilt for her actions were because of the moral obligations she felt towards her and her husband's success. In juxtaposition to her Macbeth demonstrates that he doesn't feel guilt because they were his own desires and he was therefore fulfilling his desires and not those of others.
Debate: Humans have a moral obligation to fulfill their own desires before the desires of others vs Humans have a moral obligation to fulfill the desires of others before their own desires
In the play, it is demonstrated that Macbeth truly fulfilled his own desires but was also influenced by wanting to fulfill the desires of those around him. The group arguing that there is an obligation of fulfilling your own desires had strong points on how accomplishing the desires of another, leads to one’s downfall. For example, Lady Macbeth strongly encourages Macbeth to kill Duncan in order for him to become king, as she looks upon the great future that awaits them. Lady Macbeth uses his lack of masculinity against Macbeth, and therefore with her desire of this great future and a more masculine husband, Macbeth fulfills her desires. This eventually turns upon him and Lady Macbeth as they both suffer from guilt and death. Although, this also was defended strongly by the other group as fulfilling Lady Macbeth`s desires, Macbeth was successful in becoming King and proving his masculinity. Also, as debated, one must fulfill their own desires first, before the desires of others for their own safety. This is demonstrated through Malcolm and Donalbain when they both left their country in order to protect themselves from being punished and blamed for killing their father. They both live to be faithful to their country, but one cannot help their country if they are not safe themselves. Therefore, although fulfilling another’s desires before your own appears to be the better decision, one cannot please others unless they fulfill some of their own desires first. In future debates, the groups should begin with being certain on a debate topic and try to have strong rebuttals with proof from the text.
In the debate about whether Macbeth is innately evil or inherently good, both sides of the argument were supported with many well thought out points. Although Lady Macbeth tried to convince Macbeth to kill the King and many of the witches encouraged him with the prophecies, it seems Macbeth is evil. This can be seen through Macbeth’s actions of killing King Duncan, by killing all of Macduff’s family even though they were not a threat, attempting to kill Banquo and his son, and his countless efforts to stay in power. Macbeth also had no sympathy for his wife when she killed herself and believed she should have died. There are also times before his race to King had begun that proved he is innately evil; this can be seen when he kills a man brutally in the war for no reason at all, expressing his love and how his first instinct is to kill. Therefore, in the play Macbeth shows he is innately evil throughout his actions and first instincts of killing many people for no reason.
Debate: Humans have the obligation to fulfill the desires of others vs humans have the moral obligation to fulfill their own desires vs the desires of others
Macbeth clearly felt a greater obligation to himself than to his relationships with others. The groups demonstrate that when Macbeth fulfills his obligations to others, his actions are unscrupulous. This results in him fulfilling his own desires and following his id. In the beginning of the play, Lady Macbeth was the dominant figure in her relationship. This led to Macbeth acting in order to please her desires. However, Macbeth took control of the relationship later on in the play and throughout the rest of his life, he made decisions for himself. This was clear when he sent murderers to kill Banquo and Macduff’s family. Even when Macbeth is influenced my Lady Macbeth to kill Duncan, he ultimately makes the decision for himself. This is demonstrated when he hallucinates the dagger which reminds him of his ambition to become king. It is also demonstrated that humans feel a greater obligation to themselves than their relationships through other characters in the play. For example, Malcolm and Donalbain flee Scotland in order to save themselves and Lady Macbeth tried to influence Macbeth to kill Duncan in order to benefit her position. This all demonstrates humankind’s desire to follow their id before their superego and how fulfilling the desires of others results in unscrupulous actions.
Macbeth was motivated by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators however it seemed that during the debate, there was a little bit of confusion concerning which motivator it would be considered. Intrinsic motivation would be wanting to get better at something. Extrinsic would be doing something in order to receive a reward or to avoid punishment. The title of king would be considered an extrinsic motivator rather than an intrinsic but Alex and Fergal were arguing it as a point for their side. In general both sides had strong points that was backed up with textual support.
The arguments that Macbeth was motivated by extrinsic forces was supported by the facts that the witches were the ones who planted the idea in Macbeth’s head that becoming King was something within his grasp, and his wife was the one who pressured him to do it through repeated emasculation. Macbeth was motivated by intrinsic forces because it was his decision to kill Duncan, he could instead have waited to see if he was going to be King anyway. Not only this, he continues to kill after his wife stops pressuring him. I believe that Macbeth was motivated by intrinsic forces. In the beginning, it is proven that he already has very sadistic, macabre desires when he completely disembowels the soldier during the war. Also, even after he has killed the king and felt the guilt of this, he continues on this same path, and even stops involving his wife in his plans. He is viewed as a tyrant, which means that he is not encouraged by societal pressures either.
Debate: Macbeth is inherently evil vs. Good
Macbeth acted in unscrupulous ways in order to be king. Even though his wife convinced him to kill the king and the witches implanted the evil seed in him, he was never obligated to kill to reach his goals. He consciously decided to murder King Duncan. Furthermore, Macbeth orchestrated the death of multiple innocent people for no apparent reason, demonstrating his sadistic nature. Also, Macbeth's past as a soldier, killing and gutting supports the fact that he is indeed evil. Even though he committed dispicable crimes, Macbeth still felt guily and started hallucinating.The guilt he felt demonstrates that he was aware of his wrong doings, which shows that he is indeed good. Macbeth's good nature is displayed when he refuses to kill King Duncan like his wife wanted because he does not think it is right to kill or harm someone that has been nice to one's self. It was argued that he was influenced by external forces to behave in this way. I believe that Macbeth is evil because he continued to kill and to gain more power even after his wife stopped pressuring him. Additionally, he suppressed his superego in order to continue his macabre ways. Lastly, Macbeth showed no remorse for the death of his wife. These all demonstrate that Macbeth was in fact a sadistic person who only cared about himself.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.