Hector/Achilles Judgments

I read these in class, but will post them here as well, in case you missed any part of my reasoning:

Humanities 9r Judgment

The case made for Hector in SAS's opening statement is a good one. As requested, it opens with an attempt at defining a hero, using the Campbell reading as a springboard (though I would have liked to see a little more). I was struck by the focus on Hector's "gentle nature" - not just Helen's compliment to him, but also his loyalty to Paris. It potentially damages your point that Hector fights for something larger than himself; couldn't it be said that he is placing his brother above Troy and his wife and child? However, the other side didn't capitalize on this opening and your larger point is likely valid. You would have benefited from directly targeting Achilles in this statement; Hector is a great warrior and would hold up under comparison. But, you do bring forth some useful evidence.

The Achilles statement, from RD, is based largely around his merits as a warrior. And, no question, Achilles's killing power and relentlessness would have been held in the highest esteem by Greek society. But, I found your argument against Hector to be tenuous at best - it's hard to call Hector selfish and Achilles selfless without bringing some serious evidence to the table, and you don't have that here. You say Achilles fought for the glory of Greece; the other side can just as easily say that he fought for the glory of Achilles. Their side is easily defended, needing only the most general understanding of the plot. Yours can be defended, but again you need something to back you up.

Ultimately, the debate was won convincingly in the subsequent give-and-take. Sarah wisely attacked your accusation that Hector acted selfishly and you couldn't come up with a good counter.

Therefore, we will build a statue to Hector.

Humanities 9g Judgment

The opening case for Hector lands on many of the key points. He does seem to be the more selfless of the two, and if we value that in our heroes, he stands apart. He is also the more reliable, staying in the thick of the fight (aside from a brief final visit to his family) throughout the war. I think you could have done a better job of attacking Achilles - calling someone "just a fighter" in Ancient Greece would have elicited blank stares, as if to say, "what, there's something more than fighting?" You, more than team Achilles, needed to assert the values of heroism you hold in high esteem; by not doing so, you allowed the debate to be played out on Ancient Greek terms.

On the Achilles side, the argument begins very slowly. The opening, contrasting the strength and weakness of these men is not convincing at all. And, the point about Hector being selfish is dubious, badly in need of supporting evidence. To make matters worse, the Trojan Horse example is just wrong - Achilles is already dead by then. It is undeniable, however, that Achilles proves to be the superior warrior, and that is an important fact.

Entering the debate, while both sides had a somewhat shaky start, the pro-Hector position clearly held the advantage. However, the tide turned first slowly and then, when Nathan took the floor, with a measure of definitiveness. He had thought through the key issue, neglected by all others, centered at the heart of this debate - for what purpose do we build statues? What message will we communicate? His points were excellent and Hector's promoters had no sufficient response.

Therefore, we are building a statue to Achilles.