Thailand WUDC 2020 – Day 2

doorEUDC, WUDC and WSDC Reporter

Thailand WUDC 2020 – Day 2

Written by: Mike Weltevrede

After ending day 1 on 6 out of 9 points, the Dutch team went into day 2 enthusiastically. As you recall, Angela and Huyen chaired the first three rounds and saw some good rooms. Let’s see what the second day brought our friends.

Round 4

The first motion of the day was straightforward and, in my opinion accessible. The motion read:

This House would abolish the Olympic Games.

Saskia and Nikola drew Opening Government on this motion (my personal favourite position). Unfortunately, they did not agree and they took the 3rd place in this round, still placing them at ‘straights minus 1’ after round 4, so all is good. Huyen and Angela both were wings this round.

Round 5

The second motion of the day was quite long. Luckily it was not accompanied by an infoslide. It read:

This House believes that the Mexican government should adopt measures that enable one cartel to monopolise the drug market. (These measures can include but are not limited to: targeting enemy cartels; selective arrests; stopping military deployments to areas controlled by this cartel; and renouncing the headhunt on its current leaders.)

Saskia and Nikola stayed on the government side for this motion, this time taking the Closing Government’s position as their own. The opposition teams were, unfortunately, too strong and they had to take another 3rd in this round. The CA team also made sure that Angela and Huyen were chairing again in round 5.

Round 6

The last motion of the day marked the end of the open rounds. This means that rounds 7, 8, and 9 will be closed and that round 6 is the last round in which the teams will hear the call and, possibly, feedback. Of course, a day at WUDC is not complete without having seen at least one infoslide. Therefore, round 6 made up for the lack thereof and posited the following lengthy infoslide:

A Social Credit System is a national government-facilitated rating system that rewards citizens for good behaviour and sanctions them for bad behaviour.

1. It evaluates a defined set of actions that includes but goes beyond illegal or legally-obligatory acts (e.g., charitable donations, recycling, volunteer work; or jaywalking, and littering).
2. Scores can be given by members of the public, corporations, NGOs, and the government.
3. Based on these scores, the government applies rewards and sanctions (e.g., fast-track through airport security, government-subsidised mortgages, free public transportation; or higher tax, slower document-processing times, and increased barriers to public sector jobs).

Of course, we have all seen this plan in action in China and plenty of motions have been set on this. Nonetheless, I still think it is an interesting idea to have debates about. The accompanying motion read:

In liberal democracies, This House would implement a Social Credit System.

Angela chaired a room again while Huyen was a wing in this round. The Dutch team drew Closing Opposition on the motion and Lady Luck did not favour them: they took the 4th place, unfortunately. This means that our team ended day 2 on 8 out of 18 points, i.e. ‘straights minus 4’. We wish them all the best for day 3 nonetheless, we know you can do it!

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

Over de auteur

EUDC, WUDC and WSDC Reporter author