Schrijvers archief Bestuur Nederlandse Debatbond

doorBestuur Nederlandse Debatbond

DDL: The Final Edition

Written by Jos

Today is the final day of the Dutch Debating League! Filled with excitement because… I don’t know, Groningen and Tilburg are battling for 6th place? I mean Leiden already won this thing right? Any way. On to the preview of the teams!

Cicero: David and Mike
Wait, is Mike still a member of Cicero? Didn’t he move to Leiden? And who is this David guy? Couldn’t Roel be bothered to show up? Any way. I’m sure they’ll do great. Mike did break at EUDC after all and has 11 years of debating experience. David did judge the finals of Dutch nationals. This is a team that’s going to kick some ass!

Bona: Marike and Tom
Would have sort of expected Marike to have made the move to LDU by now where she would be an organizational powerhouse instantly. Guessing this is prep for EUDC. Kind of expecting these two to do well at EUDC, they did so last year as well. Kind of surprised Tom is still this invested in debating tho, heard he’s doing well in fiscal law. I think the former love birds are going to fly away with it at this event!

Delft: Niels and Reeti
Man… Delft. I love Delft. Such a nicely organized debating society. We have Niels, former champion of BDT, and Reeti, engineer. Are any of them attending EUDC? I don’t know. Delft will take the 8th place. I think they nevertheless showed they belong at this stage. They only missed one event right? I bet UCU is going to be like “We want to join DDL!” at the next Bondsraad and then they are going to get some non-committal response “Yes. We will look into it.” And Delft is like “No, that’s our spot.” Except Delft probably won’t be present for the meeting, because, honestly, why would you show up to a Bondsraad?

GDS: Henk and Linsey
Is that GDS dino Henk? So many great tournaments in Tilburg every year and he shows up for this? And of course Linsey, finalist of Dutch nationals, showing up for her 4th debating event in Tilburg this year. Kalliope has shown a strong presence at DDL events, what they lack in new members they make up for in enthusiasm among existing ones. I’m pretty confident they’ll secure that 6th place finish on Linsey’s road to a possible EUDC break.

UDS: Jelte and Pieter
I think I can tell these two apart now. Only took me like three years. We have Pieter, future doctor and Jelte, future person-that-tells-corporations-what-they-want-to-hear-for-money-without-adding-any-real-value, or consultant as he likes to say. These two have been training hard together for years now and are in tip-top-shape. Jelte also stands out for being the person that made the Debatbond do something useful for once in my lifetime (as opposed to just draining time and energy) by starting the DDL, so shout-out to him for that. It doesn’t matter how they finish, the fact that this event is happening is a win for Jelte.

EDS: Emma and Fenna
These two average like 80’s at tournaments. And they were super-close to breaking at EUDC last year. Shout-out to Fenna for having a top notch board year, with EDS recruiting like 70 members. I’m sure they’ll do great and kick some ass. If EDS has a hall of fame it’s pretty much about time to start making room in it for Emma and Fenna!

LDU: Roel and Ybo
Son-of-a-philosophy-teacher turned philosophy student Roel and son-of-a-judge turned law student Ybo are continuing a lifelong streak of never leaving their comfort zone by showing up to a debate event where there’s nothing at stake for them. For the team that previously reached a EUDC and a Dutch nationals finals taking home anything below 8 points is considered a defeat. All in all, if we look at the narrative for next DDL LDU being dominating is pretty great as every story needs a villain. LDU racking up points is like Ivan Drago beating the crap out of Apollo Creed. Now all we need is a Rocky!

doorBestuur Nederlandse Debatbond

Maastricht mornings… In Belgium

Written by Mike Weltevreden

The Maastricht Open is a semi special tournament to me. It has given me a mixture of positive and negative experiences in a weird combination. In the first year that I went, it provided me with my first judge break. However, I had left before the break because I thought “there was no way I’d break anyway”. In the second year, Nikolai and I were doing well and drew OG on a motion discussing the special ties that the US has had with Syria. I thought that was fine, because we seemed to know a bit about the subject and OG is my favourite position anyway. Nearing the end of prep, the door opened, and the other teams walked in. It might be safe to say that we were not necessarily the most confident after they entered, because those other teams consisted of Lennart van Laake and Nina Ramaswamy, Jeroen Wijnen and Romée Lind, and Roel Becker and Ben Shaw. Nonetheless, we still gave good speeches and spent way too much time on Roel’s POI, asking Nikolai “what the Vatican would think of this policy”. In the third year, namely last year, the legendary “Highest, lowest”-meme was born. I spoke one of my best tournaments up to that point, speaking a 77,8 average if you do not count round 3. However, in round 3 I choked and spoke a 66. That brings me to this edition of the Maastricht Open, having taken place on the 21st and 22nd of April.

I left Tilburg on Friday the 20th of April to head to one of my favourite tournaments. I was teaming up with the ever-amazing Steven Glen (lots of love!) under the team name ‘Too bad Mr Peanut Butter’. However, that team name was not going to last long. At reg, we decided to change our team name to ‘Waking up at 5:30 am in Belgium’. Let’s give some context to that team name.

So, I arrived at the pre-reg location (the StayOkay next to the Maas) to meet up with our crash host. It was a nice location with a pretty cool view. We were informed in advance that our crash location was a bit out there and that we would have to cycle there. Little did we know, however, that we would be travelling to the faraway land of Belgium (okay, you could have predicted that). After Steven’s mum had driven us there, we first had to wait for the third person (a guy named Johannes) crashing there to arrive. So, Steven and I passed the time with a bit of Mario Kart on my Nintendo Switch (buy one, it’s great :D). After Johannes arrived, we quite quickly went to sleep, as we did have to get up at around 7:15 the next morning. This brings me to the other part of our team name: Johannes forgot to turn of his alarm for the previous night. Apparently, he is a police officer or so and he must get up early. As such, his alarm started blaring at 5:30 am, waking me from my lovely dream (I don’t remember what it was about, but I am sure that it was pretty good). Yuck.

This was the tale of our team name, I hope you enjoyed it and that it inspires you on your quest for a team name for the next tournament.

PS: The tournament itself was cool too, props to the orgcom, the volunteers, and the CA team. I had a stellar time!

doorBestuur Nederlandse Debatbond

Een kijkje achter de schermen bij het Nederlands Kampioenschap Debatteren!

Het verhaal van Roel Schoenmakers, co-convener NK

Het was ongeveer 9 uur s’ avonds toen ik gevraagd werd om het NK te convenen. Ik zat net een maandje in Hong Kong, en als ik eerlijk ben was ik nog niet op het punt dat ik snakte naar meer hooi op mijn vork. Maar het NK, daar wilde ik nog wel een uitzondering voor maken. De roem, de GLORIE, ik zag het al meteen voor me. Tussen de wolkenkrabbers en steegjes in nam ik mijn besluit: waarom ook niet. Er mag wel gezegd worden dat een toernooi organiseren op 9000km misschien iets uitdagender was dan ik me had voorgesteld, maar door een goede werkverdeling tussen mij en Joshua kwam dat allemaal eigenlijk wel goed. Waar ik tijd had stelde ik e-mails op, nam ik contact op met sponsoren en zocht ik mee naar een geschikte locatie. Joshua regelde een commissie, stelde het budget op en bezocht de scholen die de moeite namen op ons te reageren. Die dynamiek veranderde maar weinig nadat ik terug was gekomen, al schuiven taken natuurlijk altijd rond.

Eigenlijk was vanaf dag 1 de grootste uitdaging ons budget geweest. Hoewel er een reserve bestaat voor gevallen als de onze (wanneer vanwege tijd commerciële acquisitie moeilijk te lopen is) wilden we alles doen om te voorkomen dat we die nodig hadden. Toen we van Aevis en later ook de Gemeente uiteindelijk toezeggingen van steun kregen, sprongen we dan ook een gat in de lucht; een enorme last was van ons afgevallen en we konden ons nu echt focussen op de leukere dingen van het NK. Week na week werd het evenement scherper en scherper, en konden we het NK steeds helderder zien worden: de finale, het eten, de mensen, alles kreeg ineens geur en kleur en lichtte op alsof voor het eerst aangestoken. Dat Red Bull daadwerkelijk ja heeft gezegd, snappen we nog steeds niet helemaal, maar het memepotentiaal alleen al zorgde ervoor dat onze dag niet stuk kon. (Achteraf baal ik ook wel een beetje dat niemand tijdens de finale een blikje adten, maar ach, niet alles kan naar wens verlopen.)

Natuurlijk was er ook die andere grote uitdaging, namelijk het vinden van voldoende teams en juryleden. Nee, maak je geen zorgen, over de toestand van debatland gaan we het nu niet hebben. Wel is het goed om te vermelden dat dankzij verschillende hardwerkende bestuurders, zowel uit Tilburg als de rest van Nederland, er toch snel zekerheid was over het behalen van de ondergrens van benodigde teams. Het spreekt voor zich dat ook DSDC en aanvankelijk enkele lokale scholen hiervoor te danken zijn. Ook de hulp van het CA team bij hoe we het beste met deze situatie om konden gaan, zorgde voor rust en vertrouwen bij zowel mij als Joshua. Gezien ons verantwoordelijkheidsgevoel een zeker niet onbelangrijke bijdrage.

De laatste weken voor het NK raakten we natuurlijk nog wel eens in paniek. Een probleem met de cateraar hier, een afmelding daar; alles kan je van je stuk brengen als je op volledige spanning staat. Dat die spanning zich ontlaadde door ons in een soepele boog het NK-weekend in te lanceren, in plaats van ons door het plafond te rammen, maakte de organisatie tijdens de dagen zelf eigenlijk heel gladjes. We wisten dat we op onze vrijwilligers konden rekenen, en dat de meeste deelnemers bereid waren mee te werken met elk potentieel offer dat we van ze konden vragen. Aan het eind van de dag was het enige benodigde offer een vertraging van een half uur tijdens het avondeten, en hoewel een zekere lange en roodharige man in pak uit meer dan alleen zijn maag knorde, kwam ook dit allemaal goed. De social was heerlijk (en intensief, maar daar waren we op ingesteld) en de ochtend erna kwam ook vrijwel iedereen netjes op tijd. De opnames liepen lekker, de livestream ging goed, en het weer was niet langer moordend heet maar aangenaam warm. IJskoffie en Red Bull maakte een fragiel randje goud om de wolken compleet: het NK was een daverend succes.

De dagen die volgen zijn eigenlijk altijd raar. Op het afronden van een paar taken en crisissen na is de last die op je ligt als convenor stukken kleiner dan voor het evenement, zeker als je zoals ons (en de meeste mensen) soms de neiging hebt door te draaien als je bedenkt wat allemaal fout had kunnen gaan. Dat voelt natuurlijk fijn, maar ergens ook bijna vies. Loslaten is een kunst die bijna zwaarder valt dan vastgrijpen, maar een kunst die iedereen goed onder de knie moet krijgen willen ze vooruit kunnen. Mij lukt het vaak maar net.

Ik was dan ook suuuuuperblij toen ons gevraagd werd nog een laatste stukje voor het NK te schrijven. Bij deze: Nederlands Kampioenschap, hartstikke bedankt, maar nu mijn hoofd uit!

doorBestuur Nederlandse Debatbond

How has the debating landscape changed over the past five years in The Netherlands?

Written by Jos Buijvoets

This will be an article examining the increase of tournament possibilities offered within The Netherlands. I will introduce a discussion about a decrease in tournament attendance, make a comparison between 2013 (when I started) and 2018 and highlight the difference between the two.

There has been discussion recently about the state of the Dutch university debating scene which has centered around two claims: 1. Fewer people attend tournaments and 2. Associations have seen a decline in membership. Various reasons have been given to explain why these have occurred including: too much focus on very analytical high level debating, the new system of (not) financing university students by the Dutch government. I disagree with the claims. There might be a decline in membership or attendance specific to some associations and tournaments to which the stated reasons might have contributed, I am unsure however if overall less people attend tournaments and join debate associations as I have not seen numbers that back this up. Regardless of the truth on overall decline, I do think it’s valuable to invest in improving the numbers, which is why a promotional manual is forthcoming. A discussion about the why has value as well, but I feel that this should be grounded in numbers rather than feelings. What are membership totals over the years, new members per association for this year and numbers about tournament attendance over the years? In the remainder of this article I would like to make a small contribution to this discussion by highlighting something which I feel has been underrated as a factor, which is that the amount of tournaments has increased massively over the past few years.

This article will be pretty straightforward. It will identify the tournaments that took place structurally in 2013 organized by university (debate) associations and will do the same for 2018. It will then compare the two landscapes. A tournament that happens to not have been organized once will still be included. A number of associations organize high school tournaments, these will not be included. A number of associations organize tournaments focused on their own members, these will not be included. Small tournaments will be defined as those with less than 32 speakers usually attending. Contact me if you feel a tournament has been overlooked or misrepresented!

2013 tournaments

Tournament Format Language Days Small?
Bonapartiaans Debattoernooi AP Dutch 1 no
Cicero AP Dutch 1 no
DAPDI BP English 2 no
Debattoernooi Utrecht BP Dutch 1 no
Erasmus Rotterdam BP Dutch 2(?) no
Kalliope Debattoernooi BP Dutch 2 no
Leiden Open BP English 2 no
Mace BP English 1 yes
NK AP Dutch 1 no
Roosevelt Open BP English 2 no
Trivium BP Dutch 1 no
UCU Open BP English 2 no
NK Beleidsdebatteren BD Dutch 1 no
Leiden Novice BP English 1 no
NK Eloquentia WB Dutch 1 yes

2013 summary

Fifteen tournaments took place annually totaling twenty-one days. Six tournaments were English-language and nine were Dutch-language. Ten tournaments were BP. Two tournaments were relatively small.

 

2018

Tournament Format Language Days Small?
Bonapartiaans Debattoernooi AP Dutch 1 no
Cicero AP Dutch 1 no
DAPDI BP English 2 no
Debattoernooi Utrecht BP Dutch 1 no
Erasmus Rotterdam Open BP English 2 no
Kalliope Debattoernooi BP Dutch 2 no
Leiden Open BP English 2 no
Mace BP English 1 yes
NK BP Dutch 2 no
Roosevelt Open BP English 2 no
Trivium WSDC Dutch 1 no
UCU Open BP English 2 no
NK Beleidsdebatteren BD Dutch 1 no
Maastricht Novice BP English 1 no
Cicero Winter BP Dutch 1 yes
Utrecht special (fe fantasy) BP Dutch 1 yes
BDT prep AP Dutch 1 yes
Maastricht Open BP English 2 no
Tilburg Women’s Open BP English 2 no
Delft Open BP English 2 no
Amsterdam Open BP English 2 no
Leiden Novice BP English 1 no
NK Eloquentia WB Dutch 1 yes
Leiden combi BP Dutch 1 yes

2018 summary

Twenty-four tournaments take place annually totaling thirty-five days. Twelve tournaments are English-language and twelve are Dutch-language. Nineteen tournaments are BP. Six tournaments are relatively small.

 

Comparison

If we compare 2013 and 2018 we see an increase in tournaments totaling fourteen days (a 56% increase), only four of which represent small tournaments. The landscape also seems to have an increase in tournaments that are focused on a specific type of accessibility. In 2013 there was one novice tournament and one that was rhetorically-focused. In 2018 there’s an additional novice tournament, a prep tournament, two tournaments which are bring-a-friend, a women’s tournament as well as a WSDC-formatted tournament. Admittedly, some of these seem to be under pressure (BDT prep, Leiden combi). Given the increase in tournaments and the diversity of them, I don’t think you can easily state the debating landscape has become less accessible or that a decrease in attendance at some of them means there’s automatically a strong case overall tournament attendance is decreasing.

As a final note I just want to mention three factors which were not mentioned but can also contribute (slightly) to a decrease in tournament attendance despite not necessarily being bad in terms of adding value to the accessibility or level of competitive debating. These factors are:

  • The amount of high school tournaments has increased dramatically since 2013 which also puts a strain on university debaters as organizers, coaches and judges.
  • A number of associations have internal competitions now whereas they did not structurally have them over the past few years including Cicero and Trivium.
  • The current board of the Debatbond has brought you the Dutch Debating League which features an internal competition between eight associations with a ‘worth’ of probably several small tournaments.

 

doorBestuur Nederlandse Debatbond

Toernooiverslag: Debattoernooi Utrecht 2018

Geschreven door: Jelte Schievels en Elvire Landstra

Op zaterdag 17 maart was het weer tijd voor het leukste debattoernooi van Nederland: het Debattoernooi Utrecht 2018. Al vroeg in de ochtend kwam de organisatie bij elkaar om hard aan de slag te gaan zodat alle hongerige debaters niks ontbrak. DTU staat al jaren bekend als het toernooi met de lekkerste broodjes en die eer moest natuurlijk hoog gehouden worden.

De registratie begon om 8:30 op de vertrouwde UCU-campus. Tom Pouw was natuurlijk aangekomen om 8:15 omdat hij er zoveel zin in had. Vele debaters volgden. Met Jelte en Jobke in het tabteam begon het toernooi gewoon twee minuten te vroeg, nadat convenor Elvire haar speech had gegeven. In de eerste ronde werd gedebatteerd over het enorm spannende onderwerp belastingvoordelen voor huizenbezitters. Debaters lieten weer eens zien dat een plattegrond begrijpen ook voor de slimme en gemotiveerde studenten moeilijk is, door in het verkeerde gebouw te eindigen.

Na de eerste ronde stonden de eerste broodjes en koekjes alweer klaar. Met een efficiënt runnersysteem liep alles op rolletjes. Intussen werd er gezellig gekakeld en bijgepraat. Maar het toernooi moest ook snel weer door, deze keer om te debatteren over het zeer actuele conflict in Jemen. Na de ronde was wat gemor te horen over hoeveel kennis er wel niet benodigd was om deze stelling te kunnen debatteren, maar één debater genaamd Daan Welling leek hier totaal geen problemen mee te hebben! Gelukkig kwam het hoogtepunt van DTU 2018 gelijk na deze zware ronde: de lunch! Het team van vrijwilligers had onder opzwepende muziek de kunst van het broodjes doorsnijden geperfectioneerd. Als een volwaardig op elkaar ingespeeld team hebben ze tafels gevuld met broodjes. Maar; genoeg over de broodjes. Tijd voor het derde debat!

Wie Zondag met Lubach had gevolgd in de laatste weken had een klein voordeel, aangezien we het gingen hebben over de CO2-belasting in de EU. De spanningen liepen hoog op, aangezien de break steeds dichterbij kwam. Voor de laatste ronde konden debaters nog even genieten van de zelfgebakken taart om zich daarna vol te storten in een debat over lokale Rotterdamse politiek.

En dan, het moment was daar: de break! Soeverein gebroken door alle debatten te winnen stonden David en Gigi na vier rondes op de eerste plek. Ook onze eigen Friso werd door Tom de break in meegesleept – tot groot genoegen van hemzelf. In een zenuwslopende halve finale over de IMF en de ECB bewees het CA-team nog maar eens het kaft van het koren te willen scheiden. Als je niet gecasefiled hebt in de afgelopen tijd, werd je daar keihard voor afgestraft. De novicefinale was goed gevuld met scholieren van DSDC en een team uit Rotterdam. Zij konden het gelukkig gewoon hebben over de LGBTQIA+ community.

Na een oer-Hollandse maaltijd werd bekend gemaakt dat Roel en Marike, Danique en Carli, Daan en Nastia, en David en Gigi mochten gaan debatteren over zwarte theologie in de finale. Terwijl het publiek lekker genoot van een biertje, en Roel van zn Skittles, streden de beste teams van DTU om de felbegeerde beker (al bekend van meerdere memes).

Uiteindelijk trokken de studenten van Rotterdam aan het langste eind in de novicefinale en Danique (UDS’er!) en Carli in de finale. Al met al een geslaagde, gezellige dag vol debatplezier en lekker eten. Iedereen kon met een voldaan gevoel naar huis en de vrijwilligers naar ’t Pandje! Tot volgend jaar.

doorBestuur Nederlandse Debatbond

Recap of DDL #3: Rotterdam

Written by Huyen

 

After a month of relaxing holiday and getting started again with debating for 2018, last week Monday in the port city of Rotterdam, Dutch Debating League 3rd edition is back in full motion, this time under the CA-ship of the talented rising stars of EDS & Leiden – Fenna ten Haaf and David Metz! Participating on behalf of the societies this time are:

Leiden Debating Union:                            Floris Holstege & Roel Becker

Utrecht Debating Society:                        Jelte Schievels & Alex Klein

ASDV Bonaparte:                                       Marike Breed & Zeno Glastra van Loon

Erasmus Debating Society:                       Jeroen Heun & Lucien de Bruin

NSDV Trivium:                                            Daan Welling & Daan Spackler

TU Delft Debating Club:                            Sacheendra Talluri & Cian Jansen

TDV Cicero:                                                  Roel Schoenmakers & Lotte Janssen

GDS unfortunately could not send any team this time.

Once again, almost all societies are represented by different debaters compared to last time, yet massively gender imbalanced (missing the mighty Groningen team is in fact a huge contributory factor – sad reacts only to our northernmost society, you were dearly missed). This time, many societies up the gear by bringing in many new “dinosaurs”, so we expect nothing less than a heatedly gezellig night ahead – and indeed it was!

Starting first with our host society EDS, the “dinosaur” duo: Jeroen Heun & Lucien de Bruin! Jeroen Heun, an EDS debate giant, has won 12 prestigious competitions and was voted as the best ESL speaker in EUDC 2010, is currently a trainer and coach in the field of effective and convincing communication. As a trainer, he helped many municipalities improve the council debate and as a coach he helped many professionals in the preparation of important presentations. Lucien de Bruin, another name in the EDS hall of fame, is also no stranger name the Dutch debating community, who has won multiple prestigious competitions during his active debate time, and most recently, was a trainer in the DAPDI 2017. Their well-reasoned and hilarious cases did not show any rust in their lack of debate practices together, putting EDS only one team point behind Trivium and even one speaker point ahead of the UDS – well on spot for the next race!

Moving on to the neighboring little town of Delft, we have the new faces: Sacheenra Talluri & Cian Jansen! Sacheen is currently the treasurer of TUDDC, while Cian has just started debating a little while ago – and already showed lots of commitment and talent in this gruesome debate game – so much so that he is the co-convenor of our upcoming 2nd Delft Open in late May 2018! Fons stepped down to cheer the team this time, though unfortunately, facing the incredibly tough giants from other societies, they did not manage to boost TUDDC standing in the league. But they very much appreciated the learning experience from facing more experienced speakers and the valuable feedback from the judges!

UDS in this 3rd edition also brought back one of its very own giant – Alex Klein, fighting side by side with Jelte Schievels, 720 chief-editor and DDL tabmaster! They proved to be a very successful duo, breaking the ‘always-finishing-second-curse’ of UDS, by winning a debate and climbing up to the second spot in the league.

LDU this time brought to us, none other their very own Leiden A team of EUDC 2017 – Floris Holstege & Roel Becker. You shall need no further introduction about who these duo are – the best & 5th best ESL speaker of EUDC 2017, and in short, the pride ( and to some extent, thorn) in the eyes of the Dutch Debating Community! They did not disappoint us with compacted speeches, convincing cases with here-and-there distorted historical facts – aptly pointed out by Lucien from EDS in the Dutch demilitarization debate, and maintaining the Lion’s Den top-of-the tab-position as usual.

The one and only LDU-nemesis Bonaparte is represented, once again, Marike Breed and Zeno Glastra van Loon. Sadly, this night LDU had an upper hand against Bona (yet again), and Bona took a tiny dive to the 4th place on the League. Could this have to do with the missing entourage of supporters and the Bona song this time? Let us hope that the meme-and-confession archrival between Bona and LDU fire up the Bona debaters next time!

NSDV Trivium is proudly represented by the DoubleD – Daan Duo: the more than well-known Daan Welling and 720 very own enthusiastic reporter “vegan self-aware privilege boy”(as he noted himself from Ike) – Daan Spackler. This time, Trivium is well on their path to beating “the Lion’s den” this time – as Daan puts it in his last article, the Daan Duo has improved their standing to the 3rd place on the League! Way to go and close the gap Trivium!

And our very last team of the night, TDV Cicero, is represented by Roel Schoenmakers and Lotte Janssen. After his tropical exchange retreat in Hong Kong, where he also got to the semi-final of the Hong Kong Open 2017, Roel is back, better trained and rested than ever, to join forces with Lotte, the Oxford Women’s finalist, at this 3rd edition!  After putting up a great fight this time, unfortunately they have not managed to push Cicero very much up the tab, ending at 3rd place from the bottom up for now. But no spirit dulled ever at Cicero, that determinism will definitely get them up in the upcoming battles!

Finally, here are the motions and team allocations for Round 5 and Round 6 of DDL # 3:

R5: THR the demilitarization of the Netherlands after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

OG: Delft, OO: UDS, CG: Trivium, CO: Cicero
OG: LDU, OO, Swing, CG: EDS, CO: Bonaparte

R6: THBT governments should dedicate significant amounts of resources to reducing the risk of total human extinction (even if this goes against the wish of the electorate).

OG: Cicero, OO: Trivium, CG: LDU, CO: Bonaparte
OG: Swing, OO: Delft, CG: UDS, CO: EDS

After two rounds of combat in this 3rd edition, here are the most up-to-date cumulative team points for all societies:

Society Cumulative team points
LDU 21
UDS 19
Trivium 18
EDS 17
Bonaparte 16
TDV Cicero 12
TUDCC 8
GDS 6

 

Till the next edition, in the beautiful city of Utrecht on Wednesday 21st of February – be there or be square!