doorBestuur Nederlandse Debatbond

Knowledge in debates: Motion Review Amsterdam Open

by Matt Hazell

 

Many motions in debating will have proper nouns in them, and examples are always useful in these cases. However, you can never win or lose in BP debating via example alone. The purpose of outside knowledge in debates is to illustrate the arguments you are making. Importantly this means that facts, without good logical analysis underpinning them, are of little merit. In this article we will look at one specific motion set at the Amsterdam Open 2018, and look at how to approach this seemingly technical debate without knowing much at all. The motion is as follows:

 

Info slide:

Structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) consist of loans provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to countries that experienced economic crises. The IMF requires borrowing countries to implement certain policies (e.g austerity measures, reducing trade tariffs etc) in order to receive these loans (or to lower interest rates on existing ones).

 

Motion:

This House Believes that the IMF should pay reparations to countries that experienced severe economic hardship as a consequence of IMF restructuring programs

 

General Approach

Firstly – don’t panic! Remember that in debating, teams do not win or lose on the “truth” of their arguments. It is impossible to determine, within the confines of a BP debate at least, what the specific effect of a motion will be. Rather your aim as a speaker is to persuade the judges that it is plausible that a certain thing will happen. Whether or not that is true in real life, in debating anything you can construct sensible reasons for can be weighed in the debate. The average reasonable voter does not have a PhD in economics! You can say things that will have economic theorists like Keynes turning in their graves and still get an 87.

 

When approaching a motion you aren’t sure you know much about, the first thing to remember is that you probably know more than you think. You probably know that the IMF is an organisation that provides loans to countries that are undergoing severe economic crises. Often these loans are tied to specific conditions (this fact is given in the info slide as well as examples of such conditions). You also probably know (or can infer) that it is primarily backed by western countries, because those countries are the wealthiest.

From these basics, and a general understanding of the world in general , we can construct relatively compelling prop and opp cases.

 

Broad Clashes

As either team in the debate, it is always useful to work out what both sides are likely to agree upon. Namely that the IMF is in general a useful institution and we would like to preserve its capacity to act in future economic crises. Given that, we can predict that the two broad areas of clash in this debate are likely to be:

1) Countries that have experienced economic hardship as a result of IMF policies:

  • Moral culpability of IMF
    • Did they know hardship would result? Does it matter?
    • Did counties accept this risk when they agreed to the loan? Did they have a choice?
    • In the counterfactual (the world were the IMF did not give them the loan) would things have been better? Does this matter for assigning moral culpability?
  • Utility of reparations
    • Will they help the economy or cause further damage?
    • Will they go to the right people?

 

2) Effect this has on future IMF policy

  • Simple cost argument – these reparations will cost a lot of money!
  • Will the IMF be more hesitant to offer loans in the future?
    • Is greater scrutiny before loaning necessarily a bad thing?
    • Will this result in changing the nature of the loans given?
  • Donors and controlling powers of the IMF – does this affect their willingness to provide capital?

 

Importantly, these two themes of argumentation can work separately from each other. For example, prop could argue that the moral culpability of the IMF means that it does not matter if the organisation is bankrupted by this policy and unable to give loans in the future. Similarly, opp could agree that the IMF has harmed these countries but that its role as a stabilising influence on the world economy is too important to lose. If either side wants to win then they need to provide good reasons (i.e weighing) as to why we should care more about one set of arguments than the other. In reality, it is always a good tactic to engage in both areas of clash, as well as explaining why the one you are focussing on is the most important clash.

Now let’s look at what each individual team might want to argue, without using specialist knowledge.

 

Proposition

If you are OG, you probably want to define the motion. If you know very little, it is better to be broader and vaguer than trying to be very specific and missing the point. In this case you need to define:

  • How you will decide which countries this applies to
  • What the nature of the reparations will be

An independent panel of economic experts is probably best suited to decide which countries deserve reparations. Reparations in the form of direct cash transfers to either governments or individual citizens works well here. The second part is probably more contentious: who do you give the money to?  Governments will give the advantage of you arguing this money will be used sensibly to develop the economy, e.g infrastructure projects etc; but are also at risk of corruption / vanity projects. Individual citizens may use the money in a manner that doesn’t help the economy, and could potentially lead to local inflation. In any case, you want this decided quickly so you can get on to arguments.

The first prop argument you will likely want to make is the principle of culpability. The IMF gave money to desperate countries and imposed specific economic conditions on them. As a result these countries experienced hardship. You can argue that A) the IMF did this with bad intentions, or without full diligence (e.g things like reduced tariffs were imposed to benefit the economies of the IMF’s international backers) or B) it doesn’t matter whether the IMF knew this would happen or not, because the end result is the same.

We might also want to argue that these conditions were imposed under pressure – the counties did not have a meaningful option to not accept these deals, due to their financial collapse. This means they did not fully consent to the conditions attached, and so were incapable of performing their own due diligence.

We may also want to argue that, if the countries had not taken IMF loans, they would be materially better than if they had done. This argument can be made to sound plausible even if you know nothing or that it is factually untrue in the real world. We can do this by claiming things like:

  • Often financial crises are temporary, and governments are pressured into accepting bailouts prematurely
  • Other parties would have eventually offered help, and with fewer conditions (e.g by wiping out/reducing debt obligations, direct bailouts etc)
  • A direct claim to fact that the result of these conditions led to irreparable damage to industries (for example  no protections meant multinational companies now own all the natural resource extraction rights)

Reparations are a proportionate and fair recompense for this because they will make the country richer. Governments can use this money to directly reimburse those who lost out due to the IMF programs, or to grow the economy presently. We can also argue that one of the biggest harms of the IMF program was that it stripped the countries of their own autonomy in decision making – hence giving them money with no strings attached is the only fair solution.

 

On the second set of arguments, about the future of the IMF, we may want to say things like:

  • This makes the IMF more accountable – it cannot simply offer loans and forget about the country afterwards. This means the IMF will offer better loans in the future.
  • Countries are increasingly turning to other sources of aid, e.g money from Russia/China, as they lose confidence in the IMF and the conditions attached to the aid they give. These alternatives might be bad as
    • The IMF has less influence over them.
    • The conditions attached are often political, rather than economic. This makes them seem good short term but are not long term, as China expects support at the UN or to place military bases in these countries (this may or may not be true, but can plausibly be said in the debate)

These arguments can all be made from first principles and very limited knowledge of the world, and cover many of the bases in this debate.

 

Opposition

Opp have a tactical choice in what arguments they want to prioritise in this debate. I think a good approach is to think about which clashes are easier to win on, and prioritise them. For example, prop have reasonable fiat to exclude countries that were primarily harmed by other things (governmental policy, commodity price drops (e.g oil)). This means that it is probably true that the IMF definitely caused economic hardship to these countries. It will be hard to win on culpability.

However, this does not mean you should ignore this area of the debate. A good approach is to try and make parts of the debate you can’t win on sufficiently messy that the other side can’t win on them either. Hence, we want to claim things like:

  • The IMF acted in good faith and therefore aren’t accountable, even if harm resulted
  • Other actors would have stepped in and made it worse (e.g China, private organisations)
  • Even in the cases where harm was done, it is hard to pin it on the IMF alone – often a multitude of factors contributed to this.

Hence, even if the judge does not entirely believe you, there is sufficient doubt in their mind as to whether culpability is absolute and so they will be unlikely to award the debate on these grounds alone.

 

The next step in this analysis is to explain that, given you cannot definitively assign moral blame, the overriding concern should be the ability of the IMF to act in a useful capacity in the future. This is because, though harm was done in the past, the primary function of the IMF is to prevent future harms. If the IMF is unable to do this then a) more harm will accrue to more people as financial crashes spread more rapidly, or b) other worse actors will provide these loans.

 

Now it is incumbent on you to explain who these other actors are and why they are worse, and how exactly the IMF will lose the ability to fund things in future. For example:

  • Cost argument – this will cost trillions of dollars to have any meaningful effect
  • Some of the countries that were harmed by the IMF have since recovered, and so international donors will buy in less as the money doesn’t seem to be going where it is needed.
  • International donors to the IMF don’t want to expose themselves to future risk (maybe diplomatic as opposed to direct financial responsibility) for IMF projects that go sour.

 

Other arguments you could make are that these changes in the IMF (if the organisation continues to exist), are very damaging:

  • If the IMF becomes a lot more risk-averse, they could refuse loans to the countries who would need it the most. Those nations would have to have very big policy changes to make it viable for the IMF to loan to them, but the IMF no longer wants to loan to the riskiest cases because it could backfire a lot.
  • The reparations paid to the nations are going to backfire and create more corruption or other issues: making the problems to countries even worse than they were before.  

With this done, you have a solid two-pronged approach to the debate that will serve you well.

 

Conclusions

Of course examples and specific knowledge is useful in a debate, but their absence doesn’t mean you are automatically going to lose the debate! Most debates have a set of clashes that can be derived from logic alone, and the arguments can be made based on very limited information about the real world. A useful tactic against teams that know a lot is to claim the inverse of their arguments (with some analytic reasons as to why) and then side-step them by claiming their arguments are unimportant or less relevant than yours. The brunt of this work will be done not by factual arguments but by logical reasoning.

Some Case Studies

You might have got to the end of this and wondered, “that is all well and good but what if I do want some knowledge?” Well, here are some handy articles to get up to speed on the IMF and some of the examples that are most relevant to the debate:

 

The IMF in its own words:

http://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/IMF-at-a-Glance

 

Opinion piece/explainer on how Structural Adjustment Funds can cause poverty: http://www.globalissues.org/article/3/structural-adjustment-a-major-cause-of-poverty

 

Simple explainer of criticism of IMF loans:

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/imf-criticism/

 

Short article explaining some negative consequences of IMF Policy:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/09/the-world-bank-and-the-imf-wont-admit-their-policies-are-the-problem

 

Article on the Asian Financial Crisis and how the IMF contributed to it:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-06/imf-struggles-to-shake-off-stigma-20-years-after-asia-crisis

 

Website dedicated to critiques of IMF (and WB)

http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org

 

Article on the evaluation of the IMF about the policies in 1990’s in Argentina:  

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/business/report-looks-harshly-at-imf-s-role-in-argentine-debt-crisis.html

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

Interview with our own EUDC CA’s Daan and Gigi

Written by Huyen

 

Interview Novi Sad EUDC 2018

2018 marks the 20th installment of the European Universities Debating Championship (EUDC), which will take place in Novi Sad, Serbia. At the end of July, hundreds of debaters from all across Europe will travel to the Championship to debate, party and make new friends! The Dutch delegation is of course well represented, with almost every society sending teams and judges. But, teams and judges are not the only representatives of the Dutch debating community. Daan Welling and Gigi Gil have been selected to become Deputy Chief Adjudicators of the Chief Adjudication team at Novi Sad EUDC. Both Daan and Gigi are of course famous Dutch debaters, who themselves have achieved many great things at past EUDC’s. Time to get to know them a bit more and see how they are experiencing the whole build-up for the biggest European tournament of the year. 720 reporter Huyen talked with both of them!

 

How did you decide to apply for DCA spot at EUDC 2018?

Gigi: I was nominated actually. Until I was notified I had been nominated, I had not seriously thought about it. Then I was like “Actually it sounds like a lot of fun”, and if people consider me qualified then it’s worth applying. And to be honest, I just really enjoy CA-ing.

Daan: I think the selfish part of my reasoning is that, I had just been part of the core organizing team for Dutch Worlds, which took a lot of time and effort to prepare, and I found I didn’t really get the chance to enjoy it. For most of my generation of debaters, Worlds would’ve been the peak of my career and I wanted to enjoy that peak. Given I didn’t, I wanted to take another shot at leaving university debate on a high note. But more importantly, obviously you don’t just want to apply to something just to get something, but because you also have something to offer. And in my regard, what I have to offer the team was a healthy dose of experience, particularly running large internationals. I think most people, when thinking of being a CA team, think primarily about motion setting. Although that is an important task, tournaments of this size also require us to recruit judges  and keep in close contact with the Org Com. I thought that was the part that I could play a role, that’s why I applied.

 

What do you think about the emergency switch from Scottish to Novi Sad EUDC? Any specific changes to your duty as a DCA in EUDC because of this incidence?

Gigi: Obviously it’s just regrettable how things happened. I’d say I’m most impressed and most overwhelmed by how amazing it is that people were willing to take over. That’s just wild, they really really are competent, and we are very grateful! I don’t think much has changed for us. The OrgCom has been really nice and open to us. The other CAs like Duncan and Olivia do so much more with regards to communicating with the orgcom anyway.So it’s been pretty smooth for us in terms of transition, it just was like a break in time, we couldn’t do anything between the two switches. Now everything is pretty smooth sailing, to be honest.

Daan: Euros is run by volunteers, which is crazy for a big event with such a massive budget. The budget of Euros regularly reaches near half a million, you have to accommodate over 600 people over a week. And all of that is done on a volunteer basis with no pay, and perhaps more importantly, all the work is done alongside people’s degrees. So any organization that says “We’re willing to host it”, beyond being slightly crazy, is an organization that I think we should all be incredibly grateful for. Given those numbers and the tasks, it is not completely weird that a bid sometimes fails to materialize. I’m not old enough to have experienced it myself before, but it has happened before, and I think it will happen again in the future. Moving onto Novi Sad, I am incredibly happy with Jovan. He and his team are working amazingly around the clock, and the fact that they are able to secure things this late in the game, I think, is truly a testament to their commitment to debating. Insofar as we needed to switch away from Scotland, I don’t think we could have asked for a better team to take up the amount of organizing a Euros in such a short fashion.

My duty as a DCA has not really changed. We all work with small teams. We are very fortunate to have Olivia and Duncan as incredibly hard-working CAs, and I think the organization has been made in such a way that they are able to do different tasks efficiently. So we are just doing the normal things as we do as DCAs. We are working both on the motions and on getting Independent Adjudicators in. If you are working with such a large organization, you can’t try to be the one that is aware of everything that’s going on. As that is such an impossible job, it’s only really the convenor’s task. And I think what we need to do is to make sure that the convenor’s life is better, by not trying to engage in his business, but rather do our businesses well.

 

How is the working collaboration going with the new Org Comm team from Serbia?

Gigi: We speak mostly with Jovan, and Jovan is just a f*cking “trooper”. He works very very very hard, and is super motivated. Also not just to run Euros to make everything excellent, he’s putting us on the spot, i.e the pressure that is exactly what we need from OrgCom. So I think he’s pretty phenomenal.

Daan: Similar as in my answer in previous question, I don’t there is much of a difference. That being said, the way in which we do, is primarily we work a little bit independently, I think that’s important. I think there is not anything I shouldn’t know, knowing too much about the ins and outs of the organization might in fact distract me from doing part of my duty. So most of the essential communication is done through the CAs. Obviously we communicated much more when it settles down, we needed to know much more information and task division gets clearer.

 

What are you most looking forward to in this Euros edition?

Gigi: I’m really excited, I really enjoy the whole process of finding judges across Europe, CA-ing across Europe and doing motion sets. It’s gonna be strange for me not to be there to see all that happens, but it’s probably gonna be amazing, especially given the pool of great judges I’ve seen across this year. I guess that’s what I’m most excited about!

Daan: I think every Euros is great, because it allows a large amount of communities to come together, which means you don’t just learn from people whom you always debate with. And that’s why I’m very happy to return to Novi Sad, because I think that debating is very important for this particular region. It is still within my lifetime that a war was waged here, it is still within my lifetime that people felt unsafe to speak up, and I think such opportunity remains fragile. And in that regard, I’m really happy to see many young people able to get engaged in debating, power-free thinking, critical reasoning and holding institutions accountable. I’m just happy to know I can contribute to a small part of that.

 

What do you hope to get out of your time in this Euros edition?

Gigi: So I already got a lot out of it, having been working super intensively with quite a big team over a pretty long period of time. A lot of them have taught me things about CA-ing that I didn’t know before, and I’ve changed my mind about some of the things that I was really dead set on. I think sometimes CAs tend to be very negative about ideas that they don’t initially understand, and this CA team is working really hard to get rid of that. All of our work is anonymized when we cooperate, so it’s very helpful to learn from that.

Daan: For me, this is my final big thing I’ll be doing. In that regard, I hope I set up something that is really cool, that we have amazing motions, that people are satisfied with the adjudication. If people tell me by the end that the tournament has been great I hope they don’t do that because they want to please me, but because they genuinely have a good time. And if that’s the case, I’d be really happy at Euros this year.

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!

 

doorBestuur Nederlandse Debatbond

Toernooiverslag: Debattoernooi Utrecht 2018

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: DDL 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!