doorHoofdredacteur Seventwenty

Scholieren kruisen zelfs online de verbale degens

In deze tijden van corona is het moeilijk om onze debathobby nog te beoefenen. Studentenverenigingen en de Dutch Schools Debating College houden nog wel eens online avonden en trainingen, maar vrijwel alle toernooien zijn gestaakt. Daarom organiseerde de Nederlandse Debatbond op 10 mei speciaal voor middelbare scholieren een online debattoernooi.

16 teams vochten het in drie voorrondes uit om een plekje in de finale te mogen bemachtigen. Uiteindelijk bereikten de teams TEAm (Max Zaslove en Nonna van den Bos, Stedelijk Gymnasium Nijmegen) en Willi: Wortel (Laura van Helmond en Joep van Heugten, Willibrord Gymnasium Deurne) de finale, waar zij debatteerden over de stelling:

Coronamaatregelen zouden bepaald moeten worden door experts in plaats van democratisch verkozen politici.

Terwijl de jury overlegde werd er een quiz gespeeld (zie de vragen onderaan de pagina), welke werd gewonnen door Joshua Kamer: hij mocht zichzelf de held van de dag noemen! Na een zeer spannend finaledebat maakte de jury bekend dat de tegenstanders (Laura en Joep) er met de winst vandoor zouden gaan. Daardoor ging 50% van de donaties naar het Rode Kruis door een meerderheidsstem vanuit alle deelnemers en ging de overige 50 euro naar Stichting Vluchteling, gekozen door de winnaars.

Carli (student Politics, Psychology, Law and Economics aan de UvA):

Jij was lid van het hoofdjuryteam, wat onder andere betekent dat jij de stellingen hebt bedacht. Wat was jouw favoriete stelling van het toernooi?
“Staten moeten het bezit van de 10.000 allerrijkste mensen op aarde niet langer beschermen tegen geweldloze diefstal of ontvreemding”. Ik vind deze het leukst omdat hij lekker radicaal is maar ook omdat het erg belangrijk is dat debaters goed hun argumenten kunnen karakteriseren. Daardoor moet de analyse van de argumenten juist weer best genuanceerd zijn. Bovendien moeten grote filosofische vragen over eigendom, staatsfalen en zelfverdediging beantwoord worden.



Max (4e klas, Stedelijk Gymnasium Nijmegen):

Hoe heb jij het online toernooi ervaren? Wat vond je het leukste onderdeel?
Ik vond het een erg leuk toernooi. Het leukste vond ik over het algemeen de debatten zelf, en vooral het laatste debat omdat ik die stelling (“De Nederlandse overheid moet een universeel basisinkomen verstrekken in tijden van crisis in plaats van het huidige beleid”) erg leuk vond. Het was namelijk een economische stelling.

Wat was jullie sterkste argument vóór de finalestelling?
Mijn lievelingsargument in het finaledebat was het argument waarin we probeerden uit te leggen waarom politci inherent slecht zijn in beslissingen maken bij de coronacrisis en waarom experts inherent beter zijn. Mijn lievelingsargument in het finaledebat was het argument waarin we probeerden uit te leggen waarom politci inherent slecht zijn in beslissingen maken bij de coronacrisis en waarom experts inherent beter zijn. Onze belangrijkste redenering over hoe dit argument werkt, was dat politici inherent slechte prikkels hebben zoals naar het volk luisteren, wat slechte uitkomsten kan hebben. Deze prikkels hebben zij doordat zij gekozen worden door het volk en stemmen willen blijven krijgen.

Laura (6e klas, Willibrord Gymnasium Deurne):

Gefeliciteerd met de winst! Wat ging er door je heen toen je het nieuws hoorde?
Gewoon blijdschap! Dit was voor mij misschien wel mijn laatste scholierentoernooi dus ik was blij dat ik het op zo’n manier af kon sluiten.

Wat was jullie sterkste argument tegen de finalestelling?
Het idee dat het gaat om afwegingen maken in de coronacrisis en de afweging tussen beleid, dus hoe goed kunnen politici plannen maken tegen corona en hoe goed kunnen wetenschappers dat. Wij zeiden dat het belangrijk is om politici te hebben in plaats van experts omdat zij beter zijn in het maken van afwegingen. We vertelden ook dat politici hier meer aanzien in hebben vanuit de bevolking waardoor de maatregelen beter worden opgevolgd.

De Quiz

Hoeveel vragen heb jij goed? Laat het ons weten in de reacties!

1. De debatvereniging NSDV Trivium vinden we in Nijmegen. Welk woord is GEEN onderdeel van de Latijnse naam van Nijmegen?
A. Civitas
B. Noviomagus
C. Ulpia
D. Batavorum

2. De debatvereniging in Amsterdam heet ASDV Bonaparte. Waar stierf Napoleon Bonaparte?
A. St. Helena
B. Waterloo
C. Parijs
D. Toscane

3. Rotterdam is het thuisfront voor de Erasmus Debating Society. Wat is de bijnaam van Rotterdam?
A. De Erasmusstad
B. De Eurostad
C. De Havenstad
D. De Maasstad

4. Verenigingen doen meer dan alleen debat, zo was er dit jaar een spelletjesavond en is er binnenkort een online pubquiz. Welk spel wordt het meest verkocht?
A. Catan
B. Risk
C. Monopoly
D. Stratego

5. De Dutch Schools Debating College leidt middelbare scholieren op tot meesterdebaters. Hoe wordt de Wet op Voortgezet Onderwijs van 1963 ook genoemd?
A. De Neanderthalerwet
B. De Sabeltandwet
C. De IJstijdwet
D. De Mammoetwet

6. Traditie tijdens het toernooi van de Groningse debatclub Kalliope is om Eurovisie te kijken. Wie stuurt Nederland komende editie?

A
B
C
D

7. In Eindhoven vinden we ESDA Chronos, vernoemd naar een Grieks mythologisch figuur. Wat deed Chronos met zijn kinderen?
A. Hij liet ze op hun handen lopen
B. Hij liet ze in een doolhof achter
C. Hij at ze op
D. Hij dwong ze elke avond met elkaar te debatteren

8. Een oud-lid van de Leiden Debating Union was oud-minister Ard van der Steur. Welk ministerie leidde hij?
A. Justitie en Veiligheid
B. Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid
C. Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap
D. Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport

9. In Delft zit de studentendebatclub TU Delft Debating Club. Hoe worden Delftse studenten ook wel genoemd?
A. Bestudeerende Manenkijkers
B. Omhooggevallen Fietsenmakers
C. Chemische Glazenwassers
D. Hippodinden

10. Het WK debat was vorig jaar in Zuid Afrika en Nederland stuurde uiteraard teams. Welk dier is geen lid van de Big 5?
A. Nijlpaard
B. Buffel
C. Luipaard
D. Olifant

11. In de Domstad vinden we de Utrecht Debating Society. Welke van de volgende mensen is GEEN geboren Utrechter?

A
B
C
D

12. Stellingen… Stellingen…. Wat is de stelling van Amsterdam?
A. Een uitspraak van Johan Cruyff
B. Een waterverdedigingswerk
C. Een burcht in Amsterdam de Pijp
D. Een wiskundige formule om de hoeken van een cirkel te berekenen

13. Het Tilburgse Cicero is vernoemd naar redenaar Cicero. Het woord cicerone is afgeleid van zijn naam. Wat betekent dat?
A. Zilveren tong
B. Gedrevenheid
C. Moordenaar
D. Reisgids

Antwoorden
1-A, 2-A, 3-D, 4-D, 5-D, 6-B, 7-C, 8-A, 9-B, 10-A, 11-C, 12-C, 13-D

doorHoofdredacteur Seventwenty

WHO IS SEVENTWENTY?

An update on the new editorial board, vision and plans of the Dutch debating blog 7/20

Written by Jelte Schievels

As many of you hopefully know, a new Bondsbestuur has been installed last October. One of the plans of this new board was to reenergize the famous Dutch Debating blog: Seventwenty (7/20). Seventwenty has been pretty active in the past, but has been a bit more quite the last few years. For those of you who are not familiar with what 7/20 is and what it is going to do, or for those of you who are aware what 7/20 is but would like to know what it is going to be: you have come to the right place. This short article will serve as an introduction to the new editorial board and what our plans are for the upcoming months.

Meer lezen

doorHoofdredacteur Seventwenty

Toernooiverslag: Cicero 2017

Op 25 november was het weer tijd voor het gezelligste debattoernooi van zuidelijk Nederland: het Cicero Toernooi. Georganiseerd door Mike en Lotte, goed bezocht door iedereen die wist waar het feestje te vinden was dit weekend (en niet in Munich of Cork of Newcastle zat). Rond 10 uur begon de eerste ronde, enigszins vertraagd door een aantal laatkomers. Dit liet in ieder geval genoeg tijd over voor een rustig ontbijt.

Meer lezen

doorHoofdredacteur Seventwenty

Preview of Dutch Debating League #2: Leiden!

Dear debaters,

Tonight is the second night of the Dutch Debating League. LDU has the honour to host this edition. After the previous edition in Delft, this is the current ranking:

  1. Leiden, 8 points
  2. UDS, 6 points
  3. Bonaparte, 6 points
  4. EDS, 5 points
  5. Trivium, 4 points
  6. GDS, 4 points
  7. Delft, 4 points
  8. Cicero, 3 points

Participating on behalf of the societies will be:

Leiden Debating Union:                Floris Holstege & Emma Lucas
Utrecht Debating Society:            Pieter van der Veere & Elvire Landstra
ASDV Bonaparte:                            Marike Breed & Josse van Proosdij
Erasmus Debating Society:           Urmi Pahladsingh & Emma van der Horst
NSDV Trivium:                                 Ike Lieshout & Daan Welling
GDS Kalliope:                                   Linsey Keur & Lise van der Meer
TU Delft Debating Club:                Fons van der Beek & Tanya Srivastava
TDV Cicero:                                      Lisa van Vliet & Mike Weltevrede

Meer lezen

doorHoofdredacteur Seventwenty

Commentary on Dutch Debating League #1: TUDDC

Good evening dear debaters,

Last Tuesday was the kick-off of the Dutch Debating League (DDL). For those who are not familiar with the DDL, eight institutions send two delegates to represent themselves and debate the other institutions. Every society hosts one night, which means there are eight nights. The debates will be held in the British Parliamentary format. When a team wins, it gets 4 points, second means 3 points, third means 2 points, fourth means 1 point, not showing up gives you 0 points.

The first night was in Delft. When I walked in, I noticed that the atmosphere was a little competitive, but still very nice. I interviewed some people to get to know their opinions and expectations.

Meer lezen

doorHoofdredacteur Seventwenty

Preview of Dutch Debating League #1: Delft!

Geschreven door: Jos Buijvoets

The first matchday of the Dutch Debating League will take place today! In this preview you’ll find all the predictions, statistics and analysis you need to get warmed up for this exciting day!

Participating on behalf of the societies will be:
Utrecht: Florine Rombach & Pieter van der Veere
Cicero: Lotte Claassen & Jos Buijvoets
Bonaparte: Zeno Glastra van Loon & Lana Moss
Delft: Fons van der Beek & Tanya Srivastava
Groningen: Joris Graff & Bjorn Bleumink
Erasmus: Jelle van Eijk & Joeri Willems
Trivium: Simone Landman & Ellen Goltstein
Leiden: Roel Becker & Gigi Gil

Meer lezen

doorHoofdredacteur Seventwenty

WUDC Bid – Mexico

SevenTwenty will give all bids for WUDC a space to promote their bid. First up: Mexico. 

Why did we decide to host the World Universities Debating Championship in México?

WUDC Mexico

It can be argued that México is America’s youngest democracy, with only 16 years of existence. This step though, has not meant that all the democratic freedoms are available to everyone. The majority (over 50 million) of people in the country remain poor, and under 15% are able to attend university. There is also a big misunderstanding of what democracy means, particularly because there are systemic constraints that avoid people to be well informed of what happéns in the country, or see alternatives to paradigms or political options that are presented in a dogmatic way.

México is a country in sheer need of debate. Here it is largely (mis)understood as talking in a sophisticated and rhetoric way. that might totally lack content but as long as it sounds like “a political speech” it is considered a great speech. This has very negative results in terms of what is understood as “debate” in politics, education and everyday life.

There are, however, some of us that are students or former students that are in a position of privilege and have attended some of the best universities in the country and the world, and have have competed at the world’s main tournaments. We want to change the meaning of the word “debate” here, and we are sure that bringing an event like the World Universities Debating Championship will give important visibility to the activity, change paradigms of what it means, get more support to the activity from key public and private actors that can help spread the activity around the country, and it would help us help set up several teams.

In 2014, the Tec de Monterrey Campus Estado de México team organized WUDC in Spanish (CMUDE) and bringing it here had a multiplier effect: internationally,we literally called universities and set the first parliamentary debate teams in Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Panamá to compete at the tournament. After that, Panamá has already hosted a national championship and competed at Worlds 2016. With Worlds in México we will make sure the same happens and that several countries that have never attended Worlds or have been absent for several years, are finally able to participate. Same case with many teams from countries that already attend Worlds, but can’t afford the trip. It is time, after 38 years, for Worlds to come to our region.

Domestically, before that tournament we could only talk about three teams in the country, all from the México City metropolitan area. But for that championship, 12 universities competed, and that helped us concrete several projects in 2015: we had a Metropolitan League, a National Championship in Spanish (with teams from 8 states and 16 universities), a National Championship in English (MUDC), and México rose from being a single university competing three years earlier, to seventeen at CMUDE Colombia, becoming the country with most teams.

At WUDC México 2018 we are committed to change the meaning of WUDC and attach many social programs based on debate for México and the region of Latin America and the Caribbean in the two years leading towards the tournament, as well as the days before and during the event, with plans for making it a turning point for canalizing resources for future debate projects.

Beyond all of this, the Mexicans are people that are very passionate about our country and culture, and we love to share it with the world. Maybe in debate we have not won world championships, but if there was a “best host” world championship, we would be tough to beat. We want to show that. We are keen to show that the Mexicans defy stereotypes and can put on world-class events in terms of hospitality and organization and our commitment is to do the best WUDC ever. When we hosted CMUDE we gave another meaning to that championship (and ran a tab with no delays), and we want to use local talent for innovating on tab, IT, registration, social impact and many other areas where we will leave a legacy for debating.

Every bid will include a world -class adjudication team. What they cannot promise is a plan for real deep social change, the cheerful spirit (not only in terms of alcohol) of the Mexicans, the city with most World Heritage sites in the world, and our eagerness to share why we can be the best hosts, always. We’re proud to propose.

David Alatorre López & Montserrat Legorreta

Co-Convenors WUDC México 2018

doorHoofdredacteur Seventwenty

Powerful Adjudication – Protecting the quality of our circuit

Tomas Beerthuis reflects on adjudication in the Dutch Debating Circuit. 
Adjudication, a crucial part of competitive debate, is under increased pressure and threat in the Dutch debating scene. In order to ensure continuous growth of new debaters, we need to protect the quality of adjudication and with that, the quality of debate. For that, a different approach is necessary.
Why good judging is crucial
A lot of us love debating because it allows you to play an intelligent game that can be won by being better at playing it. When judges fail to understand the rules of the game, part of the fun disappears. Few people are born a good judge, it requires time and practice to internalize the rules and etiquette. When you play Tennis and you are serving, it’s annoying when the referee doesn’t know that when the ball touches the net and subsequently crosses it, it means you get another service. When playing Hasbro’s Risk, it’s annoying when another player doesn’t know that you can cross from the Middle East to East Africa. When you play football and the other side scores when it’s off-side, it would be frustrating if the goal would count nonetheless. When the outcome of a debate is arbitrary, based on individual preferences, winning and losing becomes luck. It’s then a bit like Russian roulette, where you hope to get lucky each time.
Apart from reduced fun, poor adjudication influences how much people learn. Great feedback that is spot on can really give people the boost that they need to develop their skills and feel empowered. Moreover, without good adjudication, competitions are simply no longer fair. It’s much less fun to call yourself the winner of a tournament if the results were completely random. Especially in a game where we like to test ourselves in competitions, we need to ensure that there is a very strong common understanding of what winning looks like. Without that, the foundation of the game is lost.
Threats to good adjudication in The Netherlands
The Dutch debating scene, still a relatively small scene, has historically had a relatively deep and wide judging pool. Today there are 2 key developments:
#1: There is a decrease in training new judges
Debating societies spend much less time on training new judges than they did historically. There are few judging workshops, there is little encouragement for judging as a separate challenge and very few rewards for judges from societies. For example, judges often need to pay to go to a tournament, which can work as a discouragement. This development breaks down the foundations needed to build a strong pool of judges in the Dutch circuit. Often societies struggle to balance various priorities, such as recruitment, finance and tournaments. However, what’s important to recognize, is that without investment in adjudication, the game gets badly damaged. It’s not much use organizing a fantastic debate evening or a tournament if the outcomes are rubbish. It discourages people, leads them to believe that the game is random and diminishes their development.
#2: There are too few (good) judges
The historically wide and deep judging pool has decreased over the past few years. Increasingly, tournaments are struggling to fit each room with a competent chair judge, leading to a decrease in the strength of our adjudication. This is partly because of development #1, but also because societies tend to send novice members to adjudicate, rather than mobilizing their experienced core. There is also a tendency to break/dodge the N-1 rule, furthering strengthening the problem at tournaments.
How we change the tide 
There are tons of initiatives possible to change these developments. Below I suggest some that I support and that have shown to be effective in the past.
1. Use incentives to promote judging 
We need to reward judging as something that is valuable to our game and community. Not only does this give proper credit, it also encourages others to judge more. Think of things like making judges attend a tournament for free (no reg-fee) or getting a free drink. For top judges, consider paying for their travel costs or parking. Societies wanting to organize a tournament should include this as a cost line in their budget. Or set-up a point system (possibly within societies) that allows you to be prioritized for tournaments when you’ve judged a lot. Alternatively, use a stick rather than a carrot and set-up a system where you need to judge in order to speak at tournaments.
2. Mobilize (experienced) judges to judge
Societies very often do not meet their N-1 rule or send novice judges to competitions. This doesn’t help judging, because there will be too few experienced judges to help train the novice judges. Moreover, there are too few judges in numbers as well, because societies often try to dodge the N-1 rule. This needs a change in behavior from societies to mobilize more (experienced) judges. There is a role for the Dutch Debating Association to help enforce this.
3. Actively train new judges 
I strongly believe that societies should invest in actively training new judges. This can be done by organizing judging workshops, sharing educational videos or just spending 5 minutes at the beginning of a debate evening to discuss a judging question or case, inspiring people to think like a judge.
4. Share knowledge across the circuit 
There is a role for the Dutch Debating Association to leverage the existing knowledge sharing system online, organize workshops or promote cross-society learning. Think of sharing judge briefings, videos, documentation or possibly even picking judge accreditation back up. It’s also the Association’s responsibility to protect judging across the circuit.
5. Take individual responsibility 
This applies more to experienced debaters than those just starting. Having enjoyed good adjudication gives you a responsibility to give back to the circuit by going to tournaments and judging yourself. In a game where everything relies on volunteers, this is your chance to give back to debating and help others be as good as you became.
Putting in place the measures above will no doubt help to bring back judging to a higher level. We need to also sustain that over time. What tends to happen in debating, is that we forget about judging when the circuit or a society is having a challenging time. Especially then, we need more investment in good judging. When your society is struggling to retain members, it will not do much good to have even worse judging. This will deter people from debating further, rather than make your life easier. It would also exacerbate all of the issues outlined above, leading to worse outcomes.

We can bring back powerful adjudication to our circuit – using smart tools to encourage and cherish judging. Simultaneously, we should take responsibility for judging and share our knowledge across the circuit. It’s important to maintain a dialogue around developments such as these in our circuit. In order to respond adequately to challenges in Dutch debating, we need to identify existing problems and offer solutions to try and make a change. It’s my hope that this article will contribute to that as a first step.

10013525_724879434212289_635989274_n

Photo credit to Manuel Adams

doorHoofdredacteur Seventwenty

Education: Dutch Debating Dinosaurs tell you what to know about WUDC

Very often, you hear debaters say that WUDC was nothing like they expected. A once in a lifetime experience. Exhausting, a thrill. Are you preparing for WUDC? Read the below interview with some Dutch Debating Dinosaurs – including WUDC ESL champions, ESL (semi-)finalists and DCA’s for WUDC and EUDC. We asked them what their most important tips and tricks for a successful WUDC participation are, and they started chatting away: Meer lezen

doorHoofdredacteur Seventwenty

Education: What to listen to to prepare for WUDC

It’s December again, the time of the year of final frantic preparations for WUDC. For those of you participating, the Adjudication Core of the 2015 WUDC in Malaysia shares their thoughts on what to listen to before and during WUDC.DSCN1561 Meer lezen