Categorie Archief Nieuws

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!

 

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.

Om het kaf van het koren te scheiden werd afgetrapt met de stelling “DK ontzegt kinderen zonder vaccinatiebewijs toegang tot crèche en basisschool.” Deze ronde werd vervolgd door “DK voert sterk verhoogd toezicht in (bijvoorbeeld camera’s), in gebieden met hoge niveaus van criminaliteit.” Vooral met deze tweede stelling hadden een aantal oppositieteams wat moeite.

Over moeite gesproken, na de tweede stelling begaf helaas ook het tabsysteem het. Binnen no-time was dit opgelost door Mike en Georgeena, de helden van de dag. Desondanks werd hier wel weer wat vertraging opgelopen. Gelukkig was het toernooi in AP-format, wat sneller gaat dan BP en ervoor zorgde dat er in elk geval geen rondes geschrapt hoefden te worden (Hoezee! AP heeft zich weer bewezen als een briljant format).

In ronde 3 werd gedebatteerd over het invoeren van maatwerkonderwijs, een onderwijssysteem op de middelbare school waarbinnen leerlingen vakken kunnen volgen op verschillende niveaus, bijvoorbeeld natuurkunde op VWO niveau en Nederlands op VMBO-T niveau. Om de spanning er goed in te houden, was het vanaf ronde 4 tijd voor gesloten rondes. De laatste twee stellingen luidden “DK gelooft dat alleen schrijvers uit etnische minderheidsgroepen boeken mogen schrijven waarin de hoofdpersonen uit die etnische minderheidsgroepen komen” en “DK steunt de vorming van een Europees leger.”

En toen was het moment daar. Hetgeen waar het Cicerotoernooi wél om geroemd wordt: het eten! Ooit geïntroduceerd door iemand die beter bekend staat als de Messias van Cicero, de heerlijkheden verschaft voor het genot van prominent debatterend Nederland werden gepresenteerd en aangeprezen door een opengetrokken blik Cicero-vrijwilligers. Waar menig lijp links stemmend individu nog wel was te paaien voor een maaltijd waar enkel plantenleed in vermengd was, ging het gros van ons sociale niche watertandend richting het dode vlees. Met Grolsch pils in de ene hand, en de lekkernijen van Eva in de andere, was de verbale veldslag van de dag tijdelijk vergeten. Broeder- en zusterschap keerde terug naar de aula van de pittoreske middelbare school.
De halve finalestelling werd aangekondigd: “DK steunt het demonetisatieproces (de afschaffing van contant geld als betaalmiddel) in opkomende economieën.” Toepasselijke woorden van Marcus Cicero: “The greater the difficulty, the greater the glory.” In de halve finales moest de Aryan Brotherhood (Josse en Pieter) en Ceylan’s Angels (Wieger en Joeri) helaas het onderspit delven.

In de pro-am finale vonden Alex Klein en Marlise Huijzer zichzelf tegenover Axel Hirschel en Tom Huijdts om te debatteren over de stelling “DK gelooft dat volwassenen pas vlees mogen eten wanneer zij persoonlijk een dier hebben geslacht.” Terugdenkend aan het enthousiasme waarmee men zich luttele momenten daarvoor nog op de spaghetti bolognese had gestort, leek deze met het grootste gemak naar de oppositie te gaan. Met een hedonistische debatlijn waarin het geluk van een hamburger eten zegevierde, werd voor ééns en altijd de moraliteit van het veganisme uit het raam gegooid. Deze stelling zorgde naar het debat misschien wel het meest voor discussies, maar dat kon ook liggen aan het bier dat bij het avondeten werd geserveerd, dat nog steller op ging dan het eten. Wat echt heel snel ging. Er werden tot vier keer toe vrijwilligers de kou in gestuurd, terug naar de supermarkt.
Daarna was het eindelijk tijd voor de finale: “DK betreurt het narratief ‘gewoon jezelf zijn’.” De stelling was wellicht niet het gesprek van de avond, het debat zelf wel. Jan-Pjotr en Lana moesten het opnemen tegen Wieger er Veroniek om te bepalen of je nu wél, of niet jezelf moet zijn. Ook hierbij zijn de woorden van Marcus Cicero goed om naar te luisteren: “When you are aspiring to the highest place, it is honorable to reach the second or even the third rank.” Het sociaal conformeren moest in een moeilijk te beoordelen strijd de meerdere erkennen in het ‘in je eigen kracht staan’. B’vo voor het individualisme! De prijzen werden tien minuten voordat het gebouw zou sluiten uitgereikt en de meeste vreugde was nog wel te vinden in kamp Amsterdam. Nadat Josse zich jarenlang gedwongen zag het meedoen belangrijker te achten dan het winnen, mocht hij nu eindelijk een medaille om zijn nek draperen. Ook de beste novicespreker (of beloftenspreker, zeggen we dat nog?) van de dag werd aangekondigd, deze prijs ging naar Marlise Huijzer.

Aan het eind van de avond was zowel het debatvolk als de aanwezige biervoorraad redelijk uitgedund. Verdriet en vreugde werden daarom in gelijke mate verdronken in een café met een Cubaanse naam, maar specifieke namen behoorden tegen die tijd al lang tot de vergetelheid. Volgend jaar bent u allen weer welkom in Tilburg!

– Lucia van de Ven, met aanvullingen van Jan-Willem van Wouw

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

Almost all societies are represented by other debaters than last time. Delft is the only society to send the same team, consisting of Fons “the always smiling man” van der Beek and Tanya Srivastava, who chaired the Maastricht Novice final. This team took twice a third in their home game, which resulted in four points. Fons: “We actually hoped we could take a second one of the rounds, but because of the points system, it looks like we’re going straight.” Tanya will be the only non-Dutch speaker in Leiden, but to Fons this is not really relevant. TUDDC has an international character, so he is used to it.

The other consistent factor is Cicero semi-finalist Pieter van der Veere. Pieter has been in the debating news, because of a crowdfunding that was started to make him wear high heels at the next tournament. Anonymous sources told me that UDS had some struggles finding their delegates. This is because Pieter only wanted to go if he had a team partner who is good enough for him. Fortunately, he found someone, because Mace finalist and UCU convenor Elvire Landstra joins him to make the UDS delegation complete. Elvire and Pieter feel a little rusty, because they have been judging a lot lately, but after the Cicero tournament, they are ready to fight!

Wise people say `never change a winning team’. Hosting society LDU doesn´t seem to agree upon that. Gigi and Roel did splendid jobs, winning both debates in Delft, but nevertheless they are exchanged for Warsaw EUDC Leiden A, consisting of Floris Holstege and Emma Lucas. When I asked them if they feel pressure, Floris replied ‘no’, but Emma replied that she wouldn’t dare to show her face at LDU again if they take less than five points. This notorious duo is loved and feared within the community. Not only because they became best and third ESL speaker in Tallinn, but also because of the memewar with Bonaparte. An anonymous source told me this juicy fact: “Emma was about to go with Marike, but apparently, Bona did not find her good enough, so now she’s speaking on behalf of Leiden.” Floris and Emma hold a little grudge and really want to beat Bona, but unfortunately, they won’t meet each other tomorrow.

Their old nemesis Bonaparte is represented by DTU Fantasy team House Targaryan, consisting of Roosevelt Open finalist Marike Breed and Josse van Proosdij, who was named best speaker at the Cicero tournament. To show their awesomeness, Bona brings a crapload of supporters. When I asked Marike the inevitable question, about whether she wants to perform better than LDU, Marike replied: “We always feel pressure to perform well, but with a bunch of Bonaparte supporters, that pressure is even bigger.” Rumour has it that Amber van Lochem was writing new Bona-songs last weekend, so the supporters are probably going to be enthusiastic (and annoying) as always.

Erasmus Debating Society also shows up with an entirely different team. Emma van der Horst, who was CA in Delft, is now going to prove her skills for her society. The UCU semi-finalist knows that she needs to live up to a lot of expectations, as EDS got ranked third in the predictions. With her will be speaking Urmi Pahladsingh, who does not show up at many student tournaments. Fun fact, Urmi was in the same team as David Metz and Louis Honée in the final for schoolies 2014/2015, which David can’t seem to get out of his head. Furthermore, she was a finalist at Erasmus Rotterdam Open 2016.

NSDV Trivium is represented by UCU finalists Daan “vegan self-aware privilege boy (thanks Ike)” Welling and Ike “mama Trivium” Lieshout. Ike is known to be the fire feminist of the debating community and to have an amazing clothing style. Daan, as a former member of LDU, said that he wants to beat his old society in “the Lion’s den.” So far, Trivium has been living up to the expectations, as they are fifth in the ranking right know, but Ike and Daan want to change this.

GDS Kalliope will be represented by the Tilburg Women’s finalists, Linsey Keur and Lise van der Meer. Lise was last seen on a tournament at the KDT, where she was CA. Linsey was last seen on every tournament ever including the Cicero tournament, which she CA’ed. GDS got ranked eighth in the predictions, so the Groningers really want to prove everyone wrong. In the previous round they took four points. Linsey: “We are happy with four points, but Lise and I will try to do better, even though the other teams are very good. ”

Last but not least, TDV Cicero, who hosts the Dutch Nationals this year (congrats!), is represented by chairwoman Lisa van Vliet and Mighty Mike Weltevrede, who is known for his controversial speaker points analysis. This duo almost reached the break at Rotterdam Open last year and is not going easy on any of the other teams. It’s clear that they want to get rid of their place at the bottom of the ranking. Mike: “The competition is strong, but we are just going to do what we always do: our utmost. There is no specific strategy. (Although you never van really do wrong with determinism.”

 

It is clear that all the teams are very excited. We wish them the best of luck. May de motions be ever in their favour.

 

By: Daan Spackler

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.

Leiden (Gigi and Roel) gave the impression that they were going to bring their A-game. Roel used this opportunity as an excuse to wear his blazer and his tie. When I asked about it, he said “Jasje dasje, lul!”, which can’t really be translated. Everyone knows that Roel and Gigi would have been shamed if they did not take eight points. Marike already texted Roel “eight points or we’re done”. It was very clear that Leiden was not going to take it easy on anyone.

But neither was UDS, consisting of Pieter and Florine. “We are very excited for tonight,” is what Pieter told me. Florine agreed and said “I’m very happy to represent UDS for once”. When I asked her how the UDS/UCU construction worked, she pointed at her sweater and showed that she was the only one wearing a UDS sweater.

Trivium, represented by Ellen and Simone, hid in the corner, but I wanted to make sure I had spoken with my own society as well. When I asked them how the felt about tonight, the keyword was ‘nervous’. Simone: “I’m looking forward to the first round, but the nerves are coming right now.” I asked Ellen if she had faith in tonight, but she replied that she had faith in Simone, which is good enough.

Bjorn spoke on behalf of GDS. “Yes, of course, I think it’s going to be fun. I just hope that Joris is going to show up as soon as possible, otherwise, I have a problem.” I was surprised that GDS matriarch Linsey wasn’t coming, but she had other duties.

The last society I managed to interview before round one, was Cicero, represented by Euros team Cicero A, Jos and Lotte. Jos gave me a very inspiring analysis on the first DDL night: “We’re standing at the beginning of something beautiful, Daan. The beginning of a competition that is going to form a new generation of debaters. They will look back on this very day, as the beginning of a new debating world.” Wise words if you ask me. Lotte said that I can’t interview her after she did not do so well, so I left her with a compliment on her outfit.

Fun fact: Emma van der Horst, who was CA with Niels Buijssen, had made cupcakes. They were delicious, so here is an extra moment of appreciation for Emma’s cupcakes.

After round one, the results were announced. The two teams that took a first were LDU and Bona, UDS and Trivium second, Delft and Cicero third, and unfortunately a fourth to GDS and EDS.

I went to Zeno and Lana, who represented Bonaparte. The DAPDI winners seemed rather cool about their win. Zeno: “Such a pity that not everyone can take a fourth.” Lana agreed and said: “This was dramatic. We are happy that the panel bought our case.” I replied that I thought their case was quite solid. Steven from EDS: 80 speaks anyway! (He wasn’t judging.) Zeno added to this: “Please note that Ajax beat Feyenoord with 4-1!”

EDS, represented by Joeri and Jelle, wasn’t really in for a short interview. Joeri: “No comments at all.” Jelle: “Shut the fuck up with your SevenTwenty, it was way better when Jelte did it (Thanks Jelle, red.).” Even Sterre had no comments for me. (L)

Hosting society Delft was represented by Fons and Tanya. I asked: “When I say first DDL night, what do you say?” Tanya: “Yay, it’s awesomeeee! I’m super excited!” After that, she started laughing about the Febo stains in Roel’s shirt. Fons, as founder of TUDDC seemed very proud of his society, and rightly so!

Round two started quite quick. This debate was about redistributing donations for charity. The draws were made randomly, but it turned out that the teams that took a first or a second met each other and the teams that took a third or a fourth met each other. LDU and EDS took a first, UDS and GDS a second, Bona and Delft a third and Trivium and Cicero, unfortunately, a fourth.

This means two things. Firstly, these are the results after the first DDL night:

  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

Secondly, Roel and Marike stay together! <3. I think the whole debating community is happy with this.

It was a nice start of the Dutch Debating League. I think Emma and Niels did splendid jobs by setting two awesome motions and judging the debates very good. I also want to give a big compliment to the organization of Delft and the DDL committee. Until next time!

By: Daan Spackler

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

With close to perfect gender balance, these teams represent the best the Dutch debating scene has to offer. We’ll look at each of the teams and what they bring to the table. First however we would like to present to you the consensus predictions of the Dutch Debating Society as voted on by its members.

1. Leiden
2. Bonaparte
3. Erasmus
4. Utrecht
5. Trivium
6. Cicero
7. Delft
8. Groningen

Note that Erasmus and Utrecht tied in these predictions, and therefore we gave the win to Erasmus for [reasons], which seemed the fairest solution.

Now on to the teams!

Representing Utrecht will be Florine and Pieter. Florine is known for advocating on behalf of her actual debating society, UCU, to be part of the Dutch Debating League. She has taken up quite the cause as within the current set of rules this not only does this require the elimination of one of the participating societies, but also for UCU to be given preference over (potential) members of the debating union such as Eindhoven, Maastricht and Wageningen. Pieter is known for being one of the best debaters of the Netherlands, breaking at a number of tournaments and doing really well at both EUDC 2016 and 2017, coming close to an ESL break twice. He’s also studying to be a doctor!

Representing organizational heavyweight Cicero will be Lotte and Jos, Cicero A. Lotte is an Oxford Women’s finalist, the Tilburg University campus poet and will be going to exchange on Japan in a few months, and you will be missed! She is also the Convenor of Cicero 2017, the most enjoyable debating tournament of The Netherlands. Jos is the founder of a bunch of stuff, we don’t really know what he does all day; and he also a number of speaker and judge breaks at debate tournaments, good for you Jos! He will be a CA at Maastricht Novice 2017, which you should attend.

Representing Bonaparte will be DAPDI 2017 champions, Bonaparte B: Zeno & Lana. Zeno is known for having a bunch of novice breaks and pursues two degrees, one of which is biology, I think? Lana is the chairwoman of Bonaparte and tasked with challenges such as managing Axel, Tom and Josse. You people know what I’m talking about. Sorry for including you Tom. The pressure is on for these two as they are considered the 2nd strongest team present by the Dutch Debating Community!

Home team Delft will be represented by Fons and Tanya. Fons is of course known as the founder of Delft and will have the audience rooting for him. He is also an aerospace engineer, making Pieter feel what other people feel when he tells them he’s going to be a doctor. Tanya is the only non-Dutch person participating, which now becomes awkward as it is pointed out explicitly. She is one of the key people behind Delft and would have showed some remarkable skill at EUDC 2017, if she had actually made the tournament.

Groningen will be represented by Joris and Bjorn. Joris is a philosopher, ranks 93th on the Dutch debating rankings and is as a board member one of the pillars of the Groningen Debating Society. Bjorn studies public administration and uses his debating skills for the greater good, teaching children on behalf of the organization known as Socrates. He is from Winterswijk which is officially the coldest place in The Netherlands, so expect him to bring the heat.

Erasmus will be represented by Jelle and Joeri. Jelle is known for his organizational contributions to debating such as being DAPDI convenor or a Dutch Worlds org com member. His self-professed biggest accomplishment in debating is beating Jos at tournaments! He also has some speaker breaks. Joeri is known for having a number of speaker breaks, reaching the finals of Bonaparte 2017. He also has a bunch of pets and there was a fire in his building recently. Hopefully the pets are alright!

Trivium will be sending Simone and Ellen. Simone is known for breaking at a bunch of tournaments as both speaker and judge. She was a judge at EUDC 2017 and an org com member at WUDC 2017. Ellen is a Trivium board member and known for getting tagged in memes a lot.

Gigi and Roel will be representing Leiden, the society that will shame them for not winning every round. Gigi broke open at WUDC 2017, is Dutch national debating champion and a EUDC 2018 CA, so she’s pretty good. Roel was 2nd best ESL speaker at EUDC 2015 and reached the open quarter-finals of EUDC 2017, using an extension he stole from Cicero A. He has retired multiple times from debating, but still shows up for this, what a character!

doorEUDC-, WUDC- and WSDC-reporter

Dutch Worlds Is Over: The Results

Dutch Worlds 2017 is officially over. Part of the Dutch delegation has made its way home again, while the organisation and some volunteers are still working hard. Time for one final look at Dutch Worlds for the Dutchies.

The teams that eventually broke were Leiden B and Leiden C in the ESL-category, and Leiden A in the Open-category. Leiden B and C topped the ESL tab, while Leiden A was the first ever Leiden team to make it to the Open break. Unfortunately, Maastricht A did not make the break in the end, just as all other Dutch teams who were already ‘dead’. Break night was a lot of fun, being the best attended social of Dutch Worlds. Although Leiden C missed the Open break by the narrowest margin possible (1 speak) and Leiden B by a mere 4 speaks, feelings of euphoria and pride dominated the Dutch delegation. Of course Leiden B and C were disappointed at first with just missing the Open break, however, once the beer started flowing these feelings were postponed to the next morning. The Dutch delegation celebrated New Year fanatical and controlled the dance floor.

The next morning, Leiden A had to perform in the Partial-double Octos (PDO). The motion read ‘This House believes that countries close to conflict zones should only grant long-term asylum to refugees who agree to one year of military service’ and Gigi and Emma were Closing Government. After a thrilling debate, the judges decided it was a first-half debate, thus Leiden A was eliminated. Still, the delegation was extraordinary proud of the best performing Dutch team this year.

Following the PDO were the ESL quarterfinals. On the motion ‘This House Believes That the US should provide significant campaign funding for federal and state congressman and senators who score highly on bipartisan matters’ Leiden B was CG, Leiden C was OG. Both teams managed to convince the judges they deserved to join the last 8 ESL teams left standing and advanced to the ESL-semis. On the Motion ‘This House, as the Pope, would abolish the requirement for clerical celibacy’, both Leiden teams drew CO. Leiden C was able to advance to the ESL finals. Leiden B was less fortunate. Having watched the debate, the call seemed impossible to make. Roel and Devin both delivered speeches that rank amongst the best I have ever seen. An extension that explained the Pope’s incentives like no other team in the debate had done, required in an actor-motion, combined with outstanding rebuttal seemed to guarantee them a well-deserved place in the ESL-final. When the results were announced at the social that night, the complete Dutch delegation was in disbelief. Bona and UDS expressed their anger, while Leiden was experiencing contradictory emotions. Everybody was happy Leiden C, on a 4-3 split, made it to the ESL-finals but at the same time grieved over the injustice that had been done to Leiden B.

Life went on, and Tuesday was the day Floris and Lisa could be crowned world champions. In the Zuiderstrandtheather just outside of Den Haag, three finals would be held. Starting with the EFL-final, followed by the ESL-final and lastly the Open-final. The EFL-final was messy and some Dutchies questioned the ‘EFL-ness’ of various speakers. Most viewers thought the win would go to CO, Belgrade C. After the EFL-final, it was time for the ESL-final. The tension was rising as the Dutch delegation took place in the audience and wished Leiden C all the best one last time. Floris and Lisa drew Closing Government, Floris’ favourite position. Tel Aviv B, Leiden’s biggest opponent got appointed CO. The motion read ‘THW force all news organisations to operate as a non-profit’.

The debate started out weird, when OG chose a model which included state subsidies, not only to set-up these news organisations, but also to keep them free. OO seemed to win the clash in opening half, but brought some uncomparative analysis. When first half was over, it was Floris’ time to shine. Over 7 minutes of sharp analysis followed about the influence of corporations and how that hurt the current news organisation, and in addition how this model would provide more diversity. Tel Aviv pointed out some tension between CG and OG. Furthermore, they talked about why nationalisation of news organisations is harmful and problematized the individuals that would set-up the new news organisations. Lisa clarified the tension between OG and CG in her speech and delivered a strong speech in which she tackled quite some of the points of rebuttal that had been made by Tel Aviv. Unfortunately, it proved insufficient. Tel Aviv was crowned world champion as they won the debate with a 4-3 split over OO.

Other results were as follows. In the Open-final, Sydney A managed to win as OG, the EFL-final was won by Belgrade C in CO. Floris became 5th best ESL-speaker, Roel and Devin shared a 9th place, Lisa became 11th. The Dutch teams ended up ranking as follows:

Leiden A – 18 points
Leiden B – 17 points
Leiden C – 17 points
Maastricht A – 13 points
Leiden D – 13 points
Utrecht A – 12 points
Wageningen A – 12 points
Maastricht B – 9 points
Bonaparte A – 9 points

The other Dutch speakers ranked on the ESL-list as follows:
Emma – 22nd
Gigi – 32nd
Katharina – 66th
Anna – 76th
Jelte – 94th
Pieter – 116th
Louis – 122nd
Alwin – 145th
Tom P – 159th
Tom G – 167th
Nathania – 167th
Zeno – 191st
Aljosa – 204th
Frederic – 224th

Concluding, Dutch WUDC was a huge success. The teams did well, with some even reaching to the finals. Some Dutch judges got to chair rounds and were even represented in the CA-team. The volunteers worked their butts off for 7 days straight and the orgcom for even longer. I want to thank everybody for contribution to what made Dutch Worlds one of the best world championships ever organised.