Category Archive Debate Technical

Source cover image: 50+ In Nederland

This House would offer people living in the Randstad a financial incentive to move to a shrinking region (‘krimpregio’).

NK 2021 – Round 1

A nice accessible motion to start the NK with. The dynamics between shrinking regions and the Randstad are something that many people can imagine and a lot of depth is possible here.

Source cover image: Principal

This House would significantly increase the corporate income tax in major business centres of the world, such as Macau, Jakarta, New York, Sydney, London.

Groningen Open 2021 – Semifinals

This was one of the topics debated during this year’s edition of the Groningen Open 2021 last weekend. It represented the semifinal topic, which means that only the best eight teams participating in the tournament got the opportunity to debate it. As the Chief Adjudicator panel (a.k.a. the people who pick the motions) myself, we chose this one for an outround both because it requires a higher level of economic knowledge and because it asks speakers to ponder important questions about how we chose to set up our governments’ policy. In the following paragraphs, I will be discussing several arguments for the proposition and the opposition, and I’ll show how these logically interact. By the end of the article, readers should hopefully have a comprehensive account of the major clashes in opinion surrounding raising the corporate tax.

This House prefers a world with guaranteed employment over one with universal basic income.

Tilburg Women’s Open 2021 – Round 1

With this motion, Tilburg Women’s Open 2021 started on a good note. Basic income has always been an interesting topic for me personally. This specific motion really appealed to me because it offers the opportunity to look at the fundamental values ​​of a society and also gives the opportunity to fathom the motives of several stakeholders (government, poorer population, richer population, and companies). In the next section, I will highlight a few arguments in favour and against.

Source cover image: The Varsity

THBT the education system should use personality tests to stream children from a young age.

Leiden Open 2021 – Round 3

In the past, I had come across quite a few motions on academic streaming. However, I found this one motion at Leiden Open 2021 particularly interesting as it involved the use of personality tests. When I read the motion, the first thought that came to mind were sketchy online quizzes that told you what flavour of ice cream you were. But not to fret, there is actually quite an interesting discussion to be had here. 

These are just a few general ideas that came up during my debate which I found intriguing. If you have any other ideas, feel free to share your ideas and comment!

Source cover image: ABC News

At the Bonapartian Debate Tournament 2021, the debates immediately were spicy with the following motion:

This House regrets the decision of social media giants to ban Trump’s accounts.

BDT 2021 – Round 1

The ban of Donald J. Trump from social media channels was, of course, big news. This motion discussed whether that was a good idea. Before analyzing both sides of the motion, let me emphasize that the motion is not (necessarily) about defending Trump and his ideals. Therefore, the strategy is probably more focused on the decision itself and its effects on society as a whole. The average intelligent voter, at least in the Netherlands, is generally more in agreement with the Democratic side of the political spectrum, so it is not wrong to focus on that in this case.

It is February, the coldest months of the year are almost over, and that’s how the most romantic day of the year arrives: Valentine’s Day! That is why in this article I will analyze a motion on that age-old subject: love. I will analyze the following motion:

TH prefers a world where romantic love is not the primary consideration in a marriage.

What an unromantic motion for this time of year! But the first question that naturally arises when you claim that something shouldn’t be the most important is, of course, what should be the most important? And while the proposition may not necessarily want to prove that something else is most important, it will likely happen that they will cite some examples. The motion can also be approached from different perspectives. You can approach this motion from the individual, but you can also quote society as a whole, or the family.

This house believes that environmental activist organizations should start a campaign of sabotage and destruction against major polluting companies

Round 3 – Utrecht Online Open 2021

This motion was set in round three of Utrecht Online Open 2021 and was the most interesting debate I was allowed to judge this tournament. If a motion concerns the climate problem, then I am already interested. As far as I am concerned, the motion is also interesting because it offers the possibility for principled arguments (do environmentalists have a right, or even an obligation, to self-defense, even when it takes on violent forms?) and for the analysis of a large number of stakeholders (environmentalists themselves, large companies, the general public, the government). It is necessary for teams to go into detail about the motives of these different stakeholders and the way in which these motives are influenced by the motion. Below, I will briefly discuss some arguments for the proposition and opposition and the way in which these can be weighed against each other. Since in my debate hardly any attention was paid to principled arguments, I will omit them, which does not mean that these arguments cannot be effective.

The following motion was the topic of the second-round debate of the Nijmegen Open 2020.

Infoslide: A lump-sum pension payment is when workers receive their whole pension at the start of their retirement. A staggered pension payment is when they are paid their pension monthly.

Motion: THW allow workers to make a choice between a lump sum pension payment and a staggered pension payment.

Round 2 – Nijmegen Open 2020

This motion review is partly based on the discussions and testing that was performed within the CA team of the Nijmegen Open: Fabian Beitsma, Gigi Gil, Hadar Goldberg, Lucy McManus, Parth Pandya, Marta Vasić & Roel Becker. I thank all co-CA’s for their hard work. Obviously, only I am responsible for any mistakes.

At the Amsterdam Open 2020, the following motion was discussed:

Infoslide: For the purposes of this debate, income share agreements are contracts where a person can agree to receive money from investors, in exchange for the investors making decisions over their career choices and reaping some of their income.

Motion: This House would allow people to sign income share agreements (ISA).

Amsterdam Open 2020 – Round 3

When we see this motion, there are two conclusions we need to think about.

1. Is allowing ISAs beneficial or harmful?
2. Is allowing ISAs legitimate or not?

This motion is a really good example to dig into both of the questions.