Seventwenty is still looking for contributors for the next year. Unfortunately four people are going to leave us, which means that we need more people to help us out. Under the following link you can find all the information you need. Please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org or contact me (Mascha) via personal message if you have any questions or want to apply.
The original message can be found here.
Because Leiden C and Belgrade C were on exactly the same amount of points a tie-break debate will be held. The winner of this debate will break to the ESL quarter finals.
The motion of this tie-break debate reads: This House Would make membership in a labour union compulsory for every worker.
WINNER: Belgrade C. Unfortunately Leiden C did not make it to the quarters.
UPDATE: Leiden A unfortunately did not make it to the finals.
Motion: This House Would require companies to place images of anmial suffering on all products or food whose production harmed or killed animals.
Quarter Final 1:
Quarter Final 2:
|OG||–||Tel Aviv A||OO||–||Leiden A|
|CG||–||Tilbury House A||CO||–||Belgrade B|
Quarter Final 3:
Quarter Final 4:
Motion: This House Believes That leaders of minority religions in Europe should encourage their congregations from public displays of their faiths.
Semi Final 1:
|OG||–||Berlin A||OO||–||Hebrew A|
|CG||–||Tartu A||CO||–||BBU A|
Semi Final 2:
|OG||–||Belgrade A||OO||–||Lund A|
|CG||–||Belgrade B||CO||–||Leiden A|
Motion: This House Believes That supreme courts should not have the power to strike down legislation.
Quarter Final 1:
Quarter Final 2:
Quarter Final 3:
Quarter Final 4:
Motion: This House Believes That the US should invade and forcibly partition Iraq.
Semi Final 1:
|OG||–||Edinburgh A||OO||–||KCL A|
|CG||–||Oxford A||CO||–||BPP A|
Semi Final 2:
|CG||–||Cambridge A||CO||–||Sheffield A|
Like every day the motions lead to debates of varying quality. What makes today different is that the teams were not given feedback. This is done to heighten the suspense of the Break announcement later that night. You will frequently hear “how many points do you think you were on” whispered in hush voices in the hallway. Judges work hard to maintain a poker face when they walk past a team from debates they had judged. Then all of a sudden the rounds are over and we are all in a night club without a roof that backs on to a lake. There were s for us to fight, and if there had been we would have known to leave them alone. Since as the convener told us earlier this day, these are Croatian swans and you do not want to mess with them.
Before the break announcement Leiden C is whisked away to talk to the CA team. Then comes the judges break, quite a few familiar names are announced, we cheer. An American judge breaks, he is greeted with cries of “USA USA USA” Then comes the ESL break. Only one Dutch team (Leiden A) has broken? What’s this there is a tie for 16th place on speaker points and team points? Ashish announces the new policy there will be no coin flip at this Euros, there will be a debate-off, between …. Leiden C and Belgrade C. We cheer, we dance, we celebrate, and we commiserate.
We wil try to publish a complete list of breaking teams and judges as soon as possible.
First the judge break for the Dutch:
– Gigi Gil
– Senna Maatoug
– Takenori Hayashi
– Rogier Baart
– Anne Valkering
– Arielle Dundas
– Tomas Beerthuis
Now the complete ESL break:
1. Hebrew A
2. Belgrade B
3. Lund A
4. Tartu A
5. Berlin A
6. Tel Aviv B
7. Leiden A
8. Bucharest A
9. BBU A
10. Tilbury House A
11. Mannheim A
12. ELTE A
13. BGU A
14. Belgrade A
15. Tel Aviv A
16. Leiden C and Belgrade C*
*Tomorrow a debate will be held to decide who is going through.
1. Cambridge C
2. Oxford B
3. Cambridge B
4. Oxford A
5. GUU A
6. Cambridge A
7. Oxford C
8. Edinburgh A
9. LSE A
10. Sheffield A
11. Durham B
12. KCL A
13. Hebrew A
14. Nottingham A
15. Durham C
16. BPP A
By Srdjan Miletic
As I write this day three has finished and the social is winding down. Today’s motions were as follows:
Round 4: This House Believes That EU members should nationalize oil and gas resources to surrender total ownership and control to an EU-run energy agency.
Round 5: This House Believes That the states of former Yugoslavia should not commemorate the events of the Yugoslav wars.
Round 6: This House Would introduce blind voting.
Round 4 was somewhat unusual in that it gave two seemingly unlined burdens to prop. While it may seem like an unbalanced motion with numerous strong Opp lines available my opinion is that Prop can do fairly well with the standard anti-market arguments (i.e: natural monopolies, political vs market incentives, etc…) followed comparative on the EU’s incentives vs the corrupt/short-term incentives of national governments provided that the motion is propped as an actor motion arguing why individual states should do this. This is because propping from the perspective of the EU gives Opp a wealth of material to work with on state backlash.
In round 5 the inevitable regional motion surfaced, giving those with knowledge of the political situation in the Balkans a slight edge. Interestingly not many people seemed to realize that the engravings on either side of main lecture hall were in fact memorials to former students who died in the war of independence.
Round 6 was interesting. What blind voting essentially means is that instead of voting for Parties or candidates voters instead go through a list of policies, rank their preferences and then their vote is assigned to a party with matching policies. There are a number of factors which make this motion opp-heavy. Firstly there are numerous practical issues for prop to contend with, ranging from parties dramatically shifting policies to appeal to the majority to problems with parties simply changing their policies after elections to issues with granularity and how many policies can be adequately addressed in a single document without loosing meaning (think how different a question about intervention and about pulling out of Iraq are). Beyond this the fact that blind voting makes it impossible to hold a party to account for past actions (think the invasion of IRAQ) or failures to implement policy makes it difficult to argue that it increases accountability by virtue of leading to more informed voting. Ultimately the largest issue is that blind voting, if effective, essentially leads to the abolition of political parties and the installation of what is essentially direct democracy, something that is reasonably difficult to argue for. Nevertheless as always my own interpretation may well be inaccurate and the Gov/Opp win ratios should indicate how biased the motion was.
Finally outside the debates close to everyone I meet seems to be enjoying themselves. The food is delicious and affordable, the accommodation brilliant, the people friendly and the tournament actually runs to schedule which is impressive given the number of rooms. All in all I’ve had a great time and the same is likely true of everyone else. Best of luck to teams hoping to break tomorrow and see you all on the circuit.
And we’re off! The first day of Zagreb EUDC started with -as some said- difficult motions. Here are the motions for the first three rounds as well as the results (as far as known) of the Dutch delegation.
If you see any mistakes or missing items we apologise for the inconvenience. Please find one of our people on site or send us a facebook message and we’ll sure correct it as soon as possible.
R1 motion reads: THW pay additional benefits to families on welfare according to their child’s performance in school.
R2 motion reads: TH supports two-party political systems over multi-party political systems.
R3 motion reads: THW ban international aid charities from using sensational, graphic or emotional images of suffering in fundraising and advertising.
Bonaparte A: 0-3-2
Groningen A: 2-1-?
Leiden A: 3-3-0
Leiden B: 3-1-3
Leiden C: 2-3-0
Maastricht A: 3-0-3
Maastricht B: 1-2-3
Roosevelt A: 0-0-3
Utrecht A: 2-3-0
Utrecht B: unkown
The entire Dutch delegation made it to Zagreb!
All of us are staying in hotel international which is cobsiderwd to be the “nice hotel”, at least our rooms are comfortable and all of us are within walking distance of the university faculty which at least means more sleep than those staying in the other hotel.
As a result of being the lucky ones staying in the second hotel registration went quite quickly, contrary to what apperently happened in the other hotel, so most of us had the entire afternoon to either walk around Zagreb or sit in a bar to catch up with friends.
Around dinner time they served us pizza and most of us made our way to listen to the briefings while others decided to enjoy the free beer they were serving outside. After the briefings we were taken to the museum of modern art for the opening ceremony. While the actual opening ceremony was really short, the queue to go down the slides was a lot longer. The entire Dutch delegation seemed to have enjoyed themselves at the socials and while some called it a night early and were respobsible enough to have a good night’s sleep before the actual debated will start, others will most likely debate round 1 being hungover.