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.
Besides live updates we will provide the following information on our blog:
– Break announcements: We will try to update as fast as we can
– Reports and impressions per day, when available:
In case live streams are available we will publish them on this page.
This year’s European Universities debating Championships will be held from 18th-24th August. Zagreb will welcome over 700 individuals from all across Europe and the Middle East for one of the toughest and most prestigious competitions of the year. Tomas Beerthuis will serve as a Deputy Chief Adjudicator during Zagreb EUDC.
Last year’s competition went very well for the entire Dutch contingent, with Groningen A (Henk van Zuilen & Stijn de Jong) making it to the ESL final, Andrea Bos, Henk van Zuilen & Bionda Merckens being among the top 10 ESL speakers, Daan Welling judging the Open final and many others reaching the out-rounds as either a speaker or a judge. Hopefully last year’s success will set a precedent for this year, with the entire Dutch contingent doing well.
The Dutch contingent
The following teams and Judges will be representing the Netherlands.
Teams: (in Alphabetical order)
Bonaparte A: Josse van Proosdij & Michiel van der Zee
Erasmus A: Marlinda van der Hoff & Sezen de Bruijn
Erasmus B: Hendrik Buma & Mikolaj Stoma
Groningen A: Marlies Huijsson & Frederieke Dölle
Leiden A: Karin Merckens & Daan Welling
Leiden B: Roel Becker & Bionda Merckens
Leiden C: Lauri Kriisa & Lennart van Laake
Maastricht A: Eduardo Villamor Martinez & Lorenza de Domenico
Maastricht B: Srdjan Miletic & Evelyn Svingen
Roosevelt A: Annabelle van Beusekom & Tsjalline Boorsma
Utrecht A: Christiaan Duijst & Bram de Rijk
Utrecht B: Martijn Otten & Charlie Panhuizen
Rogier Baart (independent), Micha Beekman (independent), Tomas Beerthuis (DCA), Martijn Deibel (Utrecht), Arielle Dundas (Independent), Jelle van Eijk (Erasmus), Nastia Ghriskova (Leiden), Gigi Gil (independent), Tekenori Hayashi (Leiden), Joost van Leer (Groningen) Felix Plassmann (Maastricht), Sarah Rust (Roosevelt), Lucia Sontseva (Erasmus), Anne Valkering (independent).
Seventwenty will keep everyone updated during EUDC. We will continuously update our Results page with the latest results of the Dutch Teams. Moreover there will be detailed daily entries telling you all the stories of the day and keeping you informed about our well being.
During WSDC half of the motions for the preliminary rounds and the Grand Final motion are pre-released, all the other motions will be impromptu. Team Netherlands worked very hard over the last few month to be well prepared.
Each of the rounds at WSDC will be judged by 3 judges. These judges, contrary to university debating, will individually vote for the winner of a round. This means that a team can win a round unanimously (with all 3 judges) or on a split decision (with 2 judges). The total amount of wins, judges and speaker scores will in the end determine the break.
After the break announcement (with Team Netherlands breaking 3rd!) and a short night’s sleep, the team was ready for their octo final at 07.30 on monday morning.
On the motion That This House would make the income tax of the richest proportional to the level of economic inequality, Team Netherlands (proposition) faced Team India in their octo final. After some confusion on the wording of the motion they put up a good fight but unfortunately did not make it trough to the quarter finals.
During the Final of AWSDC the teams from South Africa Juniors and WSDC Malaysia DNT debated the motion that This House Believes That when leaders of capable states turn away refugees, the ICC should prosecute them for crimes against humanity. Eventually, after what had been a very enjoyable final to watch, Team WSDC Malaysia DNT took the win on a 8 – 1 split decision.
During AWSDC it was not only Team Netherland who did very well, all three Dutch judges (Roel Becker, Devin van den Berg and Lisa Schallenberg) received very good feedback and made the judging break. Even though being kicked out during the octo finals was a bit of a disappointment, both Team Netherlands and their trainers/coaches are very happy with the team’s performance. Breaking 3rd is an amazing achievement and the team was able to put some finishing touches on all the hard work of the previous year and are confident about upcoming WSDC.
Now AWSDC has come to an end, Team Netherlands is ready for WSDC. Today will mark a rather uneventful day where they will move to the WSDC hotel and WSDC will kickoff tomorrow with briefings and a judging test. The first preliminary round will take place on thursday morning.
Motions of the out-rounds
Grand Finals: THBT when leaders of capable states turn away refugees, the ICC should prosecute them for crimes against humanity
Semi-finals: TH believes in the universal right to internet access
Quarter-finals: THBT the US should withdraw all military aid from Israel until the end of the occupation in Gaza
Octos-finals: THW make the income tax of the richest proportional to the level of economic inequality
You can find the tab here.
By Karin Merckens
Their journey began on the 28th of April 2013 when during the Roosevelt World Schools Academy the the pre-selection for team Netherlands was made. 15 months later, after training very hard almost every saturday we saw 4 incredibly talented high-school debaters leave for what will be the most challenging and prestigious tournament of the year. Emma van der Horst (Sint Willibrord Gymnasium), Emma Lucas (Stedelijk Gymnasium Nijmegen), Uche Odikanwa (Rijnlands Lyceum Oegstgeest) and Urmi Pahladsingh (Stedelijk Gymnasium Nijmegen) will represent team Netherlands during the World Schools Debating Championships in Thailand.
After months of preparation, practise debates and writing case files, their last stop before WSDC will be the Asian World Schools debating Championships. AWSDC is an international competition in preparation for WSDC, there are 30 teams attending amongst which 6 WSDC teams. Unlike most other schools competition this competition will only have impromptu motions. The competition will have 8 preliminary rounds with a break to octo-finals.
The Dutch Team did an excellent job during their preliminary rounds. They won 6 out of their 8 debates and were therefore the 3rd breaking team! The octo-finals will take place tomorrow morning and on behalf of Seventwenty I would like to wish them the best of luck for their future rounds and congratulate them with their performances so far.
Below you will find information on the motions and results so far, I will update this as soon as i have more information.
Rd1: THB in a citizen’s right to bear arms
Rd2: THBT liberal democracies should adopt educational policies at creating a less religious population
Rd3: THW not give prominent entertainment awards to artists who have committed crimes of violence
Rd4: THW give more votes to citizens who regularly donate a substantial proportion of their income to respectable charitable causes
Rd5: THW give a doctors, not parents, the final say over all medical decisions concerning children
Rd6: THW force all advertising to provide only technical product details and require that all products be sold in plain packages
Rd7: THBT living below the poverty line should be the absolute defence to acquisitive crimes
Rd8: THB the LGBT rights movement should abandon the claim that sexuality is not a choice
A guest contribution by Robin Dillerop
In the debating scene there are many international students. Actually there are societies that are bilingual and try to attract as many exchange students as possible. To see what it is like to study abroad, we decided to start a series of interviews with exchange students about their experiences here and in their home country.
But why should we write everything ourselves if it is already there? For Counterpropped, the LDU magazine, editor Robin Dillerop already interviewed an exchange student. Lauri Kriisa is a master student from Estonia who has been studying in Leiden this year. He is in Estonia at the moment, but will join us at EUDC Zagreb 2014.
We want to thank both Lauri and Robin for giving us permission to publish this interview to start our series.
Vandaag is het zover: Bonaparte organiseer het jaarlijkse Eloquentia Toernooi. Hier leert men niet alleen inhoudelijk, maar ook overtuigend te spreken. Daar wordt vanzelfsprekend meer op gelet dan bij andere toernooien. Gelukkig gaat overtuiging niet ten koste van de inhoud, maar het is goed om te zien dat in het dagelijks leven er ook andere factoren zijn die mensen overtuigen.
Het Eloquentia Toernooi is een Iron Man toernooi, wat betekent dat iedere spreker individueel spreekt tegen een andere spreker. Er wordt door beide kanten geopend met een inleidende speech van drie minuten, waarin de eerste argumenten uiteen worden gezet. Daarna volgt een extensie van twee minuten aan beide kanten. Als laatste wordt er in een minuut een conclusie gegeven. De jury mag mee schrijven, maar zal dit vaak ook niet doen. Presentatie is ten slotte ook belangrijk. Er zijn vijf voorrondes en twee poules. Dat betekent dat voor iedere ronde twee verschillende stellingen worden gegeven.
Voor dit toernooi hoef je gelukkig niet vroeg je bed uit, het begint namelijk om 13.00 uur in Het Gespuis in onze hoofdstad. Naast de vele enthousiaste Bonapartianen zijn er ook debaters en juryleden uit steden als Leiden en Middelburg aanwezig.
De eerste stellingen zijn inmiddels bekend. Een A staat voor poule A, een B voor poule B.
A. Vaderschaps- en moederschapsverlof moeten gelijk zijn.
B. De basisbeurs voor studenten moet terugkeren
A. Grote banken moeten gesplitst worden
B. Polderjihadi’s moeten vervolgd worden
A. Liever meer studiefinanciering dan een ov-studentenkaart
B. De staat moet het monopolie op prostitutie krijgen
A. Er moet een Europees leger komen
B. Nederland moet een maximumsalaris krijgen
A. De P van pedofilie moet toegevoegd worden aan de LHBT (lesbienne, homo, biseksueel, transgender) beweging.
B. Vrouwen boven de veertig mogen geen kinderen krijgen.
Na de voorrondes was het tijd voor het avondeten. Door naar de halve finales waren Gigi Gil (Leiden), Josse van Proosdij (Bonaparte), Harriet Bergman en Marloes Boere. De stellingen: het Nederlandse volk moet de bondscoach kunnen kiezen en Een zeer hoge erfbelasting is rechtvaardig.
Uiteindelijk waren het Gigi en Josse die door gingen naar de finale. De stelling luidde: Greenpeace moet verboden worden. Over de uitslag wordt door het publiek gestemd. Zij moeten immers overtuigd worden!
Na stemming bleek dat Josse er met de winst vandoor ging. Gefeliciteerd!
De redactie probeert deze pagina zo up to date mogelijk te houden. Benader ons vooral als je aanvullende informatie hebt!
For the upcoming year there will be four vacant positions within the editors team of Seventwenty. Here you can find more information about who we are looking for and the procedure.
What is Seventwenty?
Most of you obviously know this, otherwise you probably wouldn’t apply for a position. But hey, we are not that bad and will explain it to those who are less familiar with Seventwenty and the Dutch Debating Association.
Seventwenty is the bilingual (but mostly English-language) newschannel of the Dutch Debating Association. This institution represents all Dutch (mostly students) debating societies in the Netherlands. We want to keep every debater up to date about what happens in the debating scene. This is why we are currently a bilingual blog, because we want to make Seventwenty as accessible as possible for as many people as possible! Seventwenty updates you by providing tournament reports, interviews, analytical articles and many more.
My English is not that excellent, can I still apply?
Sure! We are all people with a non-native English background, so we aren’t perfectly fluent either. You should be eager to learn from the mistakes you make and if you do so you can be the perfect candidate!
What are the most important criteria an editor should meet?
You do not have to be a member of the Dutch Debating Association! There are no criteria in terms of age or debating status. You can be a university student, high school student, experienced or a novice, every debater is welcome. You do not have to be experienced in writing and/or editing. However, we would appreciate it if you visit debating tournaments at least a few times a year.
Of course we want to learn people how to effectively write an article. Therefore you should be able to deal with feedback about your writing style. This can sometimes be tough, but don’t worry, we won’t scare you too much! We just want you to learn how to become a better writer in general.
Also, we want you to come up with ideas and take some initiative. So think about what you want to write or what your perspective on the debating scene is. We appreciate it if people want to write from an other perspective, such as that of a high school student or a member of a new founded debating association.
Since we have three vacant positions, we want that (if possible of course) at least one of this is filled up by someone who can provide us with some more analytical articles. Everyone is of course free to join us, but we want to have more variety in the articles we produce. But don’t worry. In case we have three very enthusiastic people who are not very experienced in writing analytically, we will let everyone who is applicable join. We do not want to hold enthusiastic people back!
How much do I have to write?
You don’t have to produce an article every week. However, it is much appreciated if you write something once a month. In practice this does not always come true, but we want people who are active and come up with new ideas. Writing a report about a tournament obviously counts, but feel free to come up with some more ideas, such as interviews or analytical articles.
Some aspects are still not very clear to me, who can I contact?
If you do have any questions, please send an email to email@example.com.
How can I apply?
Please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with your motivation and some basic information about yourself. Also, if you do have experience in writing, send some examples of what you wrote to us. The editor in chief will then contact you and interview you if necessary. Afterwards you will hear more about your application.