Commentary on Dutch Debating League #1: TUDDC

By Daan Spackler

 

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!

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!

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.

Dutch Worlds: To break or not to break?

The in-rounds of Dutch Worlds are over and the Dutch delegation is anxiously awaiting the results. The teams that were still ‘live’ to break in either the Open-category or the ESL-category are: Leiden A, Leiden B, Leiden C and Maastricht A. Unfortunately, the other teams are no longer able to break. Tonight at 00:00 the results will be announced. For some the start of excessive drinking, for others the start of excitement about the out-rounds to come, for Roel probably both.

The last two days were filled with debating, organising and debating politics. Volunteers were, as always, busy with handing out food and drinks, delivering ballots and doing countless other things to ensure a smooth running of the tournament. Some missed the morning alarm, which allowed them to catch a night with more than 7 hours of sleep. The second day was, like day 1, run without any delays. As the tensions increased and judge allocations became more important than ever, the tab-team unfortunately could not prevent some delays. All in all, it is safe to say the Dutch Worlds in-rounds were almost always on times. The orgcom and the tab-team made running 92 rooms simultaneously easy.

Although some teams regrettably were not able to perform to the fullest of their capabilities (Bona and Utrecht), other teams have performed amazingly. All Leiden teams, but especially A, B and C, probably still have a shot at breaking open. Floris and Lisa (Leiden C) were in the 2nd best room of the tournament yesterday. Being up against teams from Auckland, Monash, Oxford they unfortunately took a 4th. However, Floris was very happy when he came out of the room. It was the second best debate he had ever been in. His goal this WUDC, to debate against the best debaters in the world, had been reached already in the fourth round. Later that day, Roel and Devin (Leiden B) competed against universities such as Harvard. This WUDC proves the Leiden teams are part of the top teams that can currently be found in the debating community.

Not only Leiden has been performing incredibly well, Maastricht A has been one of the pleasant surprises this tournament. Entering the third day on 10 points, they needed 5 points on the last day to have a chance to break in the ESL-category. Katherina and Anna were always very modest and conservative in their predictions after every round, but outperformed many of their opponents again and again. It would be great for the Dutch delegation to welcome another breaking team next to the teams from Leiden.
In addition, Marike has been chairing quite some rooms and winged top-rooms the last two days. In the first article published this WUDC, Marike was introduced as one of the most promising judges in the Dutch circuit. Her ranking in the last six rounds has proved this has not gone unnoticed by the CA team at Dutch Worlds. She judged teams such as Sydney, Cambridge, Zagreb, Belgrade and Stanford. All teams have a serious chance at breaking ESL or open. Either leading the discussion with skill or contributing in top-panels in high rooms, Marike is the hope of Amsterdam’s success this WUDC.

Let’s hope tonight will bring great news for the Dutch delegations, with numerous speaking and judging breaks. Stay tuned for more!

Dutch Worlds Has Started: Day 1

After an exciting, but tiring, first day, I bring you the first update on the Dutch delegation at Worlds. Starting with a quick recap of what happened today: we woke up at 6:30, ate breakfast and took a shower in Debater Town Kijkduin. We travelled with buses to the Haagse Hoge School, where all the debates would take place. After some briefings and fun announcements led by Senna and Tomas, it was finally debating time.

The motions today were:
Round 1: This House believes that post-genocidal regimes should destroy all places of extermination (for example, death camps)
Round 2: This House would allow members of the armed forces to form labour unions
Round 3: This House believes that sports leagues should significantly tax and redistribute from wealthier teams to poorer teams
The Dutch delegation ranks as follows:

Leiden C finished at 8 points.
Leiden B on 7.
Leiden A on 5.
Maastricht A on 5.
Maastricht B on 4.
Leiden D on 3.
Utrecht A on 3.
Bonaparte A on 3.
Wageningen A on 3.

But of course, I have not only debated the motions, I also conducted various interviews. I’m glad to tell you the interviews have gained some status in the Dutch delegation today, which allowed me to interview of the most promising teams at this competition: Leiden D. After round 2, these two Leiden youngsters were in a euphoric mood as they just won their first debate at a World Championships. Even though Tom and Louis are only student-debaters for a couple of months, they have extensive experience as debaters from when they were high-schoolers. Unfortunately, they took a 4th in the first round, but they were able to beat the other teams in their second room quite easily. They thought the motions were pretty decent and enjoyed the tournament so far. Asked about their goals, Leiden D told me they would not worry too much about the break and see where their journey would end. However, something tells me we should watch Leiden D closely the coming few days, as they showed the capacity to win rooms at WUDC and have a serious chance at breaking ESL.

Another team I interviewed today was Maastricht B. Alwin Bakker was dissatisfied with their third place in the first round, but this was not because of the call. He thought they had a winning case, but did not explain that well enough to the judges. I can confirm not explaining winning cases is an obstacle often faced when trying to win rooms. However, Alwin remained optimistic and down to earth about the coming rounds. At night, he is planning on playing videogames which allow him to be a dictator and ‘commit genocide if it is in his interest’. The enthusiasm he showed when telling me this might explain why he was not able to sway to judges in his first round of his winning case! In all seriousness, Maastricht B is a team that is often too modest about their debating skills and should be considered another Dutch force to be reckoned with.

Not only the debaters stressed out and performed to the best of their capabilities, today was another day for the volunteers in which they proved their importance for the tournament. I talked to Thomas, a volunteer that debates in Utrecht since August. His job today mainly consisted of delivering paper where necessary and obtaining the results from rooms. In his opinion an ‘easy, but important and rewarding task.’ Thomas is definitely having fun, mostly due to the people he gets to know from all around the world. ‘The volunteering is going well and I meet many different people. I talked to people from Harvard, Tel Aviv and Oxford, amongst others. Students from those universities are not ones I often encounter in Utrecht and make this experience extra enjoyable. The diversity in cultures and backgrounds people have here allows for some unique memories and fun times!’ Thomas, like most volunteers, sleeps little. Five hours last night to be precise. Nonetheless, Thomas is hanging in there and says ‘staying awake is a lot easier than I thought. Because you are constantly busy, there is no time for getting tired. Once you sit down though, tiredness can suddenly hit you in the face.’ The organization was too busy today to sit down for one of the interviews, but again huge thanks to all their efforts!
All in all, today brought some mixed feelings. Some teams are not quite satisfied with their performance quite yet (Utrecht A included) but the in-rounds are far from over. Everything is still possible and it now key for teams to start tomorrow with a fresh and positive mindset. The Dutch teams doing well obviously hope to continue their successful streak. For now, it is time to party for some and to sleep for others.

Jelte out

PS: Dutch Worlds has reached the national news! NOS visited the tournament. Link: http://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2150653-geef-drie-redenen-waarom-een-concentratiekamp-moet-worden-afgebroken.html

Getting Ready For The Big Day: The first report of the Dutch Delegation attending Dutch Worlds

Dutch Worlds has started and the delegation from the Netherlands has made an excessive effort in travelling from all provinces and small towns to attend. Normally Daan takes care of these updates, but the next couple of days I, Jelte, will keep everyone interested up to date. For the non-debaters amongst you (hi mom), a quick recap of what a WUDC is.
There will be 9 in-rounds in which everyone will participate. Debaters can break to the out-rounds in three different categories: English as Primary Language (EPL), English as Second Language (ESL) and English as Foreign Language (EFL). The out-rounds are the finals that will determine who will be champion in their language category. All Dutch debaters qualify as ESL and will therefore be eligible to break in two categories: the Open-category, containing all teams participating, and in the ESL-category, containing all ESL and EFL teams. Your performance as a team in the first 9 rounds will determine whether you can debate in the out-rounds. The break will be announced at the start of the new year, around 00:00.

Starting tomorrow, we will thus have three days with three in-rounds each. The Dutch delegation obviously does not only consist of the debaters (who have been introduced by Daan in this article: http://www.debatbond.nl/2016/12/26/voorbeschouwing-het-wk-debatteren-in-nederland/), as there are judges, volunteers and organising members as well. In these reports, I’ll give updates about what the Dutch delegation have achieved, how they feel and what their goals are in the rest of the tournament.

My interviews have unfortunately not reached a notorious status (yet), but I found someone willing to take part in it. I was lucky Jos – a former member of the organization and now here to help as a volunteer – made time for my questions. Jos describes his task as: ‘answering all the stupid questions you actually do not want to answer when participants cannot go to anyone of the organization. In all seriousness, we are helping debaters and judges with all relevant questions at the Helpdesk. It is a very satisfying job, as you get to help lots of people.’ Jos is exemplary for the overall volunteer-crew at Dutch Worlds. It is often underestimated what volunteers have to deal with if debaters are frustrated, tired and hungry. Volunteers such as Jos are here to help out. ‘If I have already encountered a bad experience? There was one debater who was unreasonably angry at us because his credit card didn’t work. He expected us to solve everything, but contrary to common belief, volunteers cannot magically solve ALL your problems. But he was the only one, so overall the debaters have been genuinely nice to us. It makes me feel valued and I think it is one of the best aspects of the debating community: the genuine interest in everyone.’ After being awake for 21 hours, Jos managed to sleep for seven hours, which he thought was probably his biggest accomplishment so far at Dutch Worlds. Keep rocking Jos (and all the other volunteers)!

While the volunteers are incredibly busy, the debaters and judges are now waiting for the battle to start tomorrow. They are chilling in their houses, attending meetings and doing other random things. I interviewed Utrecht A to get a better understanding of all the emotions and thoughts they are experiencing right now. The informed reader might have already noticed I am myself part of Utrecht A, we could not find any other team at the moment. Utrecht A said they prepared in the following ways: (Pieter) ‘We debated at Leiden a couple of times.’ (Jelte): ‘Pieter means we got slaughtered a couple of times at Leiden. But what doesn’t kill you make you stronger right? (Pieter – continuing while ignoring Jelte who is interviewing himself) ‘In addition, I have read the Economist. Jelte probably mostly thought about what he could do in order to prep, without actually doing a thing because he is lazy.’
On their goals for the tournament: Utrecht A hopes to break in the ESL category but is rather pessimistic of the likelihood of that actually happening. (Pieter) ‘We just want to have fun. If we do well, we can always become nervous and then choke, just like we did at EUDC (The European Championships red.).’ Pieter is a bit nervous. In a healthy way he claims. He does feel the pressure to perform after the disastrous ending of the EUDC last summer. When I asked the question if Utrecht A wanted to say something to their parents, Pieter respectfully declined and Jelte said: ‘I want to use this moment to congratulate my father who turned 50 today. Unfortunately, I could not be there, but I’m sure he had a great day!’

In the next few days, I’ll interview more Dutch teams and see what their view is on their performances etc. In addition to the debaters, there are also quite some Dutch adjudicators who will be participating in the debates the coming few days. I arranged a conversation with one of the upcoming Dutch debaters/judges: Marike Breed from Bonaparte Amsterdam. Marike is planning on making Dutch Worlds ‘incredibly fun. I am planning to judge some good rooms and go hard at the socials.’ She is not really focused on breaking as a judge, but might try to approach Michael Dunn (one of the CA’s red.) in order to persuade him in some unconventional ways. It has to be noted Tom Pouw, her boyfriend, is starting to throw some uncomfortable looks in Marike’s way at this point in the conversations. Marike continues without paying attention to Tom and names quite some other well-known debaters. When asked if she prefers chairing the bin, or winging the top-room, Marike chose a position as wing without hesitation, but stressed she meant ‘no disrespect to lower-ranking teams.’

All in all, the Dutch delegation is incredibly excited for the tournament. The orgcom was very busy today, but did an incredible job so far in making the tournament run very smoothly. I hope to be able to bring you good results every day, stay tuned for more!

Jelte Schievels

Voorbeschouwing: Het WK debatteren in Nederland!

Op dezLogo v2e fijne en warme Tweede Kerstdag is het meerendeel van Nederland aan het uitslapen na een uitgebreid Kerstdiner of rent het koopjes achterna in de IKEA. Een kleine groep Nederlanders is zich echter aan het voorbereiden op een historisch evenement: het grootste debatevenement ooit gehouden in Nederland, het Wereldkampioenschap Debatteren voor Studenten in Den Haag, Dutch WUDC 2017.

SevenTwenty blikt vooruit: wat kun je verwachten van het toernooi, wie doet ermee en hoe houden wij jullie op de hoogte?

De opzet

Het Wereldkampioenschap Debatteren bestaat uit 400 teams van 2 personen die gejureerd worden door nog eens bijna 400 juryleden. Het is daarmee het grootste jaarlijks terugkerende studentenevenement ter wereld, en een van de grootste congressen voor jongeren ter wereld. Het toernooi word officieel geopend door locoburgemeester Ingrid van Engelshoven op 28 december. Vervolgens strijden alle teams in drie voorrondedagen voor een plek in de prestigieuze eindrondes in drie taalcategorieëen: English as Proficient Language (EPL or “Open”), English as Second Language (“ESL”) en English as Foreign Language (EFL). Nederlandse teams dingen meestal mee om de ESL-titel, maar vorig jaar stoomde een Nederlands team voor het eerst ook door tot de EPL-kwartfinales.

Op 1 januari komen de deelnemers bij van het Nieuwjaarsfeest en de spanning van de voorrondedagen door deel te nemen aan culturele excursies door Nederland of door zich te wagen aan de traditionele nieuwjaarsduik. Er word een speciale WK Nieuwjaarsduik georganiseerd, waarbij alle opbrengsten naar de stichting Het Vergeten Kind gaan, die zich hard maakt voor kinderen die in Nederland in armoede op moeten groeien.

Wie verdedigen Nederlands’ eer?

Nederlands eer is met verve verdedigd door het organisatiecomité die het WK brengt en geleid word door hoofd organisatie Bionda Merckens. Maar niet alleen maar organisatietechnisch zet Nederland haar beste beentje voor. Ze word ook vertegenwoordigd door de grootste delegatie sinds het WK 2013 in Berlijn:

Sprekers: Tom Pouw en Zeno Glastra van Loon (Amsterdam Bonaparte A), Emma Lucas en Gigi Gil (Leiden A), Devin van den Berg en Roel Becker (Leiden B), Floris Holstege en Lisa Schallenberg (Leiden C), Louis Honee en Tom Geukemijer (Leiden D), Anna Vasylyeva en Katharina Jansen (Maastricht A), Alwin Bakker en Frederic Augustin (Maastricht B), Jelte Schievels en Pieter van der Veere (Utrecht A), Nathania Engelhardt en Aljosa Slamersak (Wageningen A).

Juryleden: Marike Breed (Amsterdam Bonaparte), Vesela Krastanova (Maastricht A), Karin Merckens (hoofdjurylid, Leiden), Daan Welling (Leiden/Radboud), Arielle Dundas (Utrecht), Nour Khachnaoui (Utrecht).

Dit is een delegatie die prijzen binnen zou kunnen slepen. De Leidendelegatie is wat gewijzigd ten opzichte van het zeer succesvolle EK waar alle vier teams de eindrondes haalden, maar herbergt sprekers die het afgelopen jaar toernooien gewonnen hebben. Als eerste Nederlandse team haalde Devin van den Berg en Roel Becker de Open Halve Finale van de Oxford Intervarsity. Floris Holstege en Lisa Schallenberg wonnen zowel de Cambridge Intervarsity (ESL) en de Vice-President’s Cup in Dublin. Emma Lucas en Gigi Gil bonden op hun beurt de Riga Open aan hun zegekar. Louis Honee en Tom Geukemijer zijn eerstejaars studenten met een brede ervaring uit het scholierencircuit: het WK word hun eerste test.

Naast de Leidse delegatie timmeren de andere Nederlanders goed aan de weg. De Maastrichtse teams regen breaks aan elkaar op toernooien als de Roosevelt Open in Middelburg en Tilbury House IV in Köln. De Amsterdamse “Bonapartianen” haalde de finale van UCU Open in Utrecht, Jelte en Pieter blijven zeer in de buurt komen van finalerondes op de grootste Europese toernooien en Nathania van Wageningen gaat met een nieuwe partner op weg om, naast een finaleplaats op de Spaanstalige Wereldkampioenschappen, ook op de Engelstalige Wereldkampioenschappen de finale te halen.

Omdat het hét WK is, is de competitie niet mals. Tegenstrevers zoals regerend Europees Kampioen Tel Aviv uit Israël en regerend Australaziatisch Kampioen IIUM uit Maleisië zullen vast en zeker stevige oppositie bieden. Naast deze teams zullen grootmachten zoals Oxford, Sydney en Harvard ook acte de presence geven.

Hoe houd SevenTwenty jullie op de hoogte?

Jelte Schievels houdt voor ons een dagboek bij, en geeft ons alle ins en outs van het WK. Daarnaast zal de organisatie alle deelnemers – en daarmee ook alle thuisblijvers – informeren over elke gebeurtenis via hun Facebook, hun Twitter en hun Instagram. Watch this space!

Promotion: How to get involved at Dutch WUDC!

Dutch WUDC is approaching!
How to get involved

For the first time in the history of the World Universities Debating Championships (WUDC), WUDC will be hosted in the Netherlands. Dutch WUDC will take place from the 27th of December 2016 to the 4th of January 2017 in The Hague. It promises to be the biggest debating event in Dutch history, with 8 days of thrilling debates and fantastic socials.
The preparation for WUDC are already on their way for more than 1,5 years, but with only 4 months to go, it is getting real! We hope that many of you Dutch debaters will be involved in Dutch WUDC. This article gives you five suggestions how you can join!Lees Verder

Voorbeschouwing: Warsaw EUDC 2016

TournamentLogo-warsaw-eudc-

For a short statement in English about live updates, please scroll down to the bottom.

Aanstaande zondag begint hét jaarlijkse debatevent van Europa en het grootste studentenevenement van het continent: de European Universities Debating Championships (EUDC, ook vaak ‘Euros’ genoemd). Ook Nederlandse teams zijn hier op volle oorlogssterkte aanwezig. SevenTwenty blikt vooruit en laat weten hoe zij u live van nieuws zal voorzien!

 

De Deelnemers

Nederlands’ trots wordt niet alleen op Rio verdedigd. De volgende debaters vertegenwoordigen Nederlandse universiteiten op Euros.

ASDV Bonaparte A (UvA/VU): Marike Breed en Tom Pouw
ASDV Bonaparte B (UvA/VU): Axel Hirschel en Sofija Stefanovic
Cicero A (Tilburg): Jos Buijvoets en Joshua Paas
Cicero B (Tilburg): Nikolai Bentvelzen en Mike Weltevrede
Erasmus Debating Society A: Przemek Baran en Nicolas Berneman
Leiden A: Floris Holstege en Emma Lucas
Leiden B: Devin van den Berg en Gigi Gil
Leiden C: Roel Becker en Ybo Buruma
Leiden D: Simon Martina Perez en Lisa Schallenberg
Trivium A (Radboud): Bart Hordijk en Lydia Vlagsma
Utrecht A: Jelte Schievels en Pieter van der Veere
Wageningen A: Nathania Engelhardt en Perly Kruys

Juryleden: Alex ten Brink, Monique Bouffé, Nina Fokkink, Davy Fung, Senna Maatoug, Karin Merckens, Sjoerd Stikvoort, Anne Valkering en Daan Welling

Hoe ziet Euros eruit?

Aan Euros doen 220 teams van universiteiten over heel Europa mee, van Oxford tot Tel Aviv. Het evenement duurt 5 dagen: de eerste drie dagen worden besteed aan 9 voorrondes, waarna twee dagen de tijd wordt genomen voor zinderend spannende finalerondes. Teams kunnen in finalerondes terechtkomen binnen de English als Second Language of de Open categorieën. De voertaal op het toernooi is dan ook Engels.

Er wordt gedebatteerd in het Brits Parlementaire format, waarbij twee teams voor en twee teams tegen een stelling pleiten. Onderwerpen hebben de vorm van This House would legalise drugs of This House Believes That the Euro has done more harm than good. Dit format is ook al jaren de huisstijl van het officiële NK Debatteren.

De Voorspellingen

Laten we ons aan het koffiedik wagen: wordt Nederland na 4 jaar weer Europees kampioen?

Op papier stuurt Nederland een mooie mix aan ervaring en talent. Zo was Leiden C vorig jaar slechts één jurylid verwijderd van de eindzege. Andere teams van Leiden hebben dit jaar ook al finaleplaatsen en kampioenschappen gepakt op prestigieuze Intervarsities zoals Dublin en Berlijn. Wageningen A stond deze zomer in de tweede taalfinale van de Spaanstalige Wereldkampioenschappen, en hopen dit trucje ook in het Engels te kunnen herhalen.

Daarnaast staat veel toptalent op het juiste moment op. Bonaparte – uit Amsterdam – sturen een A-team die op haar voorlaatste toernooi voor het EK hun eerste titel grepen. Zij worden vergezeld door zeer succesvolle eerstejaars van Utrecht, die al veel finaleplaatsen op hun naam hebben staan en dit toernooi wel eens hun doorbraak kunnen gaan beleven. Ook de andere teams in bovenstaand lijstje zijn dicht bij breaks op internationale toernooien gekomen en loeren dit EK op hun kansen.

De competitie is echter ijzersterk. De winnaars van de twee vorige edities doen met nieuwe partners mee aan dit kampioenschap. Ook word internationaal veel verwacht van teams uit Moskou (winnaars van een zomertoernooi in Dublin) en Tel Aviv (verliezend finalisten in de open categorie van vorig jaar). Naast deze sterke teams treden vertrouwde grootmachten als Oxford, Cambridge en Durham ook op volle oorlogssterkte aan. De competitie zal dus ongemeen spannend zijn.

De Live Updates

SevenTwenty verzorgt ook dit jaar weer live updates van de Nederlandse prestaties.  We gebruiken hierbij vooral ons Twitteraccount (@SevenTwentyNDB).  Naast scores plaatsen wij daar ook stellingen en andere scoops. Op deze website zult u een overzichtsartikel vinden met daarop de teamscores van alle teams. Deze word aan het einde van elke dag bijgewerkt. De voertaal voor deze updates zal overwegend Engels zijn, om een zo breed mogelijk debatpubliek te kunnen bereiken.

The Live Updates

SevenTwenty will update you with the Dutch performances at Euros this year. Apart from that, we will also provide you with motions and other scoops. Our main outlet will be our Twitterfeed (handle: @SevenTwentyNDB, tweets with #eudc or #eudc2016). We will also provide you with an overview at the end of each day on this website. Our updates will mainly be in English, to ensure you won’t miss a thing!

Opinie: Het belang van equity officers op Nederlandse debattoernooien

In deze gastbijdrage van Adrienne en Floris (LDU) leggen zij uit waarom zij equity belangrijk vinden op Nederlandstalige toernooien en geven ze tips hoe deze rol ingevuld kan worden.

Op grote internationale toernooien, waaronder het Europees- en Wereldkampioenschap, zijn equity officers niet meer weg te denken. Ook op Engelse toernooien zien we dat equity steeds meer wordt gehandhaafd en als belangrijk discussieonderwerp wordt behandeld. In Nederland blijkt echter dat deze ontwikkeling achter is gebleven en equity officers nog maar op een beperkt aantal toernooien aanwezig zijn. Dit artikel heeft als doel om te kijken hoe het komt dat equity en equity officers nog niet als belangrijk worden gezien, en wat de toegevoegde waarde van equity officers op een Nederlands debattoernooi kan zijn. Dit artikel is niet bedoeld om toernooien die voorheen geen equity officer hebben aangesteld in een zwart daglicht te zetten, maar om aandacht te creëren voor het belang van een equity officer.

Tijdens debatteren worden soms argumenten gemaakt of dingen gezegd die bij andere debaters, juryleden of publiek kwetsend kunnen overkomen. Veel van deze argumenten zijn gebaseerd op iemands identiteit of achtergrond. Specifiek bij het voeren van een debat is er een aanzienlijke kans dat dit soort situaties voorkomen, omdat mensen tegen hun eigen mening in moeten argumenteren. Ook doordat veel verschillende mensen, die elkaar over het algemeen niet heel goed kennen, bij elkaar komen op debattoernooien kunnen zulke situaties onverwachts voorkomen. Het is hierbij belangrijk om te vermelden dat mogelijke conflicten vaak berusten op een spreker die iets gezegd heeft en nooit bedoeld heeft om daarmee iemand te beledigen. Desalniettemin kan een ander zich toch oprecht beledigd of gekwetst voelen. Het is oneerlijk en ineffectief om een van beide reacties automatisch af te keuren, maar wel belangrijk om deze situaties bespreekbaar te maken en houden. De reden dat dit soort situaties vaker bij debatteren voorkomen dan andere omgevingen is vanwege de druk en stress die deelnemers soms ervaren. Vaak worden deze situaties niet met ernst behandeld doordat we uitgaan van de Nederlandse nuchterheid, omdat we immers allemaal volwassen zouden zijn en wel zouden weten wat wel en niet kan. Desondanks is gebleken dat equity klachten ook in Nederland voorkomen en mensen zich dus gekwetst voelen. Door deze klachten serieus te nemen kunnen we ervoor zorgen dat uiteindelijk iedereen zich op een debattoernooi zo prettig mogelijk voelt.

Een equity officer is iemand die conflicten, zoals hierboven beschreven, probeert te voorkomen door aandacht te vragen voor elkaar met respect  behandelen, maar daarnaast ook probeert om te bemiddelen tussen mensen mochten dit soort situaties wel ontstaan. Dit laatste doet ze meestal door mensen de mogelijkheid te geven om het geschil uit te praten. Maar ook bij ernstige probleemn als intimidatie of misbruik kan een equity officer de deelnemer helpen, bijvoorbeeld door de deelnemer bij te staan bij het inschakelen van instanties. Op deze manier probeert een equity officer ervoor te zorgen dat iedereen zich welkom en op zijn gemak voelt tijdens een debattoernooi. Het is gebruikelijk om als equity officer hiervoor beleid op te stellen en aan de deelnemers te communiceren welke regels gehandhaafd zullen worden en wat de desbetreffende officer precies verstaat onder equity.

Vaak wordt de vraag gesteld hoe vaak een equity situatie zich voordoet op een debattoernooi. Het is belangrijk om hierbij te vermelden dat klachten van deelnemers tezamen met de equity officer in afzondering van andere deelnemers en in vertrouwen van alle betrokkenen worden afgehandeld. Hierdoor is het wellicht niet bekend bij het grote publiek dat klachten op regelmatige basis plaatsvinden. Maar zelfs als dit niet het geval was, blijft het alsnog belangrijk om een equity officer te hebben. Vergelijk het met een brandblusser: niemand verwacht dat op een debattoernooi brand uitbreekt, maar stel dat het toch gebeurt, dan ben je blij dat er brandblussers zijn. Op het moment dat brand uitbreekt en er geen brandblussers zijn, is het immers te laat en te lastig om nog wat te regelen. Tevens geeft de aanwezigheid van brandblussers gedurende het toernooi de veiligheid dat branden geblust kunnen worden, mocht er wat gebeuren. Afgelopen jaar is het een aantal keer voorgekomen dat mensen zich gekwetst voelden en daarover een klacht wilden indienen, terwijl dat toernooi geen equity officer had aangesteld. Dit is vervelend voor de personen in kwestie, maar ook erg naar voor de organisatie van het toernooi. Het aanstellen van een equity officer kan dit soort vervelende situaties voorkomen en geeft rust voor iedereen op het toernooi.

De laatste vraag die we nu nog willen beantwoorden is wie het meest geschikt is om als equity officer aangesteld te worden. In het afgelopen jaar hebben meerdere Nederlandse toernooien ervoor gekozen om equity klachten over te laten aan (iemand uit) het CA-team of (iemand van) de organisatie. Wij denken dat een equity officer het beste een onafhankelijk persoon kan zijn, die verder niets te maken heeft met de organisatie van het toernooi. Zo zorgt een onafhankelijke equity officer ervoor dat een zware taak van de organisatie wordt afgenomen. Zowel de organisatie als het CA-team heeft het tijdens een toernooi vaak heel druk met hun kerntaken en kunnen daardoor niet altijd de tijd vinden om een klacht in behandeling te nemen. Ook kan een klacht juist betrekking hebben op hun taken. Zo is het voor deelnemers heel vervelend als zij een klacht hebben over bijvoorbeeld de stelling, die immers is opgesteld door het CA-team. Ook hebben leden van de organisatie hun tijd vaak nodig voor logistieke zaken in plaats van dat zij ruim de tijd kunnen nemen om equity klachten af te handelen. Het aanstellen van een onafhankelijke equity officer, die geen andere taken binnen de organisatie heeft, lost deze problemen op.

Tenslotte kan het voor deelnemers erg vervelend zijn als je bij het gehele CA-team of ‘de organisatie’ terecht kan voor klachten, omdat je dan niet de garantie hebt dat jouw klacht in vertrouwen wordt afgehandeld. Dit kan zelfs mensen afschrikken om een klacht in te dienen. Een equity officer moet je juist het gevoel moet geven dat jouw klacht in een zo klein mogelijk gezelschap wordt afgehandeld, of dat je daar op zijn minst zelf inspraak over hebt. Op die manier zorg je ervoor dat de gekwetste deelnemer zelf de controle houdt over hoe hij met zijn gevoelens om kan gaan en wie daarbij betrokken raakt.

Veel mensen zouden naar onze mening geschikt zijn als equity officer. Het is belangrijk dat een equity officer bewust bezig is met equity en klachten altijd serieus neemt, specifiek ook voor en na het toernooi. Ervaring is daarbij handig, maar geen vereiste voor het aanstellen van een equity officer. Dit betekent dat veel mensen geschikt kunnen zijn als equity officer. Het belangrijkste is dat het bewustzijn van het belang van equity aanwezig is, zodat deelnemers zich serieus genomen voelen. Ervaren equity officers zijn vaak bereid om nieuwe officers te begeleiden of te helpen bij het opstellen van een beleid.

We hopen dat de organisaties van toekomstige Nederlandse toernooien om bovenstaande redenen het aanstellen van een onafhankelijke equity officer zullen overwegen. Niet alleen maken zij het voor de organisatie tijdens een toernooi makkelijker om een positieve sfeer te behouden, maar voornamelijk laten zij deelnemers zich meer op hun gemak voelen, omdat deelnemers weten dat zij bij vervelende situaties altijd hun ei kwijt kunnen.