WELCOME TO THE FINAL ROUND OF THE FUTURE OF EUROPE E-DEBATE COMPETITION!
The topic for the 4th debate is:
Opposition parties should participate in civil society protests each time they have common goals.
In this debate Team EngagEU 2 (Affirmative) will face Team EngagEU 1 (negative).
The 1st debater of the affirmative team has 24 hours to post the 1st speech of the debate. Even if the speech is posted before the 24 hours expire, the 1st negative speakers’ 24 hours of preparation time will begin when the initial time expires.
Before posting please consult Guildelines and the Online Debate Guide.
Good luck to both teams!
I thank both teams for this debate.
This has been a very difficult debate to adjudicate, but after careful consideration I believe that the winner, by a small margin, is Team EngagEU 2.
As an observation, I will say that I felt both teams went a bit too far in terms of labeling and portrayal of their adversaries. This issue never went too far and I don’t want to dwell on it, but as a rule of thumb, refrain from using labels or commenting on the skills or work of your opponents. Let the argumentation speak for itself, because there is nothing to gain by calling anyone out for being “incapable of following our unambiguous line of argument”, or to remark that it’s “always a sign of a team losing the argument when it starts to use inappropriate language for debating”. Let the judge decide what was or was not appropriate or inappropriate and what arguments were persuasive.
I felt both first speeches from the two teams started the debate pretty well, barring some unexplained ideas or some misinterpretations, but I also felt that these ideas were not significantly expanded upon in the 2nd half of the debate.
To sum up the perspective of both teams, proposition believes that it’s the duty of opposition parties to align with civil society protests, when their goals align, and that this alignment makes the problem/issue more visible in society, result in more awareness and discourse on said problem. Opposition believes that this type of association between parties and the civil society can “pollute” a protest’s core values, and might undermine participation, because people might be pushed away by certain political associations with the movement.
While I didn’t find that the proposition team responded to a reasonable degree to this opposition line of argumentation, and the problems of political association of “pollution” of a protest, I also didn’t feel like opposition brought enough impact or harms on some of their good ideas and arguments. Yes, I do believe the reasoning that this type of political association with protests can happen and can be problematic, the actual impact, other than “reduced participation” isn’t explored enough to supersede the potential and principal benefits outlines by the affirmative team. What is the impact of a political party aligning with a protest, when they’re actually not wanted? Why is the political independence of a CSP more important? It might be, but this needs to be explained in order for me to fully credit the opposition for this argument. Why are these things “clearly undesirable”? Again, they might be, but nothing is inherently clear in such a debate, or if it truly is clear, then I cannot see this as a plus for the team, as it relies on arguments and ideas that are “outside” of the debate, be it clear or not.
There were points for proposition that I also felt didn’t receive enough attention, or explanation, such as the liberal use of the concept of “distinct profiles”, but left rather vague for this idea to have impact in this match.
But that being said, I enjoyed this debate, especially in the first half, which I feel boils down the main issues of this debate fairly well, with a common goal outlines for both teams, even if implicitly. Both teams wants these protests, and the problems brought to light, to have as much exposure and discourse as possible, in the hopes of reaching a solution. Opposition manages to prove that the motion carries some risk, that might diminish the effectiveness of these protests, and inherently if the goals are reached, but I have not found these disadvantages to have enough impact to outweigh the potential benefits.
I would like to congratulate both teams for making it this far and for this final debate. But, alas, there can only be one winner.
Kudos to Team EngagEU 2 for winning this competition and to Team EngagEU 1 for second place.
A representative from CRPE will contact the winners in regards to the prize: the winning team will have the opportunity to present their perspective on the E.U. and civic movements at a conference in Bucharest!
1st Affirmative: 19 (Content: 8; Style: 6; Strategy: 5)
2nd Affirmative: 17 (Content: 7; Style: 5; Strategy: 5)
1st Negative: 19 (Content: 8; Style: 6; Strategy: 5)
2nd Negative: 16 (Content: 6; Style: 5; Strategy: 5)