Welcome to Round 1 of the Future of Europe E-Debate Competition!
The topic for the 1st debate is:
The President of the European Council should be elected by EU citizens.
In this debate Youth Europe Liberty Life (Affirmative) will face EU Democrats (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 all teams!
I thank both teams for this debate.
For this match, the winning team was that of proposition, Youth Europe Liberty Life.
The reason for this is quite simple, the affirmative team gave better reasons than the opposition team, both in quantity and in the depth of the analysis.
The first prop speech outlines the principles of the EU and participatory democracy and how it’s a core value for the union. Furthermore explained is the sentiment of EU citizens who feel like their voice isn’t heard or that their vote doesn’t count. Creating a process to elect the president of the EU council could alleviate these feelings of democratic deficit, at least in principle. I would have like to hear more about the impact of the measure and how it directly resolves the problems that are identified. If people “feel like their voice doesn’t count or isn’t heard”, then what is the mechanism that leads to that feeling changing?
The opposition posits that the EU isn’t ready for federalization and then equates this with not being ready to vote directly on such an important role, though I feel, as proposition points out, that this correlation is tenuous. There is legitimacy to the idea that voter turnout will be low, but why this is important, or what impact this might have is not explained, thus no clear harm for this change arise and neither are the arguments of proposition challenged.
The 2nd proposition speech points out the weaknesses and leaps of logic in the 1st opp speech and brings some further compelling points about the advantages of this motion. The importance of the role is further emphasized, though once again, it’s unclear if this perspective will be shared among EU citizens, or even reach them. But if people understand this importance, then they will probably feel like their choice, their vote carries more weight and in turn leads to more involvement in the process, a simple yet sound argument. In turn, elections would give this position a bit more legitimacy and give the citizens a mechanism to hold the President of the European Council accountable. Overall, proposition succeeded in showing broadly why this measure will be effective in potentially raising people’s engagement and satisfaction with the EU political process.
The final opposition speech does bring up some valid points, like the discrepancy of population numbers between countries and how that can affect representation, and in turn lead to more feelings of disdain towards the EU. Or the fact that in the current system, heads-of-state are a legitimate actor to represent their peoples when electing an EU council president. But unfortunately, none of these ideas have enough impact to topple the proposition arguments, that are also left mostly untouched by the end. If these ideas were presented earlier in the debate and we’re further expanded upon, then opposition would’ve had a greater chance of defeating the affirmative team.
In conclusion, the winning team is Youth Europe Liberty Life.
1st Affirmative: 20 (Content: 9; Style: 6; Strategy: 5)
2nd Affirmative: 21 (Content: 9; Style: 6; Strategy: 6)
1st Negative: 11 (Content: 4; Style: 4; Strategy: 3)
2nd Negative: 12 (Content: 5; Style: 4; Strategy: 3)