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 TeamBG2 (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 all teams!
I thank both teams for this debate.
For this match, the winning team was that of opposition, Team EngagEU 1.
The general reasoning for this is quite simple, team opposition laid out several well-considered, clearly explained argument, with several disadvantages and substantial impact, while I struggled to follow the proposition team’s logic and argumentation, as it relates to the motion at hand.
The first proposition speech is very rich in rhetoric and some interesting facts and ideas, but as opposition points out, these do not clearly relate to the motion in a meaningful way and it’s hard to gleem specific reasons for why the motion is beneficial. Same can be said for most of the 2nd proposition speech, that mostly tried to diminish the threat of populism, but in the last third some legitimate ideas start to form about the ‘symbol of unification’ or ‘representation of the european citizens’. Unfortunately these ideas arrive too late within the match and are not developed thoroughly enough. Furthermore, it seems like the 2nd speech is incomplete.
The opposition team lines out 3 to 4 clear arguments, as well as good counters for the proposition team, within reason. Arguments such as the ‘process of election and the inherent legitimacy of the position’, engagement among the populace and voter turnout (though the impact of this could have been expanded upon, as well as the idea of ‘weakened mandates’) and the threat of populism. The impact of populism is further expanded upon in the 2nd speech, as is the importance of the position within the council, and more nuances about how this role can be seen as legitimate by council members and further technical complications that may arise if the ‘wrong’ person is chosen for the job (though, again, this veers more towards speculation, than argumentation).
In light of all these solid and well-presented arguments and counter-arguments brought to the debate by the opposition team, as well as an unclear case presented by proposition, it is my opinion that Team EngagEU 1 is the winner of this debate.
1st Affirmative: 7 (Content: 2; Style: 3; Strategy: 2)
2nd Affirmative: 8 (Content: 3; Style: 2; Strategy: 3)
1st Negative: 23 (Content: 9; Style: 7; Strategy: 7)
2nd Negative: 23 (Content: 9; Style: 7; Strategy: 7)