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 Team Laute Europaer (Affirmative) will face TeamBG4 (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.
It was a fairly close debate, but ultimately I sided with the opposition, TeamBG4 (EU Prosperity).
To sum up, I think both teams bring valuable ideas to the debate, but they are not always developed fully. I found that team proposition spent too much time/space describing mechanisms and potential outcomes, rather than trying to prove why a positive/beneficial outcome is most likely.
Opposition mostly points this out, by showing that “symbols”, for example, can have wonderful and abhorrent connotations at the same time and that we have no control over how a symbol is ultimately perceived. But the opposition team also doesn’t try to prove that such a symbolic ‘leader’ for the EU would probably be a “divisive” symbol.
I do find that the proposition brings a lot of valid ideas, like the incentive to make the process more ‘transparent’ or being accountable to the european constituents. I would have like to hear more on these points, like how this incentive would word, what “making the process more transparent” means in practice and why it will probably happen. The fact that the leader could be held accountable doesn’t mean it’s a likely scenario, or one that has inherent benefits.
In contrast, the opposition team seems to be more grounded in reality, questioning the need for such a process, if it’s useful or legitimate to elect someone with such a specific job description, the fact that there might already be EU leaders that fill this role (left mostly unexplained), and lastly, the difficulties that such an electoral campaign could pose (cost and reach).
The 2nd opposition speech continues the discussion on symbols, but as I previously stated, yes such a EU Council President could become a symbol of unity, but the probability of that happening or the ultimate impact of such a possibility is never fully explored.
And the final opposition speech brings more potential risks and downsides to the discussion, like the possibility of new “cultural divisions”, the problem of language barriers and so on. Again, I don’t feel like the potentiality of these scenarios is fully explored, or the on-the-ground-impact, but these ideas are legitimate and explained well, in concept.
Taking all of these aspects into account, I felt that the opposition team had a more persuasive perspective about why this could be harmful, or at best not very beneficial. In conclusion, the winners are TeamBG4 (EU Prosperity).
1st Affirmative: 17 (Content: 7; Style: 5; Strategy: 5)
2nd Affirmative: 13 (Content: 5; Style: 4; Strategy: 4)
1st Negative: 19 (Content: 8; Style: 6; Strategy: 5)
2nd Negative: 18 (Content: 7; Style: 6; Strategy: 5)