WELCOME TO ROUND 2 OF THE FUTURE OF EUROPE E-DEBATE COMPETITION!
The topic for the 2nd debate is:
Civil disobedience and actions are justified when the justice system and rule of law are undermined.
In this debate Team Michel (Affirmative) will face TeamBG1 (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.
There were many good ideas and interesting discussions in this match, but I ultimately felt that the proposition, Team Michel, won the debate.
To sum up, the risks and dangers brought into the debate by the opposing team, as well as their alternatives, were not explained well-enough in order to prove that this idea will probably lead to unwanted or disadvantageous outcomes.
Proposition case is fairly to the point: this type of action can function as a pressure valve for civic outrage, and can relieve some of the tension within society, before it escalates to full-blown rebellion. Furthermore, when democratic institutions fails, like those that pertain to the justice system, then this is the only and best course of action.
Opposition brings in some good points, like the fact that what proposition describes and defines can also fit legitimate legal protests, if such actions are ever needed and potential collateral risks and backlash. While all these ideas are valid, they are left to vague, in the realm of possibility rather than probability. It CAN be very dangerous and it CAN lead to backlash, but what does that danger look like? Why is it a probable outcome? What is the backlash and its impact? The “yellow vests” example was useful, but it didn’t correlate with the general idea that “civil disobedience” will likely lead to such unwanted situations. Same goes for the 2nd opposition speech, that tries to convince that such countries cannot or do not exist in the EU, and if there would be “grave” violations, “serious measures would be taken”. What these measures are and how they can be efficient is left unexplained. We already have some countries in the EU that don’t wholly respect all the values and principles of the Union. What has happened to them? Will the same methods work on the situation the motion prescribes?
The affirmative team also leaves some of it’s ideas are arguments unexplained. I can agree that this method might be the only one available, when the justice system is undermined, but whether this method is also likely to succeed, or is worth trying, despite the potential downsides, is left up to the judge.
Ultimately I felt that this method has some serious risks and potential downsides, but that none of them seem likely enough or have a strong enough negative impact to conclude that the motion is more rather harmful than desirable. In conclusion, Team Michel is the winner of this debate.
1st Affirmative: 17 (Content: 7; Style: 5; Strategy: 5)
2nd Affirmative: 15 (Content: 6; Style: 5; Strategy: 4)
1st Negative: 15 (Content: 6; Style: 5; Strategy: 4)
2nd Negative: 14 (Content: 5; Style: 5; Strategy: 4)