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 EngagEU 1 (Affirmative) will face Youth Europe Liberty Life (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.
This match was somewhat tricky to judge, but I ultimately have the win to the proposition, Team EngagEU 1.
On a more technical note, I’ll address the “impoliteness” brought up by the 2nd proposition speaker. Calling your opponents incompetent is, at best, an unintended insult and, at worst, a violation of equity standards. I can accept that this was not on purpose, sometimes language can be finicky, but if no harm was meant, than I would’ve at least expected a formal apology, “We meant no disrespect”, or something of the sort. So I did feel that the opposition comment was over the line.
The fundamental reason that proposition wins is that, I do agree, opposition doesn’t actually tackle the motion, but more rather the proposition arguments. I mean that in the sense that there is no substation argumentation against the motion, that doesn’t also use the affirmative points as a starting point. And as the Guide specifies, each team must in turn prove or disprove the motion as being beneficial or desirable.
On the subject of “where this motion is set”, of course there is no inherent restriction within the wording of the motion. But, in this judge’s’ perspective, it will mostly be applied where it CAN be applied (more likely in functional democracies, with at least the appearance of a healthy justice system). Of course this motion could be applied anywhere, but it probably doesn’t make sense to apply it in countries that don’t have a functional democracy or justice system. So the discussion on “where” it takes place wasn’t particularly relevant, as long the core ideas were solid, or not specific to ONE country/instance.
Proposition has some simple, yet sound arguments. Such actions are legitimate when ‘conventional’ justice fails, it is a means of free expression and populism may rise, if nothing is done. I would have liked further explanation on the point of populism, as the connection or mechanism isn’t made clear, as pointed out by opposition. Also, there is no significant response given to the idea of “potential of escalation to violence and the damages caused” by the proposition team.
On the other hand, the opposition doesn’t in turn provide enough ideas or arguments about why this can be harmful, or more importantly, will probably be harmful. Yes, the rule of law is important and core to the values of the EU, but what should happen if this core value gets eroded? Some clarification is provided in the second speech, but it is neither of sufficient impact of overall clarity to change the course of the debate. And new ideas and arguments tend to have less impact if presented only in the second speech, as opposed to expanded upon from the 1st speech.
This might be a more “technical” call and I didn’t discuss more of the content nuances presented, but overall I felt that the propostion team did a better job of fullfiling their role, which is to prove the motion to be true or its implementation desirable. In conclusion Team EngagEU 1 wins this debate.
1st Affirmative: 16 (Content: 7; Style: 5; Strategy: 4)
2nd Affirmative: 17 (Content: 7; Style: 5; Strategy: 5)
1st Negative: 11 (Content: 6; Style: 2; Strategy: 3)
2nd Negative: 11 (Content: 5; Style: 3; Strategy: 3)