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 TeamBG4 (Affirmative) will face The Da Vinci System (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 was an enjoyable match to follow, with a lot of good points made by both sides, but in the end I sided with team opposition, The Da Vinci System.
The main reason for this is simple, I felt that both teams concentrated on their own arguments more than on counter-argumentation, and the opposition team had overall stronger arguments.
Proposition team does a good job of setting up the need for such a potential mechanism, and outlines a few examples where some action is required. Furthermore the idea of “without law, there is no actual democracy” is fairly well explained and upheld by the example. The 2nd speaker also does a good job of showing why “trust” is an essential resource needed in order to foster constructive discourse and interaction between the people and the state, broadly speaking. However, I would have liked to hear/read more about how this motion can actually solve these problems. Yes, in theory it can, but in practice I think that the mechanism needed a more thorough portrayal in order for me to ultimately believe that this motion is desirable, especially in light of the opposition attacks and arguments.
Which does bring me to the opposition team that outlines some clear risks and they’re overall impact, such as the vagueness of the motion which can lead to subjectivity and a lack of consistency in terms of “civil disobedience”, the dangers of radicalization, the slippery slope of the disobedience/abuse on both sides, disengagement from politics and the civic society in general, and so on. Though I felt that some of these points weren’t taken to their natural conclusion, such as the potential weakening of the countries’ economy and how that can lead to disastrous consequences. Furthermore, some alternatives to disobedience are presented, but only superficially and the point made by proposition that “sometimes, we need to resort to this because all else fails” still stands. But I’m convinced that the method proposed with probably lead to the desired outcomes.
In the end, I did not find that proposition tackles the opposition ideas sufficiently, nor do they present arguments that have sufficient impact or likeliness of positive outcome to supersede the myriad risks and pitfalls present. In conclusion, The Da Vinci System wins this debate.
1st Affirmative: 19 (Content: 7; Style: 7; Strategy: 5)
2nd Affirmative: 18 (Content: 7; Style: 7; Strategy: 4)
1st Negative: 22 (Content: 8; Style: 7; Strategy: 6)
2nd Negative: 21 (Content: 8; Style: 7; Strategy: 5)