WELCOME TO ROUND 3 OF THE FUTURE OF EUROPE E-DEBATE COMPETITION!
The topic for the 3rd debate is:
The European Commission should take into account civil society protests when deciding the use of Article 7.
In this debate The Da Vinci System (Affirmative) will face Team EngagEU 2 (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 a very difficult debate to adjudicate, with good ideas and arguments from both sides, but in the end I felt that the opposition had a slightly better performance, so I gave the win to Team EngagEU 2.
This debate was very difficult to adjudicate and the main reason for this is that both teams concentrated on different aspects of the debate. On the one hand, the proposition focused on the potential benefits of this measure (strengthen democracy, lower euroscepticism, creates a mechanism that incentives states to “behave”, and so on), while I felt the opposition talked mostly about the impracticalities of the measure, diminishing the potential benefits and raising questions of efficiency or practicality (how do you efficiently consult amorphous groups, what happens with the eurosceptic segment of civil society). So I’m left, at the end of the debate, with a few clear ideas: this measure can have benefits for society, but the exact scope and impact of these benefits is unclear. So the decision boils down to a simple question, which do I find more likely, that there will be long-term benefits, or that the practical issues outweigh the advantages.
After reading and re-reading the debate closely, I felt that the theoretical advantages are there, but I was left with too many questions and pitfalls in order to believe that this motion would more rather work and be beneficial, than not.
I think team opposition could have tried to present clearer harms that the motion could create, which was a bit lacking. Maybe, as a simple example, what happens to the population when politicians suddenly have extra incentive to ‘manipulate’ their civic voice. But the questions and issues raised with vagueness of what these “groups” can mean, the bureaucratic burden on the EU, how the process could be skewed provided enough doubt in my mind as to whether the proposition advantages can be realistically reached.
The proposition sets up the debate fairly well and brings some strong arguments, but I felt it necessary to ground the debate more within the real world, especially in the 2nd speech. Some of the responses provided to the opposition attacks are fairly reasonable, like the fact that euroscepticism will probably diminish in some areas, or mechanisms of accountability within the EU. But how this process can take place, without becoming a bureaucratic nightmare, isn’t very thoroughly tackled.
Because the ideas presented by either teams ran mostly in parallel, because the teams focused on different issues, I had to choose for myself which side I found more persuasive. In the end, I sided with Team EngagEU 2 as the winner for this debate.
1st Affirmative: 19 (Content: 7; Style: 6; Strategy: 6)
2nd Affirmative: 18 (Content: 7; Style: 6; Strategy: 5)
1st Negative: 19 (Content: 7; Style: 7; Strategy: 5)
2nd Negative: 19 (Content: 7; Style: 7; Strategy: 5)