One weekend, many motions

Datum: Mar 13th, 2011
By
Category: Themen, Turniere

This weekend, VDCH debaters took part in tournaments in Stuttgart and Leeds. On top of that, our neighbors in the Netherlands have also been competing at a tournament. Three tournaments, three CA teams, three languages. Find all motions of this weekend here. Additionally, we kindly ask you, our much appreciated readers, to do us a favor: Which motion did you find the most interesting, the best to debate, the most exciting? Which one did you think was no good idea? Please do not hesitate to leave your comments below and vote for your favorite motion.

Chief adjudicators of ZEIT DEBATTE Stuttgart have been Dessislava Kirova (Berlin), Rafael Heinisch (Greifswald), Igor Gilitschenski (Stuttgart) and Daniel Grotzky (Zurich). More than 100 debaters and judges assembled to finally see Nicolas Friebe and David Lamouroux from Göttingen win the final at Stuttgart City Hall. All motions:

  • Round 1: Dieses Haus glaubt, dass teure medizinische Behandlungen ab einem bestimmten Alter nicht mehr von der Krankenkasse bezahlt werden sollten. (This house believes that expensive medical treatment after a certain age should no longer be covered by insurance.)
  • Round 2: Dieses Haus würde Kraftstoffe auf Basis von Nahrungsmitteln international ächten. (This House would internationally outlaw fuels based on food.)
  • Round 3: Dieses Haus würde Konzentrationslager für Besucher sperren, außer jedoch für ehemalige Opfer und deren Angehörige. (This house would block all concentration camps for visitors, except for former victims and their families.)
  • Round 4: Dieses Haus glaubt, die naturwissenschaftliche Forschung wird in Zukunft mehr Schaden als Nutzen bringen. (This house believes that scientific research in the future will be more harm than good.
  • Round 5: Dieses Haus glaubt, die EU sollte den Opfern von autoritären Regimen, mit denen sie Handel getrieben hat, eine Entschädigung zahlen. (This house believes the EU should pay compensation to the victims of authoritarian regimes with which it has been trading.)
  • Semis: Dieses Haus würde Familien nicht abschieben, wenn deren Kinder gute Noten haben. (This house would not deport families when their children have good grades at school.)
  • Final: Dieses Haus würde die Sicherungsverwahrung abschaffen. (This house would abolish preventive detention.)

Find the tab of ZEIT DEBATTE Stuttgart online.

Leeds is – much like Belgrade – running for staging the Euros 2012. At this year’s Leeds IV, convenor James Wood and his team had the chance to prove themselves good hosts for the international debating circuit. Chief adjudicator (CA) was Doug Cochran – by the way CA of Berlin Worlds 2013. His deputies were Jon Worgan and James Beadle. After five prelims and semis, Tim Lees and Thomas Jackson from Nottingham won the final. The Leeds motions read as follows:

  • Round 1: As an individual with a degenerative terminal illness, this house would not commit suicide.
  • Round 2: You are a young democratic activist in Iran. This house would choose peaceful protest over violent revolution.
  • Round 3: You are a journalist who, a week after the assassination of Martin Luther King, discoveres he was having a serial affair. This house would run the story.
  • Round 4: As a 15 year old from a liberal, well off family who came out over the summer, this house would attend the Harvey Milk School.
  • Round 5: You are an Atheist, this house would never commit an act of blashphemy.
  • Semis: You are Simon Wiesenthal, this house would forgive the Nazi from ‘the sunflower’.
  • Final: You are an artist in a world of suffering. This house would portrait the world how it ought to be rather than how it is.

At the “debattoernooi“ in Utrecht, 48 Dutch teams gathered and competed in four preliminary rounds, semis and a final. Our neighbors like to debate in their mother tongue and delivering seven-minute speeches even in the prelims. The latter is not so customary for British and Irish debaters as it is for Germans or the Dutch. CA-ing the tourney was Tomas Beerthuis, his deputies were Simone van Elk, Sander Kupers, Anne Valkering, Luciën de Bruin and Tjerk Sigterman. Winners oft he competition were Rogier Baart and Ali Al Khatib from Leiden. Their motions:

  • Round 1: Deze kamer betaalt ouders in Afrika om niet meer dan twee kinderen te nemen. (This house would pay parents in Africa to have no more than two children.)
  • Round 2: Deze kamer stelt het oproepen tot een bank-run strafbaar. (This house would make the call for a bank-run criminal.)
  • Round 2: Deze kamer gelooft dat de EU Tunesië en Egypte lidmaatschap van de EER moet bieden als beloning voor een grondig proces van democratisering. (This house would believes that the EU should offer Tunisia and Egypt EU membership as a reward for a thorough democratization process.)
  • Round 4: Deze kamer vergoedt maagdenvliesherstel. (This house would reimburse hymen restoration.)
  • Semis: Deze kamer maakt Jerusalem tot een VN-geadministreerd territorium. (This house would make Jerusalem a territory administered by the United Nations.)
  • Final: Deze kamer verbiedt het ontwikkelen van medicijnen of kedische technieken die herinnerigen kunnen wissen. (This house would prohibit the development of drugs or medical techniques that can erase memories.)

The tab from Utrecht is online now.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Schlagworte: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Kommentare zu “One weekend, many motions”

  1. Alex (DD) says:

    Persönlich fand ich die Themen in Stuttgart alle sehr gut, kann mir aber vorstellen, dass unerfahrenere Teams das anders sehen. Selbst die Themen, denen ich vorher nicht sonderlich viel abgewinnen konnte, haben in der Debatte gezeigt, was in ihnen steckt. Das Finalthema war auf jeden Fall gut.

    Trotz des Lobs muss ich aber zugestehen, dass die Themen aus Leeds schon geiler sind (auch wenn ich erst nachgoogeln musste, was es mit dem Halbfinalthema auf sich hat, da ich “The Sunflowers” nicht kannte). Auch der Ansatz, die Lebensumstände der Regierung vorzugeben, hat definitiv was für sich.

    Utrecht erscheint mir dagegen etwas abzufallen, da ich mir die meisten Themen als Debattierthema durchaus spannend vorstellen kann; Dennoch haben zwei Themen meiner Meinung nach eklatante Schwächen: Vorrunde 1 benötigt einen sehr wasserdichten Antrag, um sicherzustellen, dass es wirklich nur zwei Kinder werden und Vorrunde 3 kann von der Opp schon dann gewonnen werden, wenn sie die Frage aufwirft (und aufzeigt, dass es keine rationale Begründung gibt), warum wir Tunesien und Ägypten etwas geben wollen, was wir der Türkei vehement verweigern.

  2. anne says:

    I agree with the previous comment on the 3rd motion – but the correct translation would be that we offer Tunesia and Egypt membership in the European Economic Area, but not the EU, which makes the debate much better – although we probably should have picked the European Free Trade Area to make the debate more balanced.

  3. anne says:

    ps – the third Utrecht motion that is 🙂

  4. Anja Pfeffermann says:

    oh sorry, that was my mistake: lost in translation! thanks for the hint by the way! 🙂

Comments are closed.

Follow Achte Minute





RSS Feed Posts, RSS Feed Comments
Help for mobile version

Credits

Powered by WordPress.

Our Sponsors

Hauptsponsor
Medienpartner