Dutch-WUDC-CA-Team-Briefing

Test

max 1 point, max 15 seconds
Clarifying / challenging a model

- pg.19 of the WUDC manual

motion. Opening Opposition has the option, but not the obligation

or expectation, to propose any counter policy that consumes equal resources to Opening Government’s, and does not fulfill the motion.

been fully explained is a new contribution to the debate.

This includes rebuttal, examples and framing.

and defend arguments made by the extension speaker and respond

to existing material but can not begin entirely new arguments.

persuasiveness.

teams ignoring arguments does not weaken them.

it. ‘Even if’s’, or identifying multiple ways in which an

argument can play out, are not contradictions.

merely rephrasing arguments, with no new analysis, does not add

value.

so-called personal preference for one style over another may well

reflect bias.

stated otherwise, motions should be debated in a global context.

However, different arguments may well have different weightings in different contexts.

the greatest extent possible, compare arguments based only on what

was said in the debate. Where a judge is unable to assess a set of arguments based only on what was said in the debate, they should do so using the smallest and most reasonable set of assumptions, and be prepared to explain these in their oral adjudication.

that X should
This house, as X, would
This house regrets
This house

supports

do if you have a question about the meaning of

the words in the motion

of the speech, not a function of the round, the

quality of room or the specific speaker in question.
- A speech does not have to have all of the characteristics of a given bracket to be in that bracket.

your numerical scores

speaks.

A factor (with multiple choice questions and CV) that goes

into the initial ranking.

Ongoing ranking throughout the competition will be updated with feedback.

Calls: Swapping adjacent teams.

Opposition
Due to the strong case from closing opposition
Due to expecting

and filling in a specific argument

Assigning importance to arguments or clashes from personal opinion

Lack of Specificity

Efficiency

other panelists disagree with you (and with each other) about

the ranking of the teams. You are running out of time to come to a decision.
What should you do?

They are both relevant to the debate and have analysis

of very similar depth. OO has offered multiple POIs to CG, but those were never accepted.

responded well to OG. CG comes up with some completely

novel material which is relevant to the debate and well explained.

true:

constructive extension, but provides a number of new responses that

are sufficient to beat OO.

Which of the following is true of the rankings of these three teams?

elections, they must have all the relevant knowledge. This includes

the horrors of war. If we do not have the media showing this - citizens are much more likely to support wars or politicians which are likely to go to war and we will be hurt so much by unnecessary violence".
"We fully agree that citizens need to be informed regarding the atrocities of war. This can be done with text and explanation, no need to actually show it. Government has a burden to demonstrate why showing is the only way of getting the relevant information and they haven't done so in this argument."

gives this argument:
"Everyone knows that the Neo-Classical Synthesis says that

Keynesian Economics only works in short term macro economics. So this plan will never have positive long term effects".

standing army", LO gives this argument:
"This could never happen in

real life! Countries wouldn't agree to the proposition because they would be scared that, at some point, this same army would be used against them."

parents to send their kids to mainstream schools". OG defines

the debate in this manner: "It's terrible that sometimes deaf parents feel pressure to send their kids to specialized schools or aren't even aware that they have the option to send their kids to mainstream schools. We will make sure every deaf parent is fully aware of the option to send their kids to mainstream schools and will provide all of the assistance needed in order for that to work."

to use violence in response to police oppression", OG makes

the argument that the use of violence against police is a natural extension of the right to self-defense. They explain how police tactics often border on physical assault and how it is legitimate to respond to physical assault with violence as self-defense.
OO then reply with the following words: "this argument misses that police respond to protesters' violence with even greater physical force, meaning things are worse for protesters overall."

the conflict ends and they will be worse. Religious sites

and symbols are one of the only things that push for moral actions, especially when the people are already under a lot of stress and in a bad place. The religious symbols are what connects people together and to their past. Moreover, religious leaders and symbols are almost always a force against the worst types of violence. By hurting them, it becomes harder to get people to be good and less violent. That's why things will be much worse even after the conflict is over.“

"This policy is going to aggravate bloodshed and relapses in post conflict societies. In fractured post-war societies, the sources of traditional moral authority are often the doctrine and the institution of the church. In destroying the symbols that are holding a fragile and torn people together, the same symbols that are sustaining the traditional identities: You're undermining those moral restrictions on human behavior. This is particularly pernicious because the most abhorrent atrocities are almost universally opposed by the creed and moral authority of the church. Thus, relapses of horrid violence are more plausible and more atrocious."

the conflict ends and they will be worse. Religious sites

and symbols are one of the only things that push for moral actions, especially when the people are already under a lot of stress and in a bad place. The religious symbols are what connects people together and to their past. Moreover, religious leaders and symbols are almost always a force against the worst types of violence. By hurting them, it becomes harder to get people to be good and less violent. That's why things will be much worse even after the conflict is over.“

"This policy is going to aggravate bloodshed and relapses in post conflict societies. In fractured post-war societies, the sources of traditional moral authority are often the doctrine and the institution of the church. In destroying the symbols that are holding a fragile and torn people together, the same symbols that are sustaining the traditional identities: You're undermining those moral restrictions on human behavior. This is particularly pernicious because the most abhorrent atrocities are almost universally opposed by the creed and moral authority of the church. Thus, relapses of horrid violence are more plausible and more atrocious."

the conflict ends and they will be worse. Religious sites

and symbols are one of the only things that push for moral actions, especially when the people are already under a lot of stress and in a bad place. The religious symbols are what connects people together and to their past. Moreover, religious leaders and symbols are almost always a force against the worst types of violence. By hurting them, it becomes harder to get people to be good and less violent. That's why things will be much worse even after the conflict is over.“

"This policy is going to aggravate bloodshed and relapses in post conflict societies. In fractured post-war societies, the sources of traditional moral authority are often the doctrine and the institution of the church. In destroying the symbols that are holding a fragile and torn people together, the same symbols that are sustaining the traditional identities: You're undermining those moral restrictions on human behavior. This is particularly pernicious because the most abhorrent atrocities are almost universally opposed by the creed and moral authority of the church. Thus, relapses of horrid violence are more plausible and more atrocious."

the conflict ends and they will be worse. Religious sites

and symbols are one of the only things that push for moral actions, especially when the people are already under a lot of stress and in a bad place. The religious symbols are what connects people together and to their past. Moreover, religious leaders and symbols are almost always a force against the worst types of violence. By hurting them, it becomes harder to get people to be good and less violent. That's why things will be much worse even after the conflict is over.“

"This policy is going to aggravate bloodshed and relapses in post conflict societies. In fractured post-war societies, the sources of traditional moral authority are often the doctrine and the institution of the church. In destroying the symbols that are holding a fragile and torn people together, the same symbols that are sustaining the traditional identities: You're undermining those moral restrictions on human behavior. This is particularly pernicious because the most abhorrent atrocities are almost universally opposed by the creed and moral authority of the church. Thus, relapses of horrid violence are more plausible and more atrocious."

the conflict ends and they will be worse. Religious sites

and symbols are one of the only things that push for moral actions, especially when the people are already under a lot of stress and in a bad place. The religious symbols are what connects people together and to their past. Moreover, religious leaders and symbols are almost always a force against the worst types of violence. By hurting them, it becomes harder to get people to be good and less violent. That's why things will be much worse even after the conflict is over.“

"This policy is going to aggravate bloodshed and relapses in post conflict societies. In fractured post-war societies, the sources of traditional moral authority are often the doctrine and the institution of the church. In destroying the symbols that are holding a fragile and torn people together, the same symbols that are sustaining the traditional identities: You're undermining those moral restrictions on human behavior. This is particularly pernicious because the most abhorrent atrocities are almost universally opposed by the creed and moral authority of the church. Thus, relapses of horrid violence are more plausible and more atrocious."

the conflict ends and they will be worse. Religious sites

and symbols are one of the only things that push for moral actions, especially when the people are already under a lot of stress and in a bad place. The religious symbols are what connects people together and to their past. Moreover, religious leaders and symbols are almost always a force against the worst types of violence. By hurting them, it becomes harder to get people to be good and less violent. That's why things will be much worse even after the conflict is over.“

"This policy is going to aggravate bloodshed and relapses in post conflict societies. In fractured post-war societies, the sources of traditional moral authority are often the doctrine and the institution of the church. In destroying the symbols that are holding a fragile and torn people together, the same symbols that are sustaining the traditional identities: You're undermining those moral restrictions on human behavior. This is particularly pernicious because the most abhorrent atrocities are almost universally opposed by the creed and moral authority of the church. Thus, relapses of horrid violence are more plausible and more atrocious."

the conflict ends and they will be worse. Religious sites

and symbols are one of the only things that push for moral actions, especially when the people are already under a lot of stress and in a bad place. The religious symbols are what connects people together and to their past. Moreover, religious leaders and symbols are almost always a force against the worst types of violence. By hurting them, it becomes harder to get people to be good and less violent. That's why things will be much worse even after the conflict is over.“

"This policy is going to aggravate bloodshed and relapses in post conflict societies. In fractured post-war societies, the sources of traditional moral authority are often the doctrine and the institution of the church. In destroying the symbols that are holding a fragile and torn people together, the same symbols that are sustaining the traditional identities: You're undermining those moral restrictions on human behavior. This is particularly pernicious because the most abhorrent atrocities are almost universally opposed by the creed and moral authority of the church. Thus, relapses of horrid violence are more plausible and more atrocious."

is a legitimate tactic of warfare“