greybox 2004-10-13 Kamikatze/Slow Death

Mini-ballot from Petr
Although at first the debate seemed a little bit short of topics, it actually developed into something which contained many good points and was pleasure to watch.

The affirmatives defined peaceful coexistence as "living without international conflicts" as Islamic world as "states with more than 50% of Muslim population".

They brought only two arguments into the debate. That does not necessarily have to be a problem, when those argument are supported with enough examples and ideas to provide enough things to talk about for both first speakers. Unfortunately, it wasn't case of this debate. Since the resolution was a prepared one, I'd suggest to invest some more time for preparation of one more argument and/or developing the ones you already have.

The first argument was Christianity and Islam are based on the same principles and initially consisted only of stating that Bible and Koran are not pushing anyone into violence and both Christians and Muslims believe in the same god. Ivan from the negative side opposed this by raising the point of different women rights in both cultures and also touched the issue of Islam being in the "14th century holy war phase", which wasn't quite understood by everyone and deserved clearer explanation. He also mentioned problem of terrorism.

Anna then repeated the affirmative "Koran is about peace" point and made a confusing statement that Palestine doesn't fall into affirmative definition of "Islamic world", because it has less than half of Muslim inhabitants. She also said that terrorist abuse Islam and every religion has extremists, which was a very good point and would be crucial in the debate if terrorism was its important point. (Which didn't happen.)

Another point in this argument came with Jakub, who explained the issue of influence of Muslim priests and spreading extremism. This point wasn't addressed by Iva and was the reason why I gave this argument to the negative side.

Second argument was Peaceful coexistence is possible and was mostly about Turkey, which is an Islamic state, but also a member of NATO and several other "western" organizations. For me, deciding points was Anna's statement that even though Turkey is the only example of affirmatives, it shows peaceful coexistence is possible. To this, Jakub replied that Turkey is not a typical Islamic state and further explained this by introducing idea about coexisting with ultra-rigid regime of Taliban. This point wasn't refuted by the Affirmatives and I considered it important enough to win the argument for the negative side.

In the debate, there was also the issue of cutting hands of thieves and other cultural differences, but there were out of topic (as affirmatives said).

All in all, although affirmatives brought many good points, negatives did a better job in reacting on all important topics in the debate and successfully refuted both affirmative arguments. Therefore, negative side wins this debate.

soutěž: Autumn Cup

datum: 2004-10-13 00:00:00
místo: GJN
teze: Peaceful coexistence of islamic world and western civilization is possible (oficiální teze)

		afirmace		negace
klub		Debatní klub Nad Alejí		Gymnázium Jana Nerudy
tým		Kamikatze		Slow Death
výsledek	body		6	vyhráli 3:0	10
1. řečník	řečnické body	Grieslerová Martina	68	Hrabánek Ivan	71
2. řečník	řečnické body	Kunová Anna	78	Faryad Jakub	80
3. řečník	řečnické body	Michaljaničová Iva	72	Hrdličková Petra	76

rozhodčí

rozhodčí	rozhodnutí
Novák Petr	neg	3:0

IB

člověk	role	IB
Pštross "Nick" Mikuláš	trenér	0.060
Dutkevičová "Deri" Lenka	trenér	0.060
Hrabánek Dušan	trenér	0.300
Novák Petr	rozhodčí	1.000
Hrdličková Petra	debatér	1.000
Hrabánek Ivan	debatér	1.000
Faryad Jakub	debatér	1.000
Kunová Anna	debatér	0.600
Grieslerová Martina	debatér	0.600
Michaljaničová Iva	debatér	0.600