Motion 1

The debate was divided into two main motions to discuss:

MOTION 1: This house bans beauty contests

MOTION 2: Is it justified to have parental control in a child's social media?

In every debate round there was a government team, an opposition team and an adjudicator team who judged objectively (according to the elements explained before) and after having actively listened to both sides. Government teams proposed the motion, explained their reasons and supported their proposal with examples, while the opposition gave their best to find arguments against the motion.

The first motion was: "This house will ban the beauty contests". Every team brought a variety of good arguments and examples to the table. There were many interesting points and arguments. Unhealthy lifestyle, discrimination and hate speech, fake beauty standards etc., are only a few points which occurred on debates within the government team. On the other side, the opposition team had arguments like competitors' self-development, better post-contest life, better exchange of goods between the organisations etc. This motion was selected to be the main subject in the finals of the debate competition. The two teams who qualified for the finals and clashed in a dynamic and productive debate were "Balkan negotiators" on the government side, and "Goal diggers" on the opposition side.

In the end, the winners of the competition were Goal diggers.

Motion 2

Focusing on the second issue, we have discussed whether the presence of parents in their children's social networks is correct or justifiable in some way. With each group divided and properly organized, there were 3 discussions on this topic.

On the one hand, the government had to defend parental control apps. Some of the best statements that came out in debate were:

Parental control is justifiable in order to protect minors. There are many examples where this behavior is shown to have saved lives. It is a way to prevent cyberbullying as parents are able to see suspicious behavior. Mobile addiction in minors can be avoided.

On the other hand, the opposition presented very strong statements in several cases, effectively backed up with examples:

Individual freedom is a fundamental right.

The use of critical thinking in children is promoted, so that they develop their own online presence.

Without parental control, social accounts are hidden from children, avoiding secrecy and behavior that may be more harmful.

The debates were of great interest and were organized following the pre-established method of the world debate, in its simplest version (given that many people had never carried out an activity of this type). This method was based on alternating government and opposition speeches at 5minute intervals with a 2-minute break between each one. During the speeches, the opposing group could make interventions to the speakers (which could be accepted or rejected depending on the speaker's strategy). After the 3 speakers from each group, the opposition presented a 3-minute reply where they had to summarize their ideas. Finally, the government did the same.

Once the debate was over, the judges individually voted on the performance of each individual and added the points individually and collectively to decide the winning team.

We all really enjoyed this activity and learned a lot about how to properly debate. The winning team was Balkan negotiators! Well-deserved victory.