I talking at the parliament of the European Union, arguing against the creation of «the army of the European Union». This is, as you guessed, only a game, a fictitious simulation, the kind of exercises done at the Leuven Debate Society. They happen usually in some classroom at KU Leuven, but this time we had the exceptional opportunity of doing it there. This is not the best speech I have ever given, yet I like the visual setting so I decided to record me. You can notice that my words are often chaotic, because not only when we do this we have very little time to plan our arguments but this occasion the speech had to be only 5 minutes instead of the usual 7 minutes. Nevertheless something more or less coherent is expressed by my improvised words. Here I am the «leader of the opposition», the first one to talk, opposing the imaginary motion of the «government» of creating an European army. One does not choose his position, it is always random, so this time I was very lucky that I got the actually correct position to defend in real life. The judges determined that my team lost the debate, as there was little cohesion between our different speeches: I argued for peace and avoiding imperialist dangers —a more ethical argument—, while my teammates argued that it would be too expensive and too chaotic to organise with so many languages (requiring 24 translators in the battlefield!) —a more economical argument—. You are exhorted to share your opinion about this arguments! Or about my rhetoric! 😉 «This house supports the creation of the European army, controlled by the European Parliament».
British parliamentary debate,Bp Debate,Rhetoric,Pacifism,Debating Society,Brussels,
I talking at the parliament of the European Union, arguing against the creation of «the army of the European Union». This is, as you guessed, only a game, a fictitious simulation, the kind of exercises done at the Leuven Debate Society. They happen usually in some classroom at KU Leuven, but this time we had the exceptional opportunity of doing it there. This is not the best speech I have ever given, yet I like the visual setting so I decided to record me. You can notice that my words are often chaotic, because not only when we do this we have very little time to plan our arguments but this occasion the speech had to be only 5 minutes instead of the usual 7 minutes. Nevertheless something more or less coherent is expressed by my improvised words. Here I am the «leader of the opposition», the first one to talk, opposing the imaginary motion of the «government» of creating an European army. One does not choose his position, it is always random, so this time I was very lucky that I got the actually correct position to defend in real life. The judges determined that my team lost the debate, as there was little cohesion between our different speeches: I argued for peace and avoiding imperialist dangers —a more ethical argument—, while my teammates argued that it would be too expensive and too chaotic to organise with so many languages (requiring 24 translators in the battlefield!) —a more economical argument—. You are exhorted to share your opinion about this arguments! Or about my rhetoric! 😉 «This house supports the creation of the European army, controlled by the European Parliament».
0 Comments