Ruairidh Macintosh and Daan Welling from Leiden/St Andrews won the Lustrum Leiden Open 2014. The team with the name “Two Guys” beat 57 other teams from all over the world who attended the Dutch tournament. The decision was very narrow: The judging panel took very long to come to a conclusion, in the end favouring “Two Guys” in a 4-3 split decision. Ruairidh also was the best speaker after the five preliminary rounds, scoring 81.8 points on average and remarkable 89 points in the fifth round. The full team and speaker tab is available online.

Martijn Otten, Lisa Schallenberg and Gigi Gil from the Leiden Debating Union organised the event which took place February 22^nd to 23^rd and celebrated the Union’s tenth anniversary. They were supported by a team of 13 more organisers and tabmasters. In order to create a more ceremonial atmosphere, the participants were encouraged to follow a dresscode stated as „Be classy – suit up!“ Leela Koenig was the Chief Adjudicator. Together with the Deputy Chief Adjudicators Ashish Kumar, Niels Schröter, Francesca Ruddy and Nika Jelaska, she determined the motions.

Missing from the document is a short info slide about the tradition of confession in the Catholic Church for the final. There was also an info slide before round five. However, it merely quoted “several studies that showed successful sexual relationships between men and dolphins” and was explicitly marked as “not related to the motion, but information nevertheless.”

Several teams from the German-speaking region attended, including teams from Berlin, Cologne, Iserlohn, Münster and Vienna. None of them managed to break into the semi-finals, although two teams from Tilbury House of Cologne and one from Vienna broke into the Novice Final. The prize for best novice team however went to Matija Dragojevic and Stefan Mitrovic from Belgrade.

The motions of the Lustrum Leiden Open:

R1: This house believes that the governments of developing nations should actively encourage slum tourism.
(Info slide: Slum tourism is a type of tourism that involves visiting impoverished areas – usually through a service provided by tourism agencies. Slum tourism is now becoming increasingly prominent in developing nations, including India, Brazil, Kenya and Indonesia.)

R2: This house, as a critic, would advise the public not to consume works of art, music and film produced by artists that you deem morally reprehensible, regardless of the artistic merit of the work.

R3: This house would randomly select citizens to actively assist in the rehabilitation process of ex-convicts, and make participation mandatory for citizens.
(Inflo slide: There have been successful experiments with citizens actively involved in the rehabilitation process of ex-convicts by, for example, hosting them in their house, or building supportive relationships with them. In these programmes, the state ensured adequate financial and professional assistance. The participation in these programmes by citizens and ex-convicts has always been voluntary.)

R4: This house believes that the state should make funding for political parties proportionate to the number of members from low-income brackets in those parties.

R5: This house would nationalise prostitution.

Novice Final: This house, as a nominee of such an award, would not accept it.
(Info slide: Some academic and cultural institutions have a practice of awarding prizes that recognise the achievements of members of minority groups. For example, “Muslim Student Achievement Award” or “African American Writer of the Year”.)

Semi-Final: This house believes it is legitimate for states to deny residence or asylum to immigrants who openly contradict their predominant values.

Final: This house believes that the Catholic Church should make absolution for those who have committed a crime conditional upon them handing themselves in to the police.

hug/kem