Don’t Curb Your Enthusiasm For Tourism

33 people, 20 members and 13 guests, turned out on a rather warm Tuesday evening for a debate on tourism.

After a general welcome from William Hagerup , the stage was given over to Andy M., who chaired the Table Topic session with a selection of truly quirky motions that nevertheless worked really well, from double dipping (hummus), friends who cancel last minute, Jeff Bezos, billionaires and politics, Jon Stewart’s trustworthiness, lie detectors for politicians and chocolate as one of your five a day (bring it on, say I).

Surprisingly, our founding member Paul Carroll won best TT speech for his defence of unhygienic eating practices, proving that when you put your mind to it, you can defend the indefensible.

The prepared debate was chaired by our newly joined member Latifa, who showed no signs of lack of experience. The motion was This House Would Curb Tourism, and the vote before the debate 8 voting in favour, 14 against and 9 abstaining. After a debate with an unnecessary degree of agreement and some strawmanning, the vote went 12 in favour, 12 against and 6 abstaining! A tie!

Debate Chair Latifa called upon Club President Kristina, who demanded a second referendum with no abstentions.

This yielded 12 in favour, 15 opposed (showing you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him vote), and so the motion was defeated with a swing to the Proposition; well done to both teams!

Maria G won Best Debate Speech, well done!

The Debate Evaluator was William, who pointed out that the Proposition could have had a stronger case by making it clear who wanted the policies they proposed - is anyone asking for this? This meant they lacked a warrant - that which connects the arguments back to the need to vote for the motion.

The Opposition, however, did not rebut the main points of the Proposition, apart from questioning the size of the tourist tax, and they did also commit the strawman fallacy of pretending the Proposition was against tourism per se, which they had made clear they were not. Too much time was spent by both sides talking of what they agreed on: responsible and sensibly managed tourism.

Recommendation: listen carefully to what is actually being said and respond to that, not to what you would like the Prop to have said – this helps you avoid the strawman fallacy and makes the debate more interesting: we are supposed to disagree with reasons, not spend our time on what we agree on.

After the meeting, a few people stayed back and enjoyed a drink and chat.

The next meeting will be on the 27th of August on the very current topic of our right (or otherwise) to protest, with the motion This House Would Abolish The Public Order Act 2023.

Book your FREE ticket here. https://104londondebaters.club/