Issue One
the 1
Editorial Dear reader, we live in the achievement-orientated society, they say. What defines us is not how we act or what we do but solely whether we succeed or not, they say. We learn that performance is important, it is measured everywhere: in school, at work, even in EYP – that bit is true, we have to admit. Although, if one is patient enough, if one’s ambitions are not satisfied with the shallow surface it may appear that there is something more. Real world aside, let’s focus on the EYP. You may have already gotten a glimpse of this special someting within our organisation, or perhaps it is still out there for you to discover. What it is, you are asking? Something every single EYPer we have ever met has struggled to describe. The reason we cross countries and borders, cope with sleepless nights for an unhealthy amount of time and still scream and shout along every time someone begins to play the Street Fighter. The excuse to play silly games, travel all around the continent and meet old friends. To be honest, there is only one way to find out how this special something feels: go on experience it yourself.
hey
Alyona, Flora & Jan
2
2
Contents Session Moments
4-5
History Comes Full Circle
6-7
Do Sanctions on Russia Work?
8-9
Are We Free Or Dead?
10-11
Pandora’s Box in Rhetoric Speaking 12-15 Challenge Accepted
16-17
Session Moments II
18-19
Brought to you by: Philipp Magin DE • Elif Aydinlandi DE • Bethany Appleton UK Rainers Kniss LV • Ann Katrin Blachnik DE • Anthony Fedorov FI Video Editor:
Jan Ruflin CH
Editors:
Flora Böwing AT • Alyona Vyshnevska UA
3
4
5
History
comes full circle
By Bethany Appleton UK & Elif Aydinlandi DE
Having come to the town of M端nster for this event, we reflect on the history of the region and its great and lasting significance for a session that centres around achieving and maintaining peace.
6
M
ünster Regional Selection Conference 2015 is not the first time that delegations have gathered in this city to discuss how to achieve peace in Europe. In 1648, 179 delegates from Spain, the Netherlands, France, Sweden and the Holy Roman Empire came together to write a treaty, the Peace of Westphalia, that would end the conflicts ravaging Europe at that time. These were the thirty years war in the Holy Roman Empire and the eighty years war between Spain and the Dutch Republic. Over the course of many months, representatives from the countries involved decided on a series of treaties for this purpose. Although the documents did not entirely bring an end to the fighting, as France and Spain remained at war until 1659, the Peace of Westphalia made lasting changes to the landscape of Europe. The signing marked the independence of the United Netherlands from Spain as well as establishing the autonomy of several German principalities. Furthermore, some of the principles developed there are still important today, such as respect for the borders of other countries and noninterference in their affairs. This week, delegates meet once more under a session theme of “Peace in Europe – Europe as a peacemaker?” to seek solutions to more contemporary conflicts causing problems in the world today. The pursuit of peace has always been a value at the core of the EU, an organisation which cites “promoting peace, freedom and security in and around Europe” as part of its mission and has played an important part for many years in keeping accord here. So with this in mind, it is very appropriate that nearly four hundred years after different nations came together to discuss and draw up a document that would establish peace between them, 120 modern participants of Münster Regional Selection Conference 2015 are here again. They might not have the same goals, as Europe is a largely peaceful place these days, but this issue from our past can serve as a guide to our future. And remembering the words of Mahatma Ghandi, “The day the power of love overrules the love of power, the world will know peace,” we can hope that this is future we will all one day see.
Photo: Prinzipalmarkt Um
7
Photo: Cicero Magazine
8
I
see that sanctions to Russia really do not work. The economic sanctions, visa sanctions and what not. I am writing from a EU citizen point of view and this point of view does not agree to sanctions made from the Russian side.
Do
sanctions on Russia
work? By Rainers Kniss LV
I think that the right way is not to involve in any kind of sanctions. You will probably ask me why I say that kind of absurd thing. The thing with sanctions is the same as with karma. What you do, you get that back. The EU put visa sanctions on Russia. Russia does the same with Latvian people and they do not allow to sell European products in their stores. What I am saying is that every action has got a reaction. Bearing in mind past aggressions connected to Russia, some argue that economic and visa sanctions in this scale do not accomplish the EU’s goals while still provoking Russia. For example, it could happen to you that if you walk to a Russian citizen living in Latvia and start speaking Latvian he will start to shout and say that everyone should know Russian. The EU does not need to take advice from the US and follow their example with sanctions. The difference between the US and the EU is that the EU is far more dependent on Russia economically. For example they do not buy gas from Russia, but from the whole used EU gas by one third is bought from Russia. A lot of EU countries, including Austria, Sweden and Italy are already saying that they want to loosen the sanctions and do not want to extend them. Both, sanctions by Russia as well as by the EU affect the economies of several EU countries quite a lot economically. For example, half of the Latvian railway export was only to Russia, now, due to trade barriers, it is facing quite a bad time. To conclude all of this, sanctions are not the right way to make peace in this situation. We already see that sanctions do not work, Russia is still supporting separatists in Eastern Ukraine. Sanctions need to be lose and in no way extended. Do not take advice from the US and do not follow their way, because they are in quite a different situation. This is a challenge that the European Union needs to face on its own.
This article represents the author’s individual point of view
9
Are We FREE
Or DEAD? Living in a golden cage By Elif Aydinlandi DE and Anthony Fedorov FI
10
Absolute freedom equals absolute anarchy
T
he day is January the 7th 2015, shortly after noon. Paris is in shock, as is the rest of the world community when confronted with the mass shooting in the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. This Charlie Hebdo shooting sparked up the age old and highly controversial debate if freedom or security is more important in a state. It begs the question if the deaths of ten innocent people could have been prevented by stricter security measures. Freedom is undoubtedly a fundamental human right which cannot and definitely should not be restricted. Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights states the right to respect for private and family life. Therefore, massive data retention by national intelligence agencies is regarded as a violation to basic human rights and highly criticised as such. Freedom in itself always correlates with security threats. Absolute freedom equals absolute anarchy. That is what a lot of freedom advocates tend to ignore. Thomas Hobbes believed that a life without laws and government is comparable to living in a state of constant war of everyone against everyone. Freedom means being able to do whatever you want. However, plenty of freedom might also result in living in a state of constant fear.
Nonetheless, security measures such as data collection by national intelligence agencies e.g. the NSA break constitutional laws which were set to protect freedom and privacy. The collection of data and border controls, which at first sight seemingly restricts fundamental human rights, such as the right to freedom of movement. This is aimed at preventing further terrorist attacks, especially when it comes to the European Union trying to prevent its citizens from associating with terrorist organisations. It is a state’s utmost duty to its citizens to ensure security. Moreover, security measures such as the aforementioned are intended to safeguard civil liberties – not abuse them. If these measures secure one’s rights, in how far can they then still be considered a violation of human rights? Where should we draw the line, where do we set a limitation? The question of whether freedom or security is more important can only arise in ordered societies. Freedom can only be maintained in an ordered society. To sum up the question is whether breaking out of the golden cage really is worth dying for or would we rather enjoy its security in the meantime?
11
W
hen two or more different opinions clash it often leads into a discussion. While the goal to convince your conversation partner or the audience is understandable, using unfair methods to dominate the argument will prohibit a free and open exchange of different opinions.
Pandora’s Box In Rhetoric Speaking By Bethany Appleton UK, Philipp Magin DE & Anthony Fedorov FI
12
The following seven figures come from a dangerous area of rhetoric’s, which often indicate less-than-fair, irrational and factually incorrect arguments. There certainly are legitimate uses for these methods, but they are often employed to manipulate and ultimately win a discussion in a sinister way. We hereby entrust you with this knowledge, so that you can question your own argumentation strategy and also detect when someone is making an “unfair� attack against your argument. By
13
False equivalency The arguer falsely compares two totally different ideas and draws a (consequently false) conclusion from that. “Going by cycle is just like using a motorbike. So you need a driver’s license.”
Appealing to common knowledge, to history or to authority The arguer cites supposed “common knowledge”, tries to support his point with an episode in history or quotes a supposed “expert”. “Every child knows that bicycles are made out of titanium.” “Experts have scientifically proven that bicycle bells can cause brain injury.”
Playing with people’s emotions The arguer tries to win the argument by overly appealing to the emotions of the audience. “Just imagine how many baby Llamas will die if we don’t change the regulation on bicycle lamps!”
Tu quoque-argument The arguer points out that just like himself, the opponent is also acting like them and thus does not have the right to make a contrary argument. “You’re also using the bike, so we can’t abolish cycle lanes.”
Intentional misunderstanding The arguer intentionally misunderstands their opponent’s point, only to refute the fake point later. “Vehicles run on fuel.” “So you just said that bicycles run on petrol and are causing climate change. But bicycles don’t use fuels.”
Ad-hominem argument Instead of arguing about a fact or an opinion, the arguer tries to discredit their oponent. “You fell off the bicycle yesterday, you can’t make a valid argument on the good effects of cycling on the environment.”
14
Defence speech
T
he defence speech is the first opportunity to persuade the floor that your resolution should pass, so it is important to make it as convincing as possible. It should give everyone a clear idea of how your ideas will help to solve the problem whilst fitting into the three-minute time span. Try to support the operative clauses with reasons and evidence, but save counter-arguments and rebuttals for later, when they can be used directly in response to negative points from the floor or the attack speech.
Attack speech
A
On a second read-through we, as the authors, may have used quite a lot of these figures even in this very article. You could try to find them, and then judge for yourself if we are indeed making a fair point or instead promoting our opinion on arguments in an unfair way. #Argumentception
ny issues, flaws or inconsistencies in the resolution can all be brought up now. Read the resolution really carefully to find relevant points that might be able give everyone a new perspective on matters, or think about a alternative solution that has not been suggested that – be creative and constructive, not just critical. Remember that the line of argument should not be whether the problem needs solving – this is assumed. The speech should examine whether the resolution is an appropriate solution to it.
Summation speech
A
fter all the speeches have been made, points raised, and direct responses used up, the proposing committee still has the chance to sway the debate in their favour with the summation speech. If they have been keeping track of what has happened over the course of the debate, forming this speech should not be too difficult. This is the place for presenting counter-argumwents and for addressing the issues brought against the resolution in order to give the discussion a strong and persuasive ending.
15
Challenge accepted? 15 steps to enjoy Münster’15 to the fullest
• Make new friends • Use Kauderwelsch by mixing different languages when talking • Shout as loud as you can during each energiser • Hug your chairs • Read all the Media Team issues • Try some of the delicious, organic tea • Be a Ninja • Get yourself a piece of the chocolate cake from Aschaffenburg before it is too late • Like “The V” on Facebook • Thank an organiser for anything • Take a selfie with Harm • Give a speech during General Assembly • Send a snap to the “MünsterMonsta” • Wear your session shirt • Look fresh and awake although you feel like falling asleep within the next second
16
the
17
18
19
Supporters:
A project of:
20