WUDC 2009 motions

Every motion we have from the 2009 World Universities Debating Championship, round by round, with a short prep note under each one.

  • Cork, Ireland
  • 2009
  • British Parliamentary
  • University
  • 10 motions
WUDC by year
20262025202420232022202120202019201820172016201520142013201220112010200920082007

Preliminary rounds

Round 2Economy and Work

This house would fire the senior managements of all corporations which receive government bailouts.

Set during the 2008 financial crisis, when governments rescued failing banks and firms, such as the US TARP program and the UK rescues of RBS and Lloyds. The question is whether taxpayer money should come with a clean sweep at the top.

Government could argue

Leaders who ran a firm into the ground should not keep their jobs on public money. Firing them makes future managers think twice before taking reckless risks.

Opposition could argue

Firing everyone in the middle of a crisis throws away the people who know the firm best, and some firms would refuse help they badly need rather than lose their bosses.

Practice itVote for a guide: Should governments bail out struggling car makers?
Round 3Politics and Government

This house would allow soldiers to sue their government for negligence.

In the United States, the Feres doctrine (1950) stops service members from suing the federal government for injuries linked to their service. Debates focus on harm that comes from poor equipment, training or planning rather than from the enemy.

Government could argue

The state owes soldiers a duty of care like any employer. The threat of lawsuits pushes governments to buy proper armor and plan missions responsibly.

Opposition could argue

Courts are bad at judging decisions made under fire, and the fear of being sued could make commanders slow and timid. Fixed compensation schemes help injured soldiers faster.

Practice itRequest a guide
Round 4Education

This house would force the religious desegregation of Northern Irish schools.

Most children in Northern Ireland go to schools that are mainly Protestant or mainly Catholic, and only a small share attend integrated schools. The debate asks whether mixing children by law would help heal divisions left by the Troubles.

Government could argue

Children who grow up together are less likely to see the other community as enemies. Separate schools pass old divisions down to each new generation.

Opposition could argue

Forcing mixing overrides parents' and churches' right to faith-based education, and integration that is imposed rather than chosen may stir resentment instead of trust.

Practice itRequest a guide
Round 5Environment and Animals

This house believes that China and India should bear the same obligations as the West in fighting climate change

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol set binding emission cuts only for developed countries. By 2009 China had become the world's largest emitter, and the Copenhagen climate summit that December was fighting over who should cut and by how much.

Government could argue

Carbon does the same damage wherever it comes from. Without the biggest new emitters taking on equal targets, the West's cuts cannot stop warming.

Opposition could argue

The West caused most of the carbon already in the air, and people in China and India still emit far less per person. Equal duties would slow the fight against poverty.

Practice itVote for a guide: Should rich countries pay climate reparations?
Round 7International Relations

This house believes that the west should recognise the independence of Abkhazia.

After the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, Russia recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent. Earlier that year many Western states had recognized Kosovo, so the motion tests whether the West can be consistent.

Government could argue

Abkhazia has governed itself since the early 1990s, and the West accepted Kosovo's claim on similar grounds. Recognition would match reality and respect self-determination.

Opposition could argue

Recognition would reward a Russian invasion and ignore the Georgians who were driven out of the region. It would tell big powers that redrawing borders by force works.

Practice itRequest a guide

Break rounds

OctofinalsInternational Relations

This house would arm local militia to fight the taliban in Afghanistan.

By 2009 the Taliban were gaining ground, and US and Afghan officials were debating local defense forces drawn from villages and tribes. Afghanistan's civil war in the 1990s had been fought largely between armed militias.

Government could argue

Local fighters know the land and the people, cost far less than foreign troops, and give villages a way to defend themselves when the national army is too thin.

Opposition could argue

Militias answer to local strongmen rather than the state, often abuse civilians, and their weapons can end up with the Taliban. It risks a return to the warlord era.

Practice itRequest a guide
QuarterfinalsInternational Relations

This house believes that the international criminal court should prosecute crimes against the democratic process.

The International Criminal Court tries genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, but not election fraud or coups. Violence after Kenya's 2007 election and Zimbabwe's 2008 election raised the question of whether attacks on democracy should be international crimes.

Government could argue

Leaders who rig elections usually control their own courts, so only an outside court can hold them to account. The threat of prosecution could deter stolen elections.

Opposition could argue

Crimes against democracy are vague and political, and the court would end up judging which governments are legitimate. It would also strain a court that already struggles with its caseload.

Practice itVote for a guide: Should every country join the International Criminal Court?
SemifinalsEconomy and Work

This house believes governments should subsidise private home ownership.

Governments help people buy homes through tools like the US mortgage interest deduction and the UK's Right to Buy. Coming right after the subprime mortgage crash, the motion asks whether that help is wise.

Government could argue

Owning a home builds wealth for ordinary families, gives them security, and makes them invest in their neighborhoods.

Opposition could argue

Subsidies push up house prices, mostly help people who are already better off, encouraged the risky lending behind the 2008 crash, and tie workers to one place.

Practice itRequest a guide

ESL break rounds

For speakers of English as a second language.

ESL FinalSports

This house would implement quotas for domestic players in national football leagues.

Top European leagues fill their squads with foreign stars. UEFA's homegrown player rule (from 2006) and FIFA's 6+5 proposal (2008) both tried to make clubs field more local players.

Government could argue

Quotas give young local players a path into the top teams, which strengthens national teams and keeps clubs tied to their communities.

Opposition could argue

Quotas limit players' right to work where they choose, may break free movement rules in Europe, and lower the quality fans pay to watch.

Practice itRequest a guide

EFL break rounds

For speakers of English as a foreign language.

EFL FinalHealth and Medicine

This house would prohibit all private health care.

Some countries let people pay privately to skip public waiting lists, and others limit it. In Canada's Chaoulli case (2005), the Supreme Court struck down Quebec's ban on private insurance for publicly covered care.

Government could argue

When the rich and powerful must use the same system as everyone else, they push hard to make it good. A private sector also draws doctors away from public hospitals.

Opposition could argue

People should be free to spend their own money on their own health. A private sector takes pressure off public queues, and a ban would push care onto black markets or abroad.

Practice itVote for a guide: Should healthcare be free for everyone?

About WUDC

The World Universities Debating Championship, often called Worlds, is the largest debate tournament in the world. Hundreds of university teams debate in British Parliamentary style, with 15 minutes of prep for each motion.

Motions from a community motion archive, credited to the tournament. Prep notes are written by the Debatery Editing Team to help you start thinking; they are not the only way to run either side.

← WUDC 2008WUDC 2010 →