Third online debate - vote !

The motion debated this week was "This House would ban strikes in essential services."

Those in favour of the motion say 'aye', the others say 'nay'.

Opposition team - Closing

Dear readers,

How can you possibly read the arguments of the proposition team without reacting at all?!
They are saying that the need for strikes has disappeared. Oh really? Ask some Northe Korean workers about it. In communist countries, strikes are banned, since they injure the fatherland by stopping production. But in these countries workers haven't any rights.

The right to join a trade union and the right to strike are as fundamental as freedom of speech. If you don't have them, you are not an employee but a serf, and a society that outlaws strikes isn't free. Then if you agree on the fact that we must protect the freedom of speech and the right to express your disagreement with the people making decisions for you, then you will agree that we cannot ban strikes at all.

Let's now recap the proposing team's arguments from the beginning. They believe that "strikes without guarateeing a minimum service should be banned". Well i have to thank you because that's proving our point. Damages caused by strikes could be decreased by creating a minimum service. We need to use this idea so that we will ensure the right of going on strike and people can arrive at work on time.

Then they said that striking is an extreme way of protesting. But when injustices made are extreme, when decisions such a delocalization are taken, don't you think that extreme measures are necessary? "To protect the sheep you gotta catch the wolf. And you gotta be a wolf to catch a wolf." (Training day)

Now let's see our arguments. We, in the opposition team, think that striking is only the ultimate means of expression when nothing else has worked out. Once talks with the executives failed, once union's negotiations aborted, once seething masses feel abandoned and doomed, striking is the last resort. If you do not offer the possibility to workers to be heard and understood, we all might encounter greater damage than being late at work! If you are beeing bullied by the government or your boss, you need to have th ability to fight back. And strikes are that power. The only mighty one that they have and can use in extreme cases.

I would like to conclude by saying that we believe that there always is a way to prevent strikes. That is to bargain a settlement. A legislative ban on strikes in all essential services or all public services simply doesn't work. It is unnecessary and inefective. It can only create more frustration and disillusion. Bargaining on the contrary is the only way that ever works.

And I'm being realistic here!

Thank you everyone for your attention. Now you can use your freedom of opinion by voting to defend another freedom : the strike freedom.

So VOTE FOR US!

Jean-Baptiste D.

Proposition Team - Closing

We have faced in this debate two points of view about strikes: ours, showing the selfishness and the practical problems linked with strikes; and from our fellows of the opposition team, where strikes are the way of the oppressed class to get their wishes fulfilled. They brought us examples from ancient times, and they insist to make you believe that the conditions today are the same as those of that long past time.

Today workers have their right well established in the constitutions; they have in their favor a group of laws that well define times of work, conditions of work, ways of getting in or out a company, conditions of retirement. In the past, perhaps a long past, these basic rights were not assured, so strikes were necessary. Today, we even see countries were the protection to workers can be considered even exaggerated, so the need for strikes has just gone away.

Also, it’s just not right to say that someone has done “everything” possible to get his cause. It’s not possible to generalize the number of ways of negotiating with the other parts.  One can always find another proposition, of find an intermediary to help the discussion, the possibilities are non exhaustive. So no one should state that he’s tried all ways, and now he should try striking.

Indeed, strikes are part of democratic societies, just like corruption and violence also do. Like the formers, we say they should not be anymore. Essential services are an extreme delicate point of the good state of society, thus they are evidently the main target of strikes. It’s inacceptable that some people affect others’ lives to make pressure to their cause. Societies are based in mutual respect, and considering that strikes would be successful ONLY because of the potential damage they could bring to people, they should be banned.  Don’t analyze the situation from a romantic, heroic and extreme point of view like our friends from the opposition team. Be realistic, think about practical life, and realize that the entire world would be more organized, fairer and less stressful if strikes were banned. When you vote, just think about the impacts of others’ strikes in your life, about what they brought to you, and you’ll soon notice how selfish this action is. Thanks for your attention, and VOTE FOR US!

Opposing team - Rebuttal

Very honorable members of the opposition, dear readers, afflicted fellow team members, thank you. Obviously, the proposing team has made clear that strikes are, if not solely uncomfortable, sometimes critical to a country's economy and political stability. Striking is a blind regression over the "political contract" - enforced by the taxes we pay, they say - and is not a way to express oneself. Or is it ?

Let's take some time and remind us of the very nature of striking, its history and influence. Let's consider dwelling a few seconds on wiping our opposers' prejudices and dangerous ideas. They clearly exhibited the embarrassed feeling of the train passenger, waiting at the station, shouting his discomfort and mourning while secretly wishing that those lazy train operators were just doing the job they're paid for. Today, striking is legal (and even a constitutional right in France) - a century-and-a-half ago (before May 1864, in France), it was not. However, strikes can be traced back to Ancient Egypt - it wasn't legal either, workers even risked their lives. Even today, strikers risk their pay, if not their job or - in some countries - their lives.

Two points : strikers wouldn't wait for authorization, and they don't do this for fun. Let's not consider further the first argument, which would doom our opposers' stance as completely useless, as we agree on Law stating what should be, not what is. Focus on the second one : the proposing team already explained the many ways workers can try to make their voices heard - and believe us, they do. When you choose to engage in such an activity, you have good reasons, one of them being you don't trust - or can't afford - any other means. Our litterate opposers have certainly read Germinal, or newspapers, and their culture of History makes them aware that many breakthroughs have been fulfilled following massive popular refusal to work - among which paid vacations. Contestation stems not in the destructive and uneducated will to express oneself, rather in the despair-stricken masses whose voice is dimmed in the name of the value of their work.

On what grounds would the proposing team allow "non-essential" workers to speak, and mute the "essential" ones ? It shines clearly that strikes are part of Democracy, as deeply rooted in our rights as is Public service. Strikes should not leave us angry on the slothful, loud-speaking, not-doing-their-job people ; it should raise sympathy, reveal the painful condition of strikers and think about what's not right, at every level.

In the name of Democracy, wouldn't we rather die to let them speak, than see them gagged ? In the name of Democracy, shouldn't we be concerned about every citizen's well-being ? Shouldn't altruism take over comfort ?

Well, we think it does. Vote for us.

Proposing team - Rebuttal

Let us round the confused „argument” of our fellow opposers with pills and muscles. They say that not striking is like taking pills, ergo negotiation and progression without agression is like taking pills. Which means clearly that unions and diplomats are dopers, oh my god! We know that you, wise reader, cannot be misled by such an absurdity so let’s take a look at our arguments.

Why should a „few instants of pain” generate a strike? Why should a „few instants of pain” of a thousand workers should cause the discomfort and misery of millions? Democratic society is a well formed unity and it has its own institutions and ways to find solution to conflicts between employer and employees. These are the unions, debates, negotiations, etc. which are destinated to solve such problems.

In extreme cases it can be strikes, yes, they are nowadays part of the society, but their goal is basically definitely not to paralyse and ruin it. Which is actually the case of the strikes in essential services.

Therefore in this sector we should base on the pacific ways of solving conflicts (the above ways) and in case of an inevitable strike we should ensure a minimum service; so that students could go to school and sicks could go to the hospital to be healed in any moment.

After all that’s the reason why we are paying taxes and that’s why you should vote for us!

Daniel

Opposing Team - Opening Speech

Striking is one of our primary rights but the general public is not aware of it. Indeed opponents try deliberately to deceive you by turning it into what it is not.

Let us think about it. What s the purpose of striking ? Our dear fellow of the opposing team might tell you it sums up to some sort of blackmailing : if you do not give me better working conditions, i will tear the society apart by blocking public transportation, medical facilities or anything that could satisfy my weariless thirst of disaster. The intension of the strikes these days due to the financial-turmoil-turned-into-a-globalized-crisis and the growing deafness of our statesmen (we will come to that later) might misleadingly arouse you that sort of ideas.

Here is the truth. Striking is only the ultimate means of expression. Once talks with the executive failed, once unions negociations aborted, once seething masses feel abandonned and doomed, striking is the last resort, the only remaining means of expressing our craving for change. If you do not offer the possibility to workers to be heard and understood, we all might encounter greater catastrophe.

On a less gloomy and ominous tone, it is like exercising overmuch. The next day one of your prostrate muscle might hurt for a few hours. Thus you become aware of the burden it bore and the next time you will pay more attention to it. This works the same with the strikers. Few instants of pain to point out greater suffering to come. Should we take pills never to feel that pain, like Tour de France contenders do - and die of afterwards ?

Do not swallow that pill our dear fellow proposers smirkingly proffer. The right to strike is the right to be heard when the society turn a deaf ear to your beseeching. Repulse the gag that shadows your mouth. Make some noise. Vote for us.

Proposing Team - Opening Speech

We all remeber the days when there is no RER and you are stuck in Chatenay, also we can recall the pictures of the recent strike of teachers and students when education was shut down. This week we will treat the question of strikes in essential services. Our team strongly believes that strikes without guaranteeing a minimum service should be banned.

First, as the word strike we mean a strike which paralyses the function of an essential service in the society, for instance when there are no trains or there is no education. We are considering this selfish and destructive way of striking which is highly dangerous to the society.
It is destructive and dangerous because – like their name shows – these services are essential for the fonction of a society. We need hospitals to heal and to save people, schools to ensure the education of our children and airports to be able to travel far and fast and we need them all the time!

By paying taxes we have accepted to be part of a society and in change we are expecting from the State to protect us, to operate hospitals and schools, etc. In the very beginning man and State had made a deal and by shutting down these insitutions workers are hurting the virtual contract on which societies are built on. 

Now let’s take a look in the more philosophical and intrinsic aspects of strikes.

We can say there are different kinds of strikes, but the only one which is relevant to this context is the strike made to protest against something. If we accept making strikes for any other reason, we risk of arriving in the catastrophic situation described below, where it would be a habit.

It’s true that many situations in the public service (and actually in all areas of work…) are not as good as they were supposed to be. There are people who work in bad conditions, who do not have an appropriate salary, and even who merit other benefices which don’t come because of the slowness of the public machine. We don’t deny these terrible situations, but think about what would happen if everyone who wants to make a changement took an extreme act like a strike…

We would literally put in the garbage hundreds of years of evolution in the way of treating problems, we would come back to the time of the “Law of the Stronger” (as the chance of stopping essential services makes those workers really powerful), and the world would become chaotic. Someone will certainly say that we should allow extreme protests (here included strikes) for extreme situations, but who is capable of judging what is extreme or not? The worst situation in many countries wouldn’t be even close to what we would find in African countries, so, what is really extreme?

Strike is an extreme way of protesting, it poses a lots of practical problems for people who have nothing to do with the subject. Strikers actually use this damage they will cause to everyone to bargain the government (who is expected to care about all people) to achieve their goals. The correct way to protest is with negotiations, and in case they don’t bring progress, they should make a mobilization to change the laws or to change the government in the next elections. Also, if workers start making strikes for a “good and important” reason today, who will convince them to not make the same thing at the next time, when the causes will not be as important as now? Who is going to prevent them of turning strikes a usual way of protesting? Maybe you, who are reading this now, have never been faced to a situation like this, but when strike becomes the usual way to protest, it’s really difficult to change people’s minds…

So, we think we have showed enough arguments to prove that strikes in essential services are not only problematic for society, but also an inconvenient way of trying to get what we want. So on, strikes in public services should be banned. Thanks for your attention, and VOTE FOR US!

HKFN and DS

Third online debate - This house would ban strikes in essential services

Hello,

This week's motion is :

"This House would ban strikes in essential services"

The proposing team is Enrique, Daniel and George (or Casper we don't reallt know for the moment) and the opposing team is Benjamin, Rémi and JBD.

Enjoy!

Second online debate - vote !

The motion debated this week was "This House would bossnap."

Those in favour of the motion say 'aye', the others say 'nay'.

Opposing Team - Closing

According to the proposition team, we can bossnap even though it's illegal, as long as we're desperate and that demonstrating failed. Sequestration, why should we stop there? Since context allows us to break the law, let's break it in a way that solves our problems once and for all : robbing a bank !

More seriously, bossnaping isn't a great tool for social conflict in terms of efficiency. We must admit that lately it seemed to work, but only because such a massive bossnapping movement is quite new : eventually companies will set up a standard policy about bossnapping which will certainly be "no negotiation with criminals", as states did with terrorists.

Proposing team also pointed out the negative impact of demonstration and traffic jamming on public opinion. But what they don't seem to understand is that bossnappers are considered even worse : even if they're defending their job, their salary, for the average citizen they are criminals first. A study lead by IFOP shows that only 30% of the French approve this means of negotiation, whereas 74% approve the next SNCF strike on Thursday, according to BVA-BPI.

Let's analyze now our opponents' last argument (which thus must be the strongest). The primary cause of massive lays off is a voluntarily bad management of companies, which enables bosses to get bossnapped in order to experiment the thrill of being sequestrated. Well, it's an interesting theory, but we can point out a few contradictions. First, the bosses described here, so rich and powerful that they can put their company in bankrupt to fight boredom, aren't really numerous (assuming they even exist). Then, they never get bossnapped : they're working from home or in a building more secure than a military base. Bad luck for them, they will have to find another alibi for adultery. In fact, the so-called bosses that are kept hostage by workers are employees as well, mainly factory directors.

Let's recap our points from the beginning. Bossnapping is illegal, risky for its user since he may not find another job after having napped his boss, unbalancing because it gives employees a too important leverage to negotiate, and almost uneffective means of dealing with social conflicts. That's why we propose instead to restrain employees' way of protesting to demonstrations and strikes, or if they really think that their boss is useless, to experiment self-management of the company. In any case, bossnapping is not the perfect solution unions have always been looking for, and that's why we urge the floor to refuse this motion by voting for us.

Proposing team: final speech

What's that fantasm about sequestering Bill Gates' secretary in a room with a dozen of hairy workers? We will soon have to restrict the access of this website to adult audience because of your almost erotic scripts! I wonder what were the circumstances in which the opposing team wrote its rebuttal...

But let's make an effort to think about it using our brain and not another part of the body. If the opposing team thinks that executives could kidnapp the workers of their company (at least it is what we think they think), they are definitely off-topic. Indeed, bossnapping is a weapon for the so-called"weak side". Bosses have far more pernicious ways to deal with their employees. They can force them to work on days off and threaten them with firing, they can harass them psychologically as well as sexualy. It is a bit as if the tallest kid in the playgroung threatened the smallest one to tell the teacher he has been bullying him. That is pretty stupid, isn't it? Well that is what the opposing team suggests...

We are glad the opposing team feel sympathetic to the desperate workers. But preventing them from bossnapping, is a bit like taking away a soldier's gun in the middle of a battlefield. You feel sympathetic to him, you understand his misery but you leave him with his bare hands to fight against an ennemy carrying heavy weapons. That is clearly hypocretical.

The opposing team should stop sticking its head into the sand like a helpless ostrich: the balance of power between management and workers is heavily biased in favour of the formers. That may be sad, but that is true. There is no easy way out of this situation.
For too long, the workers have been misled by the executives. For too long, they have consented to seeing their purchasing power slowly fall. For too long, they have been the victims of gradual degradation of their condition. Because so is the harsh law of the market -- we usually accept it because its efficiency has been proved more than once.

However, there are some extreme cases that need to be addressed accordingly. What should the workers do when they are told that their factory, or their offices, are going to be closed down to free up money, money that will be used to pay dividends to the stockholders? What should they do when they are faced with disloyal bosses, who could provide them with a decent severance package, but are unwilling to do so, because their own bonuses will depend on how much money they can deprive the ex-workers of?

The world, the real world -- where debates read like debates -- is not as black-or-white as the opposing team tells us. In the real world, some bosses are scums. Some workers are dickheads, sure. But bosses, because of their position of power over the workers, have a social responsability. Some live up to this expectations (for instance, Laffarge pays for the HIV-treatment of its workers in South Africa), but some fail.

And there comes bossnapping. The most convincing way for the workers to get what the boss could give, but did not want to, unless asked convincingly. Thanks to bossnapping, those who could eventually did. Those who couldn't had a refreshing experience. And sure, it is not legal. Just as being on strike was not legal some generations ago. But it is a powerful tool to put the management of a company in front of its responsabilities. We would use it.

Future employers, beware.

And fellow debaters, vote for us !

Laurent and JBH

Opposing team : Rebuttal

It seems that the proposing team quite agrees on the terms of the definition we gave. But they also want us to makes us think that it neat and clean : “Five o’clock, time to go home, thought Bill Gates. He took his coat, shut down his computer and went to the door and opened it. And here they were, dozens of his factory workers, twice as big as him. They smiled at him and one said : You’re not leaving until you give us a pay rise.” Do you think such that a situation cannot get out of control ? And even if so, I wouldn’t feel good at his place.

But the proposers seem to think that it is a “fair way” for the workers to be heard. Can we reverse the argument? There are indeed many bosses that find our country’s social law are too difficult to be followed: “Five o’clock, time to go home thought Bill Gates secretary…” I think you see my point. If this means was that efficient, we would use it more and more often, in order to save time and money, and on both sides.

We don’t question the distress of the employees, losing their jobs and feeling abandoned. And our thoughts also go to them. If you are found guilty, you risk spending time in jail for kidnapping. But if you are not, be sure that your name will be on every black list there is in every firm you will apply. You are not only taking risks for no results, but also preventing yourself from finding a new job.

Do we need to come back to the cultural aspects? I think that you are all above these so-called cultural aspects. First, this is quite pretentious to say that because it’s the French exception, it is the right thing to do. Secondly, you all know that history and culture can justify everything.

As a conclusion, I will try to make you think of the situation encountered by both the boss and his employees. If they act like this, it means that the firm is in danger :

1. The boss did not do his job, and should be dismissed. That’s the role of the share-holders or the owner of the firm. And they are the people you should put pressure on, not your boss, and without violence.

2. Your boss did all he could. But the factory is not competitive any longer because of the Chinese (maybe you should bossnap 1 billion people), because of the economic crisis or any reason you cannot foresee.

In the second case, what would be the goal of bossnapping ?

In the first, we want to propose something. If the workers are convinced that their firm can go on without their boss, we think that the state can help them become their own boss. These experiments have been made during the last century, some succeeded, some failed. But we think this is worth trying, instead of paralyzing the situation.

Proposing team: Rebuttal

Fisrt of all, I would like to come back on what has been written by the opposing team. They said bossnapping was "a strong attack to the basic rights of the person held hostage". Sure it is! We all agree on that. That is precisely what makes it so efficient compared to going on a strike or demonstrating in the street, wearing LCR red t-shirt and shouting out loud silly songs about how the boss is being evil with the workers. Bossnapping is forbidden, but what is allowed is clearly not enough to express your concern about your job and the entire life that relies on it.

Another mistake made by our opposers is that they think bossnapping is dangerous not only for the boss but also for the workers themselves. Indeed, the closure of a factory may eventually lead to the firing of the worker. And then? If the workers are desperate enough to retain their boss it may be because they feel they are about to be fired anyway! It is a call of despair, the expression that every other means has been pointless and that the workers are left wihout any other option whatsoever.


Let's develop a bit more our point of view now. Why would we bossnap? Well, obviously it is an unviolent way to force the boss of a company to take some time to think about the futur of his workers. Because creating a firm or owning a firm implies to be responsible for the lives of many others, and not only for one's own benefit. Spending some time with the workers of his company can help the boss to understand the concerns that inhabit them, what do they like? what are they confident about and what frightens them? It enables everyone to get to know the one who sits/stands on the other side of the desk.
A great thinker said "the difference between the blue collars and the white ones is that when they go to the toilets, the members of the first category whash their hands before to pee while those of the second one whash it after having peed. But the best of both categories do it before and after" which means that the best workers are those who do their job very carefully (but this is not my point. here it comes... almost there...) and the best managers are those who work so close to their workers that they eventually get dirty. And this is what it is all about, getting dirty once in their life contribute to the magnanimity of the boss and thus to a better social landscape.

A far more practical aspect is that of disturb and bothering. I'd rather nap my boss for 48 hours in his confortable office than jamming the traffic or blocking the train so that the rest of the city blame me for troubling its tranquility. And as a daily user of the transport network I am more inclined to be concerned about the situation of somebody who don't delay all my trains, if not cancel them.

Finally let's face it. A boss has got everything he wants. A nice car, a pretty woman, a nice woman (the difference between both is left to your imagination), a huge house, a well supplied bank account, adorable children (or not), a second home and possibly a third and a fourth... A boss has probably experienced a lot of astonishing activities such as skydiving, car race, dragster race, adultery, scuba diving, wild safari, diving with sharks, climbing Mont Everest and so on. Napping is the very last sensation left to the bosses to feel alive by facing death, even though they are not really facing death but only facing a dozen of angry workers willing to go back home with their wives and their kids with a decent salary to afford Mrs' earring and the kids' video games. Maybe some bosses have already tried to launch voluntarily a social conflict so as to be sequestered at work (perhaps also to avoid his wife's discovery of the other wife) and experience that specific sensation, one of the last left to feel for somebody who has already felt almost everything.

For the next speeches I can only hope that you will keep in mind our main arguments and especially when it will come to voting. So "debater-nap" yourself on the right side and VOTE FOR US!

Opposing team - Opening speech

Recently, you could see that the new fashion to help find solutions to difficult negotiations between workers and leaders of a firm is the bossnapping. The idea is that the workers held the boss of the firm hostage into his office until a solution judged good by the workers is found to solve the problems of the firm. It recently happened for a company run by the U.S factory 3M for instance. But our team strongly believe that this new habit isn't a good solution at all.

First, everyone has to understand that this way of acting is a strong attack to the basic rights of the person held hostage, especially to his freedom. And according to laws, it is forbidden to held someone against his will if is this person didn't committed any crime or isn't suspected of having committed some. So, our team is opposed to bossnapping since we strongly believe that there is many other ways to find a solution in this kind of situation which are completely legal and have good results.
So bossnapping make some salaried be outlaw. It is very dangerous for them because it will follow them and if their firm finally go bankrupt, do they really think that an other firm will take the risk to hire them ? Bossnapping isn't only a problem for leaders or for the health of the enterprise, it is also dangerous for the workers who do it. It is a real bet.

But the main reason which makes bossnapping a huge error is that it do not really help the negotiations and complicate it a lot by adding a new dimension to it. Indeed, it is a weak way of pressure. The boss is only blocked into his office and knows that it won't be for more than a week if the workers don't want to have all the public opinion against them. For the company 3M for instance, the boss have been held less than 48 hours. That's why bossnapping could only give an important weight to the workers if they have the possibility to physically hurt the boss, which should be ethically unbearable and would make the “bossnappers” outlaw.

People have to be aware that now, thanks to many laws voted to defend the rights of workers, the leaders ans workers of a firm have almost equal weight in the negotiations in crisis situation. And if the situation is too complicated and the two parts are not able to agree on the best attitude to have, the government often decide to send a mediator who will try to split the difference by a fair way. So today both parts can express their opinion and be listened and have quite the same weight into the decision. So bossnapping only disturb the balance created by the French law and only complicate the negotiations by adding a threat dimension which make more difficult to focus on the situation of the firm and on the right attitude to have to help the workers but also the enterprise.

Here are the main reasons which make that our team is opposed to bossnapping. So don't be touched by the proposing team who will surely try to make you cry with the distress of workers losing their job and obliged to bossnapp their leader to still have a reason to live because these workers have other stronger ways to be listened. That's why you should VOTE FOR US !!

Proposing team - Opening speech

Boss-napping (or bossnapping) is a new coined term for an old activity. It consists of preventing the management (hereafter, "the bosses") of a company, or of a plant, to leave the location at the end of the day, when a deep social conflict is on-going. Those people are held overnight by the workers, who act openly -- they do not hide their faces, etc. -- and without any physical violence whatsoever. The bosses are well treated, well fed, and are not threatened.

As we can see, bossnapping is a tool, among others that the workers use in the event of a social conflict -- going on strike, picketting, blocking roads and other strategic means of transportation, witholding production, etc. In the event of bossnapping, no violence is involved. Only fair psychological pressure. Yes, it is true that bossnapping is a very powerful means of pressure, meant to be used as a last resort weapon. But we consider it as being the appropriate response to the most threating situations for the workers and the employees -- being laid off close to the retirement age, with a very small severance package.

For when the workers find themselves in such a situation, they are nearly helpless. Often they do not have the financial resources needed to bounce back and find a new job, when they are young enough to do so. Often, they have devoted all their time and all their energy to the company, adjusting themselves when asked to. They have been for years the silent -- and often, willing -- victims of a cruel system. So, when the situation turns to the worst, when other means of negociations are exhausted, when the management of a company doesn't care about roads being blocked, or workers being on strike, they have to turn to the only possibility they are left with: making the bosses understand, in their flesh, what being trapped into something they do not control feels like.

Nowadays, because of the financial crisis, bossnapping is becoming a national sport. However, it has long been an integral part of the French tradition, dating back to the Front Populaire of the 30's, and was, until recently, a typical French method. The foreign press is now integrating it as a part of the exception culturelle that French people feel proud of and foreigners respect. Cheese, wine and bossnapping.

In our following speeches, we will give a deeper look at the properties of boss-napping: efficiency, speed, fairness and above all, a little bit of adventure, fun, and respect for the bosses in the middle of a financial turmoil. And that, gentlemen, is priceless.

We are not going to debater-nap you until Wednesday, so enjoy yourselves, and vote for us !

Damien and Laurent

Second online debate - This House would bossnap.

Hello,

This week's motion is:

"This House would bossnap."

The proposing team is JBH, Damien V, Laurent S. and the opposing team is Sylvestre A, Matthieu B and Pierre-Louis P.

Enjoy !

Voting time!

Our thanks go to both team for their great argumentations and the skill with which they have led us through this first debate. Now...

Those in favour of the motion say 'aye', the others say 'nay'.

Opposition - Final

First, we have to apologize : we, in the opposing team, are not very good at love. "Good?" you'll say ! Well yes, according to the proposing team it seems that love is something you can be good at, and even improve, be better.

"Hey Thomas, what are you doing on Saturday ? Wanna go out ?

-No way, I'm too busy ! I've got some physics to do, and then practice my love. I'm getting quite good ; and if I have time I'll do a few push-ups."

Love seems to be something mechanic, which has nothing to do with feelings. According to the proposing team, the first stage of love is sex : you meet a girl, and you have sex. And then you want to have sex with her every time you see her. Wow ! So that's what experience is : every time you meet a girl, you just have sex with her. God, I wish I was more experienced ! So basically it's like in a porno : you just walk passed a girl in the street, hook up with her, and then maybe engage in such a big deal as a conversation to see if you actually like her and might be interested in getting in a relationship that might eventually lead to romantic love.

Now that we've seen how silly this brand new revolutionary concept was, let us summarize our arguments. As we said before, love is both made of the physical attraction for your partner, which is natural, and of this little big thing called romantic love that is the heart of our debate. Usually (at least in the world we live in, which seems to be somehow a parallel universe with that of the proposers) you are in love with your partner before having sex with him. Usually, you want your sweet little candy to be next to you all the time. Usually, you don’t know her really well so you want to spend time with her to learn things about her. And this is basically always true and sincere, and it is not a matter of age as the proposing team suggests, it is not a matter of maturity, it’s simply and totally natural. And most of all, yes, it is sincere, and certainly not selfish.

What was that again, the very selfish vision of love our fellow proposers introduced, the 'selfish love' ? The idea of going out with a girl on the basis that she loves you ? Oh, but that is not love, that is sheer and simple illusion, the simulation of a couple, a fake relationship. You don't date a girl because you want to feel loved. You date a girl because you love her, and the only thing that matters to you is that she feels right, you always want to cocoon her so that she feels protected. And since love is mutual, she will do the same for you, so you will feel loved, protected and so on. But please, don’t be ridiculous saying out loud the only thing you are looking for when dating a girl is your own reflection in a mirror !

Also, there is something very knew in the rebuttal of the proposing team : the notion of conjugal love. For them, this is the best part of love : the deep complicity you have with your husband. But if we watch closely, they are contradicting themselves. It is well known that true feelings need time to develop, so how do we wait for the loved one ? With the help of romantic love, of course ! So if we say romantic love is an illusion, then it means marriages are based on illusion, which would be quite sad, wouldn't it ? Moreover, it means that love is in fact a 3-part act, we could teach in Love for Dummies, a big book that would be sold in libraries, between Maths for Statisticians and Quantic Physics 101. Indeed, mechanically as we said previously, you would first have sex with someone, then you'd over-play some love, and finally, you'd learn how to love this person in order to get married.

Now, come on, please come down to the real word. If you have enough of people thinking just because we are engineers we're going to believe that romantic love is an illusion, and that Love can simply be explained by TheBig Black Book of Determinist Love, by Thomas Darwin and David Einstein, then vote for us !

The everlasting lovers

ProposingTeam - Final

Well, Xavier and Guillaume, we are really happy to have helped you to define clearly what "romantic love" is, but you have to admit it is not very fair to admit this definition and then wrote in the middle of your speech that you introduced romantic love as "the gap between sex and love". Once and for all: romantic love isn't that!

Romantic love is the second level of the process of love, a level in which we must not stay for eternity. As we said (and we may have been misunderstood on that point), romantic love is characterized by idealization of the beloved and eagerness to see admiration in his/her eyes. And as Alan Soble, member of the Society for Philosophy of Sex and Love wrote in Sex, love and frienship (chapter Romantic Love: A Patchwork) :

Without prima facie concern for the other's welfare that grows out of admiration and idealization of the other, there is no romantic love.

We are not, as our poor friends of the opposition seems to think it, starving animals seeking for sex. We are just realistic about what a true relationship should be : a trust-based and strong bond, as in the conjugal love described by Dr. Murstein.

Xavier and Guillaume, you suggest that we list all the qualities and shortcomings of your partner. First, let me tell you this is a bad idea : Ross did it in Friends, and I do not recall that Rachel thought it was funny when she found that list - but I think it's quite good that someone reminds you that, since you don't seem to be very mature about what a true relationship is. Second of all, you're not lost! The very fact that you suggest to write down a list shows that you don't idealize the beloved one, and thus, that you are not in the stage of romantic love. Congratulations! If your Facebook status shows "in a relationship", you're just in for sex or because you're deeply in love, conjugal love but not romantic love.

You just fail to see that there is something between "sex" and "love" - the gap you wrote about. There is no direct path to love, no effortless way. True love is about commitment (from both sides!), and even if you are very cute when you are talking about altruism (which is, in fact, disinterested love for someone), it shows you are not very familiar about what conjugal love should be. There is no love when you are not loved in return (and that's why there is a word for love and a word for altruism: it's not quite the same!) : this is called a sacrifice, and even if it is beautiful and very noble, this is not the loving relationship you want to talk about.

We do believe in love. We do believe in committed relationships. We do believe that a strong love, a forever love needs work and does not happen like that. We do believe also, that people that last in the stage of romantic love are not mature because their motives are selfish, and that no good can come for this.

That's why romantic love is an illusion, because an illusion is in philosophy a perception self-maintained by humans so that they continue to think in a choice that a rational exam would reject. That's being said, you can choose to live in the illusion the love you built or you will be building someday is a romantic love. That's not the choice we made, and we hope you won't either. Vote for us!

David and Thomas

Opposing Team - Rebuttal

We really appreciate that our friends of the proposition have helped us with their introductory speech. Actually, instead of proving that romantic love is an illusion, they defined very well what romantic love was, but they misunderstood the very beauty of it.

So apparently, when in love we tend both to idealize the loved one and to feel in love for the wrong reason, not because we truly have feelings for the person but rather because it feels good to be loved ourselves (the logic of which we failed to grasp, by the way)…

But let’s think about one point at a time. -- Girls, and gays, don’t feel offended, but so as not to talk about a “person”, which is cold, and for obvious proportions reasons, we are from now on adopting the point of view of a straight dude – So do we idealize the loved one? Oh yeah, we do! Don’t we repeatedly say she’s the most perfect woman on earth? This certainly is exaggerating since:

a) we have usually passed by a maximum of 10 000 girls for the luckiest of us, so making a comparison between all the girls on Earth seems fairly justified !

b) we are all able to list at least 3 things we dislike in dearly loved, so talking about “perfect” seems excessive. So no, she’s not perfect, and yes, we do idealize her. And that’s actually what enables relationships to last longer than a week!

Let us engineers say we list and note all her qualities/shortcomings, with (+1) for each quality and (-1) for each shortcoming, and then add it all up. If we stuck to the bare image of her, and didn’t emphasize what we like or love in her, we’d end up with a perfectly balanced list, and a sharp zero as a total, for she is human after all, and has just as many defects as qualities. So then we would be just as disposed to break up with her after a fight as we were to get together just after the first kiss, as there would be no cement to consolidate the bond this first kiss had established. And since we all know life is just not like that, there has to be some sort of cement, the name of which you could easily guess. The idealization of what we love in her that comes with romantic love, is to relationships what chemical bonds are to atoms, keeping it all together whenever small disturbances occur.

Yes people, along with language, cooking, smoking weed and whatever-just-as-silly-you-might-have-heard-in-your-life, what distinguishes humans from animals is our capacity to resist to impulses, just as we said we managed to fought the call of the sirens down the Red District in Amsterdam, remember ? And among other impulses, we resist the temptation of bitchslapping this stupid cunt out of our apartment when she pisses us off, because something stronger than this immediate fury tells us she’s worth the pain of controlling ourselves, something powerful and most certainly real, called love, and you’ve guessed it’s not the sex part we’re talking about, so it has to be the romantic part we introduced as the gap between sex and love.

Once again the proposing team has shown a very sad vision of love: you love someone to be loved in return. What a strange vision of love. We won’t discuss this point too long because one should be totally twisted to think this way. The concept of love is including the idea of altruism, this very idea that you love someone but you don’t expect something in return. Let’s take the example of a lover who is going to declare his love offering to the person he loves flowers, and why not the most romantic (and cliché) flowers on Earth: red roses. He is not expecting anything, he is even not expecting her to say that she loves him too; he only wants to tell her that he is in love and that this is the most beautiful feeling ever. However, if they date eventually, their mutual love would really be much stronger than in a couple that didn’t include this notion of altruism in their relationship (yes, because hanging out in students parties Mathieu B. is referring at in his comment doesn't include the concept of altruism). And to answer to Mr. Pitt that said that romantic love should be replaced by stronger foundations, those foundations are included in the notion of altruism that exists in romantic love. How can you expect spending the rest of your life with a person if you don’t love this person for what she is and not only for the fact that she loves you?

Let us sum up our point: yes romantic love idealizes the beloved one, but we are not looking after the “reflection of ourselves” as Laurent S. said in his comment. Love is made both of romantic love and of sexual attraction between the two lovers, and that’s not because sex is more easy to see than romantic love (even if some romantic lovers are very demonstrative) than romantic love is an illusion. That’s why we want you to vote for us !

The idealizing gardeners

Proposing Team - Rebuttal

You reader must be fully aware now that our point is not, just as the opposing team’s, to make an apology of beasty sex, even less orgies, which are lead by the desire of consuming the lover’s body by all means and until one’s animal needs are fully satisfied ; but in the contrary to show that true, reciprocical grown-up love is made of something else. But here is the big illusion, which our poor friends from the opposing side seem to have been fooled by, that is to believe that romantic love is the deepest part of love. In their defense, you dear reader have to bear in mind that Xavier and Guillaume are two naive young men still not very experimented in love. Their mistake doesn’t come from dishonesty, but from lack of experience in what is related to love relationships.
Indeed, as we brought it up in our definition and analysis of love in our opening speech, the physical relation is part of love, but as the very first stage of the relationship between two lovers. Our friends the Gardeners, as they wish to be refered to, seem to have recently got to the second stage, that is the famous romantic love we are talking about. We can only regret that they had to go to Amsterdam to learn from prostitutes and at their expense that money couldn’t buy love. Anyway, what they have still got to discover now is the third and most mature part of love : conjugal love.
But why is romantic love only a stage, for it moves people so much and make hearts beat that fast ? Well, past the purely physical stage, you eventually feel the need to be with your lover all the time, not necessarily to have sex every time you see him/her, but to feel that he/she needs you. Moreover, if you would only make the most of the sex during the first period, you now think in building the relationship, which is a very mature preoccupation, no doubt about that. And on the other hand, it is in the human nature to try to make our wishes come true. And we do so by tainting our love with a sublime color. Nothing is more natural : young men and ladies are still children in the bottom of their souls, and they need dream, mistery, and exaltation. These are the three characteristics of romantic love, according to Dr. Nathaniel Branden, from the California Graduate Institute. This is the reason why romantic love is an illusion created by both lovers to fool both themselves and each other. Again, this is no manipulation nor dishonesty, it is only an automatic behaviour in order to preserve the relationship. Therefore, romantic couples usually feel obligated to recreate every romantic cliché such as the boy offering roses to the girl, going out to have diner in restaurants with candles all around, etc… Un fortunately, this is an illusion.
So what ? Is life nothing but a serie of objective situations, that have no feelings in it, no mistery, no dream ? Well yes it has, and a lot. But it takes time to distinguish the real feelings, from the feelings that are made out of nothing to make our lives look more like a giftcard. And it needs maturity and experience to realise that love doesn’t need to be over-played. Finally, one need to know his/her lover/wife/husband very well and develop a deep complicity with him/her, to enjoy the best part of love that is conjugal love.
So I guess you reader must be convinced that passed the sweet illusion of romantic love is the true love, without any mask nor decorations. Together, let’s help Xavier and Guillaume get to that stage, so that they can finally live happy with their lovers. Vote for us !

Opposition - Opening Speech.

So, is romantic love an illusion, as our fellow proposers pretend to believe ? Certainly not ! Actually, it may be for them, and it certainly is for the ever growing number of students from top universities who don't relate to love but as in terms of sex. Yet for a large part of the population, love goes beyond the urgent physical desire some of us might have once witnessed while staring through their window when suddenly disturbed by an incredibly horny bird couple, that we usually like to refer to as sex.

That's why Pr. Lisa Diamond, who teaches psychology at the University of Utah, distinguishes romantic love from sexual desire. The idea is that everyone basically needs to eat, but while some will walk down to the closest McDonald's to order fries, others will favor home-cooked provitamined fish. Our poor little birds were enjoying a peaceful nap out in the sun on the border of our window, but they couldn't help doing it when Basic Instinct urged them to. And something we can surely be thankful for is that Mother Nature has provided us with a transcending, higher sense that enables us to help it, when we're walking down a narrow street in Amsterdam's Redlight District at 7:00AM, craved at by some third-handed, overworked night workers of the feminine (hopefully!) gender who offer to give us a hand.

This bestial desire for sex has indeed been turned into a job, the oldest job in the world I should say. And the very fact that this part of love, the sexual part, can be commodified, shows that something is missing for it to be actual love. And since sex, which is the first thing associated with love (don't we say "make love"?), is not the whole story, then there has to be something in between. And this gap that separates sex from love is the romantic part, that we call romantic love.

This notion can easily be illustrated by thinking in terms of money : the sex part can be bought, while the romantic part can't. I'm sorry indeed to tell my dearest friends of the proposition that one can pay for sex, but no one cannot pay for love. Have you ever wondered why prostitutes have this tradition not to kiss ? Well simply because kissing someone is supposed to mean something, to be a way of expressing feelings, and you don't pay for feelings - nor does anyone sell any. And why is that ? Because doing so would be the biggest illusion ever.

Nowadays the way of committing to someone, not only for sex, is called romantic love, and it is so far from being an illusion that it is competing with friendship as the stongest emotional feeling of all. Spiritual attraction, a new notion developped to express this crazy little thing called love celebrated by Queen, is going beyond physical attraction to build strong relationships. Some people will call it idealistic, but the truth is true love cannot exist without romantic love.
Just because romantic love is a feeling, and is thus invisible, untouchable, non-measurable, un-anything-that-has-to-do-with-rational-thoughts-able, doesn't mean it is an illusion !

Think about it : haven't you laughed, haven't you danced, haven't you eaten, haven't you walked hand in hand with someone who was very special, someone who made your heart blind, dazzled by a sudden flash, stricken by the most beautiful and simple feeling in life, love ? You know you do... and if you haven't, you certainly wish you had ! So don't let resent talk you into believing that this romantic love everyone craves for is an illusion. The reason why some people claim it is, is because this upper-state of love, that of romantic love, is a state everyone tries to reach, but only those who invest enough time and energy building a true love relationship can grasp, so that it is has become to our fertile imaginations, unattainable, illusional.

So, ladies and gentlemen, do you still think that romantic love is an illusion? Illusion really means something that doesn't exist or even worse, something that exists in your mind but that doesn't exist in reality, a totally abstract concept only good for some lame romantic guy who offers roses to the girl he loves, even though he doesn't know if it is reciprocical. But love is concrete, and if something concrete is now called an illusion, we should all get out of the Matrix to get to this "real world" that seems to be the proposers' one. Love is concrete, and romantic love is necessary for all of us to be humans, to be more than those horny birds on our window, and to achieve the biggest part of our humanity that is love. Those are the points we are to develop in the following parts of the debate, although we know that you are already convinced that there is more to love than sex, the difference being romantic love... and that you will avoid being fooled by any proposing team offering you illusions, by voting for us.

The constant gardeners.