The TC 2026

Topic

Discussing the Paradox of Tolerance-based communities’ stance on views that limit tolerance and equality

About the committee

The paradox of tolerance describes a tension at the heart of open societies: if a community is completely tolerant of all viewpoints, including those that promote intolerance, it risks enabling the very forces that could eventually destroy its openness. This idea emerged in the context of 20th-century political upheaval, particularly the rise of extremist ideologies that exploited democratic freedoms to gain power and then suppress dissent. On one hand, tolerance-based communities value freedom of speech, diversity of thought, and the principle that ideas should be contested rather than suppressed. On the other hand, allowing intolerant ideologies to spread unchecked can lead to harm, marginalization, or even the erosion of those very freedoms. The paradox lies in this apparent contradiction: to preserve a tolerant society, it may be necessary to be intolerant of certain forms of intolerance. If a community suppresses intolerant views, it risks undermining its own commitment to openness and free expression. But if it permits them without limit, it may enable conditions that ultimately destroy tolerance altogether.

Chairs

• Khushi Dave
• Rithani Prianka

Countries

Topic

Is alcohol a socially accepted drug or a part of our culture?

About the committee

The question of whether alcohol is a socially accepted drug or a part of culture highlights a similar kind of tension. Substances like alcohol have long been embedded in traditions, rituals, and social life - from celebrations to religious practices, which makes them feel like a natural and even meaningful part of many societies. At the same time, alcohol is a psychoactive drug with well-documented health risks and potential for addiction. The dilemma lies in how society frames it: culturally normalized and widely accepted, yet regulated and sometimes harmful. This creates a contradiction, because something treated as ordinary and even symbolic of community can also carry serious individual and social consequences.

Chair

• Mateusz Grzywacz

Countries

Topic

Does the goal justify the means?

About the committee

The topic contrasts outcome-focused thinking, often associated with Jeremy Bentham and utilitarianism, with duty-based ethics, linked to Immanuel Kant, which argues that some actions are inherently wrong regardless of the result. The tension arises when a desirable outcome (such as safety, justice, or progress) can only be achieved through morally questionable actions. While some argue that good results can justify harmful means, others insist that violating core principles undermines morality itself.

Countries

Topic

Is suffering necessary for meaning?

About the committee

Thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche and Viktor Frankl suggested that struggle and hardship can deepen purpose, resilience, and self-understanding. At the same time, many perspectives argue that meaning can arise from joy, connection, and creativity without the need for pain. The dilemma lies in how we interpret suffering: is it a crucial pathway to growth, or something we only learn to make sense of after it happens? While adversity can shape identity and values, it is not evenly distributed, nor inherently beneficial.

Chair

• Endi 123

Countries