sync art/debatebench

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches.zip

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:918877d9846a8ca6485a00e70252845c9a8d69dfb7a07067cca80509f832a91d
+size 746345

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Astana Open 2023 Round 3_edited_transcript.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,340 @@
+<pm>
+Three, two, one. In a world in which every single day you are expressed to opinions, to hit pieces, to news, to conversations with friends and relatives that influence you in any way imaginable, we think it's justified to weaponize the minds of people to achieve societal means, considering that every single individual is an equal moral actor. Thus, we think the best world is one in which you maximize the total people. Progressivism is the ideology that receives that.
+
+Firstly, framing this debate: what we are talking about, and secondly, why was it more progressivism and why this is good that exists within the stethoscope. First, on how this will be done: likely done in a gradual way. That is to say, not completely shifting the algorithm to be excessively progressive at once, but likely gradually shifting towards more progressivism and still retaining some right-wing content for the sake of having a contrast between political views. 
+
+Secondly, they're likely to do it with maximum discrepancy and secrecy, considering that in the vast majority of your cases you wish to avoid public backlash. The most obvious response is, they're going to be whistleblowers; they're going to reveal something. This is completely asymmetric on both sides because currently, we have a highly politically polarized and culturally warfare environment in which a right-wing demagogue has a pragmatic incentive to make conspiracy theories that existing social media are currently liberally dominant. 
+
+Just think about Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Elon Musk, who bought Twitter. All they say is that the status quo is dominantly liberal. So we're not certain why any sociopolitical backlash is going to be estimated to the highest objective status for right now. The second point of framing is what are we obviously talking about? Progressive systems have four, uh, maintenance that I'm going to explain, and I'm going to prove why this is the likely interpretation that is going to exist. 
+
+The first is a recognition of positive rights. That is to say, we tax the rich and redistribute to the poor because we realize that you cannot exercise your agency if you don't have sufficient resources to choose your own career, to have free time, to not experience burnout, to give a basic amount of physical comfort. We tax the rich to keep universal health care because we realize that your right to life is if you don't have the right to be treated physically and mentally to access that particular right. 
+
+This is the first core tenant. The second one is always seeking to improve society and to get progress, which is, uh, in total opposition to right-wing political viewpoints that are more traditionalists, either returning to the previous status quo or preserving the status quo or being excessively slow in progressing and being very risk-averse in that particular way. This is necessary because the world is facing problems that we haven't faced before. 
+
+Climate change requires a fundamental shift in our economical and current societal structures because we are very close to the spinning point in which there is no reversibility and we're all going to die. Like, we're very close to a 1.5 degrees Celsius increase in temperatures, which is why we must give a massive shift that is not slow and that doesn't focus on the status quo. 
+
+The third black interpretation is focus on minority rights. Those could be ethnical minorities, or LGBTQ people that are generally oppressed by society, by currently existing socially conservative religious, and generally speaking, traditional norms. The fourth thing that is common with progressivism is a maximization of liberty. This is why we support a separation of state. This is why we support more abortion for women because they can best decide the circumstances upon which they're operating unless it is absolutely necessary, for example, taking away some of the freedom of rich people or gun shooters. 
+
+If we are paying on the caution of giving maximum freedom to people, this is likely to be the broad interpretation for tourism. The first reason is simply speaking, uh, this is the interpretation that most political and social movements have; it's more broad in general and not excessively radical to attract the biggest amount of people. But second, the social medias would not wish to be certainly become communists and to be labeled as communists, which is why they would go for a more broadly accepted, um, particular thing of progressivism. 
+
+Now on to the argument: why do we want to make more people progressive and how are we going to achieve this? I would posit two mechanisms as to why we're better able to achieve it. The first mechanism is internalization through continuous repetition. I want to ask you something, panel: what, uh, two plus two? How much is two? Four, right? You intuitively say it. Why? Because you have heard it a million times; you don't even think otherwise. 
+
+It's an internal part of you. The more you hear a concept without it being disputed, especially at times in which you are not thinking clearly, you're mentally exhausted, you are emotionally drained, you're just brainless. The more you take, that's a given. The more familiar it becomes, which is why we are likely to succeed in massive shifting society because the average person uses social media every single fucking day. Statistically speaking, the average person uses it for seven hours. 
+
+Like, I can bet half of my judges that are judging me are browsing on social media while judging me as well. It's either highly addictive; it gives short-term gratification in the form of dopamine, or, in many cases, you are required to use it because this is the dominant social norm. In particular cases, or three, in many cases, you can rationalize, "Oh, I'm just social networking on LinkedIn," or "I'm just researching for debates; I'm not wasting my time on YouTube." So it's very easy for you to get instant gratification education, which your brain craves. 
+
+The average person massively uses it. Through repetition, they're going to get brainwashed, and that's a good thing. The second mechanism is gradual shifts in algorithms, and here I want to illustrate how this is likely to be done. Imagine you are a dissatisfied Roosevelt worker in America. We're not going to say suddenly become a communist; we're going to recommend you a video in which we'll say, "Hmm, isn't it very convenient that all your industries went to the developing world because of corporations that want to maximize their profits?" 
+
+We don't get to suddenly start to being a communist; we can do it gradually. For example, we would first recommend a liberal channel, then a left-leaning liberal channel. We'll first start with like, um, Destiny; then we can go for wash; then we go for Hakeem. We can do it gradually, and this is likely to be more effective because people don't change their beliefs at once, especially if they're long-term beliefs in that particular way, which is why this has to be done gradually. 
+
+The sheer amount of usage and how you brainlessly describe social media is likely to influence beliefs to a massive degree. Before I continue, closing 
+
+<poi>
+Given your interpretation of progressivism, which you would promote, why do you inherently think that the right of a rich person to their individually earned property is morally more important than the right of a poor person to redistribute wealth?
+</poi>                    
+
+First, the right is non-existent. It's morally arbitrary for them to get rich, to have the willpower, to have the nepotism, to have the resources. It's morally arbitrary your position in society, your soft skills, your brain power, the environment in which you are born, the social connections that you have. If everything is morally arbitrary, we'd rather distribute it in a way in which we meet the basic material needs of the average person. This is the first intuitive response. 
+
+Secondly, we are fine with trading off moral transgressions towards one particular group if we're improving the freedom of other groups. That is to say, intuitively, we'll take one million from a billionaire if we could save a thousand starving children, right? Because sure, it's a minor, uh, minor transgression important, all right, but it massively improves the right to life of other people and their own stake in life. 
+
+Why is this the most important thing within the round? Firstly, own intensity progressivism inherently cares about the most vulnerable people within society, and secondly, it is better able to counterbalance existing tendencies for
+
+People to be rightly saying, that is to say, the romanticization of nostalgia, that is to say, the status quo bias of people in which they wish to preserve existing structures. That is to say, our inherent desire to be sexist, racist, tribalistic, which is something that governs people. In the absence of this dominant brainwashing, it's likely to throw them right wing into hurting other people. Follow those rounds. Propose 
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+Uh, can I be heard? Yeah, great. Okay, three, two, one. First, a piece of rebuttal and then two arguments. The first piece of rebuttal is just, I think it's a weird quirk this motion that our government has to prove that progressivism is in and of itself a good thing. 
+
+And I don't, and like, I think they realize that and then spent like four minutes doing it, but I don't think they do a very good job. They say a couple, they say a few things. Firstly, they say people have a right to, uh, liberty, whatever the fuck that means, which seems to be a very good argument for protecting private property or the shrinking of the state rather than the enlargement of the state. 
+
+The second thing they say is that conservatism is bad, but it's unclear why it is morally unjustifiable to, for example, have a, you know, subscribe to Christianity and have those kinds of beliefs and things like that. Thirdly, they say taxes and redistribution are good, but private property many people argue is justly gained, and so it is immoral to take that away from people or, for example, more pragmatically, if you want to talk about utilitarian benefits, protecting private property is very good at producing incentives to participate in the economy. 
+
+Or, for example, left-wing economics is inflationary and doesn't work, or private services are more efficient and it's better to prune the government. Look, I don't personally believe any of those things, but a hell of a lot of people do. And if you want to justify a priority, uh, progressivism, you better spend more than four, like three minutes doing it. 
+
+Um, uh, that makes government very hard in this debate, but that's not my fault. 
+
+Two arguments then. Firstly, on why this produces backlash, and secondly on the principle. Actually, I'll start with the principle. First thing on why this is immoral. Um, look, OG, uh, sets this debate on by saying because they realize the backlash argument is coming, and they're like, "Oh, I'm gonna make it as secret as possible." 
+
+Look, let's assume that this actually works. This is 100% secret; no one will ever find out about this. Why is that principally bad? Because no social media companies are like any other company. You exchange, like, they make profit, and then you get a service in return, right? Like, that is what you have consented to when you decide to, like, give all of your privacy away. 
+
+Like, maybe it is free to sign up to these services, but the way in which they make money is they take your data and sell it to third parties and stuff like that. So really, indirectly, you are paying them, and then you are getting a service in return. And so if it is the case they are not giving you the service that they promised to you, that you consented to, the one that you have agreed to specifically, that is theft. 
+
+It is analogous, for example, if you bought a VPN service and it doesn't work. It's actually leaking your data to the CIA or whatever, or it's giving it to whoever, whatever, you know, organization it wants. That is theft because you have not consented to that happening. You have agreed to a service; they are making profits in return, and it is fundamentally immoral for them to lie to you and steal your data. 
+
+That I think is theft. Note, the more you believe opening government, that is, the more you believe all of their practical benefits, the more important this principle becomes. They're inversely proportionate. That is to say, the more secret you believe this is, the more effective this is at brainwashing people, the more it is principally immoral, the more it constitutes a theft. This is principally not something that we should do. 
+
+But then secondly, on pragmatics backlash. First question I want to ask is why wouldn't they be able to hide this? Firstly, because there will be whistleblowers, right? There will be people working at these companies that find this principally immoral. Even if you might not credit it as principally immoral, there are plenty of people who do 
+
+Think of it as principally immoral, and note they do not have to be right-wing dingbats for this to happen. They just have to be normal people who think that brainwashing people is not a very good idea and not something they signed up to do, which means that they're going to go to the media because this story will be absolutely eaten up. 
+
+Because They would be given every single prime time interview that they hadn't a choice to; that is in their direct incentives, right? And so they will be able to do this, so this information will go public. Why does that then lead to a disproportionate and extreme reaction? Four reasons why. Firstly, it feeds into pre-existing narratives around tech companies and the work establishment in general. 
+
+All of the stuff that, uh, OG want to talk about, about like, you know, conservatives being like, "Oh look, they're cramming progressivism and LGBT shut down our throats." Uh, you know, all of these tech companies are like Silicon Valley liberal snowflakes or whatever, right? All of that stuff. But no, it's not just right-wing people; it's also just normies and even left-wing people who care about things like data, who care about things like privacy, or for example, people who just don't like, who don't want this stuff being crammed down their throats. 
+
+OG has a stab at this and says, "Oh, it's symmetric because, you know, people already have conspiracy theories about it," which is a very lazy preemptive response because obviously we're not just talking about people who watch Alex Jones every day. We're also just talking about ordinary people, just like centrists, who are kind of on the fence, or for example, even left-wing people who care about data privacy and things like that, who would get extraordinarily pissed off around that. 
+
+You get all the normies, and you make them more right-wing. Secondly, the reason why this leads to such an extreme reaction is because it's perceived as an infringement on your personal space. That is why they refrain. You constantly hear from centrists and normies, "I don't want things getting politicized. I, you know, I have Twitter so I can see funny memes or whatever, or, you know, send like cat photos to my aunt. I'm not on this platform to have propaganda squeezed down my throat." 
+
+This sense of personal space of something that is separate from the political world, something that's separate from your everyday world, is something extraordinarily important. It's something extremely valuable to a diverse amount of people. Thirdly, this reason why it leads to an extreme reaction is because every piece of progressive content now comes in affirmation of this, right? 
+
+Because now, even if you otherwise wouldn't have gotten that progressive content anyway, every single time you see a piece of progressive content, you say, "This doesn't deserve to be here. This was just pumped up by the algorithm and did not deserve to be here." You immediately discredit those ideas out of hand. Everything then becomes like you could, a confirmation of this thing that is happening that you think is bad. 
+
+And fourthly, because there are entrenched norms around fairness. Now you think, "Oh, because people think, oh, this is really, really unfair. We think this broadly should be a meritocracy." You see the content that you want and is doing well on the algorithm; you don't want things being pushed down your throat. Before I go, I'll take CG. 
+
+<poi>
+Your own claim is this is an existing narrative that means you haven't identified the margin whatsoever because people continue to view social media promotion of progressive content. 
+</poi>
+
+Yes, some people are conspiratorial, but the vast majority of people just think of this as normal. And it's not symmetric. 
+
+If you see on the news, like just imagine this: you see on the news Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are artificially inflating the success of these particular types of content, are changing the things that you see on your algorithm every single day, are tinkering around with your data. That is a real thing. That is something that people care about. That is something that has happened, right? 
+
+Which means that the vast majority of ordinary normies, who otherwise wouldn't be watching conspiratorial theories, now get really, really upset. How does backlash manifest? Firstly, you simply discredit this progressive content out of hand, even if you otherwise wouldn't have in the comparative. Secondly, it pushes people to the right. Normies, now if it is the case that you assume that progressivism is good, are now more likely to support right-wing candidates because they think that the elite, the establishment, all of these tech companies that govern what they see on a day-to-day basis are taking over their lives, are invading their personal space. They're more likely to vote for, for example, in 
+ 
+sWing States for Republicans in the United States, if you think progressivism is good, that is a disaster. Thirdly, people stop using these platforms, which is bad in and of itself because a lot of people just like using Twitter, but also they move on to other sites. For example, whatever the right-wing one is, I don't know the name, but it's like full of sets, like in-cells, and like that, that's pretty bad. This outweighs efficacy; it's not efficacious on their side for two reasons. 
+ 
+Firstly, it is unclear if this can actually switch your allegiances over because there's a pre-existing sense of community. You have pre-existing views; there are other posts, for example, as they can see that are going to be on your feed. But secondly, this information pops up, and you have a short attention span. You only see it for two minutes; the effect is marginal. Unclear why this makes you, you know, Karl Marx or whatever, or very proud to oppose. 
+</lo>
+ 
+<dpm> 
+So can you hear me? Ah, sorry, my internet is plugged. Uh, okay, pois in chat. I will take one from closing, and I'll start in just a sec. Okay, starting in three, two, one. If you really think about it, everybody is impacted by progressivism, even if you are a toxic male. Talking about males' rights right now is something progressive because progressivism deals with every person's human rights to be treated equally before all. 
+
+Talking about poor people whose jobs are being extracted because corporations just want to pay the least amount of money for their labor is progressive. And it impacts the Middle Eastern, like, random person who lost their job, who voted for Trump because of this. All of those go to show that most people are impacted by this without really realizing, and the fact is that they're so alienated currently because they never interact with this content that they are never able to assess it critically. 
+  
+The only way you're able to solve this is that when you gradually, suppose, give them content that is one related to them in a way that impacts their life sufficiently. As we saw it already, proves something that is connected to you, something that you already have a fear of happening is something that is likely to overall convince you, and it's overall likely to shift your behavior, at least in small ways that are better than nothing. 
+ 
+I will engage with a few things personally on the principle and the hypocritical analysis that they give. Secondly, on just plain engagement and weighing out the impacts, so I will brief you up. Oh, it says it's morally unjustified for us to brainwash people. I want to ask a very simple question: Why the hell do we allow Murdoch to own every single newspaper in America and to brainwash half of the population in America with the right-wing propaganda, and this is seen as justified? 
+ 
+Why is it okay for certain politicians to push their agenda into own social media corporations and to push their party lines, but it's not okay for us to try to protect people's rights? Why is it okay for news channels to be directly responsible and to be directly dependent on politicians and who they are appointed to, but it's not okay for social media to do this? I really don't think they prove this instead. 
+
+Okay for us to try to protect people's sources, but you have certain beliefs such as you're right-wing. So, it's unjustified for us to try to, of course, you otherwise, one, you never consented to being right-wing. Your parents coerced you; your community coerced you; your environment caused you. But you never consented to be in this environment in the first place, even if you did in some way. 
+  
+Secondly, you the people who are harmed on an everyday basis don't consent to take—they have to be evicted from their homes, don't consent to have no job, don't consent to not have the right to have a child or to be actively pushed to have this child. Therefore, the one here is maybe both groups are not consenting into something. What we ought to prioritize is to more, right, you maybe not do not consent to having certain information in your head, but you certainly are more harmful when you are not able to feed your family, when you're not able to see your family because you work 24 hours every single week. 
+
+Therefore, I don't think this is a weighing of, oh, they never consent, but rather I don't care that they don't consent because the moral harm is quite small. Certainly, though, I want to talk about backlash. The basic argument you run in this debate, generally, as they just point in, they never prove a tipping point. Even if you prove a tipping point, our gauge is the best one; this is very short-term mystic to the point which all themselves characterize the average person who cares about a lot of other things. 
+ 
+I'm not sure why this person will collect devices, you know, community kind of manner, and actively fight against this injustice, right? Try to make this right, vote for other people, and generally be able to make such a big difference. But sometimes, I just generally don't think people react in this way because not them reacting in a bad way is specifically if they don't relate to the content we give them. 
+
+This is dependent on them proving that the content you see will make you angry, that it will make you realize that you're right now in a liberal kind of propaganda world that you're being brainwashed. But most people won't realize this because people brainlessly watch social media in trying to escape from their everyday struggles. Meaning, when you just watch a certain video of a black woman sharing her experience about being discriminated against in the workplace, why would you think this is Western propaganda? 
+
+When you see an individual, not a politician, not some fancy party line, but a rather normal person like you with problems that you just don't understand because you haven't experienced. Comparatively, this is better for us to push than some arbitrary party lines or supporting progressive parties that are also morally crap. It's better for us to push stories of people to get more recognition and awareness for problems that impact all people over the long term, such as climate change, such as having no raw materials to live with. 
+
+Secondly, though, on why our impacts are more important, let's say some people get radicalized. Why is this less important? I have three pieces of wing. One, some people are able to change their opinions in a way that helps others. Why is this the case? Wonder most—if you think about it intuitively, you changed or realized something was a problem when another person told you. Actually, I realized that changing the euro in Zagreb is bad because the prices went up. 
+
+You know that Bulgaria is crap because you talk to us, meaning the change happens on an individual level. Meaning I hear your story, you hear my story, and you're able to feel empathy towards me. The only way you're able to then achieve this change is when, on social media, you're able to see the relatable stories of other people and actively engage within them because it's not politicized; it's just people talking normally and expressing their problems. 
+ 
+Why isn't then able to change in some way your voter preferences? One, even if you say that you will not vote for the president to believe you, you have other alternatives such as voting in referendums, for example, to gain age to not be delegalized, right? Because this doesn't impact you in any way, even if there is a trade-off for you voting for a president that would economically maybe harm you. But secondly, you can vote in local elections in a different way because it's not a single-vote issue type of election but rather a multitude of kind of people who are elected during that time. Secondly, and before I continue closing, 
+
+<poi>
+yeah, so people that you are talking about are people who are on the center or close to the center, which means that they are already symmetrically likely to be able to convince just by getting multi to the difference.
+</poi>
+
+That's not true; it was the competitive. Sorry, no, the competitive is that you have right-wing propaganda dominating, and I already explained this because it is the status quo. They own the TV; they own the newspapers; they own most of the media communication within the population. 
+  
+Competitive list people are easily susceptible. Right-wing people have the ability and the propaganda machines to do it, so we are able to counterbalance this on our side. Now, secondly, even if you don't vote, one, you're better able to push your politicians for changes, right? You can pick certain issues not to definitely right or left-wing kind of ways, meaning if you want, if you care about climate change, it doesn't have to be a left-wing policy. You can create businesses that are green, or you can subsidize national agencies. 
+ 
+There are different ways you can approach this, but the fact that you just know that this issue is happening is important enough to fix it to your paradigm of your opinions of left and right. Secondly, you change your behavior on the ground. You think twice before you're bigger to other people; you think twice before you are able to discriminate against others when it doesn't fucking impact you. This, even if it sounds small, escalates over time, but lastly, people who are minorities feel safer on those platforms, even if some leave that they have the privilege to be there in the first place minorities didn't. 
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo>
+Well, I just think if progressivism were as appealing for every individual as OG tries to portray it, everyone in this world would be progressive. But as a matter of fact, they’re not. People have incredibly different values, and they value a lot of different things in life. Many people, a majority of people on Earth right now, would, for instance, say that a perceived sense of liberty and freedom is more important to them than, for instance, getting a lot more taxable income and having, like, health in public hospitals. 
+  
+It's true that for us debate left-wingers, those seem like trivially true things, but that's not the case for a majority of the world. So when DPM comes and says you never consented to being right-wing, so this is a justification for a total breach of the contract that companies did between you and them, I just don't think that's true. Like, not having consented to becoming right-wing or having consented—I don't care—you are right-wing. That’s not a justification for breaching your consent even further or reaching this idea of consent or not. 
+  
+Not even breaching consent, but breaching a contract that you have made on a one-on-one level with the company. It's just like you don't get from X and Y just because, like, you know, the world isn't like entirely like there’s no free will and stuff like that. It doesn't mean that you get to push it further and go against this contract that you've had with, like, the companies. 
+
+But secondly, the second way I'm going to defend Aidan's principle is just that they don't respond to it. Like, the question was never one of brainwashing. The principle that Aiden presented wasn't brainwashing is bad or propaganda is bad necessarily. The principle was theft is bad. And what happens with this motion isn't the fact that people, you know, get manipulated on masse—although that's a problem—but the previous problem is the fact that you consented to something with a company, you think that's what you're getting, and secretly or not secretly those things are being stolen from you. 
+ 
+That's the principle. There's no engagement with that principle in the way that Aidan has portrayed. No, thank you, I'm not taking POI from opening. 
+  
+Why is this then on backlash? Why is this relevant? And why is this a particular change? Because probably closing is going to run something of this sort as well. Like, there are already a lot of narratives that tell people that, oh, like, the left-wing elites are controlling everything. What is the particular type of extra difference that's added? 
+
+Number one, I think in this case you actually see an actual change because notice that the status quo is a status quo in which you have full control or, like, kind of control over your news feed, right? You'd like something more of it appears, right? You have a lot of, like, visual feedback and a lot of, like, visual evidence of what you want, and you feel like you have control over it. I kind of do because that's how, like, you know, the algorithms work. 
+
+Now, not only do you kind of probably know that this has happened, but now you see your feed starting to transform, and the more right-wing on the spectrum you are, the more, like, enraged you are likely to get at this, right? You don't get that sort of, like, physical evidence and visual evidence for yourself individually on their side of the house. 
+
+But secondly, ask yourself, what does a tech company have to do in order to be successful at, like, doing all of this progressive propaganda? It has to get increasingly better at manipulating the data of each and every individual and garnering as much information about them for this propaganda to be successful. The more OG goes, "Oh, this is going to be so good because we're turning everyone into commies," the more they say that this company is going to dig even deeper into the preferences of each user. 
+ 
+It's going to get even better at cramming each data of every individual, and it's going to get even better at, like, literally harvesting all there is to know about you, right? This is important, right? Firstly, because it reinforces all of the principles that Aidan talked about, but also secondly because it means that every act of propaganda they do is going to be even more noticeable for you. They're going to get even better at targeting you with this information, so it's going to be, no thank you, even more obvious for you that, like, this is happening. 
+ 
+This is again a type of change that you don't have in the status quo. Thirdly, I think people in the status quo, the rational person—not like the Ben Shapiro fan—is like usually guided by this idea of, like, innocent until proven guilty. Like, that's why conspiracy theories don't usually become mainstream in a lot of issues in a lot of instances, right? Because until you see the actual fact, until you see all of these things that I talked about, and you have the visual evidence for what's happening, you're unlikely to say, "Oh yeah, we're all being ruled by the left-wing elite," or even if you say it, you don't actually believe it, right? 
+
+You know, it's probably kind of just a rhetorical talking point that your favorite talk show hosts do like to talk about, but internally, you're not yet scared about it. You know, it's like, you know, some punchline that they use in order to get a lot of clout for their videos, but you don't deeply believe in it. The moment this becomes a real thing, it's no longer deniable. It's no longer something that could potentially be conspiratorial; it is something true that you see as a fact. 
+ 
+Why is this important? Two reasons. No, thank you. Number one, because these are the very people who might have tilted on the other side, on our side of the house, right? Like, recognize that, like, Republicans, like, dead ass, like right-wingers—no thank you—are not going to be the type of people who are going to be able to change through repetition. Like, as many times as they're going to show them, like, "Oh, minorities aren't actually evil," they're still not going to believe in you. 
+
+But the very people that are on the center—no thank you—the very people that are on the center are the exact people that right now, instead of maybe opening the article because they feel like it’s something that has randomly appeared in their feed, are not even going to engage in it because they are going to see the engagement of clicking on that article as an active, like, forfeiture of their own individuality and personality. 
+
+Notice how propaganda works and how people generally think about the way propaganda works, right? Like, if you think about it, we tend—the reason we tend to hate propaganda is because we see it as an attack towards our own rationality, our own intellect, our own individuality, right? Oh, you think I'm so stupid that I worth being manipulated, right? This is why people hate it. 
+
+And this proves to you that the very people who you might be willing to tell on our side of the house—no thank you—the fear of people who might potentially change because they're not as politicized, they don't think everything left-wing is bad, and are opposed to them, are exactly the type of people that you lose on their side of the house. 
+
+Before going any further, closing. If there's any POIs opening, 
+
+<poi>
+we know that Facebook and Instagram met out intellectuals and steal our data every single day, yet we use them every single day for eight hours because we’re more addicted to our market brain than backwards to shorter mistakes.
+</poi>
+
+Yes, I have two responses here.  
+First of all, it's clearly not to the same extent. Like, it's one thing to have some bots that, like, put some information out there, but you still have kind of a lot of control over your feed. And it's another thing to have, like, the literal person who created the literal feed that you're on, like, distribute this like like propaganda. 
+
+But the second response here is that the comparative is not just, like, right-wing TV. Like, in the status quo, you can still have, like, in what we're still supporting, is like maybe a lot of left-wing people, like, deliberately building, like, really big left-wing pages, right? Where they have a really, really big left-wing page where they talk about their left-wing things, right? We’re fine with users disseminating a lot of left-wing values. 
+
+We're fine with users talking a lot about progressivism. What we're not fine with is sort of, like, counteracting those, like, big fighting forces equally. We're probably fine with, like, stopping that type of, like, you know, like the spam that comes from motion input bots on the internet. All of those are better solutions than getting the main person that, like, literally controls the whole social media to deal with that. 
+ 
+So essentially, and like, to sum this up, because, like, yeah, just to sum this up, this fundamentally is like a principle that, like, steals people. If they're right, it breaches the contract that people create between them and the companies. It is not
+ 
+Likely to be effective because the immediate response you're going to get from people is to disengage from it entirely. It is likely to politicize and anger the very people that might have tilted your way. For all of these reasons, I oppose.
+</dlo>
+
+<mo>
+Awesome, I'll take POI's in chat, please. That would be great. 
+People are very unlikely to voice caught mainstream social media companies on our side of the house for at least two reasons. The first is that social media, as an industry, demonstrates strong network effects and hence tends towards natural monopoly. You usually go to social media for the friends, connections, and communities you can find there. 
+
+The problem then with small social media companies is you lack those network economies of scale because there are not as many friends and people to talk with. You kind of have as many meaningful and deep conversations, which is why there are naturally a small number of social media companies which, under our side of the house, implement this policy. Hence, rendering the prospect of a mass boycott of smaller platforms unlikely. 
+
+And even if that boycott occurs, people are likely to naturally gravitate back towards larger companies. The structural reason why is not what opening government says, which is that social media is addictive because presumably small corporations also have addictive algorithms and are able to trap you in that way. 
+
+The better reason is because large companies by nature dominate the industry. In many cases, governments explicitly regulate that only a small number of social media companies are deemed viable. In many other countries, particularly in the developing world, social media companies have a stranglehold over user bases because they are the company that provides access to internet services in the first place, like the laying of internet infrastructure in Burma by Facebook and Meta. 
+ 
+But it’s also because naturally larger corporations have better services. They often have better server infrastructure; for example, they're able to maintain a larger user base and provide greater integration of different platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook and so forth. 
+
+All of this fills a crucial analytic gap in opening government's case. Why, if this policy is as legitimately controversial as opening opposition says, will people not leave in mass? This is the reason why boycotts are unlikely and hence why this policy has the potential for efficacy, which is a needed mechanism for opening government's case to work. 
+ 
+Two extensions then at closing government. First, by promoting progressive content, it is not just justified per OG but an active moral necessity. And secondly, on how we facilitate political de-radicalization and limit the worst harms that come from violence and racism on social media. 
+  
+First extension on the principle. Opening opposition is right; social media companies have no legitimate claim to prioritize one ideology over the other. That is a sufficient response to opening government's claim that you couldn't have consented to right-wing values and that right-wing media is dominant in the status quo. Given that opening opposition legitimately proved that there is a contractual duty for social media companies to be fair and respect ideologies, the thesis then of this argument is quite simple. 
+
+Historically, and even in the present, despite what crazies on the right like DeSantis will tell you, social media companies legitimately have played a major role in enabling conservative indoctrination in right-wing echo chambers and favoring right-wing perspectives often at the expense of the left. There are three reasons structurally that's true. 
+ 
+The first is that algorithmic systems on social media pigeonhole otherwise center-conservative individuals into outright right-wing echo chambers. The reason why is that algorithms work on the basis of prediction. They assume that the next best thing you want to see is that which you've seen in the past, and hence people, without their consent, gradually become more and more right-wing over time in a way that is manipulative. 
+
+That flips opening opposition's principle by demonstrating that moderate right-wingers are often unfairly echo-chambered and pigeonholed into the craziest right-wing views without their consent. This policy is a counterbalancing force against that. 
+
+Secondly, right-wing media has historically been far more dominant on social media than the left. Why is that? The right wing historically has been far wealthier. It is connected to established and traditional institutions, which has often meant they have the money to do things like engage in extensive political advertising on Twitter in the lead-up to major elections in many countries, particularly in the developing world. 
+ 
+And the right wing, on average, tends to be more willing to promote the sensationalist content that gets clicks on social media because it is right-wing media like Fox or Breitbart that is willing to ask you to disregard the conventional principles of ethical journalism to get clicks. 
+
+In an increasing era of global liberalization, the tactics used by right-wing media have become increasingly unfair to get more people to listen to their stories and watch their news media on social media. That's why, in many cases, right-wing social media or right-wing media platforms are the most likely to do things like utilize sensationalist clickbait articles that get people to click, even if objectively that's unfair for leftist media that's less willing to do so. 
+ 
+It's also intuitively because historically right-wing media has been highly present on social media companies' platforms. The problem is that right-wing media often then has a chilling effect on minority speech because when there is a news article that is harshly xenophobic or has Islamophobic undertones or tacitly suggests support for racist values, that often chills minorities out from speaking openly on these platforms because they legitimately fear for their own emotional safety. 
+ 
+And the discourse promoted by those sorts of news stories often makes people feel unsafe. The ultimate duty of social media is to promote discourse, to enable conversation, to facilitate social connections. They are the open marketplace of the 21st century, and that principal duty is violated when right-wing media dominates on social media. 
+
+Look, DeSantis would tell you this argument is crazy; in the real world, it's not. We agree with opening opposition that social media companies ought not prioritize some sets of ideologies over others. This policy then is corrective for the historical favoritism displayed towards right-wing media, outweighing OG by proving the legitimacy of this policy and beating OO's principle at the same time. 
+  
+This is also independent of efficacy; even if people do not become progressive, there is still a moral duty to expose people to these ideas. Second extension: promoting progressive content reduces radicalization. Before that, 
+
+<poi>
+everyone recognizes that artificially inflating conservative content is morally bad for the reasons we gave. Surely the alternative is reform, e.g., post-Cambridge Analytica investigations—not to do more of the same and double down on the principal home. 
+</poi>
+
+No, our claim is not that social media companies actively promote right-wing media; it's that the nature of right-wing media, the tactics it uses, and the finances it has access to artificially favors right-wing media in social media network feeds. Reform is unlikely. Cambridge Analytica was a data scandal not really about news media, and presumably is unlikely to work in the vast majority of cases given entrenched status quo bias and the privileged people who run these corporations. 
+  
+Second extension: let's talk about political radicalization. The first tier to this argument is that social media feeds tend towards radicalization. That is intuitively because algorithms reinforce your present political biases and hence make you become more radical over time. This is not about politics, to be clear; this is about moral values. 
+  
+For example, are you willing to engage in racialized violence against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar, which has historically been demonized by hate speech on Facebook? News feeds are particularly important because people often see the headline and scroll away, making broad sweeping conclusions about the world based upon that, which then inform their decisions about whether or not to engage in hate-based politics. 
+ 
+This media often plays into your fear. It taps into sensationalist media incentives to make people scared that the local immigrant community is racist and drug dealers. Content moderation simply cannot work, and the major reason why is that in developing countries, there is simply a socio-cultural and linguistic barrier. 
+ 
+There are literally 12 people in the entirety of Meta that are fluent in the major languages spoken in Burma, and hence that is why the content produced in areas like the Tigran province of Ethiopia or Burma takes literally weeks to get taken down. Because there are cultural barriers, and the profit incentive of social media companies incentivizes cutting down content moderation.
+
+On our policy is a better substitute for ineffective content moderation because you've exposed people to alternative ideologies. Unlike OG, we don't require you to become progressive; we just need to shatter the idea that the only legitimate beliefs are those shown to you on extremist right-wing media, which become more intense over time. Under our side, we incentivize the production of that progressive media. This isn't about politics; it's about violence, extremism, and hatred. Hence, we propose
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+Amazing, Cool. Just a moment. Okay, I'll be starting my speech in three, two, one. Not only the scientists would say the government's case is crazy; I say the same thing. The first thing I'm going to do is prove why the government bench cannot make the claim that progressivism is a good thing. Opening opposition only says they don't prove that. I'm going to prove the opposite. 
+ 
+Two levels here: Firstly, on utility, which is the metric coming from opening government. Know that utility is a human concept, which is to say outside of human, as far as utility is perceived. This means it doesn't exist outside of perception through the lens of subjectivity. On a new intuition level, I can be very rich and still be unhappy because my definition of utility is different from yours or anyone else in this room. For right-wing people, it's insulting to suggest abolishing the right to life. It is immoral to deny a deserving student the right to access the university based on affirmative action. There is true fear that their children are being driven to doubt their sexual identities in schools. This is a deep-seated feeling of immorality, of fear and injustice, to the same extent which people on the left perceive utility when it's given to them. 
+ 
+This means two implications for the government bench: Firstly, they don't increase utility, which is to say therefore that they don't fulfill their metric; but secondly, they arbitrarily preference one set of beliefs over another. This is morally unjust without the knowledge based on which you would do that. But secondly, on the level of existence of objective truth, it is unclear whether it exists, and there is no indication that it does. But more importantly, even if it did, it's inherently epistemically inaccessible because all humans are born into discourse. We are all a priori infected by our linguistic registers, by our cultures, by our moralities, desires, and experiences, which means we cannot even define the metrics of the search for objectivity because the very word "objectivity" is an empty signifier. We have different meanings of what it means to be objective; therefore, if there were such a truth, we cannot find it. 
+  
+This means fundamentally that the government bench is basing the right of social media to arbitrarily preference one set of content on a moral and intuitive hunch. Insofar as they base their case on utility, I don't care that the right-wing media is currently dominating the world and stuff like this. But CG does something a bit more nuanced, right? They say this is reparatory. I have two responses here: First of all, one moral evil doesn't justify another moral evil. Two, moral evils can coexist. Something being unjustified so far means we need to support things like antitrust laws, not include another element of arbitrariness that they themselves claim is immoral. So they themselves prove that this type of action is immoral. 
+  
+Secondly, they also concede that the point of social media is about discourse. In support of this, it is literally replacing one type of content with another type of content. They are not engendering discourse, so they’re directly not achieving their metric. But thirdly, because I thought of another one, even if there is a reparatory duty, it's unclear why it's fair to externalize that reparatory duty to people who would speak out in a right-wing manner. Why do the previous evils of social media require me, a third party who did not participate in that evil, to waive my right to speak or to persuade others in order for somebody else to rectify their prior evils? This link was not made. 
+ 
+What are the moral evils that are being made by the side of government on both sides? Firstly, denial of information. Not that people believe in different political truths, and they vote and act to realize the world as close to those political truths. In doing that, information is key. The more arguments, the more statistics, the more views you interact with, the better you're able to cross-reference with your own beliefs and make the vote or political action that's best for you, regardless of ideology. Namely, I can be progressive and stay progressive, but if I hear a conservative criticism of my belief, this might make me reconsider which left-wing party I'm voting for or who I'm voting for in the primaries. 
+  
+But even if people don't even access this information or don't even try to access it, its very existence is an inherent moral good because it implies the existence of a tool that people may use if they want to achieve the subjective utility that government talks about. Even if there is no practical delta, this motion denies them that because it directly removes certain forms of ideas, therefore certain forms of information. But there also is a practical delta because the current algorithms are not biased in terms of progressivism, which means that they're not that nuanced. If I read the most liberal media, I'll get more Guardian or BBC than I do Fox News, but I'll still interact with a center-right column or op-ed on Guardian, which might switch my beliefs. This doesn't happen on the government side, or at least it doesn't happen if they want their case to be effective because that means a meaningful replacement of right-wing content with left-wing content. 
+ 
+Secondly, it implies the denial of the right to expression. Know that nobody has full access to the repository of your emotions, thoughts, etc. Therefore, the only thing people interact with is the image you project outwardly. Insofar as I'm now denied, as a right-wing person, the capacity to speak to others, I am denied the right to project my image; therefore, to control my social environment. Secondly, for a lot of people, it is crucial to their identity that they try to persuade others, regardless of whether they're successful. You are denying the capacity of persuasion to these people. 
+ 
+On the nuance level, not my earlier comparison as to why current algorithms don't prevent this to a certain extent, also governments talk about, you know, right-wing stuff and how this is not left-wing biased today proves that. But thirdly, as far as there is no objective truth, persuasion is morally legitimate and therefore should not be denied. You should not externalize blame in the way the government bench does. Identity only exists insofar as it's affirmed by other individuals, as far as I can communicate and get a response. But social media is doing here, even if the status quo is imperfect, it's unknowingly denying people their right to have or at least denying it to a larger extent than today. 
+
+So even if the delta is small, it is still a moral evil. The way this weighs up is, first of all, it's true regardless of backlash. Secondly, even if people become more right-wing or don't become more right-wing, we don't care; we prove it's a moral evil. But thirdly, the principle from opening opposition is, "Ah, people are going to think, you know, this is theft and stuff." But the theft argument only works if there are practical arguments on people knowing this. It doesn't work because if they know, they can just use other platforms, so this argument stands regardless. 
+ 
+I've also engaged on the practicalities, but before I do that, I'll take open governments 
+
+<poi>
+On both sides. There are echo chambers, so your comparative isn't multiple nuanced viewpoints for the sake of engagement; it's likely another echo chamber that is just not progressing.
+</poi>
+
+One, I gave you nuance already. Secondly, I've already told you that one moral evil doesn't nullify another; it doesn't rectify other moral evils. 
+Now, on efficiency, opening opposition is correct to already point out that there is a large interest, and the margin is that the right wing can now say there is a conspiracy because this is what they've done. But what is the actual comparative? People might stay on Facebook. I'm not saying they're going to stop using Facebook, but because they know that their feeds are being tailored and they believe this happens to a bigger extent than it does, even if it's actually gradual, because they're being primed by people like Trump or the scientists to believe that, they're going to go deeper into platforms like deep Reddit, like 4chan, like Trump social. This is where they become more easily radicalized, which leaves the closing government claim because these are the worst areas where stuff like hate speech is promulgated. 
+ 
+On Facebook, if you're a Trump person, you are in an echo chamber, and you will interact with strong particles, but you're less likely to interact with Qanoon because there are fact-checkers, EU regulations, and civic integrity groups that
+Reduce, the reach of that content and remove that content. So the worst excess is there's a difference between whether you believe Trump should win or whether you should storm the Capital; whether there is reverse racism or whether it requires vigilante action against black people. The worst excesses of hate speech, the worst excess of harms to people are removed and exacerbated at the point where you boost people on these moral platforms. But lastly, I just don't think they're efficient. At the point where this is gradual and you only see one article a day or something like this, you're still surrounded by your family, by your religion. Most of your articles are still right way. You're going to tweet that article as an exception and continue believing your own framework. People don't abandon their entire identities just because of one article. They don't have efficiency for centric; it's uncomparative because they already have a balanced amount of content anyway in the status quo. We win this debate as closing opposition
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+POI's in the chat exclusively, please. Just give me one second. Let me turn on the light. I want to start with odd extension and how it compares to OG. The first reason we beat OG is because we prove that people who are centered right actually stay in these platforms, which is the contingency for OG to get any of their benefits of people being convinced by progressivism, including moderates. Here's the extent of OG's mechanization on this plant: one, they say people won't find out because this narrative exists anyway. But even if they weren't to find out, as opening opposition points out, getting an overload of progressive content on your feed or getting multiple progressive articles might make you want to disengage with social media. And Aston says move to Truth Social.
+
+Second, OG says they are addicted, but they give you no reason why alternate social media platforms are any less addictive. So at the end of OG, we lack a mechanism for why people stay in these platforms, which is the contingency to their case. Ryan gives you this mechanization that Tim ignores when he makes his final extension that you switch to 4chan and finally interact with Qanoon. We give you three reasons why you don't: one, strong network effects. Large amounts of people, especially in developing countries, depend on singular social media platforms for introduction because everyone else is on the platform and there's a collective action problem. But if only the right people move to Truth Social, you don't have a platform to interact with a person who gives you looks every day on WhatsApp like you would in India. Therefore, when very large groups don't move together, the first mover that is a social media platform has a massive advantage to begin with.
+
+Second, in most countries, this is literally infeasible because big social media companies established an early presence on the Internet. They were often the first investors because they got massive user bases that way. So Facebook with Internet.org, for example, or Reliance Jio pumping up big social media companies and giving them favorable internet access given the absence of net neutrality laws in the developing world. Third, there's simply a resource asymmetry that social media companies have; massive data centers and know precisely how to hook you because they have more data about you and know how to make you addicted to that specific kind of social media. Truth Social isn't kicking off; Carla literally shut down. This means people actually stay in these platforms, which is the contingency for opening governance case that they did not prove.
+
+The second pathway that we give you is about fighting violence and extremism, and this is critical because all of closing opposition's claims about identity exploration depend on you living in the first place. Violence is a fundamental attack on who you are as a person and on your identity. We show that violence reduces in a manner critically that doesn't depend on turning you into a progressive because without promoting progressivism, we show you the narratives you get on social media platforms are often primarily violent extremism in developing countries. Why is this the case? The reason why is because by extreme necessarily gets substantially more engagement to begin with. The reason why is liberals and conservatives might both be stuck in echo chambers, but liberals are far more willing to break out of their echo chambers and engage with conservatives, both because it's OG faint's liberals come from a culture of free speech and because things like call-out culture empirically substantially cascaded onto the liberal atmosphere a lot more, meaning they are willing to be engaged with right-wing content as well while right-wingers are often less willing to engage with progressive content.
+
+The implication is social media algorithms often implicitly overweight right-wing content that gets a lot more engagement, and center-right people therefore move to substantially more extreme rhetoric. But beyond just right-wing content, it's often the case that people go from majorities with privileged networks doing things like spreading rumors on social media, building up anti-Rohingya Facebook groups that get a lot of attention simply because they're often the first people to access the internet and the first people to get to use social media to begin with. Critically, moderation does not solve this. Social media companies have limited moderation capacity, often running sweatshops in countries like Ghana where moderators run their time, especially moderators in a wide spectrum of different languages and a motivation system that depends on reporting that never happens. This is why Facebook facilitated the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, because extreme rhetoric spreads easily on social media, is much more polarizing, and gets more engagement necessarily uplifting it.
+
+Why do we solve this problem? We are not contingent on convincing people to change their minds. We solve this problem by taking space away from the echo chamber because the central right people who are most susceptible to having their minds changed get less exposure to these ideas if we overweight progressive content in their algorithm. Because the mechanism through which they are convinced is often repetition, when you have progressive content in the algorithm, you take space away from this extreme content, which reduces violence. Our third pathway is justice. The primary claim, so the thesis of this argument is that the right wing has a rigged system on social media. Now OG sort of hints at this; they say Murdoch-type things have power. The right wing has power over the media, but they do not actually explain why the right wing is wealthier and how they use that on social media apart from my claims on sensationalism. 
+
+The key point is they have more donors because they benefit from the traditionalist setup, which is what conservatism is. Progressivism is about changing the established status quo, and therefore people who are progressive often benefit less from the established status quo. What that means is all the claims about the lack of an objective moral truth are flipped. Pin's response, "two wrongs don't make a right," our point is not that you simply have a reparative obligation. A point is if you primarily get exposed to conservative content right now and you have a bunch of feeders into conservative content, even if we overweight progressive content, you don't lose out on conservative content; that just levels the playing field, which is a moral virtue in and of itself as opposition concedes. 
+
+Now I want to comprehensively engage off-bench and explain why they lose independent of our extension. First, closing opposition—they say the more arguments you interact with, the better you cross-reference beliefs. Problem one: social media is a substantial echo chamber due to the constant recommendation of algorithms that you like. Pin says his case is more nuanced, but he adds no further nuance for why they get cross-reference beliefs. Apparently, there are center-right Guardian articles; I don't know them. I don't know who's engaging with them. Yeah OO, 
+
+<poi>
+Moving on to Truth Social was only one of our harms. We proved more generally that this will lead to centrists immediately discrediting progressive content because they see it as lies...
+</poi>
+
+I'll respond that I'll respond that let me just finish Closing opposition—so closing opposition's other claims that right to free expression, that people can only access one image; you're not denied a right to free expression because you still, as a right-wing person, have more of a platform. If you're privileged, you can pay for Twitter Blue; you have larger social networks reading your content in the first place. All this justice levels the playing field. 
+
+Okay, opening opposition, morally equivalent to test. I think our principle implicitly engages this leads to substantial backlash among moderates. Look, this is contingent on people finding out; even if they get more progressive content in their feeds to begin with, that doesn't necessarily mean they find out in so far as social media companies keep this secret. The reason there's a lack of a margin is because there are strong incentives for
+Any political ideology to pump up the persecution complex of itself. So when someone notices one Progressive post on social media, they still think, "Look, social media is rigged against that," because they notice that much more than the normalized conservative content that's in our stream overall. Our case is not dependent on progressivism being good or making people progressive; it's dependent on leveling a rigged playing field and ensuring violent extremism does not win out. Propose 
+</gw>
+
+<ow>
+okay, I'll be starting my speech in three, two, one. I'll just go team by team, starting with, let's say, closing government. Firstly, they say this is something that is rightfully justified because historically, the right wing has been fostered on social media. Firstly, I don't think this response to things analysis, which is like within succession, which is perfectly interacting with this one moral ever, does not nullify the other. We don't believe that the correct response to this, like how you say, historical injustice or whatever, is to create another moral evil. 
+
+Like, why is it legitimate to do this even if it does lead to some utilitarian benefits? Why is this legitimate to do this in a way that you are, like, how you say, limiting freedom of speech of people that want to share their, you know, conservative opinions on Twitter and stuff like this? Why is this justified by tampering with these people and stuff like this? 
+
+Secondly, they're talking, and this is something very important, because CG is focusing mostly on extremism and people feeling unsafe. We can, how you say, limit this on our side of the house as well. Conservativism is not equivalent to extremism. Saying, "I support abortion," is not equivalent to saying, "I hate women," and stuff like this. These are not two things that are interacting. So hate speech and stuff like this, making people feel unsafe, this is something that already is, like, under the law. 
+
+Then, like, this is hate speech. There is a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. Things that you are, things that, I don't know, Ben Shapiro when he's coming to, you know, when he's saying things that he's allowed to say and that he isn't allowed to say, which means that I do believe that this is outside of the bed. But let's engage in this in a more nuanced way. What we tell you—and this is how we are also extending over the opening opposition—because what we are telling you is that what you are going to get is a retaliatory mechanism of people going to places that are much more shielded, such as, you know, 4chan, deep edits of Reddit, and all these sorts of things. 
+
+And the reason how we extend over the opening opposition is they just say, "Ah, there's going to be backlash because people are going to believe in conspiracy," and this is not responsive to Tejas' POI. But the reason why you're going to believe in conspiracy is there's obviously a difference from the status quo because in the status quo, when some crazy people start talking about how you say conspiracy, the social media can be like, "Look guys, this is exactly how our algorithms work," and stuff like this. But this is not something that can happen on their side of the house. 
+
+I also want to say, secondly, they say, "Ah, Parler is dead," and stuff like this. Yes, because right now platforms are allowing conservative discourse on social media. This would not have happened if, how you say, they would be completely excluded from the conversation and all these sorts of things. But they're also not getting any kind of change, and this is how I'm going to engage with opening government as well because, um, Maria, I will take your slice, so not now. 
+
+This is how they are getting—they are not getting change on their side of the house. Why is this so? Firstly, on efficacy, they say this is going to be done in a gradual way. If I'm conservative and I get nine liberal articles but they get one conservative article, I want to confirm what are my beliefs because I want to feel good about myself. I want to believe that I'm a good person, so I'm going to ignore nine liberal articles and I'm going to interact with the conservative article because I want to get a confirmation for my beliefs. I don't want to think about, I don't know, how you say, how my opinions are bad and stuff like this, which means that if this is done in a gradual way, which is OG setup, they are not getting a meaningful delta. 
+
+Secondly, they say social media is the tipping point very often. It's not like even if I get exposure to liberal ideas on social media, then if I'm like Jim bro, I go to the gym with my other gym bros and we talk about how much we hate women. Then I go to my work and I talk with my colleagues about how much I hate poor people and stuff like this. I go to church and I hear church propaganda from my priest and I'm like, "Okay, it's fine." Like this is not, and then, you know, reading TikToks and all these sorts of things is not going to tilt me away from my already existing beliefs. 
+
+But the third reason why this is not working in efficacy is because people have—people know things. So this is attacking the mechanism. They say, "Ah, people just don't know." Some people very often know stuff; they just have personal reasons why they are affiliated with certain ideology more than the other. And this is because, how you say, rich people know they are exploiting poor people; like they know this, but they are not going to change this because some girl made a TikTok about it. They just want more money, and this is why, how you say, white girls on TikTok are not going to change anyone's mind and stuff like this. 
+
+Now they say, "Uh-huh, they say there is right-wing propaganda today circling," and stuff like this. So I noticed that, you know, that you're head when they say this, but this was assertion. This was just assertion. I would like to pause it that, how you say, Guardian economies, BBC, CNN, strongest media houses today have the most followers, have the most subscribers, all these sorts of things, more than like Daily Wire or Prague or whatever the fuck. 
+
+So this is not something that is inherently true. But secondly, even if it is inherently true that there is right-wing propaganda, this is limiting their impact because if right-wing propaganda is everywhere, then, how you say, TikTok and social media and stuff like this, this is not going to have a huge effect on my opinion and stuff like this. But secondly, they say there are some people who are like close to center who are able to tilt their opinions. 
+
+Two responses to this, and one is a strategic observation because notice their impacts. Their impacts are they have to have change. We have to have people who are going to vote for progressive policies and all these sorts of things. If they want to claim those impacts, they need masses of people to be able to change, how you say, like politics and all these sorts of things; they need people in power to change their opinions and stuff like this. At best, they are proving that some people who are moderate are going to read one article and be said and going to change their opinions. This is at best interpretation of the opening government, which is not enough for them to be able to claim all their impacts about social change or, how you say, poor people not getting exploited and all these things. OG. 
+
+<poi>
+This motion applies to all social medias, meaning opens can't prove you go to some smaller corporation social media because all of them have to do this. And CG don't prove an analysis because...
+</poi>
+
+you go to, Andrew Tate comment section and you jerk off with your gym bros and stuff like this. You go to the gym and you jerk off each other and all these sorts of things. I don't know, okay, whatever. So you don't really achieve any kind of change on your side of the house. 
+
+But lastly, and what completely destroys them is team extension. Even if the government bench proves everything, this is moral evil. This is something that is purely illegitimate for people to shape discourse in such a way. Their only, how you say, preemption to our, how you say, principle is that, "Ah, but there is already right-wing propaganda," which they do not prove, and even if there is some kind of right-wing propaganda, this is not something that, how you say, is competitive. 
+
+But also, they say, "Ah, echo chambers exist," and all these sorts of things. If they are so powerful, if they are so powerful that they are not getting changed on their side of the house. And the reason why we weigh over the opening opposition is notice that their practical impacts are fairly symmetric. No one cares about data harvesting right-wing backers; the way that they explain it is fairly symmetrical. The principle that Dean talks about is universal, and you support for us. 
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Astana Open Round 4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,276 @@
+<pm>
+Starting in three, two, one. 
+Okay, where is this relevant? I think in states such as in Latin American states, where there is increasing, like very high primary activities, such as in Italy or states such as Italy or Japan, where you have super entrenched like a crime rate uh crime organizations or African states, where have like a local organized crime. What is expelling, and how would it be done? 
+
+Probably you revoke their religious status, like in the case of Italy. You revoke their Christian status. You do it publicly or through a public declaration. It's probably like it's posted or like it's said by the leader of the local church. You can't act, and as a result, they can't access the church or any of the church services. You also can't donate to basically shout out of the community, formally and shout out from God or from all the metaphysical benefits that the church and Christianity, or the religion, can provide to you. 
+
+One, I think this is a deterrent for people joining. Who is this about? I think this is about young people who are not still fully in and who would consider joining gangs. On the uh on on the alternative, I think people will say, "No, no, no, but people only join in case like extreme cases of hunger." I don't think that, exactly a lot of, like a significant amount of cases, each people who is people who could be earning money someplace else. 
+
+But it would definitely be harder, and it's young people who join them due to peer pressure or because they feel like it's the easier way to please their family, or because they feel like it's something very edgy to do or like feel like it's a part of their identity that they can embrace. 
+Why does this break, and why does it act as a deterrent? It takes away the capacity to repent for your sins to the extent to which the church can seek punishment in these gangs. Obviously, because they kill people, because they go against a lot of religious Christian values. Forcing them out and forcing them to live with their actions is the punishment that the church can do, so it's the fair bit it should be doing in order to start to help decrease the numbers. 
+
+Expelling them means that you also incur a metaphysical cost because you see you cannot repent for your sins, you cannot ask God for forgiveness, and probably you are unable to access Heaven. This is crucial because if you're a young, like 16-year-old, and you feel like you should get in for your family to help them have a better living, but the church is likely to expel you if your family ends up hating you because the church cut you out, your main decisional factor is gone. 
+
+And you perceive this as being a bigger identity trade of renouncing your religion than joining the gang would be an addition to your identity or an addition to your material condition. So I think you're likely, from a personal and emotional kind of balance, to not want to get into this and, or at least, yeah, and to weigh up more on the side of do not joining the gang. 
+
+Secondly, that's not enough. The metaphysical threat of not being able to go to heaven might supersede anything that pushes back on from my previous mechanism because you know that even if you don't do terrible things, you're very likely to do bad things which will send you to hell. And you're constantly and continuously prevented from being forgiven because now God doesn't speak to you anymore, so you'll have to live with the guilt, and you also have to live with the certainty of hell, which I think this is something intuitively a lot of people would prioritize. 
+
+There's a second argument here which I think is very crucial. A lot of mob bosses and a lot of prominent gang members go to church very publicly. They donate a lot, they use religious symbols into their discourse or into their actions because they want to promote this as we're doing this for a moral good and for moral values, where the vigilantes that solve the injustices that the state is doing upon our communities, and we have God on our side, which means that the community should embrace us as well. 
+
+Why is it crucial that you cut the access they have? Because they use it in order to access the families, right? To accept the families in the communities that see them going to the same church day in and day out, and they grow softer onto the horrible things that they're doing or at least see this as, "They surely know what they're doing; they're talking to God like I am. Right? 
+
+Secondly, they're looked up to by children. If children see them in church day in and day out, they're more likely to join. From my previous argument, thirdly, they get humanized, right? They're just somebody from your congregation, as you are. And fourthly, you're seen as a benefactor. You have money; you give money to the church, so the community softens up, and they instrumentalize this a lot in order to get liked by the community. 
+
+They instrumentalize this because they don't want to get ratted out. They don't want communities to collaborate with the police to get them sentenced or trialed. And secondly, because they want to incentivize joining. 
+
+Why does this changes, and why is this the tipping point? One, because the church does a public statement against them. They say they're not part of the community, nor does God endorse their message, which means that we are not willing, they're not doing the moral good, nor are they helping our community. So you, as a Christian or a member of the congregation, owe them nothing, and you shouldn't go soft on the crimes they commit just because they donate some money to our canteen. 
+
+Secondly, the church then becomes the moral arbiter of their immorality, which is something exclusively the church can do not because the state can't be the moral arbiter of their immorality, because it is seen as the enemy as opposed to the church, which is proximate to people, who can now say, "We, as the authority figures, tell that these people are immoral and that you shouldn't be crediting or allowing your children to get into these gangs." 
+
+which means that you have a clear-cut distinction: these people are immoral, and you should be banishing them morally. I will explain what this means, but I'm happy to take CO
+
+<poi>
+yeah, if it is the case that these young people have so many alternatives to joining gangs, why is it the case that most of them still put their lives at risk in the status quo? And still..., 
+</poi>
+
+I've gone through this. If you're planning to win on these cases, there are few in numbers, and you lose out on all of the other people I've explained don't get in in the first place. 
+
+Why are you more likely to do it? So why is this the tipping point? I will say it will still be scary for you to confess. You'll be afraid for your safety because if the whole community does a common front against them as a result of being excommunicated, they can protect each other. So there's a feeling of safety because now the community as a whole is against them. 
+
+Secondly, the numbers stop growing as a deterrent. So even if this impact doesn't occur in two years, in the long term, it is super efficient. It's closing five or ten years and exponentially, so they're more brave to confess because you see the numbers decreasing. Thirdly, you limit your duty as a moral Christian in the face of God to confess or to write these people out to the police. 
+
+And fourthly, you're less likely to feel compassionate because they're not good people anymore, and you feel like, again, your duty as a good Christian is to make them pay for what they've done. I think I will claim that you can convince people to stay in and to mend their ways, or at least that depends on the community. Certainly, the community is not their criteria given they inflict a lot of harm in these communities, and it's unlikely that the church is able to convince them to mend their ways because they will keep thinking God is on their side. 
+
+It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Every time something works out for me as a mafia boss, I think that God is with me. If the church says God is not with you, if they stop the self-fulfilling prophecy and they stop the community from buying into it. 
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+I'll be starting my case in three, two, one. I'm sorry, but this case is absolutely ludicrous. Most gang members are the average rank-and-file gang members, youth people, as OG can see it's not Vito Coral elements, especially in areas that the opening government talks about in Latin America. 
+
+Why do those people join? One, they very often come from disenfranchised communities. They're forced to join these gangs because they are presented with some kind of economic security. They allow them to do things like petty crime and pay them off for that in areas where jobs are scarce. 
+
+Secondly, even if these are not economically disenfranchised communities, these are very often areas with severe lack of policing, think areas in El Salvador where barrios, barriers, gangs like Mara Salvatrucha and stuff like that literally own those places. The police doesn't enter there, or other local police officers, deputies, and chiefs are actively being tipped off by the gangs. Which means your only way to not get shot and to protect yourself is have a gun. Thirdly, They often get threatened through these guys who say you will get a bullet in your head if you don't join, or as opening armor themselves, conceding prime minister by their families who push them to do that, who fear for their safety, or because they're gang members themselves. Opening government people don't go and risk being shot because they're edgy. This is a ridiculous claim. This means, therefore, that the idea that people now just won't join gangs because they won't do the edgy thing anymore doesn't stand in this debate. The only other mechanism OG has to prove this is to say the metaphysical threat is going to stop them. Guys, you don't wake up thinking about God and Heaven in 60 years if you don't have food in your belly or if you're about to get shot in the head. Unfortunately, hunger and fear are physiological emotions which are incredibly proximate as opposed to theological abstract considerations.
+
+The final thing that left starting from opening government is the idea that the community is going to put up a unified front against those people and rat them out. This is not the reason why they don't rat out. The reason why they don't rat out is because the local police officer may be corrupt and then rat them out to the gang. The reason why they don't rat out is because there is a family member might get taken hostage and shot. The reason why we don't rat out is because they're scared of these gangs taking away the basic livelihood that they have, that tomorrow might be the ones caught in the crossfire because the gang wants to send a signal and the message that nobody should rat out the gang that rules this neighborhood at the point where the police is not there. This mechanism isn't true from the side of opening government. My analysis also means that in so far as justified morally in the vast majority of cases as a retaliatory measure, they do not have that moral justification in so far as most of those people did not do that because of a criminal and evil mind, but because they had no choice.
+
+The second thing I want to discuss are the benefits of the church to these individuals and wider society as a corollary. Firstly, the church provides solace. There is some kind of hope in the future despite what you've done. It's a psychological benefit, or probably the least important. The more important one are the narratives that when it is possible, in the best case of opening government, to escape those gangs push you to do so. Narratives that are actively anti-violence, Jesus turning the other cheek, violence as the path to Satan and sin merely push people to renounce violence. The second type of narrative is the hope for salvation and redemption. God still loves you because you are a son of God, and it is possible to repent within the earthly material world. There is hope that if you change your ways, you might go to heaven, which opening government conceives people care about. That's the point where people might try to escape, or if there is a minimal employment opportunity in the next neighborhood, they might take it, or they might turn themselves to police. They say three or four years in prison and try to move somewhere else, maybe collaborate with law enforcement to do the right thing, to repent, and to go on the right path.
+
+But if you are denouncing them and doing it publicly, as opening government says, then the narrative you're pushing is they're too far gone, too far into sin, that even the house of God doesn't believe in you anymore. This is when you tell them that they're cut off from any redemption. At that point, there is no hope and no sense in taking the metaphysical, other path, another world because you're told it doesn't exist for you anymore because you're too far gone. It also affects how you behave. Note that church members, like priests, can push you to be less violent, can tell you, "I recognize, my son, you are doing this out of necessity, but you will sin if you harm innocents. Do what you must, but try to minimize the damage." But also the idea that if you go to the church, if you sing with these people every weekend, if they're part of your congregation and your flock, you're hesitant to harm them when you don't have to. When you're excommunicated by this church, probably your only source of hope in a life of crime and constant fear, you're frustrated, you're angry, you take it out on other people, and you cause more damage.
+
+Lastly, and probably most importantly, churches provide an insane amount of services to people, stuff like medical clinics, stuff like basic health education, basic literacy, donations, sponsoring meals, connections to other people in the church who maybe know someone in the next city who can lend you a job. These are ways in which people access opportunities that get them away from a life of crime and allow them to leave the gangs. When you push them away from the church, they will not access those things and therefore are more likely to stay within those gangs. But more importantly, and this is third-party harm that they cannot justify, even in their best-case scenario, their family is less likely to access those services as well. Personally, because of OG's own mechanism, you're publicly denouncing this guy; this family then becomes the symbol of something that has burst out, literally the seed of sin, someone whom even the priest doesn't think he can turn to the right path. This person should not be in our congregation because they are violating its entity and its clarity. But secondly, the family itself is probably frustrated at the church, angry at the church; they feel abandoned by it, and they don't want to access those services. So even the innocents do not get the services they would otherwise get. 
+
+Not on weighing, even if they prove all of their benefits, it's still morally third party also proven when you don't get a benefit and actively split. That is the first you already flip it in opening opposition, closing opposition is going to do; I have to do a lot of help of weighing in order to win over us in this debate. Before I move on to a very sexy principle argument to engage with the metaphysics coming from Ana's prime minister. I'll take closing government, 
+
+<poi>
+I thought that they were being held at gunpoint with their families in a room being forced to stay in the gang. But now the priest tells them, "Son, don't be violent," and they leave. Pick a characterization. 
+</poi>
+
+Yeah, sorry, I don't have to pick because in top rooms there is nuance. For some people, there is no choice. For people for whom there is choice, the church facilitates that choice. This is very simple, and the judges will understand this.
+
+Lastly, I want to comment on metaphysics. We have no evidence that the metaphysical world exists, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no degree of probability to conclude that heaven and hell do not exist. with any probability Here's the thing about the impacts of the afterlife: they're infinite and extra-temporal. It's either infinity at the side of God or infinity in the powers of Inferno. These impacts therefore outweigh every utility in the material world. This means that any slight probability of the metaphysical world existing makes it problematic for you to knowingly deny summon the path to salvation. Assuming revelation is true and assuming the sacred texts are true, the church is the closest to the truth about God and therefore the truth as to whether you're going to reach heaven or not. This is not the case about whether people are likely to engage or not. This is a case about what is moral for the church to do, at the point where you know the path of salvation and actively denies to summon, therefore potentially condemning them to an infinity of hell. The slightest possibility of the metaphysical world existing makes it incredibly immoral. It supports infinite disability, and infra-disability is not proportional to any crime in the material world because no crime is infinitely this utile. but also deny people the path to salvation damage their own soul because you're condemning them to apostasy, the worst sin in all of the Abrahamic religions. So the church priests themselves are damning themselves, not knowing that they're doing that to save the people but to save the souls as well. 
+We beg you to vote for opening opposition.
+</lo> 
+
+<dpm>
+Hello, professional churchgoer here. I think that importantly, if my grandma found out that I was part of a gang and was killing people, she would maybe be okay with it, but if she found out I got excommunicated from the church, I would prefer hell. And I think that this is quite important because what OO tries to do is essentially say nobody gives a shit about the church. This isn't a massive deterrence. But also, they're literally going to die, and how bad they're going to feel about killing people now that they're out of the church. This is the most contradictory thing that can be solved by, oh no, I have new ones. There is no new ones there. either they do care or they don't. Some people will, some people won't, but the same mechanisms apply for each individual group of people. 
+
+So firstly, I want to take out the principle because it's very pretty, and I really want to interact with it. If it is a sin and it is the worst moral thing to do to deny somebody the path to salvation, then God is terrible, because God decides that at some point after your actions you're going to be punished. Punishment is not bad within any religion necessarily because it is a natural repercussion of your actions. 
+
+So does that mean that it is unjust to ever punish somebody? Because then you send them down a path where they are not going to receive salvation anymore. That obviously is not the case. So the principle doesn't stand, but it also flips it because it says that you have the moral obligation as a religious person and also as the church to punish the people that are going against the word of God, because otherwise you let them continue in sin. 
+
+So, you know, principle, if you want to debate on that. But let's talk about the realistic things here. Firstly, I want to explain the idea of, like, you are not going to be changed by the fact that you're excommunicated from the church, but also you are more likely on their side to be changed by the narratives of the church telling you you're going to be a good boy and you're going to get salvation eventually, and you're going to get out if you can. 
+
+Let's take the people who can get out and also are really influenced by the church. In order for OO to win this, they need to prove that hope is more important than fear. Here I'm going to call the mechanisms. If the fear of being shot or your family being threatened is the most primal thing in history and you can't break out of it, they need to literally mean that the fear of Hell or being excommunicated is more important than all of the other narratives that the church is going to give to you. Thus, you should weigh this higher than the argumentation. 
+
+But even if we believe that hope can somehow help, I think that these people, when they know they're going to get excommunicated by the church, have two options. They can choose to live, and this is a perfect opportunity for them to decide, "It is the time for me to end this." Thus, I'm going through one because I fear that I'm going to get out of church, and that means eternal damnation. But also, secondarily, because I want to hold on to the hope that as long as I take this one particular action of leaving now, maybe I can repent for all of the things I have done in the past. 
+
+This also interacts with the ideas that churches can help out, because note, I can't just keep going to the church and parading about how badly it is to be a gang member and how much I want to get out without getting shot in the head. So realistically, benefits are always talking about. To actually prove what you have to do is tell the people of the church, likely the priests, that you want to get out, which literally means betraying the mafia. If you are at that point, you're already on your way out. 
+
+This is going to be the tipping point to push you over. This co-ops the mechanism of OO and shows you why the fear is actually going to be important. The only thing that they realistically say is that fear doesn't matter, but note it does, as per the mechanization of you are afraid of the police or you are afraid of getting threatened. 
+
+So I think you are more likely to be afraid of Hell if you're a religious person. So for that category of people, this is what is going to happen. But for the people that don't care and they generally don't give a about the church, all of the mechanization and the argumentation also work. It doesn't work because I don't get any solids and I don't get any benefit out of the church. 
+
+So yes, this is restricted on the number of people who actually care about their church and care about their congregation. But I think it can even be expanded upon all the people that care about their families, and this is quite crucial because they see that it is immoral to punish people because they didn't opt into this. But when they choose to remain in the gang, even when they're betraying their families, and they can't justify it and rationalize it as, "I'm trying to get money in order to save my family. I'm trying to protect them," that is the moment that this is a rational decision that can be actively punished by being                   excommunicated from the church. 
+ 
+This happens the moment that you are going to be kicked out. You are aware of this, and you still choose to be part of the gang. Note the motion says active members, or what's the exact... Ah, yeah, current gang members. This means that if I leave, I'm not getting excommunicated; I'm not being punished for my mistakes. So when this applies, it means I can just leave and I can repent for my sins, thus giving the opportunity for them to be out. 
+
+Now let's analyze the impacts here. Firstly, whether or not you're likely to write people out—I already flipped most of OO's analysis here by telling you why fear is not going to be the most important thing. But note there is prior resentment for what you have done or what other people have made you do, which means that it is justified for you to try to write them out as long as you don't believe that they are fighting the good fight or they are the only way to go about it. 
+
+Secondarily, you are likely to take the perception of who these people are and make that into your mental calculus. So if you believe that they are still good people, you are less likely to write them out. And even if OO or CO tries to prove that you are still afraid of them, I think you're more likely that somebody in the village is going to write them out for three reasons: One, you feel protected by numbers. The moment that this is a massive thing that has happened in your village, you feel like anyone could have done it, so they don't know that it's you necessarily. 
+
+Secondly, you know that the church leaders have more of a target on their back than you do, which means that you also feel protected that you're going to go after them first, so maybe you have some time to escape or you can just leave. Thirdly, you feel that at some point you're going to have a worse scenario than you currently are in, so you see this as the massive opportunity for you as the tides are shifting. 
+
+Even if nobody runs them out, and this takes the best case of opp., I feel like either the leaders or the people in the mafia are going to feel like somebody might run them out, which forces them to become more cautious. That means that there are going to be fewer actions on the streets than before. There was no POI, I'm sorry, so there were less actions than before. 
+
+You also are likely to be more covert. This limits the amount of crime you can actually do. It's 6:14. There is, this limits the amount of time you can actually invest into crime duty. This is crucial because it does prove to you a marginal reduction in crime. What this means is that, one, these people are likely to be the vulnerable ones in the proximity of the mobs, thus being the ones that are more protected from crime. So any marginal utility of them not having as much crime in their community is crucial. 
+
+Secondly, this actually has long-term ramifications. One, because you experience this crime very often, you're likely to have petty theft or people getting into your house and stealing your stuff very frequently. If you reduce that on the long term, it accumulates. But secondly, people in the mob lose the ability to increase crime over time by not being able to recruit new people or increase the amount of finances that they have. 
+
+So what should you take at the end of my speech? One, there is a marginal reduction in crime. And secondarily, not only is this justified, but on the OO principle, apparently it is the best moral thing to do in front of God. So proud to propose. Thank you. 
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo>
+I'll be starting my speech in three, two, one. 
+Firstly, let's clarify something. I'm pretty sure that we are all experienced debaters enough to know that people are not, you know, monoliths and that people are different and nuanced and stuff like this, but I have to be nuanced about it. So there are multiple types of people who are joining gangs and who are current members and stuff like this. Firstly, people who are a threat of violence, which is the vast majority of them, who are at threat of violence, who have zero other options and stuff like this. 
+Um, those are the... and who are here to protect their family and stuff like this they are going to stay in gang irrespective of this. so you are not deterring most of the people from leaving a gang. The only thing that you are doing essentially is making them feel horrible about themselves and making them feel like their soul is not worth saving, that they have been abandoned by the only thing that was giving them hope in their life, which allows them to retaliate even more. Because like, if you can rob someone, why wouldn't you? Just why would you introduce, you know, rob them and, you know, hurt them as much as possible? Because there is no point for your soul, there is no point for morality or for anything because you are a lost cause. This is the comparative that is happening on their side of the house. These people are not going to leave gangs; they're going to stay, and they're just going to be horrible. 
+
+But secondly, even if you—there are other types of people who are in the gang because this is something that is most convenient to them. But there is some kind of chance for them to be able to save themselves. What do I mean by this? These are the people who are not at proximate danger but are here because this is the most—they're illiterate, for example, and this is the most convenient way for them to get money. These people, if they have access to church facilities—such as very often churches in these areas are the only ones who are offering, you know, like proper literacy education and all these sorts of things—these are the only places where you're able to get education, where you're able to get some kind of, you know, food in order to not die, and shelter to sleep at so you don't have to sleep at your house, you say, Gang Lord houses and all these sorts of things instead of on the street. These are the people who actually have a chance to escape, and you are denying these people these possibilities. This is also a negative comparative on your side.
+
+I want to deal more with what opening government tells us. First, I want to deal with ratting out and, you know, like the perception of gang lords and all these sorts of things. Firstly, I would like to posit that even in the absence of church, even if the church rejects them, they're still going to be a vastly positive perception of these people. The reason for this is that in the vast majority of cases, these gang lords are often substituting welfare of the state. Like, for example, Pablo Escobar was literally building schools and welfare systems, and this is why everyone loved him and stuff like this. So I would argue that this is largely symmetric, right? 
+
+But secondly, even if this is true, I don't think that this is not properly engaging within this response, which is that you're literally scared to rat them out because they're so infiltrated, how you say, with the police and all these sorts of things. And then they say, "Ah, but like when people are massively going to be, how you say, reporting on these sorts of things, then you are going to feel more comfortable threatening them out." The problem is that no one is comfortable enough to be the first person to do this because you are going to put the target on your back. You're going to be putting the target on your daughter, on your family, and all these sorts of things, which means that their mechanism of massive amounts of people, how you say, like—uh—responding and all these sorts of things is not happening. 
+
+But secondly, Tin doesn't say that, you know, people don't think about God. Oh, but it's just not your most proximate and primary thing that you are thinking about when you are hungry. You are thinking about how much your stomach is in pain. When you are scared, you are thinking about how much, how you say, how you are going to die tomorrow, how your daughter is going to die tomorrow, and all these kinds of things. 
+
+So, um, and secondly, I want to talk about what kind of influence can church have on the people who are part of the gang, and this is doing because this is most of the people we are talking about because the majority of people who are in the gang are here because they have to be. They don't like it; they're here because they have to be. Um, these are the most, uh, I think important people. And what is the comparative? You can be a member of a gang, but you don't have to do as much damage. For example, you may just have to rob people or like deal drugs or whatever. But there is a difference between robbing a woman just taking her money or like robbing her and assaulting her, and you know, like, um, doing some damage and stuff like this. 
+
+The comparative on our side of the house is you still believe that God loves you. You still believe there is a chance for your soul to be redeemed, and the only things that you are doing that are harmful for the society are the things that you have to do because you were forced to do it. But if you see a woman that went to church with you, if you see another human being that your, uh, how you say, priest who's preaching about it, how you say, the lecture and all these sorts of things, you are going to feel empathy. You are going to feel sorry. And now this is not a, like, massive comparativism. Like we are removing people from gang and purging, how you say, Latin America from gangs and all these sorts of things. But if you are that woman that is getting robbed and being spared of assault and how you say, getting harmed and all these sorts of things, this is a massive impact. Even if we prove this on a marginal scale, you should be weighing this massively in this debate. 
+
+But next, churches that have more, how you say, money and all these sorts of things is incredibly important impact. Why is this so? Because this is what Ana says. Very often churches are funded by, how you say, these dons and words and all these sorts of things in safaris. They do not prove the harm of this, which is ratting out, how you say, Pablo Escobar and all these sorts of things. They do not prove harm of this. But there is a huge impact of these churches that have money that can give it to people who are in need. This is a huge impact which you are going to lose, and this is a third-party harm that is going to happen. I would like to take closing right now
+
+<poi>
+so just to defend opening government also, right? Like, before you join the church, no one's holding a gun to your head. So OG shows why you wouldn't join it in the first place, and you don't address the actual nuance of the OG. So like, listening to women, I'm also listening to you.
+</poi> 
+
+So, uh, you—I mean, you joined the church because, like you, uh—I mean, you joined the church because like you are religious or whatever. So like, I’m not sure I understand the point of this POI. But basically what I'm trying to say is that like, when you are excluding people in the society who are the richest, like literally, Pablo Escobar was the one who is like substituting welfare because he had more money than the fucking state. And when you have these places that are like very poor and all these sorts of things, um, it is very problematic that you are losing people who are the richest. 
+
+And what the churches are essentially doing with this money is that they're building shelters for the poor. They're, you know, providing educational services. They're providing babysitting services for single mothers who have to go to work. They're creating soaps to give to the people who are hungry and all these sorts of things. This is a harm that is going to happen certainly and on a massive scale because these people are rich, and they are doing this in order to like wash, how you say, that image and all these sorts of things. And so that is, no one is going to solve gang violence with churches and all these sorts of things. The unique benefits that you are getting one outside of the house is you have people who are less violent, more sympathetic, some people who are able to escape, and you also have churches that are much stronger that are better able to help the people. These are massive improvements for these people's lives. Vote for us. 
+</dlo>
+
+<mg>
+Um, I'll take opening opposition at least once, preferably by voice around the fifth minute, but chat is okay, but I might not see it. Actually, just only voice, please. Okay, um, starting my speech three, two, one.
+
+Lets characterize the people and address the nuance in opening opposition's case. Um, they do admit that not everyone is sort of held at gunpoint and forced to join the mafia. This is the vast majority are, and we can concede that and some people are marginal, and we also can agree with that, right? Their claim then is that these people then go to church, and they're sort of pushed towards doing good things and so on. Uh, opening government then says that actually the difference here is that the church itself is now going to push against these mafia, also sort of gaining lots of power and deter people because they think they'll go to hell. 
+
+But the way to break this clash pretty easily is to Explain how if the mafia gets involved in the church at a low level, the way you perceive God and the way you perceive the church as a whole is that it's pro-mafia. Note that OG says that there are gang leaders who become role models, and they do explain this reasonably well. But the reasonable case of this is the marginal areas where the gangs aren't very strong. Let me explain why this is relevant. If the gangs completely run the territory, then this motion is not feasible. If you kick out the gang members, you kick out a large amount of them, and then you get shot. Or, for example, you get completely destroyed in the new church that's repeated. So, I don't really see the impact here. But if it's a place with absolutely no organized crime, it does say high organized crime rates; then, of course, presumably this debate is relevant. This is about how organized crime rates—there are like two to three percent—which is on the margin, the moderate area. Because crime tends to be localized, right? You get to recruit people close by, and you need to know people you trust. And, of course, your actual operations are often physical, and hence those people need to be right next to you so you can get to them. Different legislations often make it difficult to kill someone in a different state, whether you might not know the police. So, these marginal areas with very high organized crime rates are rising, and at that point, it's very easy for them to expand their services.
+
+So the closing government claim is a much more detailed explanation of why churches become the single focus point of recruiting a huge amount of people into this crime wave, and how the only way to defend it is to expel these members as soon as they come in. And I'll wait by like in my extension. So first of all, why exactly is your church the deciding factor in these moderate areas where high organized crime is sort of slowly seeping into civil life? The first thing is, like opening a government, opening opposition can see it's important to your community; it's important to your self-identity. But they don't explain the implications of this because OO is correct in the sense that you also need to get money, and you also need to get jobs, and so on. The thing is, unfortunately, in poorer areas, it's very unlikely you have institutions to support that for you because your tax revenue is low, and you don't matter as a voter. So often, churches are a way to get people to come together without money, and that means your connections—the way you make jobs in the first place, you find opportunities for employment, the way you learn anything—comes from churches or even concedes this with their mechanization. It's often education; it's often ways for you to actually get an opportunity to get a degree or scholarship. Someone who supports you when you're suffering because your mother is in the hospital, you need funding. But, second of all, it's also important because, like everyone says, it determines your self-identity. But third of all, it's important because it's a source of protection in the sense that it's seen as a safe space to get away from places that are dangerous.
+
+Presumably, the the way to then sort of clarify this is either the mafia members are heavily regulated in a way that they don't feel unsafe, in which case I'm going to explain why that won't last, or the church then doesn't actually accept people who are scared of the mafia—victims or people who feel like they can't be there. How would a police officer sit right next to a gang member who they know has killed an innocent person? And that's the thing: even though OO says you might assault people less, you still have to assault them because that's part of your job. You can't fear like put people's uh like you can't put fear into someone's heart and ask them to pay you money if you you have created your protection racket unless you actually break some bones or actually start robbing people in a way that makes them dangerous—it's like scared of you enough that they give it up immediately. But second of all, what happens even lower level mafia men needs moderate areas where these crime rates are expanding occur. First of all it's really easy to take over the church in a way you can't otherwise. So this looks like intimidation and talking and sort of getting to know the social dynamics. Now, I listened to Ana carefully. She said you humanize these people; they become role models, and they become benifactors. But the missing mechanism here is why this is comparative in the sense that if you remove these gang members, they can't do it through, say, a charity donation that's anonymous or whatever. 
+
+Or, for example, why this is the tipping point to that and why the right. So the first thing is that you now understand social dynamics in a way that you can manipulate the priests so that you can make them lose their jobs and put in people from your own family—people you respect. Or, for example, and this is the most important, you frequently meet these people, so they trust you a bit more. The humanization mechanism from opening government is incomplete because the final end point of it is that when people trust you, they can also see you as a new leader who can run the church, who can run your schools on Sunday, who can run your hospitals later, who can push your welfare programs to the next extent. But, second of all, it's why money can only exist on our side. So on their side, which is that you can only connect all of these existing networks in this area to the church at the point where you understand how to run it, and it's cheaper and more affordable for you to run these churches when you have people you trust in them. You can't just replace the church with someone else, no matter how much money you give in, because people won't believe that person or trust them if it's something completely different. So you lose the buy-in required to get those donations, and often the church itself starts losing legitimacy because the victims and people who see these gang members often see them harassing people in everyday life don't like them anymore. 
+
+Um, I'll take you in a second. Okay, so why is it likely that this causes recruitment, and why do we solve this? So the thing is, first of all, it's very easy to spread your own version of truth. It's not just role models and humanizing; it's the idea that God wants you to grip your life in your own hands and take back what's yours and go ahead and rob those damn people who are making money off of your hard-earned labor. And exactly the type of narratives that opening opposition says you need to stab that woman to steal her groceries; you need to rob that person. The claim is, in these moderate areas, the police exist; there are often people pushing against these high organized crime rates. There are alternatives like relocation and employment programs that are put there because people are scared of these crime rates evolving. And also, this is really important: people need to be doing normal work because otherwise, who are you robbing? You cannot rob a grocery store that doesn't employ anyone or make any profit, and also if you reduce that profit, then presumably they still need to exist for you to continue robbing them. So they need to be able to employ more people before that. Opening opposition quickly, 
+
+<poi>
+So far as OG concedes gangs have economic capital and the literal tool of infinite intimidation, physically they don't need the rank-and-file members to join the church to influence it. In fact, they're more likely to influence it through intimidation when they're angry. But the judge is excommunicating their members; your mechanism is not unique. 
+</poi>
+
+No, no. So, Tin, you're right, but the intimidation is harder, which Oji also said, by the way. They said that it's harder to go on the street and threaten people because the police exist. But it's not about intimidation; it's about trusting you in the gang in the first place to then get involved, to join that group, to trust that they'll keep their end of the contract up. Because the thing is, in moderate areas, people do have alternatives, and note otherwise has no impact. There's stuff on families and there's stuff about the metaphysical stuff; I'll talk about this in a second, but it's just irrelevant. The counter-fraction is very simple. First, obviously, if you're anti-mafia, you gain a lot more support and funding from the state and from other churches because you have to justify the fact that you need to push these people away. So, law enforcement funds money so that you keep your support systems. But even if you don't, this is an immense signaling effect that makes it very difficult to take the gang members in your church seriously if they do try sneaking in. 
+
+Now, why does this weigh against a lot of what everyone else says, right? The first thing is opening opposition talks about God; it's a bit irrelevant. You can just pray at home. I don't know why you need a church. But if, like, Allah is real and then you go to church, then you also go to hell, so I don't know why this matters. But the stuff about your family is in the extent of harm; it doesn't Compare to the immense amount of future victims that we're going to protect from being murdered or robbed. If you think the life of a church person is portable and they deserve God to save them, then presumably, we want less people in these gangs in the first place. On that closing the argument.
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+OO spends a lot of their time talking about how this impacts individual gang members, and unfortunately, they spend far too little time talking about how this impacts the church as a whole and the resources that it has at its command. That is where closing opposition is going to come in. The main extension that we're going to bring you from CO is that this basically over the church irreparably in the majority of instances. 
+
+There are two prongs to this argument. The first is that the gang will retaliate violently, and then secondly, the second one is that the gang is important in maintaining that church in many of these communities. 
+
+Prong number one: Why the gang will retaliate in in bad ways. There are three reasons why: firstly, in many instances, the gang will just try and forcefully take back control of the church and its apparatus because of the fact that it is a source of alternate power, a source of alternate social capital, and a source of alternate organization and meaning in these communities. That is to say, it is an extraordinarily powerful and influential alternate pool of authority in communities where these gangs want to maintain a monopoly on that kind of capital or on that kind of influence, which means that they aren't going to back down without a fight. 
+
+Right, CG is like, "What if the gang members take over, like, you know, sneakily take over parts of the church?" Now, they do it forcefully because you do not give them a choice; because you have kicked them out, now they have to do it violently. They have to do things like attack or kill higher-up members of the church or just seize the church literally—like physically seize the church and its property. That seems very, very bad. 
+
+Secondly, it is because these gang members are angry and will become extraordinarily aggressive towards specific members of that congregation. OO's mechanism here is about, like, a lot—you feel like a lost cause, and so like you'll just throw haywire and kill a bunch of people. This is what we tell you: it's more direct that if you feel betrayed by your friends, you feel betrayed by your family, you feel betrayed by the people who you thought you could trust—your shepherd, people who you confessed to, the people who you trusted with your spirit—and all of those psychological mechanisms mean that you feel like you have been stabbed in the back. 
+
+So what happens is that now you're far more likely to be violent; you're far more likely to be aggressive to specific members of that community because you think that each and every one of them is complicit in this act of real rejection, which means that you are likely to be violent then. 
+
+And thirdly, why the gang will retaliate is that at the very least, they won't refrain from doing the bad things that they do to everyone else. Right? For example, they will stop not extorting you because, right, like they extort everyone else. They don't extort you, and the reason why is because in the status quo, they have an incentive to play nice because their own members are part of that church. They are obviously not going to extort the church if they're attending the church. 
+
+Now, when you take away that incentive, they're just going to extort you like they extort everyone else, which means that at the very least, they stop not doing the bad things. That seems extraordinarily bad because what that does is it drains the church of its power; it drains the church of its funds and its resources that everyone agreed was very important.
+
+Second prong of this argument: the gang is important in maintaining the church. Um, DLO has a stab at this and spends about 30 seconds being like, "Well, they have a lot of money, and so this is important." We're going to prove to you why they have the incentive to do this and why they have the capacity to do this. 
+
+On incentive, three reasons: firstly is the pr mechanism that OG gives you, which is I guess fine, but there are two better ones. Firstly, a lot of these people are just genuinely religious. For example, like they see this place, like they see the church as a source of genuine solace. They do believe in heaven and hell and God, and most crucially, they see this as a source of hope down the line. They see this as a way of, um, like getting forgiven for their sins and stuff like that because they feel so guilty about the things that they have done. 
+
+
+But secondly, because their friends and family are in this church, because it's a source of community, that's extraordinarily important to them, which means that they are likely to support doing things like funneling gang funds into supporting the church. 
+
+Why do they have the capacity then? Because note, OG is fairly lazy with this, and they're just like, "Well, they have a lot of money." But why do they necessarily have the capacity to maintain the church? Firstly, it is because they protect the church from other criminals. Note, this gang is not the only source of crime in this area. Right? There are other criminals—petty criminals—but there are obviously also other gangs. 
+
+But you know gang rivalries and like that are likely to pop up as a source of competition, which means that if you have one gang that is deeply enmeshed with the church, it means that they have an incentive to protect their own, and it means they have an incentive to protect their church from other sources of violence. At the point in which you remove that incentive, it means that the gang now no longer has any self-interested reason to protect their church, which means all of that crime is likely to sweep over their church.
+
+But secondly, they are extraordinarily rich. Here are some structural reasons why OO just says that they are. Um, here are some structural reasons: they are likely to be rich, firstly because they are deeply enmeshed with the networks of political corruption and nepotism. For example, in Colombia, AUC controls like 50% of departmental infrastructure budgets and stuff like that because they've been paid off by officials, which means that they have enormous amounts of capital versus democratic incentives, which are comparatively weak. 
+
+Secondly, because they have funds gained illegally, when there's not much industry in the area, which is the very reason why people join in the first place. Right? Because you make money off of extortion, you make money off of drugs and prostitution and gambling and things like that. 
+
+And thirdly, oftentimes these gangs tend to be wings of some more centralized organizations. Right? Like the gang is very big; it has a central body, and then it radiates outwards, and in local areas, there are local wings of that gang, which means that they are able to call upon the resources of that central pool, which means why they have a lot of money. Before i go on I'll take OG. 
+
+<poi>
+I don't know if the mob is more likely to have family within the church or care about it or completely not care. What I am certain of is if they attack the church, the people have nothing left to lose. If you even take God away from them, thus they will fight against them all. 
+</poi>
+
+Like they'll fight against the mob. What the fuck are they going to do? Right? Like they're just going to get owned. Like I have no idea what their POI was. 
+
+Okay, some observations then in terms of weighing on OG. OG just seems to be like, "Yeah, they kick everyone out," and the gang is like, "Okay, cool, fair enough." Obviously, that is not going to happen. They're going to retaliate in the ways that I told you. But note that this argument doesn't require buying that no one is going to leave or that no one is determined. Like, you can buy their benefit to a certain extent. Like some people leave, some people stay, but the point is that even if like half of the gang stays, that is still extraordinarily bad because you've gone from, like, you know, 10,000 people to 5,000 people. 5,000 people coming up with you with guns is still pretty bad. 
+
+On OO, we beat them in terms of scale. We actually prove the incentive and capacity analysis, which is missing from OO, and we give you a whole other section of the argument as well, which is why on balance we prove to you more strongly and more directly than OO why this is necessary for the maintenance and protection of the church. 
+
+Which means that we imply by the benefits they prove on individuals for everyone. If you believe that the church is important because it gives people, for example, sorts of meaning or, for example, services like literacy and food and all infrastructure and protection from other bad social ills, we magnify that to everyone. Which means, uh, we probably meet Tim's challenge of weighing the hell out of the debate. Uh, you know, see you.
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+All right. Three, two, one. I'm first gonna do some rebuttal, then some framing, because I think it says to a larger extent a framing debate and why sure is framing properly. One, then some weighing and more rebuttal. 
+
+First, I want to like just deal with CO, because what they say is basically going to have retaliation, which also fits into our framing point very well. I think the first thing of retaliation is that it's probably then kind of a symmetric debate in the sense of like if the church is going to just them be erased by the mafia, then there's probably no point in doing so and probably then you haven't successfully done it. Meaning that what we probably, um, debate the most here is in the cases where you can actually reasonably expect to be able to do that, because the supporting of the act means that the act can be done or can be aspired to. Um, meaning that you probably must have some capacity to do that.
+
+The second thing I think is that you're probably, like, in the framework of what we set up, is that you probably have areas where you have high organized crime rates, but that doesn't mean that the literal local mayor is a criminal and also that the rest of the country are all criminals running the whole country. I don't think this is the case. But secondly, I think in those countries or like in those places, we don't have a margin on either side of Dallas, because it is not that anyone can choose or anyone can really opt out of crime. If this is like everything in your life, I think that then what happens is, um, like if, like with the retaliation point, is that probably if one of them retaliates or tries to retaliate that the local people are going to be pissed off to such an extent that they're actually going to, um, especially because all opening health concedes the God in the church is so important in your life that you're going to actually try to push against it. 
+ 
+You're going to much more forcibly want, like, demand police force. This is probably going to be super running material for politicians who are going to be tough on crime or tough on gangs, because it's pictures. Imagine like mobs like storming a church or what are they going to do? Like storm into the church, kill a godly man? I don't understand like how exactly this retaliation will work, but these are pictures can sell very well. But tell me, I think that retaliation is just also very unlikely because of OO's analysis on how important church is to those people, because you're going to be violent to like third parties. You're not going to be violent to the church; you're just going to be angry at the people but then like let it out somewhere else. You're going to have that moderating effect.
+ 
+I think that OO's analysis also harms CO, because what they, um, would have to prove is that you get so angry that you're literally going to try to like kill the people that you've thought just like yesterday can be the path to salvation, which I don't think is true. Then, on framing, I think an important piece of framing is that there's a trade-off of who is your flock, i.e., in mixed populations, which probably is where both sides claim the biggest impact, because you don't have like all supporters of gangs. Because if everyone is a supporter, then like no one will be the moderator, but also no one will have any impact. It means that you have some mixed population, which means that often people, um, mix and also like they go to either church or they've been gone to when they're young or that they go to like where they like the priest, etc. 
+
+At the moment where people who have joined a gang or high crime while organized crime join the church, it means that it's mutually exclusive with other people joining, either victims or like family of victims, friends of victims from organized crime, or people who are just afraid of the idea or like think that it's immoral to go with this person to church. This means that you have to choose at this point who you give all those benefits to that OO claims, like resources, salvation, etc. Do you give it to people who are not part of it, or do you give it to people who are part of, um, organized crime?
+ 
+The second thing on weighing on framing I think, which is really important, it comes out in speech, that is that this is probably not about all areas equally, i.e., if we want to claim a certain impact, we have to actually show where the impact is that impact is the highest. So what, um, OO is trying to say is like for the women not assaulted because they have a moderating effect, it's the like biggest impact, or that you like, um, these people didn't choose and they might have a path to salvation, but we think is more important is something very concrete in areas where there is high organized crime but not the whole country is overtaken, use of police and somewhat functional democracy or like flawed democracies. 
+  
+Probably this is where you have the most impact because they're usually, and most crucially what the stronger characterizes it to you is that you try to infiltrate churches to actually become a leadership position, to actually gain the trust to then expand your organization or actually to like raise the rise to power within that area. Before I continue. OO, 
+
+<poi>
+Even if we neglected to never explain why we actually care if they infiltrate the church, it's still true that you cut these people off into their families from services, which are often the only alternative, leaving them with no choice, especially as it's quite hard to take them back in after constructing a narrative that they're so far gone that even God has turned his back on them. 
+</poi>
+
+Yeah, I'll deal with that, um, but I think the problem if you infiltrate the church is that you literally use it to recruit people. Not only that, but the people you give all those resources, but I'm actually going into that rebuttal and like weighing off like who do you give services to, who like, um, like gets the benefits of the network? I think at the point where you told you that there is a trade-off between who you can give it to, I think that there are people who are more deserving of it and that you don't report this. Because what you often do is you incentivize crime for giving goodies, and at the point where all of opening health actually concedes that probably the people in with the most resources or like hospital networks, giving your job, etc., is the church. At that point, we think that those should not go to members of criminal gangs, because this will incentivize them to do more crime overall, beating their like "Oh, God has forsaken you," so you do more crime thing, which is like we would prefer that you trade off going to church and maybe getting, I don't know, a job in a low level if that means that you're not going to do any crime at all. 
+ 
+But then, and the second thing is I think overall people who have been done crime to or who have not, who have even in like those hardships chosen not to be part of the gang deserve is more than than like a criminal gang members. I think that then on like you're going to be less violent. I think first of all, I think it's a rise on proximity. I either the thing that the mechanism that they have is like you saw this woman, therefore you empathize with her. I think most people like start going to church at a very young age with their family. It's unclear why you wouldn't sympathize with that woman otherwise, like, and it's unclear why you're going to target that specific woman and like assault her. 
+ 
+But secondly, I think that like God loves you. I think that against the dogma of church, for the priest to tell you it's okay to do crime because you really need to do it, but just don't be as bad, literally some like the, I mean, the like rules of religion are you should not do crime, so I don't think that the priest is actually going to say that. I think that the priest is going to try to push an ultimatum or say no thing, which is even worse because we actually explained to you how infiltration happens. Vote CG. 
+</gw>
+
+<ow>
+CG, OG, and then OO. 
+Three things on CG. The first is just like their extension about how gangs recruit from the church benches. I have a few responses here. Number one, guys, their only mechanism for this is that gangs recruit from there because a lot of people go there, and so it's like a focal point for the people in the community. Guys, a lot of people are everywhere, like literally in the local market, in the local bar. Presumably, because you tend to recruit like men who also tend to tend to drink in a lot of these places, right? Like there's a lot of places where you're gonna find the same load of people, your target audience to recruit from. I just don't think you need to.
+
+Go to the church in order to get there, but also second response here: like, when is that actually gonna happen? Like, notice how ludicrous that is for how the status quo actually works. People go to the church, hear the press talk, and then gather in the garden of the church at the end of it. If someone goes there with an ad of like, “Hey guys, Jordan is doing their organized crime gang,” they're gonna be spotted out, and they don't want to do that. Even in the status quo, because they don't want to get it brought out, like literally anyone else, or the police, or risk their privacy or security. Like, that's just not how it works.
+
+But also, thirdly, just deal with this extension towards the end. I'm just gonna, I'm happy to like trade it off. Like, fine, they're gonna get one or two extra members like the church recruits that they're gonna join to their gang, like in every particular Sunday. I don't care that much, given all of the harms that it improves to you. I don't care, no thank you. If the gang has one or two extra tiny guys on the ground that do one or two extra crimes, like, it is irrelevant in as much as you open up this discourse. Let's go for so much violence that Aidan talks to you about.
+
+The second thing they like, retaliation, which is literally local people will be pissed off and demand for the police force. I have two responses here. Number one, they can be pissed off; that does not show why they have the capacity to act on that. Being pissed off, they're likely gonna die being pissed off because they often don't have like the tactical expertise, the military weapons, and all of those stuff to actually fight the gangs. But suddenly, what politicians—like, what is this? These areas are like these because they're heavily disenfranchised, because politicians don't care about them, because most of the people in those areas tend not to vote or tend not to be engaged with the political system in the first place. These areas are not places where politicians go to trail their campaigns.
+
+Any point on the church having the capacity to stand up to gangs needs solid mechanisms to prove it, and using like debating words like politically relevant for politicians or demanding salvation isn’t a mechanism to prove that they have capacity to act on this. Thirdly, then, on giving services to gang members, right, and how that is necessarily bad. The problem here is the comparative. Like, CG just says, “Oh, we should give the services and the money of the church to people who actually deserve this,” but this is not a comparative. Because the comparative is not giving the resources to the good guys, but not having the resources in the first place. If having resources and giving it to everyone is dependent on yes, giving them to gang members as well, I'm happy to take that if it means more people get those resources in the first place, including the very good people that they want to talk about.
+
+At the end of the day, the extension is simply not sufficient enough to prove extra, extra violence. No, thank you. The responses to our extensions are flipped at best. That’s what CG both means. Then let's talk about indeed the main thing OG hints at is their ideas on, is like this idea of deterrence, right? Because it takes away the capacity to repair your scenes, the fear of being like unable to go to heaven, etc. Oh, physical security comes first, which is important. Here are four other responses that go over, OO, right.
+
+Number one, notice that this isn't the first reaction when people hear that the church is going to expel them. The first reaction isn't to be, “Oh, I'm no longer going to join the gang.” The first reaction is to try to have them both, because recognize that we have the human limitations where when we're forced with trade-offs, we want to have our cake and eat it too. But crucially, they're going to get more violent and more secretive at the way they do crime, which is just going to make it worse. It's not going to mean that you’re going to have this massive exodus from gangs the way OG tries to portray this.
+
+But also, secondly, I don't think you're going to be as in strength. I think what you're likely going to be in strength from is the very people that pushed you out, the very people of the church whom you're likely going to spread a lot of bad rhetoric against, and you're going to try to get other people on your side. But also, thirdly, and this is important, you can rationalize your position by seeing yourself as a martyr. If the church kicks you out of the church because you have to sustain a living, you don't think, “Oh, I'm being really bad for being part of a gang.” You think, “I'm being punished for trying to stay alive,” right? And that allows you to rationalize yourself from a religious perspective as someone who is a martyr.
+
+But fourthly, they can create a spiritual connection with the gang leader, right? Because they can rationalize it by saying, “Actually, he's the one sent by God because he's the one that didn't turn his back on me,” right? Like, these church people are just like some crazy people that want to expel me. That's not actually God's reflection on Earth. Someone else says this means that they create far stronger vertical ties with the people that are the gang leaders themselves, which is potentially incredibly more dangerous than having these people not be radicalized or not fully radicalized to the extent that it’s going to happen on their side of the house.
+
+What this does is, number one, notice that the supplies, like the agent we're talking about, like it's not about the religious fanatics who are going to stay in the church regardless. It's about the people who are now likely to come closer to the gang because now they look for the gang for the spiritual connections that the church has stripped them away of. But also, this washes out a lot of OD's impact, no thinking out now, which all hinge on deterrence in this debate.
+
+The second thing they say is that this helps the gang leaders absolve their image. Like, guys, I want to be very clear: these people, the gang leaders, are untouchable. Like, most of these people have levers of power we cannot comprehend. They will do what they do regardless and not have remorse or problems of conscience with it. Given that, I think it's just good to take their money and make sure they don't do even more violence against themselves or against the church, as per Aidan's extension.
+
+Right, and lastly, when they say people are going to rat out, you know, in the long term decrease crime. Like, in a lot of instances, you can't rat out. Like, it's difficult to identify. You have to work with rumors; you have to, you know, sort of like predict and take the risk of writing someone out, but then that person not actually being a gang member would go like stuff going on against you. I'm going to take the point because I'm six. Opening 
+
+<poi>
+Your second argument is true, and they care about what the church means to the family. Your first argument about relation can’t be true, given that people that get resources then die from the shootings, which is true and why?
+</poi>
+
+No, like, they are—these things are not mutually exclusive. Like, it’s really simple: the church requires a lot of resources from the gangs. That's important because it keeps a lot of people alive. Simultaneously, the situation is such that a lot of people die. These things can coexist; it’s like they can both say there’s not a trade-off there.
+
+Lastly, then they say people are going to be able to fight them all for the very same reasons why CG is like doesn’t have, doesn’t get to claim this extension. They can’t because the mob genuinely has a monopoly on the warfare, a monopoly on being toxically skilled, which the people don’t have. Like, the people don’t have a lot of institutional backing, so the parents was their only avenue for change. They don’t get deterrence on their side of the house.
+
+Finally, then, notice that OD gets modeled and how much this is likely to lead to individual deterrence irrespective of this decision. I don’t care about that that much. I think the scope for violence that is here is huge, right? Because they have very little to lose. If risks are as high as golf puts them in, like the churches have very little to lose. The scope for violence in these societies is likely to be incredibly large. This means that a lot of people who would have never joined in the first place, a lot of innocent people, a lot of people that should have never been caught into this, are going to be caught into this. This means that you genuinely make for hell for a lot of people within these communities. That is the type of violence and retaliation, unwarranted and unnecessary.
+
+For all of those reasons, you know,
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Astana Open Round 5.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,302 @@
+<pm> 
+how would this be done? I think this is quite straightforward. If I'm not mistaken, this has been done in Singapore with quite good results so far. So, firstly, when buying housing, it has to represent, like, the area in which you buy a house has to be made up out of a certain percentage. You'd probably have, like, which represents and is proportional with the ethnic makeup of that country, right? So, if there are 14% people, I don't know, of Arab origin, they probably have 40% variable in neighborhoods, then 20& of people of Asian descent, and 40% white people, or whichever is the ethnic outline of that country in terms of old neighborhoods.  
+
+And what you do with them, if they're historically white or historically Arab, you probably provide incentives for people to move to more ethnically diverse neighborhoods in order to meet up this, uh, proportion. Secondly, if that doesn't work, you probably go through a state agency that helps you move. You receive compensation for loss of value in case you have to move to an apartment that is, uh, that that is uh that is more expensive or cheaper than the one that you are owning before.  
+ 
+In terms of new neighborhoods, probably when you build them, you set these percentages and you don't let people move in when that cap is reached, and you wait for other people to come in. I'll take you in a second. You wait for other people to come in until the percentage is fulfilled. I'm happy to take the clarification. 
+
+<poi>
+The motion says requires, which means it is mandatory; you cannot give an incentive. This is, you must move people by force if necessary; they don't content.  
+</poi>
+
+Yeah, yeah, the model just explained that there are several steps, right? You financially incentivize them. If they're not happy with that, you help them. You, like, have to move, but you help them through the agency. This is fine. I want to preempt this. Obviously, there's a trade-off; we'll say there is a trade-off with choice, right? Because you should get to be able to choose where you live. To be clear, you don't really have much of a choice to live anyways.  
+
+It's not like you choose necessarily to live in the neighborhood where the most people are Arabs, just like you. You're mostly down there, and you have to choose there because that's the only way you get housing, because otherwise the people who sell you the house would refuse to sell you in a white neighborhood. Opp. will try to claim that you choose where you live. I don't think you really choose to. I think that this is a measure that equalizes the choice, even if it's somewhat restricted for everybody.  
+
+It actually allows more choice because, as a white person, you can always choose where to live. As a narrow person, you very rarely get to because you’re usually confined to the ethnic neighborhood because other people wouldn't sell strategically. Which minorities might move to better neighborhoods than their poor, the poor minorities, but they're still comparatively poorer than the majority, the white majority in that area. And the poor majorities might move towards neighborhoods, but they're still comparatively richer.  
+
+So you have an equalizing of the kind of accumulated wealth of the neighborhoods, and this comes in crucial in the first economic argument. So the product, the premise here is simple: the neighborhood you live in is the prerequisite for wealth accumulation and moving up the social ladder. Yes, surely short term, the market will shift a bit; there might be some imbalances, but crucially long term, ethnic neighborhoods would have been severely more disenfranchised.  
+
+I'm happy to take the, you know, small, the short term maybe unclean clarity as long as long term you have more equalizing of opportunities. So why is your neighborhood the primary means of wealth accumulation? One, it influences how much your house costs, right? Market fluctuations, if you own your house, allow you to have a lot of assets behind. Secondly, you're able to use your apartment, if you own it, as collateral to get a loan, for example, which means the better neighborhood you live in, the better loans you're able to get.  
+
+Thirdly, in terms of transport and how much and how well your neighborhood is connected to other areas of your city, it gives you access to services or to jobs further away. Thirdly, it gives you access to better schools. Education, not white people or the rich majority in those cities usually get access to all of these things, whereas minorities never do because they're very rarely electorally considered electorally relevant.  
+
+What happens, like, long term or medium term in five years, in 10 years, in 20 years when you equalize them again? Happy to take the trade-off. Why specifically living together helps with networking, for example? One, because you probably fight together with your neighbors for projects pertaining to, I don't know, having something new done in your neighborhood or having a project pass with a local municipality.  
+
+Secondly, your children grow up with people from diverse ethnic backgrounds. You see announcements for jobs in a neighborhood that is, you know, more diverse. There are more wealthy people, so more announcements are likely to be announced on the walls in your neighborhood. You have companies move there because there's, you know, a more diverse set of skills because now it's more diversified to get easier access to more jobs.  
+
+But secondly, this is not contingent on anything. You get better access to healthcare and education. I think this is crucial. They’re funded by local money, not completely, at least partially funded by local money. The reason why white neighborhoods in America have better schools and better healthcare is because all of the taxes of the people living in a neighborhood go to the school district in that neighborhood.  
+
+So basically, they just cater to themselves, which means that when you equalize them and you have people of different ways coming in, the richer ethnic category brings extra taxes, and it benefits everyone that moves into that neighborhood. Which means, obviously, that we get access to better schools. If that might mean better school in terms of prestige, that might be better schools in terms of they have more labs, which obviously is one of the main wealth-building tools when you apply for university or when you apply for a job and say, look, I have this set of skills that I learned in school, which is comparatively better for, I don't know, 80% of the people living in that neighborhood compared to the other ethnic minority neighborhood they would have lived in.  
+
+Secondly, in terms of healthcare, better-equipped hospitals, which means that you're less likely to die of an infection or you can access healthcare more quickly. This means that your illness doesn't get worse, and you don't have to pay for a lot of meds to take care of you; you actually get to treat it early on in your life. Thirdly, in terms of socially, again, a lot of times funded partially by local money, which means that even if you are the worst of minority in that neighborhood, you’re better able to access more stamps, right?  
+
+Because now you don't have to fight your entire neighborhood for the food stamps, but you can access them. There’s likely to be, you know, better paying food stamps because there’s more money per aggregate in your neighborhood. So irrespective of backlash, irrespective of whether or not you get along with your children or with your neighbors, you are able to access basic needs, which I think is primary to most people and should be prioritized in this debate.  
+
+As an intuition pump, this is, which means that I'm happy to take off some micro-discrimination if this breaks the deadlock of poverty and allows better access to improving your situation. This is also relevant politically, right? Because you cannot anymore create slums that electorally ignore, as politicians do a lot of times. Now they might have to cater to most neighborhoods equally because each neighborhood will have 40% of the rich majority and 40% of electorally relevant, at least 40%, but individually relevant minorities. So they do have to cater. OG, 
+great.  
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+starting in three, two, one. Two things in the speech: firstly, why this disrupts people's lives in the short run, and secondly, why this is just generally bad for people's quality of life in the long run. Rebuttal will be integrated. Firstly, why is this incredibly disruptive to people's lives in the short run? Note that in order for the motion to work, opening government has to stand over forcibly relocating multiple people that cannot self-prophet this and say, oh, we might allow some tax incentives for people to move. They have to require people to move. They have to require people to move.  
+
+And even though they say the word "help," I think this does just Look like forced relocation. It does look like government agents showing up to your house, telling you that you have a certain amount of days to leave your household and move to an entirely new neighborhood. I think this forcible relocation is incredibly disruptive to people's lives for two reasons. 
+
+Firstly, I think you just lose access to a community that is incredibly important to you. Note that often these communities tend to be very concentrated with one individual ethnic group, which are very valuable to that ethnic group for a variety of reasons. You have community ties; you feel safe leaving your children playing out in the front yard while you cook because you know that everyone around you is a neighbor and everyone around you is a friend who you've known and grown up with for an extended period of time. There's a high degree of trust, which means you are able to leave your children there for childcare while you go work your job, and you're better able to function as a human being. 
+
+Secondly, though, often you just live in certain areas because they suit your skill set and the job you have. For example, certain people who are farmers have skills in farming and very little else; they're likely to live in agricultural areas. Certain people who are fishermen, who have skills in fishing and very little else, are likely to live close to the ocean or close to a lake where they can go fishing. As a consequence, I think on the comparative, you are moved away from an area where you have access to something that you literally need in order to do your job. 
+
+Finally, you often settle in culturally relevant areas. Note that in certain religions, i.e. like Orthodox Jews will often live close to a synagogue because they are not let because they are not allowed to work or drive a car on Shabbos, and consequently, they need to be proximate to a synagogue in order for them to engage in the weekly ritual that is incredibly important to them. I think that when you settle in a culturally relevant area, when you are moved, you are forced out of that culturally relevant area. This means you have to walk far far longer to get to your um far far longer to get to your church or to your synagogue. 
+
+I think on their side of the house their side of the house, people lose this community and are unable to access a variety of benefits that it brings to them. Secondly, um to them I think this is a fairly severe impact, insofar as insofar as it means people lose their job, they lose a community that enables them to do a variety of a variety of things, and they lose access to portions of their religious identity. I think this is a very severe harm that affects everyone who lives in and everyone who's moved out of these neighborhoods, but also the people who stay in the neighborhood, right? Because they feel as though their family or their friends have left, and their neighborhood is now a foreign place where new people whom they've never met are moving in. 
+
+Secondly, in societies with ethnic tensions, because I don't just think that this happens in places in places where people are fairly peaceful, I think this leads to violent clashes. I think majority groups who live in these regions or other ethnic groups are often frustrated that members of their group have been moved out. They see people from the ethnic group that is their rival in the homes of their friends and family, and they perceive this as an invasion. These groups have often been systematically dehumanized to them prior during conflicts; as a result, they likely see this as an infestation of people whom they consider barely human. 
+
+I think what this means is that you're likely to get outright violence and clashes in certain neighborhoods where there are likely to be ethnic tensions. I think this is very severe. Right? Note that the government bench can't just say, "Oh, this is backlash; this doesn't really have a delta." I would note that this does have a delta, insofar as when you are shot or when you are stabbed, that is something that is fairly important to you and has a fairly negative effect on your quality of life, insofar as you've just been injured. I think this is a very severe harm that Goldman hacks stand over. 
+
+Secondly, why is this bad for the quality of life in the long run? Because even if the moves are peaceful in the short run, I think long run this creates a variety of problems that make it substantially harder for ethnic minorities to live. 
+
+So, what open governments say is that, "Ah, well, the comparative is that they live in slums." But I would note that sometimes it is actually preferable for them to live in a slum than to be surrounded by members of another ethnic group or members of a wealthier group who turn their noses down on them and don't perceive them as equals. 
+
+Right? Because no the often ethnic groups don't exist like in even proportions; it's not 50 Black people and 50 White people in the United States of America. Often, the groups tend to be concentrated in certain regions, and this concentration tends to be quite good for them for two reasons. 
+
+Firstly, it provides political representation for them. I think this means that they are able to elect local governments, or elect local mayors, or elect at least one representative that will represent their interests nationally when they live in the same neighborhood and that neighborhood is counted as the constituency. This means you're more likely to get your religious holidays made public holidays; you're less likely to get anti-Brick laws passed in certain regions of France. 
+
+I think it's a, I think comparatively, what is what governments essentially do is gerrymander entire districts, meaning that you have 30% of one small group one once one smaller ethnic minority living within that group, and the rest of the 70% are the majority group. I think the problem here is that the majority group is likely to always win out, insofar as they're numerically the majority. As a consequence, the voices of these ethnic minorities had get drowned out which is um drowned out, and they lose access to any political capital at all and nobody caters to them. 
+
+Secondly, though, I think often living in a concentrated area is good, insofar as it provides you insulation from oppression. You are unlikely to face discrimination at the employment level when every single other person living in that neighborhood and working in the bakeries and shops is also part of your ethnic group and also likely knows and trusts you. You are unlikely to be bullied in school if every other person in your public school is also a Black kid from the inner city. 
+
+I think this is substantially better because it means there's a level playing field and you're able to access certain opportunities you're likely to be discriminated out of in wealthier regions. I'll take a POI from CG, OG. 
+
+<poi>
+Yeah, I don't think the forced moving of people works. The way this usually happens is the way it's done in Singapore: you provide public housing schemes to minorities outside the neighborhood; you move the minorities in; you don't move the majority out. That's a crazy case!
+</poi> 
+
+Yeah, so I think it's probably also bad if these minorities are on the outskirts of the neighborhoods that you're moving them into. I think this generally I think this verifies inequalities and often adapts in fairly exclusionary ways. 
+
+I.E., you have a neighborhood where the inner part of the neighborhood is a very wealthy place, but the outer part of it is slums where you have poor people living there. I think this makes it impossible for any of the opening governments like could contact theory arguments to accrue, insofar as you likely have very insofar as you likely have very little interaction between these between these two groups and so um between these two groups. 
+
+I think you often can't afford the prices and the property values within the wealthier region; you often feel unsafe, and you can't go to these nice  schools nice um private schools, insofar as wealthy people are likely to adapt to create a variety of public a variety of private services that replace public services that they see as having been contaminated. 
+
+I think in the long run, a variety of problems get substantially worse. You have far more gerrymandering, ethnic minorities are less able to politically exercise their voices, and they're more likely to be oppressed and discriminated against at the point in time where they are the minority in a very, very large group of people who are hostile to them even existing there. Proud to oppose.
+</lo>
+
+<dpm>
+Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough or have a good enough memory to actually quote MLK, but he had a quote that essentially said that until the means of capitalism and wealth production are not in the hands of black people, they're never going to escape their oppression. Because the main truth which you're actually oppressed is the economy; is the wealth that is being distributed in an unfair advantage. This has been the case since the entirety history, and we are slowly progressing towards more and more what's it called economic equity. But until you're able to live in neighborhoods that actually allow you to build wealth, this is impossible. 
+
+That's why the lack of interaction with our mechanization loses all over the debate. So let's see what they provided. I'm going to have two major clashes: the short-term and the long-term, and I'm going to try to weigh them if I have time. 
+
+So, first thing in the short term, they see that there's a four-story location. And here, I want to be very clear on the model. Yes, eventually, if people don't want to move, we are going to move them, but this will obviously take a few years. Right? If anything, you have a shipping bottleneck of like, people can't move their couches around, so UPS needs some time in order for them to move everyone around the city or around the country. Right? So this does take some time. We do provide financial incentives if you're willing to move without us having to do anything, but if you don't, we will eventually relocate you. 
+
+And here, the main point that they have is that the areas will suit you really well because you have very specific skill sets of fishing or farming. Firstly, I had to look it up because I'm like ESL, but neighborhood generally refers to more urban areas rather than rural areas. Where you have a very specific skill set, that means that on average, most of the people that we're talking about actually have skills like doing paperwork or a very specific type of corporate job. But even if that isn't the case, let's see which is more common: are you living in the region that you're living in because you have a very unique skill set that can only be exploited in your specific neighborhood, or is it more likely that you are there because of gerrymandering and redlining? 
+
+I think that the second one is more likely because of historical reasons that are the main precondition for all these natural consequences that we currently have. What this shows to you is that this argument of some people not getting jobs is quite minimal compared to people who can move to areas where they can access significantly higher job opportunities. If that is the case, then you should waive for OG. 
+
+Secondarily, I think that you are likely to reskill to a significant degree because you now have access to wealth-building tools that give you the stability in order for you to  are like to reskill. These are things such as: one, better education that my colleague talked about and was on interact with or two, the security of knowing that you have a home that actually increases in value. So like that means you have like you can take debt against it and so on. 
+
+But the last thing I want to talk about when it comes to the short term is whether we are legitimate to force you to move because CO also brought up a point on this. They seem to be very keen on the argument. So note, if opp. bench only cares about agency, I would posit that communities can take aggregate decisions on whether they want to move or not. Because note, some people are going to move away from the neighborhood, some people will stay. The decision still lives up to the individual, and the community takes aggregate decisions, and they decide whether they want to move if they're incentivized by the financial benefits that we give or the better neighborhood they would go to. So some people just willingly choose to move. 
+
+So the delta on like, "I'm forced out of my house," is actually quite minimal. There are very few people that would be actively forced to move. They are more likely going to benefit from one, financial incentives, or the better lifestyle that they would access in these neighborhoods. But let's take the opp. bench of their best: some people are forced to move. I think that this is legitimate nonetheless because when we take decisions as a state, especially when we take long-term decisions, we can't access the preferences of the people in the future. 
+
+So what we do is that we access and prioritize the likely preferences of the people in the future. We don't know if the people in the future would like to not die of climate change, but we presume that they would because it's very intuitive for us that they would. This is how we make decisions, and thus in the present, we try to make decisions that would protect the people from climate change in the future. 
+
+Similarly, the fact that you will see financial benefits transfer to the most basic of rights that you can access, and we think that it's intuitive that even minorities that enjoy the community would prefer to have food on the table and for their children to go to school as a precondition for them to access anything else in this capitalistic society. So even if some people are forced to do it, we think that this is a fair and legitimate decision by the state because it accesses what the people would generally want to access if they were in this position 20 years from now. Before I can move on to the long term, I can take CO 
+
+<poi>
+You don't prove why this integration will be successful. It doesn't matter.
+</poi>
+
+I don't have to because I'm not playing the game of whether people are going to get along with each other. I can at least take CG and let them do it, but we chose not to do it for a reason because we don't want to face the whole backlash scenario. Note, all of our mechanisms have nothing to do with you understanding your neighbors or caring about them. Even if there is some level of discrimination, which I'm going to interact with now, we don't care because our mechanisms are purely economic, and there is nothing you can do about them even if you try to discriminate against your neighbors. 
+
+So let's actually interact with the point on ethnic tensions. Quick mitigation: I think that the police still exist, and they're likely to prevent a lot of these ethnic tensions, mostly because now they have to protect the majority of the population that is actually politically relevant. So they don't want to have violence in their neighborhood, no matter what that neighborhood is. But even regardless of this mitigation, I think it's still preferable for us to do this motion because the main push from OO is that you are going to have insulation from oppression. 
+
+Oppression happens very often in very, how should I call them, covert cases. So the main push from OP is that the short-term harms will be experienced right now, but the short-term harms would be experienced anyway because when you try to get a job or move up the social ladder, you are likely to be oppressed and likely to be discriminated against at the job offering or even be called racial slurs for attempting to move out of your caste. 
+
+Secondarily, I think you are more likely to experience indirect state-driven discrimination through lack of funding, lack of healthcare, or actual displacement being moved to even poorer areas. So the delta on short-term discrimination doesn't play out for opp.; it plays out negatively for opp. because realistically, you are likely to be discriminated against by the state anyway. Yes, there might be more direct discrimination, but realistically, the quality of life doesn't fundamentally shift because you would have been oppressed anyway. But our benefits are more certain because they're insulated from externalities. 
+
+Why? One, nobody can take this away from you. They can't move you out of this place now that you have established that this is your home, and you are now the minority that needs to be represented in the community; it's really hard for them to move you out. Secondarily, your position in the community is solidified in time because then you do have contact theory; you do agree with your neighbors. But even if you don't, the third reason why you should vote for us is that the long-term benefits are more important than any short-term detriments because they allow you the ability to defend yourself. 
+
+Because generally, you now get access to the economic benefits that allow you to then become politically active, to vote for yourself, or even just the economic benefits that insulate you from all of the harms of discrimination. A clear OG win. 
+</dpm> 
+
+<dlo>
+What proposition does is force the appearance of Bosnian boys who were killed in Srebrenica only a couple of decades ago to live.
+
+Next, to Serbs to force to graze in Ethiopia, who are currently being genocided, to live next to the people who are killing them, this is a morally disgusting idea. I'm going to talk about three things in this speech. Firstly, can the process of relocation be successful? Secondly, will it lead to successful integration and an increase of opportunities? And thirdly, weighing violence in degrees of security.
+
+On the question of feasibility, both prop teams try and say, "Guys, it worked in Singapore." Singapore is a very unique political case. It is the smallest country in the world, or one of them. It is rich in ethnic groups that hate each other substantially less. Singapore is very different from how Ethiopia looks under the status quo.
+
+Then Tin says in an appeal, "Guys, we're just going to move the majority into the minority communities." That doesn’t work if you think about how population demographics actually look. Think about a country like Nigeria, where you have the predominantly Muslim North and the predominantly Christian South. In a case like this, you're going to have to move both groups to equalize proportions. Then, even just moving the majority group is going to have a bunch of harms.
+
+What did we tell you? The process of relocation is morally disgusting because if people don't take cash transfers from the state, we'll have to forcibly do this. You uproot people from communities that they care deeply about and that are very important to their quality of life. These are ice cream shops that they went to as kids that they love deeply. They often love their friends; they love their communities. It's near the church that they grew up going to, which is very important to their religion, and that's couched in very significant memories for them.
+
+The only response that we get to this is to say that people don't really choose to live in their communities under the status quo, so agency violation is symmetric. This is nonsense for a couple of reasons. Firstly, even if you don't choose your community under the status quo, it still acquires a high level of significance for you because this is where you formed your memories. This is the community that you grew to care about. So it becomes morally significant.
+
+But secondly, choice is obviously what is higher under our side of the house, right? Like, sure, there are some factors that can strain your options, but to intuitively pump, many communities have diversified under the status quo. The Middle Belt of Nigeria is very ethnically diverse, right? There are still things like migrant workers that exist. If you're really unhappy, you can move. I would also posit that we probably have put a lot of power under our side of the house. We could say that if people are really unhappy, we would invest tens of millions of social resources that are going to be used in forced communication to offer people the option of moving if they are deeply unhappy.
+
+So we group under this theme that this will go badly, and it's morally disgusting to uproot people from their communities. Secondly, let's talk about the process of integration. I want to explain that the perception of the majority is going to be very negative, and then I'm going to impact this. Firstly, there is a reason why groups hate each other in the first place. Artificial ethnic divides were created by colonial powers in order to reify their powers. In a deep-seated way, we're socialized to perceive other groups as being vermin. This often led to tremendous conflict and genocide. 
+
+Think about Rwanda. Think about the kind of violence that occurred throughout Yugoslavia. These are literally people that you perceive as killing you, killing your families. You don't have to live alongside them. But secondly, even if you don't hate the group initially, resentment grows when you perceive the group that is coming in as pushing out your community and your family that you care deeply about, even if it's the state and not the group. This is the most direct way to direct a variety of degrees of blame.
+
+Why does this negative perception mean that integration is never going to be successful? Firstly, all public services—an opening government is talking about—even if they are public, still rely on a favorable perception of the dominant group. What if an Indian doctor refuses to see a young Muslim boy when he's dying in a hospital? What if teachers refuse to answer the questions of ethnic minorities in their class or ever write these kinds of recommendations to get a job? You still need the majority being willing to hire you in the first place. 
+
+Public services still depend on high degrees of private buy-in to actually be effective, especially when you often have things like lower income and worse credentials that are going to reify negative images that exist. They can say that social contact theory works; interaction happens. But if you've got the negative initial perception, it has a reinforcing anchoring effect rather than actually deconstructing these biases.
+
+Secondly, large amounts of services in these communities are still privatized. This is not just the West where everything is public. A lot of the time, we don't have these well-funded, nice public schools. We have private schools; we have private hospitals. Not only are you going to be financially precluded from accessing these services, which Daniela analyzes, but this is the exact same problem as gentrification under the status quo. If you have rich people moving into poor communities and you increase prices, people are unable to afford these kinds of things in their income brackets. Discrimination means that you can't access these services regardless. 
+
+How on Earth do you get a job as a poor person in a rich community if you don't even have the CV to be able to do this? Private services are also inaccessible. But next, you also get, thanks to community-based segregation happening internally, the dominant privileged ethnic group around the city core and the poor communities on the outskirts, meaning that there's still segregation when it comes to things like the kind of schools that you're going to. 
+
+Why is it less important than violence than bodily security? Firstly, on exclusivity of the impact, there are other ways to promote things like uplifting of poor communities. We can get things like state investment, and we have some fiat to do that. Often, there are incentives for governments to do things like invest because if you are a concentrated region, you have some political influence in first-past-the-post systems where you don't want every single Muslim province not to vote for you. Right? 
+
+You can also get things like private investment, which are often more blind to ethnicity. You can be a Chinese business and still see a region that's being profitable. Secondly, on the extremity of impact, the degree of inequality is going to be very small, whereas violence increase will be large. Closing government, opening 
+
+<pm>
+You do realize that these places tend to be the most underdeveloped parts of cities? Why the would a private investor go and put this money there?
+</poi> 
+
+Because if you're underdeveloped, what does this mean? More potential for capital appreciation and for future flows that are going to exist. 
+
+Often, you can still have things like resources at Disney’s community. Some Kurdish communities, for instance, have quite a lot of oil that's existing. Let's chat about violence. We gave you multiple reasons about basic protections being violated. Firstly, the nature of communal scrimmages during the process of forced relocation. Panel, think about what happened during partition. A group who just genocided you is moving into your community. 
+
+Hey, civil wars often just happen. The probability of violence outframes your economics arguments. You've got things like infrastructure destruction. But secondly, it's about violence within these communities and the forfeiting of basic protection. We explain this in the realm of things like cultural protection, where at the very least, you have a local level government that respects your language rights, that respects your religious rights, and that does not forcibly indoctrinate, even in the context of education. 
+
+But it's also about physical protection. They say the police—this is offensive. The police in India watched as the Babri Mosque was being destroyed. They're often also not ethnically existing in proportion. They don't care. This is about protecting people who can otherwise be genocided and killed by ethnic oppressors who hate them. You can otherwise have things like fenced communities. Be very proud to oppose. 
+</dlo>
+
+<mg>
+I'll be starting my speech in three, two, one. Opposition bench needs a common sense check. First, on these forcible relocation things, notice that for all of the reasons opposition talks about, it's very likely going to be politically
+
+Unpalatable to forcibly move people. This means the government has an incentive to find ways around that. Most often, the only point that's going to be made is that this is done through public housing schemes, which are targeted at minorities who, in the status quo, live in disenfranchised neighborhoods. Because they do, they're likely to accept the opportunity to move to a better location with better education and better healthcare, which the government is giving them for free. Which means that in most cases, you're moving the minorities in as opposed to moving the majority out, and the minority has incentives to accept that as opposed to being angry about that. The only response the LO gives is "Nigeria." This is not analysis.
+
+Secondly, I want to talk about integration, but before that, I just want to point out one thing: it's uncharitable for opening opposition to say this debate is in the worst possible excesses this problem. it's emotion probably doesn't happen if a civil war happened yesterday because if a civil war happened yesterday, you probably don't have institutions; you don't have a constitution; there is no Parliament that we can pass this policy. This probably happens 20 years after the Balkan Wars, not one day after. 
+
+Opening opposition cannot set their cases if you want to run that example. Now, on integration, Note most people in most countries and all debates are debated in the vast majority of cases. Parliament racists, and even in Bosnia, most people don't have a family member in Instagram. Most often, resentment between groups is caused by the fact that groups do not interact with each other. At the point where you don't interact with a stranger, it's very easy for populists and right-wingers to paint them as alien, to paint them as different, to paint them as not wanting to integrate into the culture, and being a threat to the culture. 
+
+What happens when you have these people interacting with each other in neighborhoods is that you see they're just normal people who also go to the store, who also go to work, who take their kids to the park. In other words, you directly disprove the apocalypse theory. A very good example of this is football: a lot of football fans are racist, but racial violence tended to decrease amongst football fans at the point where players from other minorities joined the team, where they would also kiss the match, where they would also score goals for the team, which shows that they have the same goals, the same values, they live their life in the same way, and care about the same things. 
+
+Therefore, something must be wrong about the previous theory I had, and even if it's not a conscious process, it's subconscious. But let's deal with the worst-case scenario: like this is Yugoslavia, and people were killed, and everybody is incredibly angry, and all these kinds of things. Reconciliation works transgenerationally. Even if you don't have reconciliation within the first generation, you can have it with the second generation because children are born into political narratives they don't understand, they don't care about, but what they understand is this guy plays football with them after school. What they do understand is that this guy helped them with his math homework. 
+
+It doesn't matter whether his name is Ahmed, or is Yovan, or is Marco; they're all doing the same thing, they're all kids, they're all having fun. Over time, you begin to not care about things. Notice how the creation of Serbian debate communities are very close despite the fact that all of our fathers and grandfathers have been to the war. Notice this happens transgenerationally. A lot of other cases as well: when JFK desegregated schools in America, the first couple of years, he literally had to send the federal army to the southern states to enforce it. Now Black kids and White kids go to school normally. Why? Because over time, things become normalized. 
+
+in Backlash, anger is a transient emotion. So even if we take opening opposition at their best, they get harms in the short term; we can flip those harms in the long term by creating integration. The problem with their case is uncomparative because where these people live today is equally bad, they're equally discriminated against and equally under-invested in. So I'm not sure whether comparative is just subjecting them to a different form of violence and a different form of people not caring about them. We can flip that. 
+
+Now, how do we flip that? I think this is where it's important to engage in where these people live today because opening government assumes that their status quo is bad and then perhaps the comparative they have better opportunities, blah blah. But an opening legal position comes and says about noise something very good to live concentrated. Who wins that clash? Closing government. Why? Because we're going to characterize how those places look and how their lives look in the status quo. 
+
+Firstly, even if they do have employment in those areas, it's very often menial labor that pays incredibly low, also very often in the bay economy, which means you're not eligible for credit or collateral. If you want to have any form of vertical mobility, you often also don't learn transferable skills which you can put on your CV to get a job elsewhere. Secondly, if you are keen on ethnic only by Chinatown or the banlieues of Marseille, you don't have an incentive to learn the language, which means that you and your children cannot access any form of mobility outside of that neighborhood, which seems to be the opposite of what the opposition cares about if they really care about choice. 
+
+But thirdly, these areas are fundamentally under-invested in, which is to say the capital admiration and Naomi talks about is the least likely in those neighborhoods. There's a lack of infrastructure there, and we're talking about the basics; we're talking about sewage, we're talking about garbage removal, we're talking about literal street lights. Why? Because there's a self-reinforcing mechanism. There is a perception that these people don't want to integrate, they don't want to live with us, they don't want to try and make an effort; why should we then pump our money into their neighborhoods? 
+
+And then it takes a further step at the point where those neighborhoods become dilapidated. Yes, they are less developed, and they are more worn down than other neighborhoods. This creates a visual association with poverty and crime; it makes people even less likely to want to invest in those neighborhoods, which means that in the status quo, they already live horribly, but also those who live outside those areas are associated with those same negative associations and are subject to the same violence that opposition seems to care about. 
+
+Before I explain why it becomes comparative on our side, something opening government doesn't do. I'll take opening opposition. 
+
+<poi>
+Kids listen to what their parents tell them. Why do Indians and Muslims still hate each other years after partition? And even if biases decrease on your side, they don't, when people are now invading your community.
+</poi> 
+
+Because of proximate experiences. If I'm a seven-year-old kid, I know my dad is angry at the news when watching them and stuff like this, but what they care about more is my friend who is proximate to me and who causes me positive emotions, as opposed to a narrative which tells me stories which I then see are not true practically when I go to school and stuff like this. 
+
+What is the comparison? The comparison is that people now have incentives to access opportunities that exist, and they do NGOs that provide training and stuff like that, but they don't have those incentives when they are concentrated in those enclaves. But secondly, this is incredibly key: the state is now structurally likely to provide these people with training for employment, with ideal literacy programs, with language learning. Why? Because the opposition is correct about the backlash point; then the state has an incentive to prove that this policy makes sense to deliver results on the policy. To do that, they need to make sure these people are going to get employed, but they're going to have work, which means this only exists in the state forces itself. 
+
+Only one position where it has to do this would also prove that they're more likely to integrate. The last thing: this is political representation. Four things here: first of all, it's marginal. Even if you get a single representative in the city council, he has very little political power against the entire council. People also probably don't want to associate with them during my own class point. Secondly, you still have to cater to minorities because for some reason opposition assumes that majorities vote homogeneously. No, not all White people vote the same; some vote one left-wing party, some vote another left-wing party, some vote right-wing, which means minority peoples can still be kingmakers. 
+
+Thirdly, minority representation in most of these countries is already constitutionally mandated for the very post-conflict reason.
+
+The opposition talks about lawmakers knowing that there's been a history of ethnic conflict. So they've included the mandatory representation of minorities into Parliament to prevent comfort in the future. This decision happens in Croatia, where we have a Serbian representative. But lastly, this point is uncomparative in half of electoral systems, but not all systems are first past the post. So the political representation thing is incredibly marginal. The government proposition, however, isn't marginal; we remove people from the current status quo, which is horrible. Even if this change is marginal, the status quo is so horrible that the marginal change must be made for closing government.
+</mg>  
+
+<mo>
+Starting in three, two, one. Closing opposition is going to be the first team that proves that xenophobia and racism are not a short-term transit problem, but something that structurally recognizes itself over and over, and it gets worse over time.  
+
+Secondly, we're going to prove why you are significantly reducing the purchasing power and the length value that people in those communities get, which made them cope with the economic unfortunate realities that they lived in. This is going to directly pass the closing government on to the first extension. The CG response is that the contact theory basically they're going to get better over time. So the only thing that we have to prove to take out OG and CG is that your racist parents are not going to allow you to begin with foreign friendships with Black people. They're not going to allow you to get attention in school because the teachers are racist, and you're going to be going to the schools that are the most defunded because you're the poorest in that particular region.  
+
+This is the only burden we have to prove why this is structurally true. Actual analysis, not intuition problems about historical examples, relative to our opening opposition. The first reason is that people have a natural inclination to be xenophobic. I want to headline this very carefully: not all people are racist; they have the opportunity to be racist. That is to say, for the vast majority of our evolution, we have lived in small tribes in which we have differentiated ourselves through facial features, like the skin that you have on your face, the cover of your eyes, the cover of your hair, and the facial features that you have. It was a sign of trust, and comparatively, people that are facially and physically different from you were seen as distrustful, as different, and as people that you shouldn't trust.  
+
+The second reason is simply political exogenous factors that exacerbate and take advantage of that natural inclination towards racism. There are two primary factors that happen. The first is the natural incentive of every political stage to form a national identity through patriotism and nationalism. In the vast majority of cases, the easiest way for you to form a narrative is to cater to the majority. In the vast majority of countries, like India and America, this caters to that dominant ethnic majority, which in many cases whitewashes or actively discriminates or creates negative beliefs towards the minority. Because for you to be a great nation and a great ethnicity, like white core Americans, you must be comparatively better than other ethnicities. This is why the glorification of a particular ethnicity in a nation comes comparatively at the expense and the discrimination against other ethnicities.  
+
+The second reason is that there are a lot of media and political incentives from demagogues and political leaders to actively reignite racial tensions and to use them as a political platform. Either A, you are already exploiting a natural psychological inclination of people, like fear-mongering for migrants, like using racist stereotypes, "Black people are welfare queens that are draining away the budget of the state." This is an easy way to channel the negative emotions of people and to get votes. But secondly, it's a comparatively better option for you to get votes instead of having actual critiques for your political platform and engaging in elaborate political policy.  
+
+If your policy is not based on products, those are reasons as to why racism does not go down in any way; it only goes up, which directly clashes through the characterization from opening government and closing government. I want to make this crucial contact theory work only if you are willing to charitably engage in contact to begin with. If you are a racist and you experience this particular policy, the likely narrative that is going to be weaponized by the dominant political establishment is going to be: those people are invading your neighborhoods. You have to sabotage this particular policy; you have to actually rebel against this type of policy. Especially if they invade your neighborhoods, this also reduces the likelihood, as per the analysis of closing government, to give them training or to give them more resources. They have already received the right and privilege to live in your neighborhood; why would you give them more?  
+
+This is the first extension. The second extension has to do purely with economic discrimination. The first premise is that, in many cases, the average wage of different ethnicities within countries is vastly different. This is just trivially true. The average wage for South African white men is $40,000; for a Black man, it's six times less. The average wage for a white American cover worker is fucking $70,000; for a Black man, it's barely fucking $30,000. What are the structural reasons behind this? There are three. The first of which is if people are naturally xenophobic and there is an inclination for it to be racist, you attach negative work labels to those particular ethnicities. This is why Black people are seen as uncivilized and aggressive. Those are the most people in high-paying corporate jobs; they are seen as lazy, as welfare queens, and in many cases, you have an incentive to portray them in that particular way. Thus, hiring them becomes risky.  
+
+The second reason is that workplaces become ethnically equal chambers over the long term. This is why the most high-paying jobs in South Africa, within India, and within America are all dominated by the dominant ethnicity that is culturally homogeneous and is not willing to allow other people to enter. But thirdly, even if racism gets better over time, the previous historical disadvantage remains. You cannot get into high-paying jobs if you don't have connections to go to university, if you weren't in private schools to get achievements, and if your poor Black parents were poor. You're comparatively likely to be historically disadvantaged, and this is an intergenerational economic hub in that particular way.  
+
+Why is this crucial? Three reasons as to why those people are unable now to cope: they were previously able to cope within their communities economically and are now unable to do so. The first, which is that the costs of living are significantly going up, is because previously those communities were culturally homogeneous, meaning each one of them on average had roughly the same purchasing power. Thus, supermarkets that provide basic utilities, the prices of electricity and water, and the prices for the school utensils of your child were roughly in accordance in a way that would maximize profits for companies.  
+
+The those, they were comparatively cheaper. Now, if you introduce other ethnicities that we have proven have much more purchasing power and are comparatively richer, this means that the prices for everyone are going up because you can hijack the prices to ensure profits from the rich minority and then force other people to adapt and go into starvation. Before I continue, opening.
+
+<poi>
+When your weight goes up, you can isolate against marginal increases of discrimination. You take a cab; you put up a fan. Salary discrepancies decrease as perogy mechanisms; gentrification is symmetrical. It usually happens when they're not diverse. 
+</poi> 
+
+I generally don't understand this quite; I'm sorry, I don't understand a lot of passages. I didn't understand it. Secondly, property prices are going up in the status quo. There isn't the water of the month for you to live in culturally homogeneous communities of certain ethnicities that are low paid, meaning the prices of your mortgage, the prices of your rent, and the prices upon which you buy property are going down. In many cases, racial stereotypes are actually something positive for those communities when they're buying properties because if the neighborhood is associated with racial stereotypes speaking of good crime, the prices are going down and they are staying down, which makes it much more likely for people to be better able to cope now that there is more demand for buying properties.
+
+To which people are buying properties in those particular regions, the overall bidding process and demand goes up. This is the same reason as to why, like Americans are currently outpriced by corporations that are willing to pay much more to buy out properties in their neighborhood that are previously established. On all those grounds, it's certain, irrespective of political considerations, that people must be able to meet their basic necessities. This is the only way for them to retain the ability to economically cope in disadvantaged regions. All those grounds  i pause. 
+</mo> 
+
+<gw>
+I reject this characterization coming from the opposition bench, that is actually quite insulting, that most people are racist inherently and that most people are inherently evil. I reject the characterization that just because my father fought Serbs in the Yugoslav War, I inherently have to hate Serbs because of all of the previous ethnic tensions and stuff like this. I would like to characterize that most people are good people. Most people have basic human empathy. When they see someone, they are not focused on the color of their skin but their focus on that this person has empathy, has emotions, has experiences just like I do.  
+
+This is what we are uniquely bringing to you from closing government. This is what I'm going to mostly be focusing on in my speech. This is also the reason why we are extending over the opening government because the contact theory that Tin is talking about, which they reject, is an important clash very explicitly in Deputy. The contact theory is logically prior to opening government's case about climbing the socioeconomic ladder because, as per the opposition's bench analysis, just because you're proximate to jobs and schools and opportunities doesn't mean you are able to access them if there is racism that the opposition talks about, which is a clash that opening government never engages with. This is why our extension comes logically prior to them.  
+
+I wanted to engage in this clash firstly, just a couple of like a intuitions and a couple of strategic observations. If the opposition bench is right, then progressivism is literally impossible. Yet we have seen historical changes. Yes, we have seen that Serbs and Croats are able to hang out together and live together and all these sorts of things, which means that this is something that, like, if you've got to check this, this is something that is not empirically true. But secondly, what is the comparative on their side of the house? Okay, maybe you feel, you know, how you say, like, better about yourself being surrounded by all of the people from your minorities, but then you live in an enclave. This is what they are implicitly conceding is comparative on their side of the house. You're living in an enclave, which is horrible because you're getting zero state spending. You are not getting any kind of investments and all these kinds of things.  
+
+But like, if you look historically, just because our, you know, like parents and like grandparents, just because like they were very, you know, like homophobic for example, but we are not because we were able to like interact with people who have different experiences from us. We are able to share some stories with them, we are able to empathize with them, and we are able to understand that the narratives that we have been fed are not true. Secondly, notice that closing opposition is hinging their mechanism on nationalism, but I would like to posit a counter-characterization which is basically that this is not something that is true. There are very strong political incentives of states, especially states that are very heterogeneous and that come from a post-conflict era, to be, how you say, to not promote xenophobia and to promote peace and stuff like this.  
+
+There are a couple of structural reasons for this. Firstly, you don't want ethnic tensions; it's not convenient for you that within your state people are, you know, like killing each other and all these sorts of things. Secondly, there are trade, and these are kind countries that tend to be very often geographically proximate to each other. So, like, for example, and this is why you are trading with each other, you are also, how you say, like, you have to talk about geopolitical issues. You need this type of diplomatic operation and all these sorts of things, which means that they do have an incentive to be good to each other and stuff like this.  
+
+This is why, like, for example, the Serbian president has been donating money to Croatia and we had very good, how you say, relations and all these sorts of things. But thirdly, if this policy is done by a state and there is an obvious threat of backlash and violence and all these sorts of things, which is something that the state wants to avoid, obviously, this is how you say, like, they're probably going to try to sell this in a good way and do this in a good way in order to avoid this and all these sorts of things.  
+
+Secondly, CO says that you need charitable engagement in order for, how you say, like our extension to work. You need charitable engagement amongst each other. Firstly, I already proved to you why this is possible. Most people aren't fucking racist and, like, this is like a biological argument about how you are scared of people who look different from you. This has been disproven in many studies, so it's not really true. But also, like, we don't so we prove to you that there is going to be charitable engagement. But second, but I want to talk more about this because, like, you don't necessarily need, you know, the most charitable engagement ever. Like, for example, if you have a company and you need labor, you do not care what the color of their skin is; you just care about them being able to do good work and stuff like this.  
+
+Because of the capitalistic incentives, you are going to be employing them. Secondly, you also probably do care about, how you say, you also, like, children, for example, they're not discriminating. Like as a parent, you are going to, you know, have to have this, you know, like black child at home with you because they have some, like, work school project together and all these sorts of things, which means that there are going to be natural ways of how people are going to, you know, merge together. Like, you're going to church together and all these sorts of things. Okay, now on to the opening opposition. But before that, POI from them.
+
+<poi>
+You complain about the status quo, but you don't explain why they can get opportunities in new areas when they are poor and their deep-seated colonial other identities with anchoring effects. We explained before, CO, if economics is bad regardless, we get basic cultural protection from local level representation.
+</poi>
+
+So what we are explaining to you is that when you go to the city or something like this, you inherently, like, have to, you know, like, go to school there which is a better school. You inherently have to, how you say, like, get employed by someone who is, you know, like, who is there because, like, they need someone who you're going to work for and all these kinds of things.  
+
+But also when it comes to, like, the political representation and stuff like this, I think Tin deals with this already. Firstly, minorities tend to very often be protected by the Constitution and by the laws because you want to avoid ethnic tensions. But also secondly, because they do, how you say, because they are, you know, to some extent large political groups, but also we are able to flip this argument because once you are increasing the empathy and all these sorts of things, then white people are going to care about minorities and are going to be starting to vote on their issues as well and all these sorts of things.  
+
+And then I do not, and I believe that India example that Naomi talks about is an isolated example given the fact that, like, right now they have conflicts over Kashmir. So this is not something that was just years ago; right now they have conflicts. This is why, like, Muslims and Indians, this is different. But also, I also want to talk about how, I also want to talk about more onto the opening proposition because, like, when they're talking about how you're going to lose access to important community and, like, the person that sold you ice cream when you were young and stuff like this, like, this is not a reason. Like, people move every single day and they move on. Like, Naomi moved seven times already; like, it's fine. Like, you can just move on with your life and stuff like this.  
+
+But also secondly, we tell you that, like, they're going to be, how you say, like, building synagogues and all these sorts of things. So you are going to be able to have access to these sorts of things, and also, you are probably going to have people from your, how you say, like minority groups and all these sorts of things that you're going to be able to interact with and stuff like this. And then we're talking about backlash and all these sorts of things. I already deal with this, but I don't think that backlash is going to happen in the long term on a large scale, given the, uh, given the fact that like, even if it happens short-termly, this is something that has to happen. Like JFK literally had to send an army when segregation of schools ended, but this is something that was necessary to do in order for society to progress.
+</gw>
+
+<ow>
+Starting in three, two, one. Our case, the majority of it is not even dependent on us proving integration because it's highly questionable. We give you the reasons why it won't happen, but the crux of the case is not dependent on this. It's purely an economical fact that once you have people from different wealth groups, price manipulation cannot happen. 
+
+Currently, shops and corporations have a profit incentive to maximize, to manipulate the price in different regions. This is to say certain neighborhoods get the same product for a cheaper price because people cannot afford it. Either way, when you have a mix of those groups in one place, you cater to the ones who are paying the most because it maximizes your profit incentive, meaning now there are no places where poor people can go to get cheap products or where they can get cheap rent because everywhere the level has risen up, right? Because you cater to the people who are more likely to pay more. 
+
+This does not depend on even if people are racist or not because it's just how the market works. This crucially makes people less able to protect themselves, to have to work three jobs, to have to literally be on the street or eat less because they can't afford the expensive food in the neighborhood. That's what our case is. Don't let them mislead you. Firstly, on CG, they think, "Oh, but our creation parents are here," but don't predetermine our fate, blah, blah. 
+
+If you think about it, neither team, but on the short diagonal, gives you structural reasons why people are likely to not be racist. The intuition pumping with the thousand examples, but the analysis there is not present. Then maybe gives you one piece of analysis to engage with later, but the response to our case is just, "Ah, I don't accept this narrative that people who are racist." This is just intuition. They literally say, "Good check this," but what is the analysis? I would like to see it.
+
+This thing, ah, the evolution argument has been this problem. This is one part out of our four mechanisms as to why people are getting more racist over time. They don't engage with our arguments and why nationalism exacerbates, um, uh, racism in a way that benefits politicians. They don't engage with the fact that polarization benefits media and political parties because the more hatred you feel, the more likely you are to click on a bad article or to vote for a passionate political party who are being racist, who are trying to say you fear the people stealing your job. We want to help you. 
+
+They don't engage with this, and they should come because this analysis predetermines everything in this debate. It determines whether a lot of integration could happen. It predetermines whether or not you can make use of those fancy schools and integration programs that they talk about. More structure, really though. What do they say? Firstly, they decided to be public housing. Three reasons why this is not the case: one, it's just a very unpopular policy to do in the first place. Why is this the case? One, properties in the area will lose their value if you're able to house a lot of people in one place for a cheaper price. That's why rich landlords who get passive income from renting out their multiple like apartments or the real estate lobby would not allow for this to happen.
+
+Secondly, it's just too expensive. You have to build the building, you have to hire staff, you have to maintain it constantly, meaning the state has too high of a cost for a benefit that is not even certain. Integration is highly uncertain; you are not willing to do this. But lastly, you don't have a political gain to do this. Those people don't vote because they don't have the time or because they're not politically engaged. Therefore, individual policy well you don't benefit as a politician because no one cares about this.
+
+Now, secondly, on integration, one, they say, "Ah, but in the best case scenario, displaying the kids who are like not racist right now who integrate with other kids," but again, this is a certainty. Why? One, kids don't interact with one another constantly. This explains to you that your parents will literally not allow you to play with the other kid of the background if they are themselves racist, which we prove. But secondly, even in the best case, whether you're in school and you're untouched by your parents, there is a lot of segregation based on friend groups, right? You split with your friends who you already know. When you see the new kid coming in, you want to integrate them. 
+
+In that case, even in the long term, this might get better. They don't prove it gets better if it initially doesn't work. I don't know why it will work in the long run. But secondly, about parents, not those they give the example of football, right? That you integrate with them. But this happens because the footballers talk to each other 40 hours a week. You see your neighbors for five minutes in the store. Why does this lead to integration? Why does this mean understanding their stories? Why does it mean you're now changing your water preferences to advocate for them? No analysis here.
+
+Now, on OG, I wasn't positive. They think, "Ah, our arguments are completely not changed on the integration," but that is bullshit, as it's pointed out by other teams in the case, meaning are the you having access to good schools depends on teachers not being racist to you, and it depends on people actively being able to help you and advocate for you. They say, "Ah, but you get more food stamps." This depends on people actively being okay with their taxes being redistributed to you, which they don't prove.
+
+Now, what is the problem with their case? Generally, they say that in the best case you get some skills because you go to a good school. Why won't those schools and services be good for you? One, teachers will just not pay attention to you. I wouldn't—the worst case where there are racists and they don't think you deserve this attention. But secondly, in the best case, they physically cannot pay attention to you because the discrepancy between the levels of preparedness within students is very different. Some kids have been in prep school their entire life, and then you get some black kids who have had bad teachers beforehand. That's why you won't be able to pay attention to them.
+
+But lastly, parents lobby for the white kids to get the attention of the teachers; otherwise, they pull out their donations or their funding. Comparatively, teachers do a lot of things like donating to charitable charity things  when they go to poor regions to feel like they're bringing value. This is the solvency. OG. 
+
+<poi>
+Gentrification actually happens in non-diverse neighborhoods. Now, when it gets diverse, no one wants violence because their own house value would decrease if it's in a dangerous neighborhood. 
+</poi>
+
+No, If you wanted to respond to all arguments about violence, sure, we do not argue violence. We just explained that people will not accept you and won't give you the opportunities, not to talk about. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.
+
+Now, comparing with all, I want to weigh out a few things. Why is money and having the ability to pay for yourself the most important thing? One, it gives you sovereignty, but you can't go to protest because you have to work two jobs as opposed to one to keep up with the high expenses of rent you have in your area. You can't, for example, donate and save up money because now all of your money goes to just getting your groceries every week. Even if nothing's insignificant at first, it piles up to the point that it's so expensive that you can't do those things. 
+
+Secondly, you have to cut costs; you can't eat less food. you can't concentrate because you less productive because you can't fucking afford it. why it is more important than all one none of their arguments are unproved to the point at which they don't prove why ethnic tensions happens. Their principle is based on practical, but the most important thing is money really determines self-expression, which they defend because when you have the money, you can donate, you can go to church, you can build it up. I'm very happy to fucking oppose.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Belgrade WUDC 2022 Round 6.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,253 @@
+<pm>
+When crisis hit, I have far more trust in Christine Lagarde or Janet Yellen or fucking even Alan than I have in Trump, or Evan, right? Before I go into training, five different reasons but just like what central banks are going to be incredibly better at this. I want to give three points of framing. Firstly, how would this look like, right? I think it's very, very intuitive. Every central bank all around the world has huge incentives to put up a reasonable spending cap and I do believe this not to be out of generally what the general public wants or for example also what the other experts in the field want. 
+Why is this likely to be quite reasonable? First of all, I don't think they want to disturb the economy by setting a limit which is very,  very much under what the market expects or very much over what the market expects, right? Very often they don't want to create incompetence in the economy. So I think they will actually think twice and the limit that I said is actually going to be quite decent. Second of all, I do believe banking people who work in central banks are very immune to criticism from other economists, from their other professionals and they do have huge incentives to not pump this up. But really, notice a bunch of times central banks are not just very prudish, right? Very often, sometimes, they think expansionary policy is okay. Sometimes they think that being like, monetary, like, respective is just fine. 
+
+
+Meaning, to some extent, there is no clear reason why they don't always set the limit very high or very low. I do believe they have huge incentives to do it properly and to do it on a case-by-case basis, right? Secondly, like where does debate actually matter, right? And because like not in the CDM is actually not to me. I don't think the debatable matter a bunch of times, right? I think in the majority of cases, if the country is kind of decent, right? People who are running the central banks and people who are like, running like the treasury are kind of going to come to an agreement, right? 
+
+
+In a bunch of cases, they do coordinate their income policy, they do it in the impactful cases. This will just not be that important, right? However, we think that the debate creates and where this debate matters is where there's a huge disagreement between both the officials and politicians and what the central bank thinks and knows is the best. And I do believe these are the set of cases where these will matter the most. Third thing in framing, I just want to deal with the principle because most likely they will try to run this, right? Oh, but now you're taking the principle right away for people to kind of determine taxes, right? 
+I think firstly, you know, to some extent this is fine. But you already are doing this. In the moment, central banks are already given the full mandate to do whatever they fucking want in monetary policy, right? And I do believe both oppositions have the burden to explain why the additional things that they cannot do is something which is meaningfully principally different, right? 
+And second of all, I do miss to some extent a bunch of voters actually just care about the effective economic policy because this is something that they can feel on their own skin versus some arbitrary notion of maybe their agency to determine a part of their income policies taken away from them. I just don't think this will matter that much. 
+
+
+Okay. Let's then dive into five reasons why generally central banks are going to be quite decent when they set those limits and why politicians are going to be specifically in terms of economic crisis. First and kind of obvious incentives. Central banks don't care about getting re-elected. People who are in power. do care. 
+What kind of incentive does this give them, right? This gives them the incentive to pander to what the average voter thinks is actually a good economic policy. However, the issue is that very often the average voter just does not know anything about economics or at least has some very dear notion. 
+What very often happens, is that people just assume that is good, right. Specifically in times of crisis, right. So to some extent, this is kind of the incentives that politicians offer do pander to, right? That's how for example, in the US, we ended up with a huge amount of government spending even though every economist basically said that this is bullshit, right? 
+Exactly because Biden and the Democrats know that their constituency thinks that spending is actually good, right. On a comparative, right. We actually give the power to people which are not elected by, they don't have the incentive. They don't need anyone to vote for them in three years, right? 
+That's why they basically have been sending to decide, what is the best economic policy at the time, what will actually be better for the long term, right.  So, this is why to some extent, they're far better in deciding this. Second of all, they have a long-term incentive, right? 
+In central banks, like Corinthian, they're often elected for a very long period of time. They refuse to spend for 10 to 15 years, right? And they care shit ton about their reputation, right. They very often care about what is the legacy which they live in a specific institution, right. 
+So, to some extent, exactly because they don't need to be re-elected every two to three years, this gives them the incentive to actually not pander but think long-term, right. To think what's going to happen in 10 to 15 years because they're still going to be there. 
+On a comparative, right? Notice how short-term election cycles actually are. This is basically like four to three years, but often when an economic crisis comes, very often like cycles are even shorter because they're often economic crises being inherent political instability. 
+Very often elections are quite like, common, meaning politicians have a very short-term incentive, right. And they actually, even if maybe they want to look at the long run, they just don't have the ability to do it, right. Exactly because they know, that they will potentially not be there in five years, right? 
+And then they have the election which is going to happen the next time, right? This gives them the incentive to think short-term and actually fuck up economic policy much, much, much more. Before I go on, I would love to take CO. If CO, then OO. 
+<poi>
+So, the Federal Reserve Board is elected, is nominated by the President and approved by the US Senate. If that is true, why doesn't that mean there are much more increases under your vote? 
+</poi>
+Uh, I don't think pandering increases much on our side because I do believe a bunch of these people actually have to be quite professional. 
+
+
+Even if maybe they are, like, they're basically 10 to 15 years quite often, which is far longer than any politician so far. Good reason why this is generally going to give better policies is, central banks are actually able to make synergy fiscal and monetary. You know, this is at the moment. They're basically able to control only monetary policy. 
+Which is fine. It actually gets fucked up when people in power decide to take different and there is an opposite policy. Now this is very often, right. ECB is very like, actually like the monetary supply. However, what actually does happen is, the government spends a bunch of money, right.
+Meaning to select is that easy is pushed in a corner and has to adopt their policy. This is why very often you push countries even more into crisis. Exactly because there is no synergy between monetary and fiscal policy, right? So, to some extent, that gets far better when like central banks are able to basically command both branches of monetary supply. 
+Fourthly, right. I don't think the ECB has the need to make partisan compromises. Notice what happens very often when like, when an economic crisis happens. Very often this comes with political crisis happening as well. Very often parties in order to stay in power in these specific cases need to make like awful compromises. 
+Very often compromises are either A, we're not going to spend at all or B, we're going to overspend because we want to pay for every project every party wants because we still want them to vote us in and to keep us in power, right? This very often creates like incredibly harmful economic conditions, right.
+Either you're overspending or underspending, right. On a comparative, ECB has no incentive to make this type of partisan compromises, right? They very often have the incentive to look at what's going to be the best and basically be very independent in doing this. And this is why I do believe just like giving Christine Lagarde the right to decide is far better than fucking Erdona deciding. Very proud to propose. 
+</pm>
+<lo>
+Two bits of framing off the get-go. The first is to say that crises are somewhat unpredictable but also inevitable, I.E. One, economies generally tend to be older, business bust, and business booms. Things go up and down, but secondarily, exhaust and shocks are kind of hard to predict and kind of hard to prevent, I.E. you don't know when the next war is going to happen, you don't know when the next supply shock is going to happen in an increasingly interconnected world. Those are inevitable. 
+The ability to cushion and protect the greater society from the impact of rising prices, inflation, or recession is what's supremely important in this debate. Is, at the end of the day, the reason why even central banks want to maintain is, the side that wins this round. The essential claim from team opening opposition is going to be that governments need the freedom to control the size of the budget to do things in the short to medium term that they deem to be important for people's livelihood. 
+Cuz that otherwise people protest, people turn to instability and that's largely a far worse outcome than like, bad prices in the short term. The second thing I want to do is just characterize economic crisis for you because OG does not do this surprisingly. Firstly, I think economic crisis generally formed through exogenous shocks, things like sanctions causing cost for inflation. Secondly, through poor regulation of industries, since the finance industry in 2008, or thirdly through uncertainty, which causes a loss in investor’s confidence. 
+I think the outcomes you want to achieve therefore want to implement things like better regulation to prevent and increase stability. Secondly, to stimulate consumer confidence. Why then do we think government incentives are better? This is the first argument from opening opposition. Firstly, I think governments are just more holistic, I.E. They are made up of various departments that engage in inter-departmental discourse, I.E. The tripartite state format allows, but also just different departments within local and federal between, ah, between like healthcare and education. 
+All engage in discourse that allows for a number of outcomes. Firstly, you have greater information. That is to say, you have more information coming from various departments, things like census and demographic control that allow you to make better decisions and provide a more holistic approach. This looks like multi-faceted infrastructure bills that generate both employment but also decrease things like environmental costs and things like spending loss. 
+This I think mitigates a lot of OG's framing that short-term incentives are necessarily bad because I think you have more information to make better decisions in the short term and that's increasing. Secondly, proximity to people. This is to say that governments are more accountable to their voter base. They have to engage in things like surveys, in terms of census and data collection, but also the reelection incentive means you have to listen to people in ways that central banks don't. 
+I think that it's unlike the pandering to voters who know nothing is a silly argument for two reasons. Firstly, I think generally we know that authority has failed, look at Greece for example, but secondarily, people know what they need. In the short term, if people don't get what they need, like things like stimulus checks, people can't afford things like healthcare or food. They revolt and turn against you. That generates further instability in the long term. It's probably worse. Third, the third incentive is checking balances, I.E. There are just weird means of checking balances internally between sectors that fight over parts of the budget, but also externally from the public that is watching what you do with their money. Fourthly, is a connection to outside actors. This is to say that governments have negotiating power with international institutions that can call on things like expertise, but also things like bonuses and better funding from things like the IMF or the World Bank. 
+But even if that's not the case, there's also other governments you can turn to like allies for better in funding. The Central Bank lacks the ability to coordinate these sorts of strategies and therefore, lacks capacity but also lacks decision-making for like justification authority. Why does the lack of control over the budget hurt the government? Firstly, a lower budget means you lose out on things like decision-making power, I.E. you can't give aid to people such as stimulus checks when they're facing large amounts of poverty or unemployment. 
+This is super bad, one, because people can't afford a decent quality of life and turn against you. But secondly, because people just get hurt on mass and usually get hurt means that people turn against each other which generally causes further instability in the long term and decreases investor confidence. But secondly, the level of ability you have to control shocks also decreases, I.E. engaging in more aid to say Ukraine is still somewhat better. 
+
+
+If America can do that because at least you can help to decrease the long-term impacts of war. If you can give more aid or controlled budget towards outside actors, you can probably decrease the level of instability in those actors and that I think is something that can help provide some amount of alleviation from economic crisis as well. 
+The point therefore is capacity, If the government can't take on debt, it can't be effective. That is the level of poverty increases unpredictably. The ability to have a flexible budget allows them to adapt and account for that. The central bank's long-term incentives don't meet those short-term needs. This is the comparative proof to you now. Why central banks are comparatively worse? First, they're technocratic, which means that they aren't as linked to the people who are accountable to them. 
+Which means that any decisions they make are not decisions that are taken necessarily in people's, in the common person's desires, but more in terms of investor or price confidence. Secondly, they're immune to critique. Right? This is to say that even if they make a bad decision, it's unlikely to hear it in time to reverse a decision. But thirdly, their priorities are simply different from what people need. Things like, reducing debt and increasing reserves or maintaining price stability, don't always come at the cost of the common person's quality of life. 
+
+
+I think that's necessarily bad because it flips all of OG's characterization of central banks being good actors and they say that, they have just a higher chance of being bad actors too. All of these needs are a priority. People need stimulus, people need subsidies, people need spending, and the government needs to be able to be flexible and adapt to those crises. Because crises always involve unique situations every time. They don't often follow the same patterns in 2008 that they do in 2012. 
+Before I go on, CG. 
+<poi>
+Since, central banks anyway command full monetary policy, they presumably have also the access to all data that you can say, and it’s unclear why they can also not coordinate with other government agencies. 
+</poi>
+Because the central bank is just one branch. The government is the entire collective of those branches. The ability to coordinate that information but also to weigh that against your own priorities is different, right? I.E. If I'm a bunch of technocrats making decisions, I have different priorities and a different level of proximity than different state departments do. 
+Second argument, this hurts central banks' decision-making. That is to say that the central bank is more likely to become politicized. Why? Because they're given more power. I.E. it opens them up to political actors who not only entrench themselves into the central bank's ability to make decisions. I.E. If I know the central bank has control over my budget, I as a senator, I as a party, am more likely to want to politicize that branch of government so that I have some level of influence over the central bank decision-making. 
+I think in this quo, government having autonomy over the budget means it has no incentive to entrench itself and interfere with central bank decision-making. I think that's necessary better, because in that world, the central bank can make autonomous decisions and that aren't interfered by government, which means that you kind of meet OG's burden as well but more importantly, it keeps the government autonomous and therefore, that's made it soon that they need to do. 
+I think why this is bad is because it mitigates the central bank's own responsibilities on things like price stability and debt alleviation. For all those reasons, proud to oppose. 
+</lo>
+<dpm>
+Panel, the underlying premise on opening opposition's case, is that inherently central banks will always reduce the rate of money that exists in the market, will reduce the amount of budget governments have, and will always, no matter the context, act against the interests of the people, against the interests of the economy, whatever. 
+This is just factually incorrect, because central banks actually have every incentive to get the country out of economic crisis. Why? And if their primary incentive is to regulate the money supply, the money supply is also significantly impacted by the way the economy performs. Note, for example, that if the general wealth of the country goes down significantly, corporations start going down, and people start going bankrupt. 
+There's no one who has the ability to spend. The value of the currency also decreases. Meaning that the central bank has a structural incentive to keep currencies relatively stable and that incentive exists symmetrically in terms of wanting to ensure that the country gets out of the economic crisis. What central banks don't have an incentive to do is to act in a populist manner. 
+This is the critical distinction because opening opposition tells us stimulus packages are inherently necessary. Probably I agree. Probably the United States government could have, even with a smaller budget, budget hit for stimulus packages by, you know, shuffling their budget and not spending a trillion dollars or close to a trillion dollars on the military-industrial complex, right.
+The fact that that, you know, you don't, it is why the size of the budget makes it necessary, you know, for the stimulus package but note that if the stimulus package comes at the expense of the dollar suddenly inflating in price to the effect that today when people are paid the minimum wage, they can no longer make rent, they can no longer feed their families, they can no longer pay for petrol, they can't make their jobs, they cannot afford anything. 
+At that point, it is not entirely clear to me why that is significantly better to have turned on the money print go and fuck everyone across the world, because when the dollar collapsed, that fucked all of us. Notice that the central bank on the comparative probably doesn't have that kind of incentive because, you know, they want to keep the currency stable. 
+Their incentive is to long-term ensure the stability of the economy and to flatten the amount of both how hot an economy runs and how cold an economy runs because they have an emphasis on stability. Even if stability would mean the comparative that we get out of the economic crisis slightly slower as the leader of opposition has explicitly conceded, no one can predict the flow of a bear market or a bull market. 
+No one can predict when an economy crashes or when it recovers, etcetera. Meaning that it to some extent, if that is kind of going to happen anyways, then presumably long-term stability in ensuring that, you know, we don't just do what is currently the most popular towards the voters who don't necessarily understand the long-term implications of what they have voted in is, you know, probably somewhat unimportant. 
+
+
+Not secondarily, however, that it is unclear to us why voting is necessarily the premier mechanism for ensuring the best monetary policy or even the monetary policy that best reflects the will of the people. Because it is unclear to us that the primary mechanism which people as right, the primary motivation that people have when electing governments is the economy. Presumably, people also vote for all kinds of other reasons such as traditional relations. 
+They probably vote on healthcare advice, etcetera. Notice then that, it is ultimately unclear to us why the ECB or the American Central Bank or any central bank has an incentive to set the budget lower than where a government could realistically operate. Now we do get a mechanism here for why they are likely to fuck up from opening opposition and I want to be fair to them, because what they tell us effectively is, ah, the central bank isn't as integrated into government institutions as they could be as they should be and the government therefore has better oversight of where spending needs to go. Couple of things here. One, that's an odd problem. I have no idea why if this were the alternative, the ECB wouldn't be much more integrated with government spending. 
+Two, presumably as Martha has pointed out, there's already significant interactions between the treasury and the central bank. So, presumably, they can just pick up the phone and talk to the government and come to some kind of compromise, explaining to the government where they need to take their budget, where they need to adjust tax rates, etcetera, in order to get the economy out of the ball. 
+At that point, I'm just not clear where opening opposition's specific problem lies in terms of the political will, because ultimately, that just seems, you know, spending problem like, not money intake problem because I think, most economies where the government has a significant incentive to overspend vastly above what the ECB, what the Central Bank would want to spend on. 
+Presumably, they have more of an issue of not allocating their current funds properly or just want to continue spending as they have and not recognizing that they're currently in a crisis. Not similarly, when the country is in a crisis and a government overcorrects, as in makes their fiscal policy low, the ECB, the central bank is likely to also want to, for similar incentives, push up the budget because the government is also making poor economic decisions. 
+Even if their intentions are good and wanting to get the government, the country out of recession, the central banks have the incentive. Note where the problem, then the final problem we hear from opening opposition is this idea that, ah, but the central banks will become politicized; their decisions will become bad. They will just make the decisions that politicians want anyways. If that's true, then I'm unclear on what the delta is. 
+If they are just going to basically become so politicized and just act on the will of the people, then presumably their impacts are also not happening. Then it's symmetrically true on both sides of the debate that presumably just nothing changes. If they're just another political body or, you know, to that effect, then it doesn't have the impact that opening opposition claims. 
+Before I continue, I would like to engage with closing. 
+<poi>
+In both worlds, these two parts of the government work together. I don't see why you get that a drastic change or you get any additional synergy. They will still,
+</poi>
+if there is no drastic change, then we can just do this, because if there's no drastic change then why not? 
+And two, we have explained to you that there are a lot of situations where the incentive of government are basically short-term fixed patch a problem because they have short-term incentives. Their incentive is to the next ballot, the main people check. They want you to remember that I padded your wallet $200 every month. Please remember that when you check my name on the ballot box. 
+Politicians have inherently significantly more perverse incentives. Because of the short-termist nature of their election cycle. Whereas central banks, as opening opposition to some extent agrees with us, are significantly more technocratic in their approach. Meaning they have a significantly greater incentive to actually want to apply the best rates possible in order to get out of the economic recession, because when the blame is starting to be laid at them more explicitly for how things operate. 
+They also will want to properly justify themselves. Notably, however, because they have longer-term strategic incentives, they know that it's not worth trading off the benefit of right now to being criticized three years later when then your economy tanks because your currency has been devaluated to the point of being a fucking joke. 
+That is something that politicians generally speaking have less interest in. We see politicians like, thinking that printing more money is a genuine way out of recessions. We think it is therefore significantly better to stand on the side of technocracy. Proud to stand in opening government. 
+</dpm>
+<dlo>
+This debate is not about whether or not we come out of economic crisis. This debate is about how we choose to come out of economic crisis. 
+I first want to give you four structural reasons as to why that broad strokes claim that politicians are dumb and people are dumb and thus, they will never make good decisions for the economy is flawed. I'm going to give you four counter-structural reasons why politicians also have huge incentives to fix the economy. One, their popularity rating matters like Biden's popularity rating is at an all-time low because of inflation, which means that people actually do care about the fact that gas prices are incredibly high, goods prices are incredibly high. 
+Second, midterm elections. The Democrats are likely going to use the midterm election owned primarily because Biden hasn't handled the economic crisis properly and is getting flagged a shit for it. Third, coalition building. In a vast majority of cases, if you want Congress and Senate support from other parties, you are very likely to not get that if you're handling the economic conditions or the economic longevity of the country quite poorly. 
+Fourth and finally, lobby groups. Industry leaders from all around the world do not want, like, you're all around the states or any country, do not want your economy to continuously negotiate; they won't fund you in the next election if the economy keeps on going shit because they'll think that you are just a bad president who doesn't know how to grow the economy. 
+All of these four intra-structural reasons, I just think are more mechanistically robust than what they say. Because they say that all you care about is reelection and pleasing the people, so you will do stupid shit. I gave you four other reasons as to why you won't do stupid shit. 
+
+
+The reason why you ban are not only, is this more mechanistically robust but it's also just more sensible as to why, like, a politician won't just go batshit crazy. Second, they talk about populism because apparently populism is the angle that they want to win this debate upon. Look, one, voter authorization. If you make people go like, you don't understand long-term anything, you don't understand the economy, you're more likely to breed more populism, that is to say like more and more people are just going to get pissed off that the people that they're voting to power, don't essentially have the control over taxes. 
+Taxes hurt people, by the way. It takes away a massive part of your income. So, I think populous leaders like Putin or Donald Trump are going to point fingers at the central bank and go like the central bank is the reason why they are doing this. So, they're going to resolve themselves of all the blame. The reason why this matters panel is that you breed more populism under your world, period. 
+But I think, secondly, Sarm's argumentation, the second piece of argumentation that Sarm provided that I'm now going to rebuild, also tells you why populism gets worse under your world. I.E. populous governments, like, like, fuck with the Central Bank significantly more. The core trucks is that nepotism and like all these other things massively increase under their world, in which means that central banks cannot operate independently. 
+Look, when you make populous leaders desperate, they do desperate things. Simply, like, they lobby more. I mean, lobby more, they bribe more, they give personal threats, they create political gridlocks, or sometimes even shut down the government, or they demonize the high executives. These are like five, six different ways in which they can do desperate things. 
+What is the marginal impact? And I agree it's marginal because I just don't think this debate can happen in like, populous utopias. But here's the marginal impact. I agree that there's some nepotism right now. You know, the president elects the board, and the board gets verified by the Senate, right? But under their world, what happens is, after that nepotism, there's more nepotism because every time the central bank tries to do something, like, especially on the budget case, like, these populous leaders, like, do things like lobbying, do things like create gridlocks, do things like personally threaten them, do things like trying to like, you know, take them out of power. 
+Which means that in every set of the way, central banks' tools are now significantly politicized. The reason why that negates the power of central banks is because under our world, the central bank is again, to the best of its ability, like a quasi-public or just like a party that checks the government back. Insofar as it becomes more politicized because again, populous leaders have an incentive to do this. 
+I just don't think you get the material impacts of central banks' high executives in central banks being able to like, think freely and make technocratic decisions. Insofar as you make desperate leaders significantly more desperate under your panel. Please note that this is very important engagement because again, they try to coop with the benefit of not having a populous leader like Putin in the sphere. 
+But at the simultaneously, they just go like, oh, if you give it to the central bank, Putin will back off, right? Like, I mean, come on, that doesn’t add up. Um, the last thing I just want to review before going on to my argumentation is that they say that the reason why central banks are currently harmed is because there is no synergy between monetary and fiscal policy. 
+
+
+The reason why I want to refute this, I just don't think monetary and fiscal policy is supposed to be seen or just, or like whatever the fucking word is. Period. Because it's supposed to be flexible and it's supposed to be checked back. Because these are two sets of different tools. Which means that when the government says fiscal policy, the monetary policy is supposed to, like, you know, like go the opposite route. 
+If it is to, like, stop the extremities of the fiscal policy happening, it's supposed to be countered, it's not supposed to be synergistic. I just don't understand why it needs to because that's the entire point of the central bank being a separate body from the government. It's supposed to check back the economic decisions that the government makes. 
+Why then under our world are governments better? Just like they literally just try to refute the information incentive that gives you. That the governments are better because they have a tripod, say, than more information. Sam gives you three additional ones that they don't. Sam tells you A, they're very moderated. I.E. They have Senate and Congress to check back on them. 
+Second, Sarm told you they have a closer proximity to people. The reason why is just objectively is, because the government understands who is the most vulnerable and caters to them the most. But third, they have international institution collaboration. Why is this important? Because it negates why the government in the vast majority of cases, which are not populous countries, are likely to be moderate and likely to be conscientious of the economic decisions that they make. 
+Why will the lack of power prolong harm under their world? Simply panel, and this is where the trade-off happens. They are like, oh no, there is no trade-off. Like, they will always agree, no. Sometimes the government will want to give stimulus checks, but the central bank is going to go like increases debt, you cannot do this. 
+Sometimes the government is going to try to like, you know, like, like, help Ukraine, but like the government, the central banks going to go like, no. 
+But before I move on, CG. 
+<poi>
+Yes, we're going to explain to you that regardless of whether these policies are identical, the fact that a more trusted body is making them means the economy will be more stable and recover faster.
+</poi>
+I already told you that A, there are no, like just because they are away from the public doesn't make them more trustworthy, but two, I've told you why these populous leaders that OG talks about will now pander to them significantly at a higher degree, which means that they won't have the independence that they have under the status quo. 
+Why is one priority more important than the other, panel, and this is the weighing, right? So, I agree that sometimes the government is going to give stimulus checks even though they shouldn't because it increases debt and that's bad for the economy. Three structural reasons why as to why the soft cushioning of the economic crisis on vulnerable people matter the most. 
+One, the lives of people are more important right now, which means that the belief in their government institutions decreases under their world. Second, they are more likely to have more instability and protest. Because economic crises are the time in which you require faith in the government. That goes down. 
+
+
+But third, economic growth only makes sense if it protects the most vulnerable. So, under your world, I believe central banks can reduce debt. I believe central banks can reduce inflation. But in the meantime, these measures are most likely to harm the more vulnerable people. The people that the government needs to protect because they understand them and they need to win their votes. 
+For all of these reasons, panel, please consider that the way, it's about the method to which you come out of an economic crisis, not just coming out of the economic crisis in general. 
+</dlo>
+<mg>
+Martha says she has more trust in the management of the central bank than in the government. She doesn't explain, analyze, or impact why she feels this way. I'm going to explain to you why Martha feels what she feels and why other people feel the way Marta does and why that is important, I.E. why, even if the government and central bank have the same policies or the same like, incentives or ability or whatever to have good policies. Um, or even if the government policies are better than the central banks' policies. Why the central banks involvement makes rebounding from crisis significantly more likely in less amount of time and due to additional buy-in from society and additional cooperation from the people within the state. 
+Why is this the case, right? Cuz why do people see the government as responsible? Cuz nobody, this, the government was in charge at the point of which you have an economic recession or economic crisis. Two, we think that each party has the incentive to slander the other party and blame the economic recession on the other party because they have the incentive to get elected in the next election cycle and they want to distance themselves from this economic crisis, and so they're going to spend extra time painting the exact situation and the exact harms that the citizens are currently experiencing and pushing that and saying this is a 100% to the people that you ought to be blaming. 
+And if you want to make changes, if you want to change society, you ought to remove them from government and the people in power are also going to be saying this against their opposition party, I.E. We are the only people who can change the situation, we are the only people and it's all because of the lack of ability to pass legislation that we ended up in this situation, which means that people within the government have the incentive to convince the voter race that the government as a whole is not competent. 
+They are not able to pass legislation that is effective in creating a positive economy or a good economy. Note that also, corporations and businesses also have the incentive to shift blame for rising prices and for changing policies and changing actions around the crisis onto the government because they do not want backlash and they do not want to take blame upon themselves. 
+
+
+And going to point out that hey, this is the government. This is not our fault. This is like, if you want someone to complain to, complain to them. And also note that each party at any given point in time has probably entered you into a crisis prior to this, even if it's not this specific crisis, so they have already shown that they are also inept, so they're not necessarily a better alternative than what you had in the status quo. 
+An opening opposition says, ah, but like, what if you would manage the crisis well or whatever? But even if you manage the crisis well, even if you do well in the past, or you're doing well now, or whatever policies happen now are good, you can always be better. So, no, let's say in the cold pandemic Israel, we had very little deaths in the beginning, but there were still significant backlash against the government and the government policies. 
+For both having extreme restrictions, and for relaxing the restrictions and for the economy. So there is no way that the government is seen as a competent body or a body that is doing what is in the interest of the people, etcetera. 
+
+
+Why do they not have these views on central banks? Firstly, and so far as a the central bank is often nominated. Not that we're not only talking about the US but people in the central bank are actively bipartisan, actively nominated by both parties by many people in the political system over time which means that we have people of different economic opinions within their things and people of different party affiliations. 
+So they're not seen as identified to a specific party and also the central bank actively distances themselves from partnership and from advocacy for political campaigning, etcetera as part of their thing and differentiation of powers, etcetera. But also note that the government has an incentive for a good relationship with the banks, so they're unlikely to schedule or put blame on the central bank for their actions in the future given that these are the same people who are going to be in the central bank or many of the people are going to be the same. 
+There are some different ones, they have the incentives to in the future have collaboration and have good interest rates or whatever and to be able to advance their policies. But also, companies have the incentive to also have good relationships. To have good ability to get loans. The individuals working in banks, etcetera, also have these incentives. 
+So like flee to slander and put this hate, put this backlash and criticism on the, this like not criticism but like, defaulting to the worst scenario or incompetence, so you are more likely to have more belief because you have less negative discourse about them from the get-go. Why is the lack of trust in policies important? Because if you think someone is a bad actor or you think they're going to be incompetent or you think they're going to compromise stupidly, you're going to prepare yourself for a situation where what they do doesn't work and you're going to expect what they do not to work;
+And so you're going to have less buy-in because people are already preparing for the crisis to never end or for the policies to not work. Uh, before I continue into the impact, yeah, I'll take CO. CO, I want to know what you're going to run. 
+<poi>
+Yeah, all the reasons of backlash you gave is the single biggest reason why governments are not going to be just playing stupid about their fiscal budgets. It's also just true that stimulus checks sometimes.
+</poi>
+Fine, the governments can be brilliant. They can make the best fiscal policies and the best budget policies. 
+The problem is that people don't believe that is what they are doing. Right? And when people believe that the government is incompetent or the government is making bad decisions, they protest against it because they have seen this incompetence and they do not want this incompetence to continue. They push for political change which means that even if the policy is good, it won't work because it's going to be changed by the next people in power before it actually gets the outcome it wants, right.
+This means that people have less confidence in the economic rebounding which means they are less likely to like, they’re more likely to keep their money in savings, so they think they won’t get very much in the short term, on the next extended period, so they want to ensure they have money there, which means that they are less likely to spend it, and to invest it in the economy, which means they have less money within the economy. And that means that people who need money are less likely to get money because people aren't spending money. Um, and so it is not being circulated, right? 
+This also means companies are also preparing for the economic crisis to last a long time. Which means they do things like laying off workers, looking for other areas to make themselves more stable, and cutting costs. We think this also impacts the worse off minorities or that opening opposition talks about by extending the crisis and magnifying the impacts on everyone in society. 
+For all reasons, please propose a motion. Thank you very much for that speech. I'd like to call on the final speaker for the opposition. 
+</mg>
+<mo>
+So I don't really know a lot about the economy to be honest and I don't particularly like it, but even I know that people sit in central banks are usually incompetent and bad and really don't know what they're doing in most of the countries, right? 
+I mean the governor of Serbia is Jorgovanka Tabaković, and I assure you that she knows less economy than all of us in this room. So, top half so far is a wash really. The opening government tells you this is going to be done in a good manner, opening opposition says it's going to be done in a bad manner. We like opening government because they are friends, right? 
+
+
+But it's still unclear who wins on this clash because in some countries it's going to be like this, in other countries going to probably be like this. So you tell me panel who persuades to do more and who you trust more on this clash. We don't find it very important. We don't find it like anybody managed to persuade us more. 
+Prior to going on to inter-extension, one very important piece of trade. Notice, this debate probably doesn't have a big effect in developing countries. Why? Because here, even though in theory, you will, this would mean that like central control fiscal policy, right. It would still be under politicians, right. Notice like no central banks decide all of these things. 
+Literally no effect, right? Why? Because number one, there is corruption; ecause secondly, these people are chosen by the politicians because you have no institutions, because you usually have no civil society, no NGOs, and people are generally unaware of these problems. Meaning that no matter which of these you choose, they are probably still going to be run by politicians and politicians are probably still going to do most of the policy anyways, right? 
+Notice that then this debate takes place in different places where you have the institutions, you have the civil society such as the EU, the United States, and everything else. This framing is going to be important for my second argument. So, I'm going to let you know when this actually happens. 
+
+
+So, let's talk about number one, right. Notice that if you limit the budget of the politicians, and Marta said this is going to be reasonable, but you're still going to have to limit the budget of the politicians. There are a few reasons why this is true. Number one, notice that you don't necessarily know how long the crisis is going to last, meaning that you have to be restricted, right. But secondly, the mainstream economy and the old guys that usually sit in the central banks are usually for austerity. They don't like spending. They think spending is bad, etcetera, etcetera. Thirdly, notice that it is usually in their financial interest to have less spending, right? Because they themselves are usually rich, one plus tax and things like this. 
+So, notice that you necessarily do have to have a limit towards budgets even though it's usually going to be solidly reasonable. You still have to cut budgets. This is like the principle of this debate. So, why is this important? If you do this, notice that the politicians, what they end up doing is cut or give up on long-term projects which don't lead to good immediate effects, right.
+Why is this true? Number one, because it's a crisis, right. So politicians want immediate effects. That makes them look like they do know what they're doing and they're doing a good job through the crisis. Secondly, it's very hard to survive the crisis as a politician. So you need fast votes and you need people to like you. Hence, you need immediate effects, right.
+You want immediate past effects and long-term projects are usually something that requires time and not necessarily gives you these immediate effects. So, why are these projects in abstract good, right? Because notice that this is very important for the economy. These are usually infrastructure, energy, trade, and projects related to all of these things, right. Because in order to get out of crisis, like especially for poorer countries like Bulgaria or Greece, you need a lot of spending on all of these things. But notice also because it's the crisis, right? It's usually your companies that will go bankrupt if you spend on large projects; your local companies are usually the ones that work and they create roads and pay workers and everything else. 
+So, this is why these projects are usually bad, right? But what is the comparative? When you don't have the money as a politician, these are the first projects that you usually cut and the reason for this is, as I already mentioned, because they don't have an immediate effect, right? 
+Notice that when you have the unlimited amount, you're likely going to push for these projects anyways, even though they don't give you the immediate effect because you don't necessarily have to watch out what you're spending on, you don't have a limited budget. 
+The only comparative when you do, you cut on these projects which is very bad because this is something that slows down your exit from the crisis and that is very important. So, what is the impact of this? Notice that this means that politicians are more and more short-termist, right? 
+They don't think about the long-term projects which is bad because you're going to recover from the crisis slower. But also, notice the important thing, there is no accountability, right? So, every time there is a bad policy, politicians blame the central bank. They say, we don't have power over this. This is something that the central bank does, so you go talk to them. 
+Notice that they always blame and put the default on the central bank and this is bad, right? Because this is easier to push bad policy. There's no leverage; you can't call out all of these things. This is the important thing, right, because they have this puppet they use to always blame them for what's going on. 
+Let's talk about the EU second because I already told you at the beginning of my speech that this debate takes place in good places like the EU, not like Serbia or anything else, right? So, why is this important? Because notice that the countries can't make their own fiscal policy, right? It means that you can't decide for yourself how much money you want to spend on, like, how much money you have to spend for education, for work protection, and everything else. 
+
+
+Why is, like, why can't they decide on their own? Because notice that the European Central Bank will necessarily push for less money, right? We already told you why this necessarily happens. But also, it will be very unpopular to give more money to one country in the EU and then less money to the other country in the EU. 
+
+
+They necessarily have to give the same amount or pretty much the same amount and everything else. Notice that for this, is also like bad for small countries, right. Because small countries have less lobbying power to use, so they can push less agenda for getting more money and everything else. 
+So, what happens is you get less money to these countries in fiscal policy as a matter of getting out of crisis. Why is this bad? Because in order to get out of the crisis, you need to spend more money, right. This is especially true for small countries like Bulgaria or whatever, right.
+Because you need to spend on infrastructure, you need to spend on energy, you need to spend on education, right? You notice it before all of these things, you need a lot of money. This is quite literally the only important thing, right. 
+But notice, so what this means is having the eco-fiscal policy means that all of these countries have a limited amount of money. They can't spend to get out of crisis. They have to have the same fiscal policy for all countries. This is bad for small countries more than for the big ones. 
+But secondly, now this also means that you blame the EU for like the European Central Bank for the bad stuff that happens because notice that all politicians now have the incentive to blame the European Central Bank for everything bad that's happening, right? 
+Notice, like this is important for the youth for multiple reasons. Number one, this gives you less unity in times of crisis, which is important to get out of the crisis. Secondly, like you can get, like, you can get the feeling the EU is less democratic, that it's made for the wealthy countries and everything else. 
+But why is this, what are the impacts of this? Number one, people tend to vote for more, like, anti-EU politicians and everything else. Secondly, it's hard to get compromise on many important things which are important to crisis and everything else. 
+You also get like, less stable EU which is important to get out of the crisis and everything else, but also finally you can get more things such as Brexit and everything else. This is something that shakes the union. It's very bad. 
+Notice that this debate takes place in wealthy and good countries and places like the EU. We think it's very bad for that. In every other aspect of the debate, it's much a wash. Thank you. Enjoy. 
+</mo>
+<gw>
+Okay, I'm going to do my two. I'm going to first respond to CO, then I'm going to explain why we also think we take it above OO, and lastly, I'm going to explain why we think that we make a more significant contribution to the debate than OG. 
+Let's begin with CO and importantly, the thing about long-term political budgeting. Crucially, as they explained, if politicians don't want to do these projects because they have nothing to gain, then they're very unlikely to exist to begin with and are likely very, very rare. This means this is, to begin with, a very small impact. 
+Because they have nothing to gain. Even if a budget is large and larger than it would be in a crisis, it is never infinite. Politicians are still prioritizing where they dedicate the budget and what they want to budget more or less, and they will always prioritize what they have to gain from and what will gain them some sort of political traction and make them look good to the public. 
+This means that they are very rarely going to be dedicating significant amounts of the budget to these sorts of long-term projects. At the end of the day, you can't lose what you never had, and you can't cut what you never budgeted to begin with. If any gets cut here, it is very small and the impacts are insignificant. 
+Next, the only issue of the ECB and euro instability. ECB already applies universal policies on the monetary stage, meaning already states can say, oh, the ECB is applying to us a monetary policy that is relevant to a different country within the EU and that is why we are currently suffering and we're unhappy about this. 
+We don't know why suddenly giving them also the fiscal is significant because given especially that the vast majority of the time, these are excuses being used by politicians who are already anti-EU trying to gain public traction. This means they don't need another excuse. One of these is sufficient, especially given that again the public doesn't have an enormous understanding of the difference between monetary and fiscal policies and it's unlikely that if you say wait, they're not just controlling us monetarily. 
+They're also controlling us fiscally. Now they get way more angry than they used to be about the fact that they're telling us how curved our bananas can be. Now let's move on to opening opposition. What do we think we get from opening opposition? First, get this idea that, oh, democratic independence and people need to be able to control their own fate and make their own decisions. 
+We think that this is less important than the debate for a number of reasons. But to begin with, they have a limited ability to control it. A, because they have limited knowledge of these sorts of policies and what they would like to prefer and they are not voting based purely on this and they are not understanding fully what the policies that their future politicians are going to enact. 
+Very often politicians don't even state what their explicitly exactly what their monetary policy looks like. But it's sorry, fiscal policy looks like. Second, even if they had stated their fiscal policy during the election, this is not their crisis fiscal policy. The election happened pre-crisis and voters don't elect politicians based on how they are going to have fiscal policy during a crisis. 
+So, they didn't express any preference for this specific issue. Third, the majority would simply prioritize exiting the crisis themselves because this has a significantly greater effect. And fourth, because self-determination, which is what you're looking for, people being able to decide upon their own fate, is dependent on financial independence, both in your ability to be self-determinant in your day-to-day life and your ability to make decisions and not being dependent on other people supporting you financially in all these things. Which means that you need a stronger economy in order to begin with to be able to do this and in your ability to vote and be an informed voter and dedicate time to looking into politicians and voting for those that you prefer. 
+Therefore, an economic crisis harms people's self-determination significantly more than who is making the decision to get out of the crisis. So long as we are getting out of the crisis faster, that is what is best for their independence. Next, we're told, and they state this again to us in our POI that governments are well incentivized and they're going to make perfectly fine decisions on public finance policies. 
+The as on to respond to this, this is simply irrelevant to our case. We're probably happy with you to give us this rebuttal to OG but we don't care if governments would most of the time make decent policies. What we care about is that A, the differences in policies that they would make from the banks are probably insignificant, but the way the public would view this, the amount of cooperation they would have, and the amount of security in the future of the economy that both individuals and corporations would have significantly changes. 
+So, let's move on and why we think that we contribute significantly more than OG to this debate. But lastly, but first, yes, let's take opening. 
+<poi>
+Central banking, unpopular decisions like decreasing the availability of stimulus checks, the cynicism CG states about government will cross the flight to the bank and will double because they're less proximate to people; your own analysis refutes itself. 
+</poi>
+But precisely because they're less proximate to people, then it's a lot harder to harbor public anger towards them. People very rarely know who they even are or what they stand for or understand that it is a central bank making decisions. The average person on the street has no idea that the central bank even determines the interest rate or what that means or how that is affecting them financially. 
+What they do know is politicians make decisions; it is reported on in all the media. Everybody sees it. Everybody is discussing it. The opposition party has a very large incentive to say that the decision that they have made is very bad and that what they are doing is wrong, and it's a lot more likely that the public notices this, gets angry about it, and is concerned by it. 
+Also, specifically on the issue of corporations trusting in the banks as opposed to government. Corporations simply, if they are the same, I don't know, white privileged, conservative people that are managing the bank, which because largely the same people would be succeeding in both fields, they also are just more likely to be trusting in the bank because they see them as having the same sorts of policies that they would have if they were in their position. 
+We just think that these people that are approximate to the banks trust them and the people who aren't approximate to the banks don't see them and don't notice as much and don't have the same reason to distrust. Okay, so why do we think we take it above OG? OG say themselves at the beginning of their framing that nothing in their case changes if the governments and banks are enacting similar policies. 
+
+
+The best reason to give it in cases where the government does cooperate and set policies based on recommendations by the bank and why we should still have the motion is, I quote, why not? So we show a significant improvement in the stability and recovery simply by changing the actor who is enacting the policy to one who receives a lot more trust by both the public and corporations. 
+
+
+Both of these prevent reactionary behaviors such as people stopping their spending because they believe they won't have money tomorrow or withdrawing from their savings accounts because they think that their interest rate is bound to change and they're worried that they're going to lose all their money. Or corporations withdrawing from the states because they think that it is no longer going to be viable and it is better to cut their losses now than to slowly start wasting money because they're still producing at their factories but nobody's buying anymore. 
+Or people not buying because they're afraid. All of these things are very, very significant. And they cause the market to fall further and the crisis to get worse, not better. Regardless of the policies being enacted. We think this is likely a large number of the cases that happen in the world. Because most of the time the banks and the government do have an incentive to cooperate, and ministers are mostly advised by experts from the bank itself and often listen to this sort of advice and follow it. So we think that we just impact many more instances. But also note that as Rachel stated, regardless of mild fluctuations in the quality of the policy, the effects on the economy of people buying and selling and investment behavior is a lot greater. 
+There's a greater room for variance. People can either send nothing or all of their money at once based on what they think is about to happen. Companies can leave entirely. We think these are greater impacts and happen in all cases. Please propose. Thank you very much for that speech. 
+</gw>
+<ow>
+Okay. Georgia knows about sports. I know about economics. Let's do this. What are the responses why you get and why they don't matter in this debate? 
+First, they tell us about the long-term projects. Oh, look, they don't have these incentives in the status quo to do it in time of crisis. They wouldn't do it anywhere or that would be significant. Like, notice that in order to realize that this is simply not true, you just have to live in reality. In times of crisis, countries all that they still, in the majority of cases, they still build this stuff, they build highways and so on, all of that still stands. But notice that even, if they, they in the status quo, they prioritize the short term and we agree to a larger extent they do. Notice that still they want to get elected even after that, like they want to stay long term in power. So there is still some incentive to build that port, to build that highway and so on. 
+Secondly, you probably need to spend at least somewhat a political capital to actually cancel a project. So when do you cancel a project? When you have a higher priority. Now, the government teams want to in times of crisis to block off the limit to your budget. 
+
+
+So, what are you going to cut first? You're going to cut first, the things that are somewhat of a priority and those are these things that you need in the long term, like Georgia tells you, you need them to actually prosper. You need them to build out the infrastructure, you need that in order to keep your companies alive in the next five years, and so on. 
+So that's the thing that you're going to cut; you're not going to cut them, you're not going to cut any of that. You notice that we don't even have to, have to do that much analysis because OG proves us that politicians are short-termists. We say that when we limit them, they just become more short-termists. 
+
+
+Okay, what else do they tell us? Then the closing team tells us, oh look, the ECB does monetary policy but fiscal policy would not change that much in the way that people view it. Notice, what is monetary policy? Setting interest rates, currency selling, and buying. What a connection. 
+Like and even since the connection is not that strong, at least in the way to the everyday citizen, it's still a major talking point for the people that hate the EU and so on. But what is fiscal policy and why is it so much closer to people? Fiscal policy limits how much you can spend. 
+That means how much money in total goes to your hospitals, how much goes to roads, how much goes to your education, how much your teachers are paid, why it will be a roaring cry. If you want to kill the EU, this is a good motion to do it. Congratulations. 
+Like notice, can you imagine how powerful a tool that could be? If they could say both politicians in power could say, look, we would live good lives but they don't give us enough money to pay our teachers well, to pay our everyday citizens, to give healthcare and so on, and for, and how frustrated the people would feel. The EU already lost quite a significant member and in many states, it is not that popular. There is support for leaving the EU at the status quo; that's hard to do. But if you change this, if you make sure that in the following years, every political psychopathicians are talking about how the EU is preventing their hospitals from being built, how the ECB is doing that. 
+How the Bureau is doing that? You're going to get, we're not going to say everyone's going to leave the EU. Some of them probably will. The countries that were in the status quo, it's unstable. And even if you all stay in the EU, unity is so much more important when you have all these nationalistic anti-EU politicians. 
+You get a consensus on how to behave against Russia, energy supply, all of these things, sanctions, no consensus. Do you get like how do you form relief funds? All of that. When you have all these people, which means you get first much worse policy. Second, you get much more instability. 
+Which even by itself is bad since it means that more investors will be dropping the euro. It means that it will be harder to borrow European country and so on. Which means all of these things make it so much worse. Which means that we get a lot worse lives for all these people for 500 million people that live in the European Union. 
+This is very important since in most countries on this planet, the politicians have vast influence on the central bank where we're talking about Serbia. We're talking about Russia, China, Central Asia, South America. So this debate, 70% of this debate to 80% happens actually in the European Union. 
+So that’s why this is a major stakeholder and that's why it's so important. Especially when the others don’t manage to prove their significant impacts. And what is that, even the politicians, even if it's a reasonable amount or whatever. 
+I'm going to give you right now, reasons why it probably will be a lower estimate. Contrary to three reasons, I'm going to give you more. Like firstly, these people working in central banks, they have a bias towards something. They like it's mainstream economics and the way they have a bias to reduce spending. 
+Secondly, there are targets of lobbying often; like this is not a perfect system even in very rich countries. Which makes it far more likely that companies and individuals are going to lobby for lower taxes, less spending in order to preserve their own wealth. 
+Thirdly, very often after their potential bank jobs, they often go into the private sector to work at companies that have a vested interest in them reducing spending. So that's why you're probably going to get worse off. 
+Okay, let's see what's in the CG brings us, CG brings us more trust into the government. In most of the world, these things are viewed by people and the institutions as most of the same. Even in these countries like notice that for all the reasons we give you, you're probably not going to trust the central bank so much more especially since they are chosen by the government. 
+So we all know this is true. Plus many other things affect how these things change like supply chain changes, their corporations, I think things change and so on. I'm going to give you a why to OG.
+<poi>
+ So during the COVID crisis, the ECB spent a bunch of money on quantitative easing because they knew spending was needed. 
+They're not inherently opposed to it.
+</poi>
+Thank you, Martha. Thank you. Thank you. Great, great, great. You know what? Even though that for many countries, it's very dubious if it, you know. Oftentimes, there are problems with allocation, problems with all these different things and oftentimes in the past, the ECB has not spent that much. 
+Oftentimes, there was pressure for austerity for things that didn't work. This what Georgia tells you, this is going to fuck over, not small countries, like physically small underdeveloped countries that need to build up more in order to build up their infrastructure. 
+Countries like Greece, like Bulgaria, like the Czech Republic, like so on, like Croatia. Those are the countries that are going to have their spending limited more for all the reasons Georgia tells you. Sometimes, even if you prove that sometimes central banks behave reasonably, we see that probably sometimes, like in the past with Greece, they're not going to behave like that. 
+And notice that many of our, like the majority of our case stands even if they're completely rational, completely they give reasonable because politicians are still going to blame them because they're going to say that they are regulating all that. That's how we crash actually Europe. 
+That's how we get less European unity. We don't get enough spending in underdeveloped European countries that need to prosper because they need all these things. So, if you want to ruin the lives of 400 to 500 million people, congratulations, opening government. You found a great way to do it. Is Russia paying you? Be honest, Malta.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Belgrade WUDC 2022 Round 7.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,273 @@
+<PM>
+Everything is a mental illness, nothing is. We think this delegitimizes the way people perceive illnesses and harms the most vulnerable. Two things in my speech, First of all, why is it likely to harm people in a way that affect me? Why does this delegitimize people who do have illnesses? Why does this make poor people not why does this make people clog up the system and why is it likely to destroy everyday relation impacts? Second, societal level impacts. The entire academic field of psychology takes a huge hit in legitimacy and reduces the amount of funding and trust that people have in it in the first place. First, note by reasons. First, we'd go through these issues and know that they have an actual illness, are often in a spectrum. Some people have extremely serious problems, some people have weaker levels of frustration and struggle in their life. And often, when you're just upset quite a bit, it's not really an illness. For example, you don't get depression every time a family member dies. But often can we feel make you upset for many months at a time. At that point, there are things that are emotions that are not actually illnesses in the first place. What happens to people with mental illnesses when people who are safe, frustrated about the cleanliness of their room, say that they have OCD? Three things, for people have less empathy for them and this is the reason why. People think that they have an explanation and understanding of what this mental illness feels like. They think that they know what depression feels like because they themselves have felt some parts of depression because they just said I am depressed. I was sad at a certain time. They don't recognize the difference between that and depression. They think that their boyfriend was kind of an asshole to them as a toxic relationship and they don't think that the other person has anything that's significantly higher than them. Hence, they are less likely to accept the fact that this person is suffered much more you can imagine and hence, have much less empathy in bandwidth to deal with their issues. This means let's discussions, let's care for this person, let's concern about the issues in the first place. But second, they think they understand it already. They think they know how to solve it. This is your parents thinking that because you are feeling sad and you think you have depression, actually it was when they were young and they were also upset and saw a mental illness. It's just you not being hardworking enough and you have a solution. The difference is, at the point you start using these terms in your everyday life. People who are currently liberalizing started because they are feeling similar experiences, they also understand this. The second reason is often that this spreads into everyday vernacular and starts looking normal to people. Which reduces the urgency to attach to these terms in the first place. Often this means that you think that the urgency of someone having depression, the urgency of something being toxic is not as high. Because you’ve seen it, you saw it often. It's diffuse so-called vocabulary. It becomes very difficult to determine who actually is. The same thing happens now and we don't have a signaling mechanism finding the people who are more silly. But third, before that ah closing opposition quickly. 
+<poi>
+So, there is a premise that you don't analyze. Why does people saying this will lead to negative outcomes to people who have actual problems in their head because presumably they can opt out, not care, and they can just continue with their lives. 
+</poi>
+Of course, they can't opt out. I just told you it's an everyday life. The people around them are saying it's your family doesn't take you seriously and or often because they think, oh, this is what OCD is for like four to 5 years. I've seen many people say they are OCD. Now, my son is saying it as well. Well, it's just a normal thing. It's not a real illness and people who already have it feel constantly frustrated because here's the thing I told you, right? Other people don't give a shit about them anymore because they think that they are similar to them. At the point where you think you would experience what they have, it's difficult to have the emotional bandwidth to listen to them and hear them out and the issues that they have. That means you are less likely to have special privileges to be person who genuinely needs it because they cannot focus. Because ADHD means they cannot actually write notes properly and you just think that means you not being able to listen to like your homework, podcast or something because you are watching that. The third reason is this lowers the barrier of entry for expertise and reduces the need for experts. You don't trust psychologists to the point where you think you have an understanding in the first place. The difference is on our side. Often because these are seen as highly medical terms. People don't say ah, I have a fever. The second feeling slightly upset. Oh no, I have hypothermia. When they hear those words, they think I need an expert to understand these words. I need an expert to solve these problems. At the point where this becomes everyday parlance, you think that you have the barrier to entering to solve these issues and understand them. But fourth of all, increases the stigma to even speak out about this, and this is where I go into my analysis of what this affects in terms of people going into the system. There is no answer. Some people are often poor and cannot afford to go to the system and have stigma against it. Some people are often richer. They have the luxury to afford to go to the system. Hardly student groups attracy, like respondents. People who cannot afford this often will respond by justifying the fact that they do not have an illness because of this stigma uniquely because there is no urgency anymore. The alarm bells don't ring. This is important. This is unique for three first because they do not have the money so they need to justify the fact they are taking the right decision which they often know that might not be the best one. So, I can't afford it, I might as well justify in one way or the other. Second, it's because the stigma that they faced in the past where someone who has a mental illness is weaker and not strong. But third is because of their framework and mindset. So, the social narratives they have actually framed the way they view the world. So, new information they get just tends to make them believe that actually I don't really have a mental illness. Why do we break this on our side for poorer people? It's because it looks like a terrify death knell. It looks like something you have to solve right now. It is something that is a genuine threat of your actual life. This is why often poor people who think that say something like a fever or a cold which is normal. Is something that they can avoid and not go to the doctor for. But if someone says you have a risk of hypothermia, it kicks in and they say, okay, this is the point where I go to a doctor, this is the point where I seek medication. We take away that site from opposition when everyone thinks the same normal thing. People are saying and this delegitimizes the urgency before that quickly opening opposition. 
+<poi>
+In the decades before this popularization, people stigmatized mental health as well. 
+</poi>
+no, because if you stigmatize mental health then this can't exist in the first place. This narrative exists on both sides. When a mental health starts becoming an if, like, the thing that people care about. Notably, you can only talk about things like toxic and OCD and depression when you know that they exist and you only know that they exist the point where people are talking about it in a serious way, anyway. Also there is many other incentives to this increase. For example, like just people recognizing that it actually makes their lives worse and just the illness is becoming more popular. The field in general. You can't just take that out of history. Okay, finally, why does this destroy every relationships and harm the actual legitimacy of academia? Okay, on relationships, it harms relationships because it delegitimizes the fear of things like toxic relationships. Firstly, there's the people who are in them start to doubt themselves. They think, am I just another person who is often likely to like, like randomly call someone toxic and cut them off and the person that I am dating is likely to say things like, oh, don't call me toxic, I'm terrified, This, and that means that often you start to think of yourself as the villain when you see someone as evil person because it's such a large acquisition. It's much more easy to say things like I am angry at you or frustrated with you. Which means you are more likely to over correct. But secondly people don't take you seriously when you speak out because it looks like every other person calling each other toxic. At which point it's hard to once again signal the urgency of relationships that are toxic. Which means the people who are in diverse relationships are likely to stay there with no one talking to them. Finally the impacts of this on the academic field are that you do not respect psychologists anymore. Because they do things like make public diagnoses of individuals which you think is just irrelevant and often push things like system that over medicalized problems for everyday issues. 
+</PM>
+
+
+<LO>
+Panel, I have a confession to make. In the state of school, people often call me as someone who does have ADHD and someone who often actually involves in like over compulsive behavior. However, what the alternative is, is how they portrayed me in high school. Then, they called me weird, lost, and aloof, and I think that this is basically something that both governments need to deal with. We will always have an incentive to label specific behaviors which are outside of what we perceive as normal. And I do believe that the burden of gap is to point out why any alternative labeling will be far better. What we are going to claim is this is far better than any alternative. It actively raises the awareness of how many people are suffering from this and it actually helps people like realize that they have some of these behaviors, right? Let's first start with training, right. First of all, how is this used today, right? Because I do believe that opening up is very vague on this, right? Notice that even when we use today, the terms like OCD and ADHD very often, we still acknowledge that there is a scale of how much people are suffering from all these conditions, right? We do not even the status quo. We do not think or I do believe that like a bunch of people actually do not agree with us that everyone who suffers from OCD suffers to the same extent, right? None of us a day at the moment we have huge amount of mental health awareness. I don't think we ever in history had such huge levels of like mental health awareness. Meaning to some people like meaning to some extended people do acknowledge there is a scale between how much I suffer from ADHD probably very mild versus someone who basically struggling with this for their whole life. So there is a scale and opening government is wrong when they say that we perceive everyone who is having ADHD the same. I think this is just like very poor movements and the majority of people today do have a more women's view on this, right? 
+
+
+Second of all, what happens if this is not the popular terms that we use, right? First of all, we use it only most extreme cases, right? You use ADHD only when you see that someone is like truly, truly suffering from this, right? Second of all, you use other types of hyperboles to explain some of the behaviors which are outside of the norm, right? Very often, you know, core people who have ADHD as not focused, as weird, as aloof, people who do gaslighting like we call them as bad or evil, right? Or just as weirdos, right? These types of labelings will exist anywhere it was the harm of them later in my speech. 
+
+
+Third point in faming and then I promise, I'm going to get into arguments, right. How we actually explain what these terms means, right? And I do believe there's two levels on this, right? First of all, when we say that someone has ADHD, we acknowledge that there is a psychological explanation behind the behavior. We also do this when we call someone a gaslighter, right? We don't think this is something which is inherent to them, right? We think that very often their DNA, their chemistry, very other stuff which happened in their life made them this way. We don't perceive these behaviors as something inherent to them, right? And I do believe the alternative is to label them in a way which points out that these traits are inherent to them, right. Meaning, you generally have this less understanding for what they are doing, right? I think on our side of the house, at least for whatever we treat people do, you give up psychological explanation which makes it easy and possible to correct, right? You actually give people other chance when you say that they have ADHD and note that they are just like lazy and lack focused, right? 
+
+
+I think, secondly, right? When this is more common, people see it as more normal, right? If we label a bunch of people as having ADHD, we are now starting to perceive ADHD as something which is quite common in our society, right? That means to some extent that we have less stigmatized those that do have it and be, they're actually likely to support like researching and funding and investing in like solving ADHD far more because now, we actually acknowledge that this is an issue which everyone faces with on the side of the gov, right? When we believe, this is just like a small group of people and the treatment would be reserved only for the most extreme cases, right? We'll lower the incentive of the general public to get informed on this, right. To support funding of this, to get a like research this last right, and I do believe this is the rolling gaps have to stand in. 
+
+
+With all this being said, what are the harms of this policy? First harm, as I already said, this actually stigmatizes, that, astigmatizes people who do have ADHD and who basically who suffer anyway, right? So notice that, bunch of times, people who have, so if you are, if you're alternative is, you will only portray people who are very extreme cases of ADHD, right. Well, this will actually lead to is, first of all, I do believe that you're just like going to be less likely to employ and to give chances to people that do have these conditions, but B, right? There's going to be less need for research funding as I already said, right. Notice that on our side of the house, right. When you basically acknowledge it, like there is a group of people who are somewhere in the middle, right? Listen, bunch of people that have like ADHD or like OCD are not the most extreme ones. Bunch of them are actually in the middle, when you basically acknowledge this and you say that this is quite common, you lower the risk that very often employers feel when they basically need to do taxes to these people, right? Like very often increase the level of understanding that people have because now they don't see this as something which is an outlier. This is now a common thing, something with bunch of us have. 
+
+
+Second harm of this fight, you will use far worse derogatory language to describe behaviors which are outside of norm. As I already said, we already need to label types of behaviors because we are humans and sometimes we're just bad, right. We just need to give explanation to stuff we do not understand. The alternative is, you call people that have ADHD not focus. You call people for very often have OCD as scripts, right? This is bad because first of all, it lowers the amount of empathy for them in general, right. Because now you describe that these traits are inherent to them, right. But second of all, people that do have ADHD or like people who gaslight, right. Have harder time accepting that they are doing this, right, because to some extent, you're now not giving a medical explanation of what happened to them. You're giving an explanation which says, you are inherently this way. Something is broken with you, right? The alternative, the alternative is you tell them, right? This is a medical behavior which can be corrected. There is basically a way for you to fix this, right? This is not something which is inherent to you. I would now take CG. 
+<poi>
+This is deeply internally inconsistent. If it is the case, as you can see, there is a broad trend towards destigmatization in the status quo on either side due to increased awareness. Why on earth is the likely narrative? 
+</poi>
+No, no, no. Exactly, These stigmatization happened because we started using these terms more popular, right? Exactly because now you're using these transfer more. This is one of the reasons which are driving the stigma down, right? I don't think it is, I don't think that these stigmatization happen prior to it. 
+
+
+What are then the benefits of this? First of all, you have more knowledge about mental health in general, right? Exactly because people are using these terms more. You have many more articles which are basically explaining the drones, right? People engage in discussions about what the does gaslighting even mean like very often, this is disappointing by popular TV shows in popular music fight. It is good because first of all, people have more nuanced understanding of how these conditions actively work, right. The alternative is you only show that the most extreme examples which are very often unnuanced, right? People have less understanding of this and there is less of a need in popular public and in popular media to talk about it, right? 
+
+
+Second of all, I do believe now you're more likely to recognize some of these conditions in yourself, right? Because as I said, bunch of the people are actually in the middle of these conditions, right? unless it portray only the most extreme versions. They're not likely to see that and to acknowledge the issue that they have, right? Because they don't perceive it as something which is similar to it, right? I do believe that at the end of the day. Raised the amount of knowledge that we have on these conditions, right? 
+
+
+Second of all, the alternative is far worse and third of all, we actually increase the understanding and funding for both these conditions. Please, don't be foresight, weshould call me aloof. At least let them call me someone who has ADHD, very proud of us.
+</LO>
+
+
+<MG>
+Let me respond to OOO first. Number one and I think this deals of closing opposition as well. Why you cannot opt out of this? The first thing I want to point out is, if individuals who are mentally ill are able to opt out of this narrative on either side, it significantly undercuts all of the benefit opening opposition I want to go for, because it means simultaneously, you're unable to get a lot of these social narrative benefit. And this is important, because often times when it comes to mental illnesses, it is not just about the internal calculus you have, but the external support that happens, which does not happen on their side of the house. If people do not perceive it as urgent, which is the counter factual Sharia gives you. If people perceive your condition to be serious and urgent, you're more likely going to get support, which is a counter factor they're never able to get on their side of the house. But second, sure you'll give you a lot of structural reasons as to why you probably cannot opt out, because it is literally everywhere. It becomes ingrained in the social cultural vernacular because of the rise of digitization, and the likely manifestation of how this narrative works, which also beats a lot of opening opposition, because Marta and Yoti literally just asserts that people are smart and can see nuance. 
+
+
+A lot of reasons why that's unlikely. Number one, the manifestation of this is likely through things like memes for example. Or through things like little snippets on social media because of the way in which individuals communicate nowadays. You are literally unable to communicate nuance with a 150 character tweet. Or through a six second video on TikTok. But number two, like people are actually pretty much like assholes, who are really busy and care about their own life. So insofar as that was the case. It was Unquest to why people have an incentive to read up on that nuance but often times on both sides of the house that's opening opposition correctly identifies. There's very little educational capital that goes into teaching individuals about whether or not mental illnesses exist and the extent of that nuance. But three, even if you do know about it, you have an incentive to fit into the social include. So the overwhelming narrative says, everyone should use toxic as a joke, as it is done in debate for example, when whips do things that gaslight their opening teams, then people internalize to think that's how they ought to behave. And that social norm ends up overriding any of the nuances that opening opposition wants to go for. 
+
+
+Second response to opening opposition. Why is it there still an incentive for individuals to beat up on medical illnesses and This is important because in so far this was the case. A lot of the benefit on individuals being called weird is probably out. The first thing I want to point out is I think there's symmetric incentives. But if anything the incentives actually exist better on our side of the house for individuals to go to the doctor. One, you do not want to see your family members suffering. Two, often times big pharma and medical professional has been incentive to advertise the seriousness of that issue. The Delta and this response to OPOI to Sharia is that it is less likely that you get down on their side of the house one. Because you trivialize mental illnesses. So it's seen as important. But two, there's a clogging of the industry because rich individuals who now preemptively think they have ADHD because their friends use it as a joke are more likely going to go. Which means it's 400 for individuals on the ground to access it. So, on both sides of the house, people in the most urgent instances have an incentive to go. You make it far more inaccessible on their side of the house. 
+
+
+The leader of opposition respond to this is like, oh, no but is this good? Because if you're not called as someone with ADHD, then, you're going to be called weird or quirky. Here are three responses to this. Number one, I'm genuinely unsure why being called weird or quirky is a bad thing. Like, as a kid I was called that a lot and it was quite moralizing because I was able to think I was different. I was able to think that I was unique. But second response and this is important. It is easier for these disenfranchised youths to reclaim and empower themselves of that word. Because the issue on their side is everyone is called ADHD. So you're seen as that weird kid. You're unable to be different. You're unable to shine and be who you want to be. On our side you're able to find other people who are called together. You do not have that capacity on their side. Because rich elitists, who are really really mean are necessarily going to call you out. But three, the issue here and I think this is quite important, is, if on their side of the house the default is you insult people using ADHD. It kind of overlaps in a way that makes it far harder to solve systemic issues, because if you call lazy people as someone with ADHD for example, then you know default to thinking, if you're lazy, you have ADHD, all lazy people have ADHD. So it's far harder to get to the core of the issue. 
+
+
+On our side, it is more easier because you only tell individuals who you think as having those issues the be the ones that is likely going to be the case. Final response here and this is quite important. I just don't know why if a kid is called weird, they're not going to go, like, look at their symptoms and then figure out they have that mental illness. If anything it is better on our side of the house because these are the only individuals that are going to be doing it and therefore, you do not clog up the mental system. Is there a perception that you're never able to change. 
+
+
+Let me raise Shario's material now. No, thank you, Ruben. Number one, charter proves why you delegitimize medical institutions and you trivialize the, beats all of offense, even if steal has a banger extension in this debate. Number one, what this means is, even if they can prove that there's more medical funding or more social impetus, the issue is people are preemptive to be told not to go in the first place because it is seen as unimportant. For a very simple reason Shario proves. Which is that, parents are going to dismiss it. Because often times it is seen as super, super expensive, it is seen as trivial. And it becomes a joke to the extent in which the framing I give you at the top, it's true. This is logically prior to all of authentic funds. Because even if authentic proved that the medical industry is better. if people just choose not to go. You are not a magician. You cannot make the go. So people are less able to get help. On our side, they stay as urgent. And therefore you are able to go and get help. But two, this is also or outside of the house. For the reason that the framing of urgency means, you have more targeted help towards individuals that need it. The comparative was that you're likely going to pog a medical institutions in a way that was bad. 
+
+
+Third piece of wing, and this is important. On our side of the, on their side of the house you create a perception of redundancy in the academia of the institution. Because you think if it's the case that everyone knows about ADHD in the best case of opening opposition. Why then do we need to invest in medical institutions or individuals who do that research? Sharia mechanizes this quite well. But there's three additional reasons. One, You no longer respect medical institutions if you think the average individual can do it because there's a lower back, barrier of entry. Two, often times, it's significantly less cost. So, you're more likely going to default into your friends for example as compared to experts, which is bad, because experts often times are accountable. Experts have technocracy. Experts are people you're able to literally point to. Your friends are fairly flaky and sometimes they might give you really shitty advice. But three, it is also far harder than for you to access the medical professionals because of structural barriers that often times exist, you're now disincentivized to do so. 
+
+
+Before I weigh why this is important. closing up. 
+<poi>
+The one thing that I don't understand about the second argument is that if these people are so important, if therapists are so nice, why isn't their symmetric incentives to go and fund these people? 
+</poi>
+No, because it is seen as trivial and the issue is it's super expensive on your side, it's not as expensive. I'm going to explain that later. The reason why this piece of wing is important as well is, because if we're able to prove that there's a perception of redundancy, what ends up happening is A, you're less likely going to get more therapists going into the field. So, it further clogs up the system that Sharia talks about. But two, you also get less new treatment is important. Because often times discourse at the top trickles down into better treatment to help individuals. There's a cap at how much effectiveness the current treatment can have. So more treatment, more diverse treatment in the future is exponentially more important. 
+
+
+But finally, this is important because even if you don't buy any of this, Sharia  proves the interpersonal relationship argument, which is at best certain in this debate. The outcomes on the medical industry and the social norms is fairly speculative. So you weigh the certainty above all else. Finally then, what does Sharia tell you about the way in which funding works? One, Sharia approves a rich individuals clog up the system which is back for two reasons. A, you deprioritize the vulnerable people always says it's important. But two, over time this also drives up the prices of going to therapy. Which responds to the CO POI because it makes it more inaccessible for individuals. But C, it makes us less social capital to fund it. Because if the perception is, if you don't need the state, because your boyfriend can just diagnose you, then there's less ability to call less funding to help individuals, or to galvanize individuals to make policies to help individuals with mental illnesses. So the most vulnerable individuals on their side, systemically lose out. That's why OG has to win this debate. Propose. 
+</MG>
+
+
+<MO>
+Panel, it's very rare that studying medicine and working in a psychiatric clinic has advantages. But in this particular debate, it happens to, yes, they have those advantages. I'm going to explain in my speech why it is necessary to understand what other people are going through in order to have, to free up the resources to help them and make help for them accessible because you need to empathize with their standpoint in order to be willing to help them out. 
+
+
+Before I get into this line of argumentation, a lot of rebuttal to opening governments. The first thing we hear is when everyone has ADHD, then no one has it. Panel, that's like saying, if everyone has COVID, then no one has it, because a lot of people have mild symptoms and then no one takes the serious symptoms, seriously. It's just unclear to me why people lack the mental capacity to understand that mental health conditions exist on a spectrum, exist on a scale, and that some people are hit harder, and some people are more hit more softly. It's significant harder for people to empathize with something that is fundamentally outside of their ability to understand and comprehend. Most people, yes, have suffered a little bit of depression. But if they don't understand that what they went through was in fact, depression, then they might only understand someone actually being given sick leave for being depressed as other just a little sad, I don't understand as opposed to having the necessary understanding of, you know, dealing with it. 
+
+
+We hear a few things, however, for opening government. We hear this idea that, because you don't have an incentive to invest in the system, if it's just trivial, untrue. If more people access the system, you actually and have the, and, think that this is something that is necessary to be treated. You have a greater incentive for states to actually fund the system in the first place. It is unclear to me why when something becomes a bigger issue in society, we spend less money on it. This is just an assertion from opening government. Then they tell us, ah, but now it's a stigma when you have a severe case. Look, at best for opening government, the stigma is symmetrical, because if no one understands it, then you're just as smart as explained to you, you know, considered crazy or weird or you know, at worst, you might even be just considered psychopathic. These are the worst instances of where of why people are actually in status quo, afraid of going to psychiatrists and psychologists. They have historically helped because it is so heavily stigmatized in society and has been. 
+
+
+Now that the discourse is increasing inside and people actually have an incentive to educate themselves because it is becoming part of the colloquial use of language. So, you have a greater incentive for media to educate people on what gaslighting means, on what toxicity means, you actually have a higher likelihood of people being educated on these issues and being able to empathize with. Then we hear this idea that ah the entire field of psychology is somehow delegitimized because reasons. First of all, in status quo, people have also delegitimized that as I already pointed out. Secondly, no, it probably doesn't. There's actually significantly more likely that it is actually legitimized on our set of house because people can empathize with mental health issues on a level that they otherwise cannot, and Marta has already explained why that's how people interact with it. 
+
+
+Finally, we hear this idea. Finally, let's take them at an even higher level. Let's assume, the field of psychology does take a little bit of harm. We still think that's worth it. If on our side, there's generally speaking, more empathy for people with mental health issues on our side of the house. And this is where I get into my into the constructive of my case. Because it's really important for you to understand why you, why empathizing with another person's standpoint is necessary as a precondition for you helping them. Let's start with the, let's start first with the important bit, Ted is correct that people are generally speaking busy of thinking of own lives. I fully agree with that. We generally have a tendency to consider things from our perspective, From our standpoint. Mental health, by its very nature, is generally speaking, invisible to people in the overwhelming number of cases because it is something that we suffer from quietly, right? The fact that I have severe ADHD, the fact that I am considered severely disabled by the state of Georgia. Obvious, someone looks at me. That is the invisible nature of mental health issues. That means that eh eh eh that means that mental health issues, while simultaneously mental health issues can represent a significant detriment to interacting in society. This can be like requiring additional assistance are sickly because you're going through a depressive eh eh eh depressive phase, right. In, in the, in previous decades, we often had to go to colleagues in the medical field and ask them to give sick notes for other conditions because people were so afraid of being labelled as being, you know, crazy, that they would actively seek help outside of it because they were afraid they would not be there would be a lack of understanding. 
+
+
+Why, where does this, the question then is where are people actually more likely to offer us the kind of help that we need on our side of the debate? It is just ultimately, it comes ultimately from people having empathy. How do you gain empathy? OG claims you will have empathy because everyone has these conditions. Therefore, it is considered as just normal but this is structurally untrue. Because the underlying mechanism to be able to actually emphasize with other people, empathize with other people, is that you need to understand what is going on with them. Check your intuition panel. If you walk on look on the staircase, probably in most cases, most people will just see access to a building, entrance to a building. however, someone who cut rocks up in a wheelchair is probably going to see inherently a lack of access to the building because their personal perception of what he built, of what that looks like is something that inherently excludes excludes them. Most people are able to consider what it feels like to not be able to walk. A, because many of us have either hurt our legs, broken our bones, sometimes we're in states where we were unable to walk, and therefore, can easily empathize with this highly visible lack of access, but the kind of access that is being eh, the, deprived in mental health issues which is not visible is not as easily accessible and therefore needs to be highlighted and is more easily highlighted by making the by making this by having popularized the colloquial use in the in our general language before continue closing. 
+<poi>
+This is not a regrets debate. Do you truly believe that all of the things like rising rates of autism, doctors trying to make mental health care more accessible and increasing medical knowledge and understanding conditions aren't far more significant contributing factors.
+</poi>
+to this, generally speaking, only in an academic field and a structurally inaccessible to the average person and presumably yes. For example, when feminists talk about, you know, when feminists or racial scholars talk about things like white supremacy but these haven't yet made it into the general colloquial language of people, then often times you, what you actually do is create significant amounts of backlash against these types of education and what in terms of wanting to spend additional funding. In fact, when people who generally don't have the time or the education or the money or the access to actually or the incentive to learn about these terms. 
+
+
+It is significantly less likely that this popular rises. It is unclear to me why the, why even if doctors and medical health professionals have the incentive to popularize it, why the media would listen to this, why the average person would listen to this, etcetera. However, when every person who interacts with your friends, your parents, your teachers, everyone uses this language. It is something that you fundamentally are significantly more likely to understand. Meaning that on the comparative in terms of where understanding is greater, that is squarely on our side. Because understanding is the necessary prerequisite in order for people to actually access and to understand people and need to be and need to have help and how to be given help and what help looks like and why you are entitled and deserve that help. This debate called squarely on side opposition. Incredibly proud to oppose. 
+</MO>
+
+
+<GW>
+The problem with both top half teams is, they do not understand the nuance of the human experience when you are struggling. Crucially, people have a vast array of different conditions whether they are mental health conditions or not, just suffering from gaslighting. People have responded to suffering differently and different people need to hear different advice from different people at different times. What therapy speak uniquely does is homogenizes and collectivizes lots of different struggles under specific umbrella terms that fail to reflect the nuances of people suffering and trades off directly against seeking medical help the most vulnerable people, I.E.  the people who are sick. 
+
+
+First point of framing. I do not think in the absence of popularization, other narratives with stigma would take over. and I want to do with OO here because this is not a regrets debate and I do not think destigmatization happened as a result of the popularization of Therapy Speak. Why? Firstly, prior to this popularization, which is fairly recent phenomenon, we had increasing medical knowledge and understanding of mental conditions, we understand contributing factors, I.E. , brain chemistry, gene pools, biological heredity for specific conditions, and things like this. Secondly, increasing diagnos of things like depression and autism sparked a lot of awareness in the in the public conscious. Yosi says, ah, when it's just in the academic sphere, nobody hears about it. But when autism rates rise, people have relatives who are diagnosed with these kind of things. Friends, parents, and people see other people have diagnoses. When depression is on the rise massively and you see visible signs of that among the body politic, more people are likely to be aware of that existence of those things, not passively neglecting it entirely. 
+
+
+But thirdly, crucially, there are tons of other narratives that exist in status quo that say that people are legitimate for being different and have a right to cook with things differently. This is very popular when we look at things like the commercialization of self-care and popular media. That says you are legitimate for coping with things in different mechanisms and you are legitimate for having differences even if you don't want to put a label on it or acceptance of different queer identities that say you are legitimate for being different, even if you don't fall under a specific umbrella term. I think this is often cross applied to things like this. 
+
+
+But finally, doctors and so on are going to have incentives to reach out and make these things accessible to people through things like WebMD, through things like, easily accessible online things like Google, that can discuss these kind of things and people who actually have these conditions still going to speak out on either side of the house. So, I really don't think they get a large delta in terms of popularization. What happened to the absence of this popularization? I think narratives of destigmatization without labels will become significantly stronger. Why? Firstly, I think that in so far as I've already proven that a lot of acceptance has risen for situations that each individual is unique and their own experience is something that is unique. More people are willing to accept that in so far as the popularization things like your own truth in the media through things like the Me Too movement have become quite prominent but secondly, in so far as most people believe that you should not be prescriptive, I, my life is my life alone. You reactive situation in a way that suits others rather than yourself. I think it's probably the case that narratives of destigmatization would emerge on either side of the house. 
+
+
+But finally, even if they're winning on awareness very marginally and I give you significant reasons to cast out on that. I'm going to explain why the greater awareness is bad. Because more information is not an inherent good, if it comes at the expense of misinformation. First extension, How does popularization look and why can't it be nuanced? I want to characterize first of this population actually looks because OG asserts it seeps into every vernacular. You see memes and therefore you take things less seriously. I think it far, far more structurally flawed. Why? Firstly, it looks at people on social media. You have authority and claiming to be an authority on the matter. This looks like your favorite influencer, your smart cousin, people you already attribute a degree of trust to like celebrities or influencers speaking out about this kind of things. This is why in many cases, you likely trust them and ascribe a unique authority to them even if they're wrong, but secondly, the popularization is a degree to which medical services and mental health services are able to be accessed because note that the broad destigmatization for mental health that we've proven  is happening symmetrically at least to an extent, creates incentives for doctors to reach more patients to easily accessible online forms. Through utilizing social media and through spreading awareness of conditions by like dedicating specific days like, Autism Day for example, and things like this, and states have incentives to make these things successful in so far as a more healthy mental population is better and broadly increasing scientific knowledge happens on either side of the house. 
+What popularization does is it deludes the platform so there's experts significantly. But thirdly, popularization creates a race to the bottom because the more popular these terms become, the more content creators, influencers, and celebrities have incentives to attribute symptoms of depression, I.E. overeating can be a symptom of many things, it might not be depression. But the most popular conditions, I.E. the ones that rise to the top in discourse you attribute a lot of different symptoms to the same cause. But fourthly there's a trend towards homogenization, I.E. grouping different cases that sound like gaslighting depression to one specific catch all term. Even though there are many, many other mental illnesses like borderline personality disorder. Like various forms of mental incivility that are very similar to depression but very different in terms of the actual solutions to that kind of things. When you homogenize those things makes it harder for people to find the right solution. 
+
+
+But finally when these terms enter popular lexicon, they become single catch all solutions that have become common knowledge, I.E. people more likely be prescriptive about them to a significant degree icing. The right response to gaslighting is leaving your partner, the right response to depression is doing X rather than why. When in reality, people have many different nuances and you need to talk to a medical professional about these kind of things. What does this do to the debate? Firstly, this characterization already places over OG because OG is dependent on characterizing to unlock any of their impacts. They barely do this. They say popularization happens in harmful way because it's memes, it's not nuanced. This is far better. But secondly, it also beats OO because O is these truths be explained in a very very nuanced way. I gave structural reasons why information doesn't translate in people's minds into a way that is reasonable rather it homogenizes conditions, makes people think they have false solutions to their problems, and dilutes the quality of actual medical experts getting to you. This is sufficient to win this debate, but now I'm going to explain why it robs people of coping mechanisms. 
+
+
+Firstly, it increases the odd that everyone in your social circle believes your situation makes the criteria for a specific high profile personality disorder or a specific term like gaslighting which is high point level, at the expense of others. This reduces the diversity in coping mechanism can turn to, because different friend groups and different people know you differently but now the majority of people are likely to leave a one very high profile mental illness rather than a diversity or a spectrum of different ones. They're formerly going to counsel with homogenized solutions because the one that seeped in the popular culture, which is far less diversity and solutions you attribute to. But secondly, what everyone's telling you the same thing. You have far more reduced coping mechanisms. What everyone labels you with one thing. even if you don't have that condition, it's really, really hard to think that you're ever going to hear actual solutions for people because you know they're going to tell you, I'm just depressed. Ah, everybody's told me that, I don't know, I'm depressed. You preemptively opt out of asking prompts, so you never get the empathy that Yosi wants you to get before I go on opening up. 
+<poi>
+If you're correct that people have much greater understanding of mental health regardless, presumably that would be have significantly more nuanced understanding also on social media. Either people have more understanding or they do not. 
+</poi>
+No, because the popularization necessarily crowds out the expertise that otherwise would reach them and even if it's marginally less accessible, we get better quality information to more people so we outweigh you and flip you. You're out of this debate. Why do we make it less likely that doctors and nurses and experts reach you? It's because of awareness. They now never connect with the people who need it the most. You feel preemptively self-selecting to the most popular diagnosis believe they have that coping mechanism and then move on with that. But finally, the popularization gives credence to people with the most social clout. So, you look at the white girl who says, I deal with my depression by making a soy latte on Instagram, think that that's the solution rather than embracing the actual solution that would allow you to embrace nuances in your thing. This means the solutions you raise are far worse and don't align with your personal background to a significantly greater degree that compares Business argument outweigh OG. 
+
+
+Firstly, it outweighs OG by explaining why it is the case regardless of the conditions you're willing to get access to nuanced and successful advice on our side of the house but secondly, it explains why, in the absence of these kind of things, you preemptively self-select out of asking for help. So, it's unical you ever get access. Finally, funding. It's honestly symmetrical but the reason you get more of it on our side is because what happens, you create an informal third sector for the service. I wax get paid for this kind of thing more. Doctors are getting less money which means they're more underfunded significantly. This is the only actual delta in funding in this debate, even though I spent only 10 seconds on it, it's still more important than anything Top Half said. I'm incredibly proud to win from closing golf. 
+</GW>
+<MO>
+So, this is going to be a very simple seal. Firstly, unlike all that the circus, we're actually going to give you structural reasons as to why this narrative is good and counterbalanced. Thus, we will deal with majority of the prop harms because this is how you say it has accountability mechanisms on it and secondly, we'll provide you a vertical extension about the premise that leader of opposition asserts and he also tries to analyze the yellow in the last minute about why this wide information leads to good action within the greater society etcetera. 
+
+
+Let's get into the first premise but before that, let's get into how the debate works so far. Marta's in her speech, Leader of Op says, we live in a society where it is balanced and people understand that there is a spectrum etcetera. no structural analysis on why this is the case. There is no likelihood analysis and you cannot credit this if this is the case, but secondly, Matt in CG, responses by saying, this is not the case, this is in fact a toxic narrative, etcetera. We're going to provide you three reasons as to why this is not the case and in fact, this narrative has counterbalanced mechanisms in this short case. 
+
+
+The first is that you have counter narrative that exists based on the misuse of this organ. This counter narrative is likely to come based on the actual people who actually has this sort of diseases and sickness within them and these sorts of keys. Based on what OG said, this is so bad to them. This is so horrible. These people will most likely speak out. These people will most likely go to talk shows. These people will most likely be very loud, etcetera. Not these people both have incentive in terms of them communicating each other but also have ability. They can talk together in support groups and social media etcetera. So firstly, they're likely to be listened to because they're likely to be vocal minority. So, the post is likely to be on them because they are our the receiving end of this sort but secondly, they're likely to be viewed as the ones who actually do dictate the morbid disorder case based on the analysis that these people, how do you say, based on the analysis that society actually rules in these sorts of people because they are how you see the real traumatic traumatized people in this sort of case. 
+
+
+So, this is the first reason. The second reason is that, how do you say, the conversation most likely exist around doctors in this short case. What do people do when they don't know the answer to something? They go to the expert, right? This is very intuitive thing. They, so when this, how you say, is talked about, when these terms are talked about, mostly in their debates, etcetera, most likely people will go to experts and experts will explain, this is how this looks like, this is in reality, what are these sorts of things? Not, the norms existing and terminology existing and the debate happening, is the precondition of these type of people gaining political capital, being invited in talk shows, and actually talking about this sort of people. Note that, we have biased towards experts these were kids, you know, school teachers, doctors, etcetera. So wider society will most likely listen to these sorts. 
+
+
+So this is why it equals out. But thirdly, people have internalized stigma towards co opting these type of things if they don't believe that this is the case. So here is how it goes. You most likely have lived in a society where you before you obviously know their mental sicknesses, right? So we got a very visceral image of what this is like to be the case, right? So you personally feel bad and this feeling, even though the normalization happens, most people have these two narratives in there, they are not stupid. You're most likely feel bad if this is not the case. So this means this narrative will actually activate it. People will actually use this. When they legitimately believe that this is the case. When they legitimately do this sort of thing etcetera. It is happening. 
+
+
+So this is why the narrative is balanced and this deals with majority of cons in this sort of case. Before I get into our positive case, Matt says, but there will be normalization happening anyway. All of these reasons are western reasons. This happening in the west where 300 million people exist. All these reasons do not work in the developing world. All these reasons do not work in Eastern Europe. So we would pause it, that it's better for this narrative to actually continue to exist in these systems so you're able to get this sort of normalization does not happen in the west of the world. 
+
+
+Let's get into our extension. So what is the problem with all? Uh Marta says you're observed that something is common. Those people who get how do you say educated about it? It will be normalized. Again, no analysis. The analysis or the attempt of analysis comes in the objective of opposition. I'm going to be extremely technical here, deputy leader of opposition says people have preconceived biases as to why they do not care about this issue and then says, this will somehow trigger empathy. They do not prove why this triggers empathy, right? Here is the analogy. Poor people exist in society. Our and, people know about the harms of poor people. Are people necessarily are empathetic towards people? No,you have other people who are not empathetic. So the question is, why specifically this being an illness will trigger the empathy and disorders? This is the damn proof, I'll prove to you. 
+
+
+There are three reasons why this will change right. Firstly, people consider sicknesses as arbitrary, as random. In many of these cases, this is how you see random sentence displaced on you. So, it's not something that you necessarily chose in these particular circumstances. So, this is why people have an empathetic reaction towards you because it will be the case. This is not true for, let's say poverty where there are counter analysis say, you choose to be poor, people are lazy, etcetera. Secondly, it's very visceral. Like people, how would you say, have negative aspect of you being sick and these sorts of cases and this being problematic etcetera. But thirdly, you can associate with past experiences and past things that you have and the past. Yourself will most likely sick but other people around you are sick. Like your family members etcetera. So this is why information will trigger empathy. They do not prove this sort of thing. 
+
+
+But second thing they know proof is why information will lead to you. How do you say? Taking good actions in this sort of key. So here is where I'll expand this and this sorting. What do good actions look like? They look like two things. One, reading more on the topic, getting more educated and two, basing your comments and your actions on this sort of thing. So you if you're talking to a person with mental health issues to change your the way you're talking, to change the behavior. 
+Before I continue with three more mechanisms OG go. 
+<poi>
+The millions of people who already have illnesses but don't have the money to afford solution to this. Need the people around them to take them seriously. But at the point where they trivialise these mental illnesses that urgency goes away. 
+</poi>
+I gave you three reasons as to why they don't trivialize them. There is a counter narrative. It is counterbalance. You give no reasons. That's why we beat you. 
+I'll get back to more, mechanisms. Firstly, notice that people own balance are conformed and there are structural reasons for why this is the case. First thing you want to choose the path of least resistance because this is easier, it's less, least cost to you, etcetera. But secondly, this is an evolution mechanism, right? People are conformers because that's an easy way for you to create society's tribes in these type of things. What does this mean? This, the only reason people are anti-mental health is because the narrative so far was mental health is not a real disease. But when the narrative changes to this is actually a problem, there are accessible terms in this sort of thing. Most who actually change their minds because people will be conformants. They're most likely become to what is the new trendy thing, what is the new acceptable thing. So when this is a how you say a slick new thing that Zoomers talk about all the time, then people will just go, yeah, sure, that's the case. No, this is super important social normalization, but secondly, there is usually a short value when you see this sort of thing, right? You mostly go, ah, what the, what do you mean by education? What is this sort of thing? So, when they show value comes when someone literally groundbreaks their conception, this is the moment when you want to learn more, right? This is the moment when you go on Wikipedia, you read more, you watch the interviews, so you try to get involved in this in this sort of case. 
+
+
+But thirdly, there is likely to be a cancel culture created when people are not informed of these sort of cases. So most likely when celebrities speak out about this sorting and they speak out wrongly, people will cancel them, but also in conversations, people will be ridiculed, if they don't necessarily know the right terminology, if they don't know this in a particular way, if they're doing this badly, so this, this proves you the link between information existing, and actually people taking good actions, which leads to the overall benefits when we promote them. 
+</MO>
+<GW>
+Yosi asks a POI that is fair, which is, 
+<poi>
+if it's the case that destigmatization is happening symmetrically, why turns that? 
+</poi>
+It seldom intuitive, but this is important. One, Maddox, what is unique about the environments, where these terms are used, I.E. the authority, the problems with TikTok. They happen in 15 seconds and necessarily simplify things. How social media influencers have over roaming power over this narrative relative to people with other countervailing sets of authority that ought to be listened to more that are crowded out. Secondarily, Max means what is unique about these terms specifically that differentiates it from just popularization I either homogenize it. They create a race to the bottom in terms of sensationalizing mental health businesses. All of this means that the narrative is one that is devoid of nuance and really really bad. 
+
+
+Matt explains and flips the OO and CO and he said that this narrative short circuits the path to even get to access to therapy. Let's deal with with CO now. Firstly on the responses to us. They say there's a counter narrative by people who are sick. What or what mental illness? One note, they have substantially less authority because you can't tell who is in fact the person that is or is not having a mental illness. But secondarily people who don't have it have an inflated sense of authority to crowd out those, because they believe their self diagnoses is legitimate, and because it's invisible you cannot tell who is correct and who is not. 
+
+
+Secondarily they say ah but you can still go to experts ah on, you go to experts on our side which show is the response like the crowding out mechanism. There's no engagement fights experts but secondarily, the info side literally says that people partaking in speculative psychiatric diagnoses of others including public figures. They cannot contradict the way this motion works. On their case then, firstly, the developing world. Third mechanism. People are conforming. So they will listen to the public figure with social authority but not the medical authority because there's low barriers of entry. Directly what said in the last of finally on cancel culture. Though I've already responded to this in their response to us on why the counter narrative by people who are sick. It's unlikely the counter narrative in cancel culture can even materialize because don't know who has the culture this mechanism doesn't work. It's quite ineffective. 
+
+
+And so in, in far is you don't know who to believe. You don't know like there's also a counter culture to the counter culture of cancel culture and people saying cancel culture is stupid. But cancellation also just means that celebs will default to commonly held tourisms at the expense of offering real advice. They will instead just offer the least helpful, least in depth stuff, so their best case is the cancellation thing mitigates their own benefit. They assume that the common prospective solution to gaslighting is something that suits you and otherwise not, I.E. they give you a medication for an issue that you might not have. It is better even if you do not get a prescriptive solution that it is not one that is for a different illness that might make it actually worse. 
+
+
+On our level, their case is normalization means there's less a reason to stigma and create more fun and a lot of good benefits. They need to explain why Therapy Speak is the mechanism for raising awareness for mental health issues and empathy. Here is why this isn't the reason for the stigma going down and it's likely without Therapy Speak, there would still largely be awareness of mental health. One, literally studies outside of Therapy Speak. The fact that almost every teen has depression, rising rates of suicide, I.E. people are aware that people are suffereven without use of this particular terminology and the media picks it up because it's a large social phenomenon that is proven by data outside of the speech. 
+
+
+Secondarily, a desire for entertainment and media to increase the representation of marginalized groups as a whole and stories. Thirdly, the fact that the disability movement since the 60s before this phenomenon is largely pushing for these kinds of things. Fourthly, the fact that doctors accessibility via social media and large platforms to raise awareness, I.E. them getting TikTok and etcetera telling you to get tested or diagnosed but we shouldn't crowd those avenues out. Or fifthly, the advancements in the academic field that trickle down to everyone, I.E. schools getting better guidance counselors. They have better training from the academic studies. They mean you get better testing to see what what issues people have with sixty. 
+
+
+Finally, the accessibility of social media many of the people who are diagnosed to share their story and build empathy and say they are just like everyone else. They just need different kinds of help. But now they have more authority because you don't crowd out the people who misinform. The upshot, their whole case and impacts rely on this phenomenon, being directly responsible or a tipping point. But never explain why Therapy Speak which is what the motion is about would outweigh anything else that I just listed for you. 
+
+
+Now when you normalize I think the people who actually have it or seen as the new extreme. I.E. they aren't like the normal ADHD that everyone has, it's super, super weird now. It's actually seen as even more inherent to you because they are behaving contradictory to what people expect. Secondarily, they say, ah, there's far worse than derogatory terms for people who do have ADHD. Why don't they, why don't people just literally say, I have ADHD, if somebody calls them weird. They never explain why people who actually have it, don't have that capacity to utilize an understanding of mental health that has been rising. Aight, if you have a mental illness, maybe you don't want people to know who prefer they call you aloof instead of sick in the head. 
+Oh, POI, quick. 
+<poi>
+I'm more likely to reach out for expert advice on ADHD when I hear the term being used commonly and with understanding on your side of the house, I hear it being used only very rarely and for most extreme examples and I'm less likely.
+</poi>
+I think we were I think you were more likely to reach out for ADHD. There's rising awareness that mental health is something that matters and you ought get tested. I have ADHD and the solution is, I make a coffee lobby in the morning to deal with my depression and now you think you've solved it. That's why you get event and less better responses. 
+
+
+Finally, for the people that don't have it, they deflect accountability and use it as an excuse for bad behavior. I am abusive because I'm depressed now and I can self diagnose. This decreases empathy if anything because now people make the whole group of them now look as if they are something inherently wrong with them. 
+
+
+Why do we beat OG very clearly? Aside from the reasons that Matt gave you, their case is reliant on an idea that people cannot differentiate the scale of suffering. They never explain why people cannot differentiate the scale which all very fairly point against OG. I'm not saying any of OG is wrong but they never answer the central question from up. Matt explains it by explaining how the process of popularization means that you, by definition have to not be able to differentiate the skilling, cuz you crowd out doctors. You create a race to the bottom. That is the lynchpin for their case to actually work. But even if you don't buy that, his second extension outweighs for the reason that he gave Bennett only to repeat. 
+Now that Ruman has gone very proud to win from CG. 
+</GW>
+<CO>
+I'm going to do two very basic things. Firstly, I'm going to engage with opening half and explain why we the the fact to take opening opposition and why are reasons are their cases containers on this? Then I'm going to engage with closing opposition. 
+
+
+Firstly, and I want to note that a deadlock exists in opening up, because if the perception of these narratives is bad, then opening government are correct and people have bad perceptions of them and this leads to people who actually do have these illnesses to not be understood, to not be erect in this sort of way. Or if opening opposition are right, that they are good, then opening government do not get their impact of people misunderstand these illnesses, opening opposition do get their impacts, people understand these illnesses compared to you more. 
+
+
+But note, they all don't get those impacts if they don't prove that these illnesses will be perceived accurately and that these terms will describe these illnesses accurately. Because it doesn't matter if people now more about ADHD if they have a wrong understanding of what ADHD is. Because then this means that the false defaction they'll take is not towards people who deserve it in this sort of way. They give no structural reasoning for YTC represented in a good way. 
+
+
+All they say is there is a nuance, there is a scale. Why is there a nuance? Why is there a scale? We say that ah how you say that if this is presented badly in this sort of way then we can counter it. There are experts who can say in this, in this sort of way. Oh they said oh but there's a scale, but they never ask why there is a scale, why there is a degree of nuance. In so far as all of their benefits are contingent on this one piece of analysis in focus. 
+
+
+I want to note here, even if you accept that closing government reports are reasons, we don't have reasons, it doesn't matter, because we gave reasons. Top half did not give reasons, and therefore, even these sorts of reasons in so far stock have is entirely contingent on this one sort of piece of analysis. 
+
+
+Uh, we should be able to take it even if academic moves proposing government. But the second important piece of extension, and what opening oppositions cases, because opening oppositions cases, you will know more, and I think they proved this to some extent. You get more information on it. But they never proved why knowing that Lito Marta has ADHD means you stop bullying little Marta in this sort of way. 
+
+
+All they say is oh, but you get empathy. Why don't you get empathy for little Marta anyways? The only thing that changes is a difference of how you label little Marta. They needed to prove that the difference in labeling, you know, related to is the thing that is contingent on outcomes. Here is how we prove this because now you associate it with illness. Because now it is made of illness. It's not just someone being weird. And then all of Roman's asymmetrical reasons on why you can see illness to be something much more important or to have empathy for specifically those people. They do not have the reason why this change of name leads to this. 
+
+
+But also secondly, because it is now created a disorder of phenomenon. The people have mentors. You have to respect mental illness. It surprises people for the most part, how would you say? conformis? Then this now means how do you say? Be nicer. That they're not going to bully. That they're going to meet to a sort of positive actions. They're talking about in a certain way. 
+
+
+All they say is you know so you be good. They never explain why on the counter factual. You're not going to be good. We explain that you don't have empathy for everyone but you have empathy for a particular kind of people. We now allow Marta to be that particular kind of people. 
+
+
+Final thing I want to outweigh. They say more people are going to go to the therapist and they're going to realize if they themselves have therapy. This to me a very questionable clash on the simple basis that if people are really suffering, there are massive symmetrical incentives to go to a doctor anyways. Maybe there is a difference, sure, but they never prove why this is the major tipping point in this sort of way. 
+
+
+We don't base our case on this. What we say is, this changes how people act towards you and how people perceive you and act towards you is much more fluid based on the sort of language that is used in this sort of way. So, this is the only benefit that is not contingent on the analysis we give, we outweigh it therefore, we should take top half. 
+
+
+Now, onto posing government. Firstly, they say, awareness is symmetrical. All of the reasons for why this is the case is west centric. There has not been big research about mental illness over here. Nobody knows shit, Uh, a lot of these teams have not come in. We don't have competent doctors and all these sorts of ways. But you know what we do have? We have movies. We have the TV show. We have all of these sorts of things. We have the Tiki Toki in this way. 
+
+
+And then language comes in comparatively far easier than anything else can come in, right? You'll not be able to get all of these sort of things but if there is a people using it, when you see it on the movies, then in those context, whether it's the least destigmatization, then you get massive in such way. 
+
+
+Also, let's accept the automatic reasons for this stigmatization. This is a very vulnerable group. I'm extra reason for this democratization looks pretty important to me in this sort of way. If it relates to how people treat these people, what kind of benefits they give them, I still don't why there being other reasons why this happens doesn't mean that our team is not so important. 
+
+
+Now, on to game rebuttals to us or rather. if you accept all of their rebuttals. With all of our impacts, right? And not so many people change the way they took people with mental illness. People potentially feel bad about these sorts of things. Notice ours is much more concrete impact because you don't know how people feel, especially with mental illness. You don't know how different things affect them, you don't know all of these sorts of things. 
+
+
+But you know the people treating them nicely is a good thing to them. They did not give this wing, we are the first one to give this wing in this sort of way. But then ricotta to them. Firstly they say, you will not listen to the authority figures because you cannot tell who has authority and because they will crowd out the others. Before I go on opening government. 
+<poi>
+All proofs that everyone debates who to believe regardless. We show that the existence of the debate means people don't think they need professionals and they already understand it. That takes away the urgency you require to care for someone.
+</poi>
+No, no, no, if you get a doctor who says, no, no, this is not mental illness. Here is what mental illness is, and these people get asymmetrical platform because of our thing because of this change of language, because of this comparative attention, then no. People do not just have wrong perceptions. Do they understand it in this sort of way? 
+
+
+But now, I want to give proposing opposition because they say it's hard to tell who is actually the expert. It's very easy to tell who is the expert. Spoiler alert, Doctors are the expert. Uh it's usually easy to talk with is a doctor in this sort of way? Most of sick alone people have actually suffered if they share details about their story. If they explain this sort of thing, then you can tell who is real and who is not real in this sort of way. 
+
+
+And this is very you will listen to the experts not to the otherwise because there is a comparative greater perception that these people are the experts. When you have questions, you do not turn to random influencer, you turn to people who you perceive are compared to more knowledge than you, than this, but secondly, they say, oh there is incentive to homogenize the sort of thing. I want to say two things. There is actually, I actually want to say the basic thing, there is not true. This is, there is a to diversify different terms to describe different experiences. 
+
+
+Why? Because one, many people simply want to feel different. They want to push that their experience is not identical to other people. They want to create nuances in their own experience in comparison to the experience of other people. Also, secondly, there are people who are quality, who understand this stuff, without you know, there is no homogeneous sort of way. We provide you. Listen to those people. 
+This should be the win from closing opposition voters. 
+</CO>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Belgrade WUDC 2022 Round 8.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+<pm>
+European expansion past this point substantially fractured Eastern Europe, made it weaker, destroyed their economies and made it generally worse. We think it would comparatively be better if they had formed their own block three things in the speech. One, why this union will be done well, and you know, comparatively better than their acceptance into the EU. So the framing of this argument is that even if both sides are good, then the comparative benefit we would receive in terms of funding, in terms of development of the economy, would be much better. Secondly, is that joining the EU in general was bad for many states. And thirdly, is that this is structurally bad as well for Eastern European states that would that did join the EU, or could not join the EU, but would have the potential to join the European Eastern Bloc. Okay, let's move into it. First, why will this be done well? So first of all is that the EU would still push for this unit done well, and still invest massive amount of resources in it. Because one, incentives for trade would still have existed with many of these countries. Secondly, the incentive to try and curb Russian influence would still exist for many of these countries. But indeed, in fact, many of these trade incentives would intensify, because on comparative if they had just joined the EU, they did that you could basically give up on them, since the process of leaving is very, very hard. Hence, tipping point is that the EU will continue to try and curry favor with them even past the point where they had joined in the original timeline. Secondly, though they would also be comparatively recipients of Russian aid in a similar manner to their approach to the Eurasian Economic Union, which they would receive low interest loans in billions of dollars, massive investments in raw materials, particularly gas reserves and energy and infrastructure, as well as attempts to strengthen internal markets. This is this they're joining the EU was essentially a point for the kind of Russian engagement toward Eastern Europe. Essentially the joining this body would create a body not so intensely the US, not so intense to them in military terms, and not seen as a prelude to joining or jumping into NATO. The comparative is that once you join Europe, you're basically against Russia, and they switch towards negative engagement, like bringing trade away from you, essentially making things worse. The makeup of this union would likely manifest in the form of internal markets, the freedom of movement and labor still investments in democracy, overarching political body to try and make decisions on the behalf of the entire state. And the reason for this is that the desire to do this with the EU would still have persisted in this internal bloc anyway, and beyond that, that this is a unique political moment that many of these countries, at the time where they had recently democratized, where there were massive protests in the name of democracy, and so many of this would still have persisted in these countries. Hence the outcome is that if both sides are doing well, you have comparatively way, way, way more resources invested in these countries. You have their industries built up much more the people there are much more prosperous. And hence they would have preferred they had formed their own union. Secondly, though joining the EU, not only at these points in time, but in general, was very bad for many of these states. In this we have three broad points. Number one is that these countries had to share the brunt of the Eurozone crisis, which happened at the time or happened shortly after. They were taxed massively, having to pay for Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Romania, all had to pay several billion out the ass the bailout, the equivalent of Greece's GDP several times over. It witnessed the flight of investors due to high levels of credit and currency risk. Essentially billions of dollars leaving the country over a protracted period of time, essentially slowing down their growth, which is, you know, millions of dollars in terms of opportunity cost, that was lost. Secondly, though having the Euro was bad for domestic markets because they had no control over monetary tightening cycles, as a result, their exports weakened quite a lot relative to petrochemical, agriculture and electronics exporters outside the EU because they couldn't control how strong the currency was. It's, you know, strong because of, like, what the western side countries there, but many of them are exporter oriented, which slowed growth dramatically because, one, they had way, way less resources and they had far more they had a far harder time competing with other exporters that could, you know, it, you know, make their currency weaker in order to export better, but also because it forced a rapid industry shift in many of these countries, whose effects can still be now, right? So still be seen now, where much of the industry was shifted over to service oriented stuff, and unemployment skyrocketed at the time by several percentage points. Like, at the time, I think it was on the order of several million people out of a job, which, you know, you know the code, like, for every percentage point, love of unemployment, see, like, there's like, 1000 people dead, right? So this is a huge impact. Also, people suffered at the time. But thirdly is also that the EU broadly entrenched authoritarianism, and their eagerness to accept these people, Hungary and Poland are the best examples, where basically didn't do very stringent democracy checks on countries, and as a result, the influx of aid allowed the government to strengthen itself and remain entrenched. Like this also happened in third form of systematic levels of embezzlement and corruption in Bulgaria and Romania. I mean, it was done because it was rushed. Accession requirements were basically expedited. In most cases, authoritarianism thrived under EU rule, where they essentially give these monies to pave, you know, railroads to nowhere, and in effect, basically pay out corruption and bribes of people under them because the EU was supporting them at no cost, right? So the end of this, we essentially say that joining the EU is bad for many of these states. And comparatively this would not happen because, obviously, they would not face the brunt of the Eurozone crisis. Obviously they would have the capacity to own to control their own currency, control the rate at which the currency would happen, make them far more competitive. And beyond that, they would have the capacity to have control, or take control over authoritarianism in their own country, or at minimum, you know, it would they don't get the benefits of democratization on opposition on the whole then we think the second argument is particularly important, because it shows that you could have avoided a massive harm that was on the storm or on the horizon for many of the European countries, and could have a bit, could have escaped the middle income class, middle income trap much faster. Could have improved prosperity in history much faster. Hence, joining the EU is bad for many of these states on the whole thirdly, and lastly, is that this is really, really bad for Eastern European states that did not join the EU could not join the EU either because it would be seen as an overt attempt to try and curtail Russia even more, which would provoke military reaction. And as such, many Eastern European states such as Serbia were forced to maintain close ties with Russia over the EU for several reasons, such as economic necessity as an exporter of oil, or the fear of encroachment on the territory, and thus needing amicable variations and cultural and historical ties that kept them within the Russian sphere of influence. We think many of these nations are still deserving the significant amounts of economic development, but they're hamstrung by these circumstances from joining the European Union. This engages the OP case in the instance that the EU is a good economic actor, because when they end up joining this union, it poses an existential threat to Russia. And that decrease in the capacity for Russia to express military power, but more points of attack that they could experience in the case of an actual war, and this amplifies the further fears of Russian Russian so what happened these nations neighbors ended up being usage Croatia to Serbia, ended up moving through some cross border trade to the European single market, driving up costs of importing and they also imported less and our side of the house, they better able to trade with proximate neighbors. They're also far more likely to be brought into the fold because of less concerns regarding the Eastern Bloc and overt expansionism and Russian retaliation. I'll take a POI from CO before I move on. 
+
+<poi>
+You are correct, that these countries are poorer than the western states. In EU you are wrong about literally everything else, given that there are three to four times objectively richer than they are when they join Would you mind actually explaining why your case applies in reality?
+</poi>
+
+I mean one inequality in many of these countries drastically increased. Look at the Gini Coefficient of many of these countries. Secondly, I also makes the observation that much of our argument is the comparative loss of prosperity, right? So maybe they're do better. They did better, but most of our claims are objective fact label claims that they could comparatively be way better. Okay, beyond that, though, I also want to point out that in many of these nations, right, that didn't, that didn't join the EU, and could never join the EU, right, they had much less say in leverage when attempting to oppose Russia. So these countries operate on their own. They have limited leverage with respect to challenging Russian pressure on their economic systems and sovereignty. And we want to be clear, this will not be an anti Russian Union, but we think that they are far more leveraged when they join the Eastern Bloc. Are far more likely to be brought into the fold because in the form of negotiating diplomatic ties and economic ties, which means it's not only just improves our benefit for the Eastern Bloc, but also massively improves our benefit for potential other countries on the horizon, potentially for you know, forestalling things like, in the worst case, invasion for many of the countries like we could potentially bring in, maybe Georgia, maybe Ukraine, right? But also, in addition, not only do we prevent massive losses of life, we also ensured these countries get a better deal. They aren't screwed out, and their economies get to survive. At the end of his speech, it should be clear on every possible contention, opening government wins this debate. Thank you.
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+First, three points of rebuttal to opening government. First, they say that a common currency is bad. Well, unfortunately for them, the vast majority of these Eastern European countries maintain their own currency because you policy makers are aware of this. Poland uses this lawsuit. Hungary uses their own currency. So does Croatia this argument out of debate. Second, their argument about entrenching authoritarianism conceives the fact that these countries receive, would have received more benefits when they're in the EU than not these. Argument is these authoritarian governments get more money so they can be stronger on our side of the house. So this is a concessionary argument. Three, their argument about other countries, like Serbia, being able to join the Eastern European Union, but a European Union is like under mechanized dramatically. They have to prove why the countries will be let in in the first place, given that they're not letting to the EU for probably good reasons, i.e., corrupt government of like under reformed economies, etc. These are the same reason why they turned down but Eastern European Union on their side of the house, first argument, opening opposition, why in the only world where you get free trade between these countries in the European Union, and free immigration is on our side of the house. Four mechanisms, five mechanisms. And so why free trade and visa free, quarterless immigration will only happen on our side of the house. First, the EU has an incentive to not let them in, because they want to encourage individual countries to leave that union and join the European Union. So they hold out these as carrots for them to do so. Secondly, they cannot harmonize regulation on their side of the house the European Union levies like how relatively high tariffs on American agricultural products, for example, because they don't like American GMO products. So if you have countries in the EU, then they will be forced to agree to the EU's no GMO like in their fertilizer and other kinds of policies. So another healthy would have probably have relatively. High, at least agricultural tariffs. But the same thing applies to other things. They have to make sure the electronics and your like pharmaceutical products, etc, match that you use high health criteria. Three, there is a massive uncertainty on their side of the house, because you don't want to lower tariffs, because in the future, your counterparty may raise tariffs in retaliation, right? So, but our psychology of absolute certainty and harmonization of these kinds of policies. Four, there's a psychological one. Look, the early 2000s was a watershed moment for Europeans. It was the victory for capitalism over communism. It was this massive like watershed moment of unity for everyone. When these countries turn down these gestures of goodwill by not applying to join the EU, it psychologically makes Western Europeans feel like they should not have a continental identity. I think this is actually huge. This matters hugely for how you treat them diplomatically, whether you want to accept them as immigrants, etc. Fifth on their side of the house, if you sign a free trade tariff list agreement with the Eastern European Union, you have to You're essentially letting in every single country at once, whereas in our Senate House, European countries can, for example, only let one country join where two or three countries join each other, and seven another one in 2011 so you don't get like, a massive influx of immigrants, right? Which makes these people worried. Why do we think trade with the EU, or, like, tariff list, free trade is the most important impact in around first, the EU has massive amounts of demand. It gives the countries access to export ports on the European coast and the Mediterranean coast it would never have access to otherwise. Second, the fact that you have free trade massively incentivizes Western European countries to invest in production across the border, like what NAFTA has done for us car makers to invest in like real factories and other factories in Mexico, because they can import, they can import, they can you take advantage of the cheap labor, build their parts, import them back to us, and assemble them for cheaply and make a massive profit that way. That only happens if you have tariff, let's trade on the other side, because otherwise you have high costs. Why is this? The most important impacting around this is the only way, because Western European countries have high labor costs, they try to offshore labor. But the only way in which this happens is and you allow these countries to get out and upgrade to manufacturing and to go to the skill ladder, get access to MNCs with their expertise. It's on our side of the house. We have free trade. Secondly, why is immigration really important? First, it allows tons of talented feature, European students to go visa free study at cheaper universities. Massive development of human capital. Second, you get massive amounts more of investment in these areas, because I know that my executive employees and travel visa free to visit my factories. Three, you get tons of remittances in foreign currency. This is extremely important. EU. The euro is stronger than the total sloth. You get more purchasing power from these remittances. This is really good. Second argument why joining the EU is better for these countries interacting directly with OG's argument to one, the EU has more money to do investment projects, to do to do things like help you with building up democracy, building up courts. This is conceded by opening government when they say that authoritarians are sometimes entrenched. Secondly, you get more leverage over the EU when you're in the EU than we're out of it. Greece was able to get a bailout from the European Union because they know that if Greece's economy failed, there will be millions of refugees who can travel through the Schengen though visa free. That is what the European Union was worried about. They are worried about, they are worried about their integrated production, which only happens on our side of the house. So Greece would have been fucked by the crisis no matter what, because it was a drop in tourism and a massive drop in exports. But on, only on our side is there incentive to bail them out. I'll take the poi from CG. 
+
+<poi>
+When Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007, to this day its population drops to with 1.8 million, or something like that. So this is huge brain drain that this big harm on your side of the house. How does any of your benefits accrue if this same process happens?
+</poi>
+
+One, the prospect of immigration to other country incentivizes people to pursue higher education inside Bulgaria. So you get more trading on our side, on our side of the house. Secondly, you get more investment, because which compensates for like, the decrease in labor, right? Because you can have more efficient production with machines that are people. And three, you get reminisces, which helps people, even if they move I don't see why this is substantially at that of a problem, especially as CEO points out, poverty has gone down dramatically right across the region. Third, I want to talk about why these countries being part of the EU makes the EU stronger. Three reasons. One, you have massively more negotiating power because the EU now speaks for more people. It represents more economies for economic growth. So when it signs trade deals with China, for example, it can, it can, it can levy for even lower tariff productions. This is better for every country inside the current Eurozone. It also makes sanctions, for example, a lot more powerful, where the EU can collectively sanction Russia, rather than have individual countries deviate. It also means that the same thing with like the like the Iran deal. Second, you can much better further your policy goals as the EU. If the EU, for example, wants to phase out coal plants, you're actually able to do so and massively help other countries in Eastern Europe that currently uses dirty energy process. Third, and I think a very important one, is the, excuse me, the process of joining the EU. Unlike what OG says is fairly rigorous. Think about how much cheating Greece had to do on his auditing books, right, in order to try to make this debt burden seem sustainable. Like, I understand this process is not perfect, but it's a fairly rigorous process that makes sure that you have sustainable foreign debt, right? Like, sometimes countries cheat, but cheating is often difficult. Sometimes you get caught the fact that Greece. Cheated suggests that the process actually a rigorous one, and it serves to achieve a good thing. So I genuinely think that if Greece never joined the EU on their side of the house, they would have a much worse crisis, because they would have no incentive to hide any of its bad debts, and it would have like so I think, in general, right, that that process itself is also a good thing. What I would like at the end of the day, the day, the big takeaway from O is that when you the only way where you get free trade and free immigration is on our side of the house. Otherwise you will never sign a free trade and free immigration agreement with this union. This union is likely to have less money, more or less expertise, less well trained bureaucrats. And this also means that European countries in general, have less incentive to help these countries. Very proud to oppose.
+</lo>
+
+<dpm>
+I'm going to start with my speech in 321, I'm going to do, firstly, a bit of mixed response to opening opposition and the py from closing opposition, these countries became three to four times richer, and therefore this is a big benefit for the European Union. Firstly, this a false comparative. You cannot weigh these nations that have just come out of communism or have had massive democratic movements or had significant economic reforms, whatever it may be to today where they likely would have pursued these kinds of forms of development and still would have been able to pursue the union at this point in time. This is a false comparison that I don't think should be credited. Secondly, they opening opposition this time claims David is contradicting himself, because these countries that were able to get economic development and therefore entrenched authoritarians, there is a difference between making everybody within the nation wealthier and receiving a significant amount of European Union money in order to entrench the amount of power that you have had, I they do not prove trickle down. Just because there was capital inflow does not mean it went to the citizens of the nation. What does that entail? Firstly, a significant amount of business that had benefited from European Union money were the ones that were like largely crony capitalism, and therefore they were the ones that benefited, not because they were the best actors in question, but because they were able, just like, use government corruption, friends, nepotism, etcetera, to be able to ensure that they were the ones that were benefiting, mostly from the increased forms of investment. And that means, secondly, that the amount of economic power that governments had had, over businesses, over state institutions and over the people, made it much, much more difficult to be able to call them out, which is significantly why there was a much more difficult time being able to win movements against these people, or have corporations compete against these groups of people. And therefore, I don't think it is fair to say they get economic benefits as well. But thirdly, they say that the comparative is we would have sanctioned them, or at least significantly reached like increased tariffs. The first thing I want to ask is all the benefits that they point out, the access to ports, the access to oil, and access to probably a pretty large single market that exists for the entire Eastern Block, for some reason, outweighs this. Want to be able to like either attract you into their union. I think this is like game theoretically, not the smartest thing for the European Union to do. I think it is much smarter to engage in something like a trade deal in order to ensure that you get a like a negotiation between this European single market, versus being able to tariff them, because that could potentially punish you as a result of retaliation, it gives you a lot less benefits than all the ones opening opposition names. And therefore, it is unclear why this the alternative. In fact, what this proves is that a lot of the incentives for the European Union to engage with this Eastern Bloc union still exist on our side of the house. The difference is the amount of negotiation and leverage this Eastern block would have. Because I would note that being the ability to negotiate as an entire block on the basis of trade unions is far greater than within the union, because they're serious but never really proven. Not only are you lesser in number, you are significantly lesser in capital with respect to contribution to the European Union as a whole. And what that means is that it is very difficult for them to try and oppose Western and Central European countries with respect to a lot of the policies that are engaged in, and as a consequence, It therefore makes it much, much harder within this body to be able to get a fair negotiation as a process, especially when you are an individual nation, that is the nuance here, versus when you are an entire block, despite. May be differences in capital with Western and Central Europe that is far more negotiating power and being able to negotiate a trade deal rather than wanting to change trade relations within the sixth singular body. Thirdly, you have to ask, is there more capital outflow or capital inflow? Firstly, it is much cheaper to invest in these areas. They have cheaper labor, they have cheaper land, cheaper forms of production. And what that entails is that companies that were from Western Central Europe, that want to be able to expand for a relatively low price are far more likely to invest there. That's not a good thing, because it significantly cuts down the ability of these nations to build up their own domestic economies and domestic industries. And that's a huge benefit this. Maybe these are copies that can out compete you on price, but they are also companies that are much less likely to contribute your individual nation's tax revenue, companies that have little to no incentive in being able to build up the skills base of your country and once and overall, have very limited benefits and being able to ensure that the exports of the nation are going to be superior. But secondly, like I think the amount of brain train that occurs is significant in this debate, for all the reasons opening opposition gives it is not good that skills are leaving these kinds of countries, especially when they need for these countries to be able to diversify and develop further, which often times, means a move from manufacturing and manual labor based industries to further skills based industries. And what that entails is that while there's some short term economic development, maybe because they can sell to more EU countries, et cetera, it is long term economic development that is going to like it can only be achieved through diversification, because not only are these diverse products by nature, because they're second order more expensive and therefore more profitable, they're also less prone to economic shocks like commodity markets are. So when things like natural goods are not only replaceable because you can get that from another country that might get it for cheaper, but also when the global demand for them decreases, your economy is screwed. Lastly, I don't think it was good for them to get involved in the Greek Eurozone crisis, not like I mean, their benefit only occurs in so far as they have to prove that any of these nations would crash on their own, and therefore the EU would bail them out. Not only do I feel that speculative, we already have proof that Greece would have had a significant amount of bailout needed. And it's not necessarily even just sharing a currency, right? It is the amount of money that was required to bail out the Greek government that is significant and certain in this debate, verse on their side of the house, where they have not given structural reasons to why this collapse would have happened regardless. So this mechanism does not come into play all the time anyway. I'll take a poi from closing opposition.
+
+<poi>
+Please name me any single industry or any single economic development that could have happened in either of these countries or existed before that is now no longer the case.
+</poi>
+
+No, I'm confused. What we're claiming is that, like a lot of these industries, like being able to increase your service sector only really happens if you have a more educated base. I'm not saying that they're not going to be educated. I'm saying that educated people are leaving and therefore it is much more difficult to expand the scope of these industries and status quo. Lastly, I don't think this is good for the EU, because all the mechanisms of you have more countries aren't necessarily clear with respect to why does that necessarily make it better? In fact, if you as you say, there is the fear that you'll have to bail out one of these countries, not only does that increase the amount of European fear within these areas, but also the the acceptance of Hungary and Poland that have, time and time again, been sued by the European Union because of the ability to bypass EU regulations and laws, has opened a legal can of worms that has ensured that people can find their ways around the overall authority of the EU. And that's important. There's a certain zero stability of the EU, even if they get more powerful. You have the rise of Euro skeptic leaders within many different nations that have, even if not wanted to leave the EU, at least decrease its power and scope and therefore minimize the benefit from opening opposition. But also countries that have explicitly left the EU are aspiring to do so, or have politicians that are increasingly becoming more popular, like the pen et cetera. Very, very proud to propose.
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo>
+321, I'm going to start by talking about why the EU is good, and I do think they just miss a lot of Dan's preemption to their rebuttal. I want to first talk about why they have a good incentive, student stuff. I think, first of all, they just want an economically strong state in their group, as Dan tells you, you don't want massive floods of immigration, which means you have a strong intent to have the stable economies overall. This is good for every state because it caps out the bottom. We say there might be some cost to richer states, but it isn't. It's better because, you know, you are never going to be at the very. Bottom, you will get bailed out if you are Greece. This is good because it means you are if you basically roll out the bottom of worst things that can happen, you get significantly more investment in the country, because people know it won't be bad in the worst case scenario. But I think second, I think on the Greece stuff, I think, yes, Romania paid some money to bail out Greece, but then they got bailed out in of itself. So that is a worthwhile trade off to make. And I do think it is like if they would have crashed in the absence of this, because there was a huge economic crisis, and American demand massively fell all over the world, and all of these countries are no longer buying things from you, so I think it is likely that you would have had that. So getting the access to that potential bailout is a good thing, and I think this is a valuable thing to do, and I think it is good to bottom out the worst case scenario, because that means you have an overall more stable investment market. But second, they say, like, some of these countries, like, wouldn't like, are like, they wouldn't be democratic, or they'd have economic crisis. I'm just not clear why in the Eastern Bloc this would be any different, which is to say, if you like, like, yes, it might be the case that EU doesn't want to kick out Hungary because they're not perfectly democratic. But it's not clear why the Eastern Bloc would also kick out Hungary because both have probably have similar incentives. So the if the Eastern Bloc was going to be all that good. I don't think this would change, but now just reasons why the EU is good. First, they have tons of money. I can give aid their argument that you support authoritarianism. One, I do not think this is true, because the EU does have fairly strict requirements. And yes, sometimes you get around it, and yes, sometimes you fall back. But overall, they do have requirements to do this, and this does incentivize you to at least increase the democratic process, which is better. But like two, this aid is just good for your country, but you assume more money, more food aid, more jobs, and this is overall good. But I think also the point you say that you are coming out of communism, and therefore it is unclear why you have large amounts of money to invest in the Eastern Bloc. So unlikely you even if you have the incentive to want to build up your domestic economy, you don't have the capacity, nor do you have the money. I also think this Dan's point, about like an integrated production are very important now. Og says, like, not everyone benefited, because, like, some poor people didn't benefit. One, you still have overall economic growth, cheaper products and more jobs. And this is good. Two, people want individuals that have money to spend. But three, I think the whole point about, I think on the kind of point about, like, whether or not you get brain drain, whether you get production, is in the country itself, more people pursue higher education, because they have the chance of getting a very good job abroad. So it increases the payoff of pursuing education, because now there's a reason to get a computer science degree. These can get paid $100,000 or 100,000 euros or pounds, I guess, in Britain or Germany or something like that, which means way more people are motivated to get an education, because the payoff seems much higher. But not all of them leave, because not all of them could get these computer science jobs in Germany, or they have family ties to various reasons, which means, overall, you build up your domestic capacity massively for it, because immigration is an option. But second, on the point about like, yeah, yeah. On the point about like, building up these countries, it is cheaper to they say it's cheaper to invest in these countries. You do not build up your capacity. One, getting knowledge from other countries is important. Two, you still have jobs. Three, it's not clear about you, and you invest in a counterfactual for this is preempted by Dan, because the whole point of integrated production, which only happens on my side or our side, is you assemble the cars with parts built in Croatia. I want good parts, therefore I train workers more in the alternative, EU, countries only import raw materials and finished products, which is much like is much better. Finally, it's just these countries are richer. That means there's more welfare, and you then, as a result, help the least well off. I think that in the absence of this, you are very likely to get tariffs. Why? One, you did put them on Britain when they pulled out, even if it's not hard. And two, you do have them on Serbia in the status quo, even if it is not smart. And yes, free trade is the optimal policy. Obviously, we know not every country has free trade, so this obviously cannot be a way that countries make decisions. One, they want to incentivize you to join the EU and they want to punish you from leaving, because they get benefits from you doing that, they will take temporary trade offs in order to incentivize you to join that group, which means they're unlikely to want to have that free trade and two, the point about the point about the benefits are only true if you have common regulations and no certainty of retaliation, which is that you don't want integrated production chains that come and bite you in the ass in The future, because the counterparty can raise tariffs and hurt you substantially, which is safe. I don't know that we will always have free trade, because it is like they are held in by all of EU and all of that force that I don't want to put my manufacturing in another country and then have it come back to me, because they might raise tariffs and suddenly I have no production, which means you only ever import raw materials, and you won't build up like networks of economic growth. This is really important. I think this is good. Finally, I do think we get more democracy. Because I do think countries were incentivized to at least be marginally more democratic, at least the point of joining EU. Yes, not every country did it perfectly, but I do think it is substantially better, and if you get better outcomes that way, I think also on these points, like, briefly, just to touch on the type of Russia point, it is unclear. This is the turning point for Russia, because these countries have joined or will join NATO regardless. NATO has other reasons to expand. These are other reasons that they want to, like, stay in like these blocks and be protected, which means NATO aggression is likely to happen on either way. Their argument is, we're going to not. I'm just genuinely confused about their plot on the Easter block. Are they going to be anti Russia, or are they not going to be anti Russia? Are they going to be pro Russian? Russian trade deals? I think OG is incredibly unclear on this. And then they tell you that Ukraine and Georgia are going to join the trade box, which seems like a good way to piss off Russia overall. So I'm not really clear on the Russia point. If you're actually better off, I think you're probably going to piss off Russia regardless of that. Anyway, anyway. I think also the ability to do sanctions against Russia together is good. I will take a poi from closing.
+
+<poi>
+Why isn't Macedonia joined the European Union Yet?
+</poi>
+
+Uh I don't know there in the process of joining. Maybe it'll take a lot of time, but it's fine. Doesn't really matter. It's one country. I'm fine with it, even if some countries could join, getting out to the points about why, it's not bad if the other countries don't join, you say in the in OG says in the first argument, that's good. If Russia competes for influence in argument one, this is good. So Russia is scared about these countries joining the EU and then offers better trade deals. That it's all the countries that get left out actually end up with good trade deals for Russia. So they're not that badly off, especially if the alternative is the Eastern Bloc that doesn't offer that many benefits anyway, trade with neighbors is less valuable because it's less diverse, and you also are that economically different, and you don't get the benefits of having this like, of having the money from the EU and these types of things like, so I think it's like that is likely to be good. I think also the points about Russia are really clear. So I think Fs, the countries that don't join still economically benefit because they can be competed with for Russia so they don't join the EU, and that's fine. Finally, on the like last point about being like, feared in the EU and you bypass regulation, I just don't think there's like, massive amounts of instability in you. I think it is a generally pretty stable walk because more countries want it to succeed. I think maybe populism is rising everywhere, but I don't think that is particularly a big deal. On the weighing point first, I think we tell you why trading with EU is much more valuable because you are wealthier overall. We tell you why the stability of the EU ends up with you getting more investment, more aid, which they can see, which allows you to economically grow your country. And that does end up trickling down because you have more money for things like welfare, especially when you're also more democratic. And this is better. We also think that the union would have fewer democratic checks and a less vigorous process. I also just think of the massive subsidies the EU gives. EU is so much more wealthier that there would be more COVID vaccines for free. Don't underestimate this. This is incredibly powerful. I think on the whole what we tell you from Oh, is why the joining the EU allows you to have integrated production, like a free movement of labor that ends up with a lot of good things, like more training in the country, more education in the country, more people who know what they're doing, an overall economicizer. The Eastern Block can now compete with this because it doesn't have the funding to do this. It doesn't have the setup for a bunch of countries that they tell you are just me out of communism for all those reasons. So proud to oppose
+</dlo>
+
+<mg>
+Our strategy is going to be very simple. It's divided in two parts. Part one, we will symmetrize the benefits in the debate. This means that even if we live in a world where this union exists, these two unions, the European and Eastern European unit, will be so interconnected that it will basically be the European Union. But how do you say different version, a bizarre version of it. This is important because I will deal with a lot of the old pushes. But then secondly, the asymmetry will be for countries, and I'll name all of them, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, all of which have 30 million population between each other, that they will be able to join a union, right? Irrespective if it's the Eastern European Union, irrespective if it's the European Union. This is going to be the biggest asymmetry in the debate, because on their side of the house, they are currently not in the European Union. I will provide structural reasons for why this is the case. Let me just weigh out the way these countries should be the most important factor. There are two reasons for why this is the case. Firstly, in top half, you get a marginal debate on whether or not one of these so union is going to be better than the other. I am unsure if either of the two teams is able to adequately scale which side this should go. However, secondly, these countries are currently the poorest because they're not part of a union. So factologically, they have the lowest minimum wage they have due to their poverty, problems like corruption, these type of things. So if we're able to raise their standards to living by being able to join a union, then the single life of this individual, even though they may be quantitatively less, is likely to be more asymmetric and more beneficial in this sort of case. Let's get into the first place. Let's symmetrize the benefits. I would note that OG have some reasons for this. The boys did find out that this is an important fashion debate. Will have better and stronger reasons in this sort of case. So it's going to be a problem, four reasons as to why the benefits are symmetric. Firstly, European Union has economic incentive to cooperate with this union, OG state trade, we say, cheap labor. Notice that you because how you see you have communism and it fell apart. These countries are poor, and how you see the salaries that are in these places are not likely to be the highest, but you have asymmetric competitive advantage as Eastern Europe. Firstly, because you're close to Western Europe, right? You don't have to have such such high supply chain costs. Instead of going to Asia or Africa, you're going into Eastern Europe. But secondly, you're also in the same time zone, right? But like most, for example, 30% of the GDP of Bulgaria is basically call centers. So able to do services also in these type things. So you will have, how do you say, a large push for policies that integrate economic cooperation for this certain But secondly, you are proximate between each other, any harm that may happen in your neighbors who have spew or offenses that happening to you. Notice this is sometimes when you go soft. War happened in this sorting so the memory of the of this sort of thing and this conflict happening, the refugees, the potential spirit. Over the east coast. So you have incentive to keep this union stable, to keep it adequately But thirdly, you have general transition of Eastern Europeans turning more westward. This is something that OG say, but do not provide structural reasons. We'll write structural reasons. After regime fell, you learn things like, for example, death caps and Secret Service. You learn, for example, about stakehold enterprises failing and economic crisis of not having liberties to speak out in these things. So because the regime fell, you'll have general trend towards the west. The eastern part really wanted economic cooperation with the rest, irrespective, they have formed their own union or not. But just for the sugar, you're also going to have economic boom boom as well, because obviously now you turn into capitalist model. Companies want to invest into this sort of place. But also, second, you have natural development, like, for example, IT sector in Bulgaria propped up, because during communism, we invested in a lot of technology expertise and these type of things. The bottom line is that practically, this will mean that these two years will be so integrated that most of the benefits will trickle down to these sorts of people. So they will have, to a certain extent, free movement, or at least, how you say, LAX visa terms. When you're wanting to work from one union to another un, you will have most likely common policy initiatives like, for example, infrastructure, nuclear power, all the things that are important, people will be able to study abroad and all of these benefits. This symmetrizes The debate and these type of things, and proves you that the members who are currently in the EU and will be part of the new UN will be important. But what is asymmetric. And this is important. What is asymmetric is now there is another competition on the block. There is a second union that now all these six countries that I mentioned to you are able to join in this sort of cases. Let's analyze this more mechanistic than our side of the house before that OO your point.
+
+<poi>
+yeah. So the inclusion of these country, countries that are currently not in the EU means on your side, accepting free trade to the Eastern Bloc means extending free trade to, say Serbia, which the EU currently doesn't want to which is a reason why they won't get no trade deals on your side of the house.
+</poi>
+
+No, let me explain. This is actually an analogy you reminded me, currently European Union is giving euro project to Serbia, right? Serbia is not a member state, so this proves, empirically, another reason as to why these two units will be interconnected. So I guess that's an additional reason. That's just an assertion that's false and these sorts of things. Let's get into the structural reasons, two mechanisms as to why. How to say you get better ability for these countries to join. But before that, let me illustrate something very important. The fact that Eastern Brock creates its own union does not mean that all the members, all the countries that are in Eastern Europe will join this union. Here is the intuition part. Brexit happened, right? So Brexit left the European and do sort of case. So the fact that this union existed will most likely be part of the core member states, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, these type of things. But other big countries will be able to some join the European Union. Some join these type of countries, etc. Now are they currently not able to join? Firstly, notice that Bulgaria and Greece vetoed Macedonia from joining the European Union due to historical problems. Currently, Macedonians are basically stealing our our history, because they're obviously, they're claiming certain aspects of this authority. This is important political issue in both Bulgaria and Greece, and obviously it's something that the populace gets radicalized by, like Balkans is pretty nationalist place due to these sorts of things. So this is why, after this pressure is happening, you do not want to accept these unions ourselves. Second reason is conflict. You thought wars happened. Currently, Kosovo and Serbia have target state problems between their border. European Union does not want to accept the state, if there is such a case on our side of the house. Now, they have an alternative. Now, these countries that have total mutual, exclusive incentives that will never accept each other, or may accept each other in the distant future, at least one can go to one union, the other can go to the other union, in this sort of case. So at least Macedonian Kosovo to get some benefits of this type of thing. This type of thing happen. Second reason is conditions. Currently, European Union has incentive to keep conditions high because they're only competition on the block. This is when it's they do not want to accept these type of countries. They want to, how do you say, have huge conditions in terms of economic policy, in terms of doing this sorting that may not certainly be the best thing for these countries. And some countries just simply don't want to accept these terms and conditions when there is more competitions. The other union may propose different, different how you see different conditions, or more in conditions on both sides. So you have general acceptance in this sort of case, in this sort of situation. Why is this argument so important? Because since I proved you that these two unions will most likely be similar in terms of policy initiatives in these type of things, this means that there is a massive asymmetry. When Macedonia and Kozo are able to join the European Union, get Euro projects with direction from their economy, get anti corruption policies in these type of things, be able to have free free movement and free market, etc, and these types of things, not as I characterize you. These are the most vulnerable people right now in our current role. We have certainty that this is the case. This is the world that we're living in, oxford, on our side of the house, even if one of these countries has bigger problems of getting a union. This is the biggest asymmetry, most important impact. So proud to win from CG.
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+I'm going to do three things in extension here. One, I'm going to give reasons that, unlike opening oppositions are actually responsive to opening governments framing As for why these countries would not have good reason relations with European Union at the point where they don't join the European Union. Secondly, I'm going to go into the internal functioning of the Eastern Bloc union and why we think that would be quite destructive. And thirdly, we're going to go into why the lives of individuals are just considerably better on our side of the house, independently of that. Firstly, on relations with the European Union, I think opening opposition does like fantastic impacting of this. But I think, unfortunately, the reasons for why it is exclusive aren't actually responsive to opening up governments. Those two reasons that are given by OG are one trade, slash cheap labor and set. Well, that's CG, but I think it's functionally the same thing. And that can be the notion that you want to balance against Russia, those two things OG say, make you want to have this other union work really well. So you interact a lot, and you make it work very, very functionally. I would posit that both of these reasons don't work. The reason that trade and cheap labor are an insufficient incentive is because they require the populations and politicians of the countries in question to observe this as a meaningful opportunity, rather than have the blinders on of decades and decades of entrenchment of like, fairly negative stereotypes about these countries and and the people from them. IE, if you perceive them as like having been a threat to you for the entirety of the Cold War, switching to there are massive economic opportunity is very difficult. Switching to they are people who we want to integrate with, because it is a good thing to do is much easier to sell at the point we make the point we make the a political project of the European Union, including them, rather than they are profitable for us from a selfish point of view, but not. Secondly, they are also seen as unstable. These governments are stereotyped as being unstable, not good places for investment to go, which we are going to like demonstrate why it gets even worse on their side of the house. Secondly, with regard to Russia, like, I'm just going to be honest, like Russia, until invasion of Crimea by Western Europe was basically not seen as a threat. Like, I'm not sure if any of you remember this, but the whole like, he is a pure Democrat said about Putin happened in the like, mid 2000s he specifically, the inclusion of the Eastern Bloc was what made Russia something that actually perceived as a threat, because those countries were significantly more aware of that. Balancing against that was just not a priority for lots of Europe at the time. These things mean that you broadly would have would not actually receive positive treatment. In so far as you are not perceived as a useful place to give positive treatment, you get positive treatment when you're in the European Union, just in crises which I think ol has, but just generally, insofar as you have veto power over massive amounts of policy. When you have significant leverage to if anyone wants to get any EU policy done, you at least have to get something out of it, meaning that you actually get policy that is directed toward your interest in a way that's quite powerful and good. At that point, we mechanized the bulk of Oh, therefore we should probably be getting some of their benefits. Secondly, on internal functioning, um, I think that this union function, the functioning of this union is decisive for this debate. And so far as everything in terms of investment, etc, is downstream of that, because you only ever invest somewhere that actually looks like it's functioning and stable, otherwise you don't get any of the benefits of interconnection. Let's go into why functioning doesn't actually go particularly well. Firstly, domestically, the status quo ante in a lot of these countries, as opening government concedes and closing government can't we allow them is that you have a broadly authoritarianism and authoritarian, relatively corrupt government, meaning that those governments have no incentive to change, and in fact, that incentives to entrench each other in a quid pro quo where they can fuck over their populations. But I'm sure that the blob never actually has to update. There is no reason why they have to implement pro democratic or anti corruption policy whatsoever. The European Union and its succession includes requirements that improve economic functioning and governance. And so far as but one, they want to make sure that companies actually go there, and so in order that they could so that they can actually profit, and their companies would never go there if there's no not a meaningful amount of anti corruption present. But secondly, we want to ensure that the interest of those companies are then managed well into the long run, such that the profit is significant and not pocketed by bureaucrats there, meaning there's significant incentive to actually ensure anti corruption at that point. But secondly, I would also posit that just that there's significant political investment in the west at the point where you're positing yourself as the counter image to something to make sure that you are trying to do like political liberties, because that's what you've been harping on about for the past 50 years, and at the point where you fail to actually implement that, it looks back to your own population. Lastly, I think there's significant direct money to the periphery in a way that doesn't actually happen under crop governments, which typically fund it through the center, and particularly require the center of their countries in order to remain in power, whereas the European Union, everyone has a stake in things like a functioning agricultural system, meaning through the Common Agricultural Policy, massive amounts of funds are redistributed to the periphery, meaning that people in the countryside, and not just in the cities, actually profit. Secondly, interstate functioning at closing government. I just wonder, why would a country that is has the option of joining both the Eastern Bloc union and the European Union? Join the Eastern Bloc union? I would pose that in most instances, they would not, if they actually would, I think they currently could be forming their own union. I think they're not. This is a problem. For the vast majority of your case, with regard to the status quo, auntie, with regard to interstate tension, there's substantial conflict between the countries of the Eastern Bloc, and so far as like up into the 2000s there was territorial disagreements between Romania and Hungary, which were quite emotional. That could be Macedonia, as I think closing government well analyzes, was something that was still a fairly emotional conflict at the time that would reignite at the first time that interests have to be traded off between those countries, and you immediately return to a schema of these countries are my enemy, meaning that you are likely not to continue to collaborate. Secondly, given that that is something that you're aware of, it's also harder to sell a system of you have to be bound there, as opposed to loosely in a union, meaning it also is likely that the overall arrangement of this union is one that is easier to exist because countries want to protect their ability to exit when they form this union initially due to these hostilities, at that point, this union is significantly less stable than the European Union is, meaning that it doesn't actually look like a safe place to invest. Before I go into further material, opening gov.
+
+<poi>
+our incentive is not just trade, but that the sentiment of the EU was to reduce conflict and Russian expansion in these areas in the middle of the green invasion, these incentives remain the same, and proves that millions can only join the Eastern Block and never the EU.
+</poi>
+
+Mary will deal with the remainder of that. I don't actually think it's responsive cool. Why is the European Union better one? It gives you a bigger initial offer for opting in, meaning that it also means that at the point where you would be leaving, you would be trading off a significantly larger immediate, short term cost at the point where you leave because you lose more export market and have to short term before you rearrange yourself, just lose significantly more of your present economic functioning, meaning it's harder to leave. But secondly, the rules of the European Union for leaving are also significantly more stringent, meaning it is harder to do so the European Union doesn't immediately fracture in a way that is perceived as a risk for this block, meaning that it is able to provide significantly more economic stability for these countries. Lastly, I want to go into the lives of individuals. I would posit that free movement, and in particular, the ability to work wherever in the European Union and the issues, is actually just an incredible addition to quality of life. By giving people access to a wide array of choices in terms of where they want to work, this means one that jobs become available that otherwise wouldn't have been available in these countries. And so far, is there is free universities that they can go to elsewhere. That is SD to the standards of companies in the west and but crucially, that to now work where it is cheaper, having acquired those skills and those knowledge, but in a standardized way that those companies can rely on. But secondly, people can choose to go work in a country, work elsewhere, as a care worker, and return to see their family. They don't see their family a lot, but at the very least they see them in significantly as after poverty. I think all of those are things that meaningfully help people's quality of life, even to the degree that maybe economic functioning wouldn't work for us, which I think it definitely does give an analysis. We're just winning on individuals.
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+let's imagine for a second this was not about Consul, but this was a motion about the different set of countries. Do you think CEO would have even considered running. These are stupid people that will just keep themselves on the head with the rock, and they will not be able to get along, regardless of what happens. Honestly, as part some from the Balkans, this is super scandalous push that comes through positive. I was going to do top cap first, but now I'm going to do closing opposition first, in a certain way, firstly, on the reasons why you would not get free trade. One, they said the East hates the West because there are harmful stereotypes. One, know that we pause it. This is not true. After communism fell in 1989 you began to hate the you began to look more towards the West as new businesses came in, McDonald's, all of these sorts of things. And at the point where communism failed, you began to kind of compare to a better opinion of them in this sort of way. They never analyze that you have a bad opinion on them. We give a reason why we have a good opinion of them when communism has failed you. But secondly, this doesn't matter. Countries do not operate thinking like this. They do not go like, Oh, there are bad stereotypes for that country. Therefore, I will not do trade relations. If you can do trade relations which is good for your country, which generates economic benefits, you will do trade relations in this sort of way. I'm not sure why these sorts of stereo harmful stereotypes are bad in this sort of way. Also. Secondly, they say these eastern European governments are seen as unstable. This is why West will not invest in them. One, this is simply not true. The fact that they were in communism before creates massive economic opportunity, massive markets that are freeing up massive cheap labor and all of these things, even if it looks likely unstable, no, the potential economic benefits are much larger. But also, secondly, if this were true, they would not accept them in the European Union. They accepted them in the European Union. They cannot be that unstable if the incentive happened to be like this anyways, but not them. All of our incentives kick in because at most they rebut some of opening government's reasons. This is why we give different reasons not to, you know, remove credit from opening government. Yes, yes, they do give these reasons. But just to be extra sure what to give, some other reasons to be more insulated to these kinds of responses, reasons like the political push to interact with them, reasons like all of the things Roman talked about. But secondly, and. Want to, I want to stress it so much, it will function bad one, and this is the stupid response, we don't care. Okay, let's say it doesn't function perfectly. We already outlined why the metric should not be the countries that will be in those unions symmetrically, but why the metric should be coming countries that are not in those unions. This is to say, even if the union is not flawless, it's probably still much, much better than no union at all. So in the best case version, they still lose out to us. But also, secondly, this is insane for three reasons. One, democracy happened. They are not autocratic regimes. This is after communism. There were democratic movements. We are not ooga Bucha in this sort of way. Also, secondly, you don't need to bring bad Westerner to come in and to police your corruption. You have internal people, media, all of these sorts of things. But thirdly, you have other actors to regulate you, except for that stupid to each other with the rock. You are still members of NATO. There are still beginners from no conflict in this sort of way. I don't think countries are just going to start fighting for pansies. But finally, I would say that this is symmetrical, because those countries would still disagree in the European Union, unless they're pushes. You can regulate them so much, then I think this is the best, massively uncomparative. Also, finally, let's say in the worst case, this is true, and there are countries that just cannot cooperate with each other. Here is the take. They can now go to the other union. If you are stuck with countries with whom you cannot do business, with whom you cannot have relations, there is another union for you to join. And this is the mechanism, because those countries you cannot have relations, which currently not enter any union, because European Union does not like Macedonia in this, in this sort of way, okay, this is closing opposition case. We outweighed them. We rebutted them. The push is very scandalous onto top half. I want to say that it is largely, probably not a super important clash. Which thing is better? This is for a number of reasons. One, a large part of it is a single opening opposition gives some responses, least like, oh, there is risk. Uh, prisoners dilemma. Other side may make higher taxes here, I would say the incentives for trade out wages. Why? Because you may potentially have bad relations with this country in the future if they raise tariffs, but you will definitely have a better relation if you never begin free trade in the first place. But also, even if it's not about necessarily having those profitable trade you want to limit the risk of economic crisis. You want to limit all of these, all of these sorts of things. What does this then mean that you're likely to get symmetrical trade relations, close to symmetrical trade relations in this sort of way. But more important, you're likely to also get the medical other relations, like freedom of movement, because these unions want to be close to each other, because these unions want to be in this sort of way now, opening up government, or maybe right, that you will get less free movement that how you say, hurts the small states, but you still get a degree of this. Anyways. This is the first reason why this probably not the best flash. The second is it is highly uncertain. Things got up and they lied to you. They don't know what, what if happened. They don't know the conditions that Bucha record in this sort of way, which union, because there are reasons why the union may have succeeded a lot the reasons why it may not have succeeded a lot different historical circumstance would have impacted in a different way. You know, what is certain book, the countries that are in no union are certainly fact, and if we give them a comparatively greater chance to join the union, then they can, they can join this union by either going into a union without the country that is vetoing you. So if Bulgaria is between Macedonia, which is why Macedonia currently cannot enter EU, they can go to the eastern Union. But also the conditions are much likely to be lower, because these two unions are now competing amongst each other to get these sort of new members. So they're going to lower conditions in order to attract each new member before I go on opening opposition,
+
+<poi>
+Even if both unions are equally integrated, Eastern countries are still denied a greater amount of EU subsidies for public health and bailouts during crises. This is the most important impact, because more people live in Poland than Macedonia and in 2004 these countries were not necessarily registered. 
+</poi>
+
+Look two things. The first is, this is not true, because you still have incentive to bail the amount of crisis because you have trade relations amongst each other. Then if one country gets crisis, you are also fucked. You are also like EU gives money to non EU countries all the time, by the way, in this sort of way. Also, secondly, and very importantly, is, uh, how you say, even if this is the case and there is a comparative harm on more people in Poland, this is much, much less significant, there's a comparative harm on the country it is not in the Union at all because they never get any of these sorts of assistances. They never get all of these things. Now onto other parts of opening government that are not within dispatch personally on the reasons why more countries join. They say Russia is going to stop them from joining the EU, but as opening opposition rightfully describes, they never explain why Russia does not stop them from joining the comparative there is literally zero reasoning. Our reasonings are comparative. They rely on one union versus two unions and this and so we explain why the status quo there's problem, why there wouldn't be problem otherwise. Also second on the push button will be comparatively more leverage. Sure they prove this. But again, I'm uncertain why leverage is that important to countries that are. Already in a union, but entering the union is probably incredibly important in so far as these countries are the most vulnerable actor. So we created this argument for them, but we will argue that our is much more important.
+</gw>
+
+<ow>
+Then I will start in 321, I will first take out CG in this debate, and I will deal with OG. And then if I have time left, I'll with OO. But I think which I beat governments that should already also beat OO. So Alec, here's the thing, just because I don't break UGC rules and put in my background, which country I come from, doesn't change the fact that I also grew up in one of these countries, and I also know what the fuck this motion should be about. So I can actually call you out on all of the bullshit that you are trying to get away with. But before that, an intuition pump panel, I don't understand why both government teams seem to think that countries who have went through bloody revolutions to try to get rid from under Russian oppression would need incentives to stay away from Russia. I don't see anyone arguing that we need to give Taiwan incentives to not get closer to China. I think Taiwan has a lot of incentives to not want to get close to China and to have someone protect them. I think most of those apply symmetrically to countries that have done everything they possibly could to get rid of Russian oppression when who and I happened to be older than most people in this room, so I actually grew up in the night, is where the the literal best thing that could happen to anyone in our country was to able to travel to the west, not even live there, or have such a lifestyle as most of us actually do right now, but just to be able to travel into the West was seen as the best fucking thing in the world. So cat asks CG a question that goes unresponded to, and I think that already takes down their case in having an A competing union to the European Union for all of these countries who are not in the EU wouldn't itself be really great and give them so many benefits. Why has no one done it? And why has no one even as much as proposed that? The reason for that is presumably because, clearly, it takes a lot more than just nominally being in a union with other countries for the Union to actually give you benefits. That also asks you, Why would a country that has the ability to you and this new Eastern European Union? Why would they ever choose that union over EU, and that also goes completely ignored. We have a lot of reasons that have flown on both sides of the debate on why joining EU does give you a lot of benefits. That probably implies that that new union would be very, very weak and at most, something that you can join only until you get accepted in the EU which means that I don't know how anyone would would take it seriously and give it negotiation leverage and anything like that, right? But like also on the idea that like countries who are not in in the European Union right now are like, which one genuinely, which one like. Let's talk about Serbia, for example. Serbia is doing excellent right now, and it is profiting massively from European Union accession fund right now, Alec tries to tell you, Oh, those countries can't be that unstable, because if they were unstable, they wouldn't have been accepted into you. Here's how being accepted into you works. If you are an unstable country, as most of these countries were, what you what you get is an accession plan that usually takes many, many years to you also gives you a shit ton of money and a shit ton of institutional support like send you experts and people to help you to build up your institutions, to liberalize your institution, to clean up corruption, tons of FDI to help you build up your economy. And at the end of that process, if you meet the criteria, you then join EU. That is the reason why all of these countries join mid to late, 2000s and not in 1989 when the Soviet Union collapsed, the reason for that is because the Soviet Union did collapse. These countries were incredibly unstable. Here's the thing. Up until like early 2000s when they started accession talks with EU, there was very, very little improvement. Because what actually happened in 89 is not a democratic government was installed. And ooh, CO, you can't just try to claim that those governments were blah, blah blah, because I'm telling you that it's NCG, by the way, mocking us doesn't actually come as what we actually saw is that the countries, those countries have no no institutional knowledge of democracy, and what that is like, so that even though technically the governments were nominally democratic, what we saw is that there were disastrous privatizations that were happening where you could buy entire factories, or like, literally half of a town was bought for very little money. And those Privatizations were only offered to people who are close to the people who are in power, who also happen to be people who had also been quite high up in the communist regime. The vast majority of the citizens saw that, and they felt betrayed. They did not trust this new government. But even if that weren't true, they weren't used to be able to trust their government, what they saw were policemen on the street who are taking bribes, and what they what got to reinforce is that they cannot trust the authorities. They cannot trust the institutions. They're just having democracy in name is not sufficient to have a democratic, stable state. And if that were true, then we would have. Have absolutely no problem in like 75% of the countries in the world, which is clearly not the case, right? But here's the thing. DG says, Well, you know they haven't they have advantages because they have cheap labor. So clearly, doesn't matter if they're unstable. But companies obviously carry for countries unstable or not, because if your government can raise taxes at any time, can legislate against its corporations and can see their assets, obviously, whatever you say from cheap labor doesn't pay off. So obviously you also need stable, stable governments can't give you systematic reasons why. That is something that you get, not only from being in the you but also from given the chance to enter the process of joining the EU that goes unresponsive to and that beats both government. Let's now look at opening government. And before that, do you have a POI?
+
+<poi>
+So again, this presumes little to no trade with the EU. What we argue is not only will they still do this, but that the ability for you to negotiate that is much greater as a block that is an individual
+</poi>
+
+Look, Here's the problem with that. One countries that are not in the EU can already trade with the EU to the extent that you think they have they would have higher leverage. You need to explain why this new union would actually be stable, actually desirable for you to stay over the EU and actually something that can give you more benefits than the funds the EU gives you, even if you're not in the just trying to succeed to the EU. You do none of those things. You just assume it would work. Even that, I am unsure why they would be better off in that union than they are in a status quo. But not only that, I think just looking at the the fact that cap gives you a lot of analysis on why countries that do join European Union actually do have a lot of power to influence European Union, one of the strongest mechanisms for that is the veto power, which is something that we usually get really pissed at, because then that means that Hungary can go wrong and and like, get concessions within the EU. But here's the thing OG saying, Well, you know, clearly EU promotes a third Korean states, because look, Poland and Hungary exists, ignores two things, one, both of these countries were much, much, much more conservative before joining EU. Two, yes, the EU cannot stop all of the horrible things that governments want to do, but what the EU can do is enforce human rights. It can enforce some sort of, some sort of equality before the law in their institutions, and it can drag their institutions to court if their citizens are mistreated too much. Is that perfect? Clearly, not, but it's much, much, much better than in the alternative, where I genuinely don't think CG can have their cake and eat you and say, like, oh, we have leverage over to you, but at the same time, do you will totally have power to step in and solve your problems and conflicts. Like, clearly, the European Union would not have the ability to enforce human rights or mediation in that separate union, which is something that you get on our side of the house. Obviously it's not perfect, but it's infinitely better than the alternative.Panel There is nothing that has happened to my country. That was better than joining the European Union, just because the poor have become less rich than the middle classes become richer, doesn't mean that they still haven't become a lot richer than they were before. Everyone profits. I'm very proud to oppose.
+</ow>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Belgrade WUDC 2022 Round 9 Room 2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+<pm>
+The rise of hustle culture and the annoying social media that is LinkedIn has led to more sadness than happiness in the world and that's what, opening government is going to prove today. What we want is very simple. We do not, we oppose the pressure to focus on promoting one's career at the expense of forming a family. This means that in order to counteract that, if there are narratives that promote the idea of family, that provides importance to the concept of family, that promote the importance that you need to go back to your home, spend time with your family, have a good relationship with your kids, and so on and so forth. We are more than happy to promote these that counteract the forces that exist in terms of that. But most importantly, we oppose the narrative that your career needs to take priority at the expense of your family and that's the most important thing within this debate. We stand for a world that does not exist, we stand for a world where it's more normalized in a lot of ways to either prioritize your family. Some people would obviously be prioritizing career over family. We think that's acceptable. But, for the vast majority of individuals, it's important what social narrative exists and so on and so forth. A few things in opening government. Firstly, I'm going to prove to you why it is that our side of the topic gives you more fulfillment generally. Secondly, I'm going to talk about even if it gives an equal level of fulfillment to an equal number of people, why interpersonal fulfillment is better than materialistic fulfillment, something that we promote in our world. And lastly, I'm going to prove why our narrative leads to better work culture within corporations and workplaces more generally for everyone, and that's a net benefit for everyone. So, firstly, assuming that both pursuits give you fulfillment because obviously your career gives you some level of fulfillment. Obviously, your life with your family also gives you fulfillment. Why is it that under our world, more people have access to that fulfillment? Because the framing here is very important. If you create a social narrative where you say that, "Oh, you need to pursue your career at the expense of your family," what you're saying is, someone who is pursuing their career at the expense of their family and getting successful at it deserves a higher status within society more generally, and this is something that we ought to go after. At that particular point in time, someone who then goes for family life, or prioritizes their family life, do not get the same level of fulfillment because of existing social narratives, Which means that there is a trade-off in this particular sense. Why do we think that when it comes to fulfillment it is better for you on our side? Number one, because the nature of the capitalist system means that it is a pyramid structure. So what do I mean by this? Obviously, there are CEOs in companies. Beyond that, you have vice presidents. Beyond that, you have executives, and so on and so forth. As you move up the ladder in any career, it may be something like a McDonald's brand where you start off as a cashier and then move your way up to manager. It can be a big corporation. In any of these structures, numbers get fewer as you go up. Which means that these positions of success, these positions of monetary benefits get restricted to fewer and fewer people by design because that's how capitalism and society works within hierarchical systems. This means that the access to that is barred in a lot of cases. In comparison, access to family is far easier because society has set up generally easier means through which you can access and form families. So, for example, in a lot of societies, there is access to things like marriages that are prioritized to a large extent. But also even in Western societies and stuff, you have dating apps and stuff like that, that allow you to connect with people in one way or the other, finding love and so on and so forth, but also there is a biological and sociological drive to form a family. Which means that it gets easier for you to form a family, in those particular instances. This means that it is far more easily accessible for you to gain fulfillment from this. Number two, because oftentimes when it comes to corporations and so on and so forth, there is an artificial external barrier that keeps you from getting success. So, mind the fact that like, women earn seventy-nine cents to a dollar that a man earns, means that there exist glass ceilings for women but also glass ceilings for particular races and ethnicities depending on whether or not you are a minority and so on and so forth. Subtle racism is still a thing, meaning that in a lot of these cases, the access to that success is often restricted to very few demographic groups because of socio political happenings that are symmetric in both sides. Under our world, under their world you are barred from accessing these successes often times, because of your identity, whereas under our world, you are not barred from accessing these things because in a lot of cases, you can form a family which is more accessible to individuals such as minorities and so on and so forth. Number three, because in a lot of cases, when it comes to capitalist structures, you feel like you're replaceable, right? Because you realize that you can be replaced by someone else. Oftentimes, you are threatened to be fired. Oftentimes, you feel like your work can be done by someone else. Oftentimes, you feel like you are just a cog in a bigger machine. In those circumstances, you feel more replaceable as opposed to your family where you are an integral part regardless, regardless you are a brother, you are regardless a sister, you are regardless someone's wife or husband, or a parent or a child, so as to speak. And these are important positions that you can take, which is not true in the case of corporations or careers more generally, which means that fulfillment is more accessible for people. Before I move on to materialistic stuff, I'll take a OO since I already have one. 
+<poi>
+We're defending the status quo, and yet in the status quo, the vast majority of people still get married eventually. Why do you believe that familiar relationships are so impossible on your side of the house to opt into?
+</poi>
+No, no, no, no, no, no, obviously, most people get married, that's not the problem and we agree to that, that's not the problem. The problem is, where do you derive your fulfillment from? Do you derive your fulfillment from the fact that, "Oh, I go back to my house and then I see the face of my partner and then get happiness out of that," or do I derive fulfillment from getting success in a career? What we are saying is that getting success in a career is far harder to get fulfillment from, that is particularly problematic. 
+Materialistic fulfillment versus interpersonal. We think in terms of framing, in a world where you prioritize careers on top of family is where you, by default, prioritize materialistic stuff. Because what does a career give you? It gives you money, it gives you access to a lot of privileges and benefits that are attached to careers and so on and so forth. This makes it a more materialistic world than an interpersonal world. The reason this becomes very difficult to access in terms of happiness is because of the simple reason that you judge yourself on a comparative scale. Because money, the CEO has more money than a vice president, the executive has less money than a vice president, and so on and so forth. You keep comparing yourself and it's very difficult to find happiness in those circumstances versus the love of your family members, which is something that is accessible to everyone, it's easier to access for everyone and it's something that is far easier to obtain more generally. Which means that interpersonal fulfillment, A, is more, easier to obtain, but, B,  it's easier to fulfill you, because you are not comparing yourself to everyone, anyone all the time. Because you are happy with what you have, you are happy with the fact that you get to meet your kids at night, which means fulfillment of family has no comparison metric with someone else that makes you unhappy, but like, materialistic fulfillment does. Lastly, why it leads to better work culture more generally? Because we think that a world in which there is a hidden expectation for you to prioritize your career on top of your family is a world where corporations get away with not giving you bonus payments for extra work, it is a world where corporations get to enforce nine to seven, nine to eight workers instead of nine to five because that is a norm that is accepted. In our world, it's better for you to have work-life balance. The reason this is then better for groups like women, is because in both worlds, it is symmetric that women have pressure to fulfill things at home and essentially get along with a lot of tasks that are expected out of them. Under our world, careers are more accessible to them because you have better work culture structures that are more conducive to generally women's participation within the economic force. That is something that is proven and something that Sajid will expand upon. Entirely proud to oppose. 
+</pm>
+<lo>
+Before I get into instructive and explain why this narrative is better for the individual in society, I want to point out a framing that I think marginalizes most of the opening government case. I don't think this debate is about opting out on the mouse from relationships or even opting out to a great degree. I think on either side of the house, people are likely to settle down eventually. The question is when they do it and if they do it in a manner that is optimized for them to derive all of the benefits from fulfillment that Sajid inserted are considered to be so important. Where does this narrative likely apply? I think this narrative likely applies and is most salient in your early career, when you're starting out, i.e., when you're entry-level or relatively early on in your career, i.e., middle management at the absolute most. The reason why this is the case is because when you reach middle age and are further along in your career, there is tons of pressure and relatively low barrier pressure on you from external and countervailing influences to settle down. This looks like your internal biological clock telling you that it won't last forever and you need to procreate at a certain point in order to do so. This looks like your family and your friends putting pressure on you not to be an old maid or an old bachelor and trying to set you up with different people in your community. This looks like the fact that you see other people in your community settling down societal psychosocial pressure to do so. This looks like the fact that the vast majority of the world is religious and religious texts exist in either the world that tell you, your duty is to procreate. What this means is that there are pressures that exist externally to the motion that eventually push people towards having a family. And it also means the pressure on the opposition side, government side, is to form a family far earlier and opening government 100% consistency in their framing, when they say they amplify that narrative. What our narrative is most salient at doing is telling you, when you are in your early or middle career path, it is important to prioritize the success of your career, working hard, and promoting it, in order to attain stability and derive fulfillment from whatever you like to do. In other words, if you believe familiar fulfillment is more accessible and somehow better, it will be accessible eventually on either side. The difference is, and the comparative in this debate, is incredibly important. You will be in more of a position to enjoy that fulfillment when you have pressure on you to move towards prioritizing your career over prioritizing family in the interim. I have two extensive responses to opening opposition before I get into constructive. 
+
+
+Firstly, I just contested as hard to get fulfillment from a career. Firstly, just empirically, there are a broad array of options for work and they are diversifying every year as remote work becomes far more available, as provisions become more diversified, and as there are more and more jobs that exist in society as we continue to advance in technology. Secondly, even if you don't make it, success isn't absolute in an absolute sense. I.e., you don't make it to the top of the corporate hierarchy and become Michael Scott. There are tons of annoying middle managers who enjoy their jobs empirically, right? Like, there are so many Karens who love pushing papers on their desk and enjoy every minute of that kind of work. So, you don't need to be at the top of the corporate hierarchy to drive success from that. They're just wrong on that premise. But thirdly, when there is a pressure narrative to promote your career, you have incentives to opt into a career you like, right? Because if you are promoting your career day in and day out and working very hard on it, you are likely to take in the advice from people that you better be promoting something that you enjoy or at least attempt to enjoy it to the best of your degree. But finally, this is dubiously comparative, right, because in so far as you can't thrive pleasure from work because it fluctuates a lot and economically the things are unstable, relationships often have highs and lows, pleasure in them is very subjective and also proven a minute, they can often really suck if you're poor, which is more likely on there from the house. Then they say, when people feel more pressured to work hard, they'll optimize in such a way that means that you don't get family benefits or something like this. This is really silly because if you're optimizing for success, our narrative is necessarily one more of a balance because you feel pressure to promote your career. It's not just a narrative about working, it's a pressure to succeed at work. This means you likely accrue a narrative of balance because the narrative is oriented around work success, i.e., succeeding in your career. You are likely to internalize messaging like breaks are important in order for you to be maximally productive. It's important for you to be doing something you enjoy in order to drive pleasure from that kind of thing. Empirically, women opting into the labor force in a massive amount has just given more benefits in general. I have no idea why that's the case. Why do you make better choices on our side of the house? I'm going to start with the benefits of the individual. No unframing when you are young. You have less dating experience, based on preference aren't fully formed. You have limited travel and exposure to different people, meaning preferences aren't entirely clear yet, and you have limited work experience. You have trouble navigating specific career paths and have a lack of information. But finally, and this is the most critical, you have limited financial funds, right? Because you're starting out. You're working, paying attention to it. And this is critical because it means provision for your significant other family is very hard. What changes on our side at this critical juncture? It's the most important impact in the debate because these are the people who are the most salient in terms of impact. If they fail, then they're fucken, If they succeed, then they're great. If they achieve a medium, then they're better off. Firstly, when you're pressured to promote your career, you're vastly more likely to consider long-term prioritization far more. I.e., what additional education do you need? Like going to law school, opting for a master's degree, where you want to live, or moving into an area with an industry that has jobs for your specific skill set. The comparative is you are likely to feel pressured to settle down faster. Or if you already have a family, to focus less on optimizing to be able to provide for them financially. As an illustration, this looks like you're an entry-level employee. You're more likely to prioritize a promotion that comes with relocation over remaining in the small town you grew up in and swiping it multiple times on Tinder. We're prioritizing a high-earning career with a path to promotion over dedicating that one extra night with your family. It is a small trade-off, but it is a trade-off that insulates you from the worst economic risks significantly and insulates you from a lot of problems. Secondly, you're likely to feel less pressured to settle down early. What the countervailing pressure on the government does is you need to prioritize family over work. This ties you to one location far more and you are far stuck in one place and far more likely to be pressured to settle down faster. Now, the opposition might say, "Ah, you have more time to explore your dating preferences." Even if this is true, you are far better able to know what you truly like when you're a bit older on one hand. So, we preclude that, but secondly, insofar as you are financially stable, this is far more conducive to having a healthy relationship even if you end up marrying the wrong person or something like this. You know, just far likely to be happier with them at the point in which you're financially stable, even if they're not like 100% perfect to be your soulmate or whatever. But thirdly, the pressure incentivizes you to actively seek out information about how to advance your career path, right? When you care a lot about this and you feel pressured to promote yourself, you're significantly more likely to accrue and attract it. What means toward economic stability in a variety of instances? This means, rather than going on a fifth Tinder date, you instead look at and browse LinkedIn for example. Instead of, you know, like doing these kinds of things. But finally, when you do start a family, which you're likely to do on either side, you likely started in a better financial position. I.e., you have sunk a good degree of time into advancing, accruing paychecks, and savings, and also the information about how to save. Which means you are far more likely to, firstly, one, have more financial capital to provide for your children. This is critical, but you have less at the opt-in point to the relationship because you're more financially stable. Before I impact that, closing. 
+<poi>
+The pressure to be able to provide for your family always exists. People who ignore this pressure on your side of the debate would probably not be swayed by this pressure either.
+</poi>
+I don't think they ignore that pressure, right. I think what this does is on the margins, make you more likely to prioritize your career in junctures when it is critical in your life when you could be seduced easily by the siren song of your narrative on your side, and I want to make the comparative very, very clear on wing. In either case, people will settle down eventually. The question is whether or not they do it in a financially stable position. Our world sets you a performer's success in terms of being in a position to have a family in the first place. So, we're logically prior to all of those benefits. We also get less unhappy families, right? Because you're more financially stable in general, right. Your family suffers less even if it doesn't exist in the first place. Why is hustle culture good if you believe this is the most important flash.
+Firstly, you're able to find more fulfillment. Interpersonal fulfillment is highly subjective. It's incredibly unclear whether or not you can derive pleasure from it. Many people don't enjoy relationships. Family can be incredibly stressful. The comparative is that the diversity of Greece is giving a lot of different options to opt into even if you don't succeed. But even if you believe family is more fulfilling, you're able to experience that fulfillment to a far greater degree when you insulate yourself from economic shocks and instability, far likely. But finally, access to family is easier, because a happy family is easy because you're really going to be able to provide for your family. It's less of a drain on resources. It takes you down right on their side. And there's less stress because when you're living paycheck to paycheck, it's harder to derive fulfillment from that kind of thing. On the metric of fulfillment, we clearly win by proving you opt in at a better point to family on our side of the house. But we prove for the people who need this narrative the most, it creates the impetus to the social change that is the most important. Incredibly proud to stand opening up.
+</lo>
+<dpm>
+All are very quickly going to go out of this debate. The first thing they base their case on is this narrative being prevalent at early points in time. This is because for some reason you care about your family later on and you don't do this naturally, early on. The first response is, presumably, if they can feel that their natural forces care about their family later on, if we increase that time barrier and accelerate it, if you care about your family early, you would also care about their well-being going forward as well, which would create a natural push for you to earn money now, so you can pay for your family going forward. So if anything, there benefits of having a family later are symmetric because that's also an argument why people would not opt out of working altogether and would think about their families going forward and would want to earn money so they can see their children do well. Number two, it is not true that you can just earn or get a family randomly after 10 years of not talking to them and spending time with them. Relationships often need work, so when you start distancing yourself from your friends or your brothers and your mothers, these relationships are often hard to reverse 10 years down the line because they have a new set of experiences which you can't relate to and vice-versa. Thirdly, assuming that this debate is only about 10 years, their comparative has to be why in those 10 years, the fulfillment of your career is inherently better. We've argued that at any point in time, even if it is for 5 minutes, the access and the inherent fulfillment of capitalistic structures is far worse regardless of how much time this is for. The first reason is because of the nature of the capitalist structure being a zero-sum game. The second reason is because of artificial barriers for specific groups of people like glass ceilings and racism for minorities. The third is that you feel it's an individualized struggle because of the way the narrative works. You need to work hard to get better, so you often ignore structural barriers that are placed onto you. And even when you get a promotion, even though you may feel good for a second about the fact that you got a promotion, when you see that there are 500 other people on your level and there's so many years and so much more hard work to do, you feel exhausted, you feel part of a wheel that is never-ending. So true fulfillment from you feels unheard of because you are replaceable and you are just another person in the wheel. The only response to all of this analysis from the PM is, word is becoming more available; Assertive assertion at best. I would argue work is becoming less available because of the natural trend of technology advancing. With things like automation slowly replacing labor with the dependence on human capital being replaced by artificial technological capital, the need for humans is at an all-time low. The second thing they say is, but you still judge yourself based on the fact that you struggle with no actual analysis of how you judge yourself based on that you always compare. That's why I feel bad about the fact that I haven't won worlds despite the fact that I've still been one of the best debaters in my region. That's why the basis of comparison is always better when you have an individualized, privatized family, where your child is your own and you take ownership over that child, or the fact that your brother is your own and you don't have to share. The fact that humans don't like sharing is an inherent trait of humans that makes capitalistic struggles far worse to derive fulfillment from. The last thing they say is that under this point, there is always a natural incentive to take breaks, like five minutes. Like, guys, this is mitigatory at best. You will only take those five-minute breaks at a point in time where it is a conduit for you to recharge and work. So, in those five minutes, you are always thinking about what to begin with. But like, guys, we should take breaks for like 10 hours a day, not 5 minutes. You only compare yourself to the next person. So, the moment you see that someone else is better than you, you have an incentive to cut this break short. Mental health deteriorates far more than it should. The next thing they say is, you always go to make short-term trade-offs like, long-term trade-offs and make a lot of short-term costs in the process. Like the fact that you'll be stuck in one place, which will harm your career. The first thing I would posit is this norm uniformly applies. So, all people presumably start thinking about their family to a greater degree. At this point in time, your competition for these spots is worsened out or evened out equally. So, even if you think about that one spot less, others think about it less as well. So, your ability to compete for spots is equal on both sides and is symmetric. Number two, I would argue early rushing for success in your career is just objectively bad. The first reason is because it is unclear they have proven that the access to this success exists for most people. So, this argument is only valuable if they prove more people get short-term success. Success is more difficult the moment you make the time span even shorter. Like, how many of us are going to earn a million dollars in five years? Which is presumably what most debaters would get fulfillment from. The second is the artificial barriers to short-term success. Things like age, things like you don't have a degree from Harvard, so you need 10 to 15 years to get that success. Those make short-term success even more difficult. Lastly, even if you get short-term success, best case scenario, you earn a million dollars in five years. I would argue that this success is bad. This is because your success is measured through capitalistic means, i.e., the amount of money you've earned in that short-term span of time within five years. Often, you get locked into specific skill sets and careers that are bad for you in the long run to start that family that you want so very dearly at the age of thirty-five. So, when you become an investment banker and your desired work-life hours are 18 hours a day, the moment you move up to a more senior position within that investment bank, that pressure only increases. You see investment banking as the quickest success mechanism or the quickest way for you to earn money without factoring in your family and the fact that it may have long-term costs on your family. So, career choices that often prioritize short-term success often become the biggest deadlocks to having a family in the long run, which is why short-term success is so very powerful. If anything were to happen to trade this off, because we've again proven with no response that the access to fulfillment is greater and the inherent fulfillment because you don't measure yourself to a common metric of money but through individualized, personalized relationships that other people cannot take ownership over. The ability to get fulfilled is better. Before further positive material, I'll take OO. 
+<poi>
+Yeah, look. In the developing world and in minority communities, which often tend to have this narrative far stronger due to the fact of being more conservative, they're often more religious. Things like the patriarchy exist. These narratives are far more salient, which means that women lose their defense mechanisms say, "I'm focusing on my career."
+</poi>
+Why does this get her better for women? Their inherent incentives to include women in the workforce regardless. First, you want to maximize output as an economy. All politicians don't want 50% of their labor force to be completely unused at home. This is the exact reason why the most conservative societies like Bangladesh and Malaysia have included the greatest number of women in the workforce, with things like the garments industry being completely dominated by female labor at a point in time where you needed that labor to make this the most important industry of Bangladesh. At a point in time where there is a natural incentive to include women at work, what becomes perverse for women is when they have to prioritize the work-life culture and the things that men need to do like stay at work till late or not take pregnancy leaves because that's the natural demand. You have to hustle. You have to get the quickest success in the shortest amount of time. The ability to negotiate for things like daycare centers and the ability to have pregnancy leaves happens when family is a prioritized narrative and all of them can collectivize and demand for it. Time's up, that shows women are better served in a world because there is a natural incentive to include them regardless. Very glad to win this debate.
+</dpm>
+<dlo>
+This is the third time I've gone up against Sajid and Soradev at this competition, and I think it's safe to say that the phrase "an old dog can learn new tricks" is fundamentally false. Let's get into dismantling their case and explain to you why I win from the LO. Firstly, a bit of weight. If there's a pressure on either side, why is our kind of pressure better and more fulfilling, and you outweigh for our side? I.e., the pressure to start a career over family? Let's dismantle what OG says first. One that there's a hierarchy in capitalism. So, there are fewer and fewer positions, and you feel like you're part of a wheel. Sure. But they don't respond to my analysis, which is you can still find fulfillment not in the absolute but relatively. That is to say you can find happiness in getting promoted even if you aren't the CEO or the little dopamine hits that actually exist within the job in and of itself. But also note, and this is important, the pressure to focus on a career means the grind feels less shitty because you believe it is something meaningful. On either side, note you have to work. If you are told it is fulfilling, it artificially makes you feel like it is worthwhile. What, and this is critical, what makes you feel fulfillment is socially constructed and malleable. If we tell people the things that they inevitably have to do in the workplace or something they ought to be fulfilled by, it essentially short-circuits the reasons not to feel good about it. But families are more accessible and they make you feel less replaceable. This is particularly why you don't need a pressure to focus on family. Because it's so much more accessible for all of the reasons they give you, and there are low barriers to entry to doing it. So, in other words, it is likely that it is still accessible and they still ground you and provide a good source of euphoria and reinforcement that you otherwise need. But thirdly, they say glass ceilings and it's largely restricted. Note, this pressure counteracts these restrictive narratives and culture, and these structures. The pressure being distributed across all people on our side with this narrative means you create incentives for society to provide information about how to advance. Because our narrative creates a common struggle that now everybody opts into. You get more webinars about how I made it. As an illustration, this looks like minorities telling their children, "You must work very hard to advance or you're fucked." This pushes you to break glass ceilings and get the benefits. Or you have more women going to positions of power that provide more opportunities and information to other women. I.e., previous paths of the girl bosses navigating those tough decisions and trade-offs. I think minorities are likely the ones under most pressure from the government's narrative, right? Because minority communities tend to be more conservative, often more religious, and the narrative is far more salient among them. The same with the pressure on women. What this means is that women and minorities are the most likely to self-select out, on their sides and they work less. When they work less, the white men who experience narratives to differential degrees are likely to take up more of those positions. This means that when there are far fewer women and minorities in the workforce, they cannot collectivize to the same degree. When a company has 40% of its workforce as women, you're obviously far more likely to get better corporate policy. On their side, they can’t see this, people, especially women, are far more likely to opt out of work at the critical junctures where they needed to be working more. But also in the developing world, where the pressure is to settle down and focus on your family is overwhelming. This is the countervailing narrative that women who don't want to settle down as a defense against their conservative parents. They say, "I cannot. I'm focusing on my career right now that everybody in society tells me is valuable and I ought to be doing." The response to their inherent incentives to include women in the economy on either side is yes, but they selectively opt out far more based on the narratives that they consume. And for women who really don't want families, they lose their defense mechanisms that they can otherwise tell their family. This is how you get policies like maternity leave, like anti-discrimination because minorities are formally represented at every stage in the corporate ladder. Secondarily, on pressure, the pressure for success means you create avenues to succeed, which means you create pressure on companies to find more clear paths to success and information about what is needed to succeed. And thirdly, the pressure to form one's career, generally speaking, means when more people are career-oriented, what this does is creates pressure on society to provide things like childcare, etc. because people say, "I need to focus on my career, and I need to have something to make sure my child doesn't starve." So I think at the very least, if you don't buy the flip, you buy everything else that I just gave you. Let me give you some reasons why we outweigh that. If you buy nothing else that I've said. If there's some trade-off on fulfillment, it's better to have this pressure and career that is more likely to gain fulfillment when prioritizing your career. Assuming we don't know everybody's preferences and which choice will maximize their outcomes. One, a career is a clear and measurable criteria. It's clear to know what you have to do to pressure to essentially progress along that line. The comparative is this, there is no clear criteria to get fulfillment out of the family. Every family is different. Secondarily, there are substantially more information. I.e., you can look at previous people in the career and what they did to succeed. It's the same playing field. The comparative is that on everybody's path to a family is different because every human being is different. Whereas careers follow similar structures based on the institutions that form it. But secondarily, it likely fulfills a wider set of preferences because it's oriented around individual passions that everybody has and money, which is a prerequisite to agency and the ability for somebody to exist in a capitalist society. But thirdly, it's comparatively more within your control. I.e.  forming a family and dating relies on somebody else's actions and preferences that you cannot control. Yes, it's hard to exist with other people like your boss, but you can control your own actions and the way you improve from the previous point. The impacts of all this is that in the process, we don't know how many people will succeed on either starting the family that they want or the career they want or what their preferences are and if they will be happy with their choices on either side. But it is comparatively more likely when you base your fulfillment on the criteria I just gave you. It is a clearer blueprint to getting that utility and fulfillment because it provides a clear measurable criteria and all of the things that I said before. But even if you buy none of that and you think family is the only way people can be happy, I'm going to explain to you why in this section even if you believe family is just going to be more fulfilling, you are better suited to start a family that is more fulfilling to you on our side. On either side, you likely start a family or are pressured to for the reasons Matt and CG agree with. Now, Bill might say, "Ah, you can maybe experiment more. Dedicate much more time to dating." I don't think this matters that much because you can, to some extent, find out what you like and don't like from dating on our side. But before explaining more of that, I'll take CG quickly. CG, do you have a POI?
+<poi>
+Yeah, Ahmed, could you please explain to me what's more important to a kid? Having their father give them more attention or having $10,000 more dollars when they inherit? 
+</poi>
+This is beautiful because this part right now, I'm going to explain to you why the father is more suited to be able to play catch with his kid. Look, on opp, even if you don't buy that, why is a better financial and career position or dedicating more time to your career means you're more likely to get a better family? That gives you a bunch of reasons, but here's why the decision in career matters in particular for creating a happier family that allows it to be more fulfilling. Which responds to this POI. Finances dictate the conditions for love and how much of a family person you can be. Affording the bills, having health insurance, not fighting, creating a divorce for little Timmy, love cannot thrive if the conditions for it do not exist. But secondarily, this is critical. You have more information about what you want out of your career. Do you enjoy it? Do you really want that promotion after spending 10 years in it? Focusing on your career more, means you’ve more security information about how much of your life you want your career to consume, where you want to live, and what trade-offs you want to make for your family. It is better that people prioritize their career up to the age of 30 or 40, before they have to start a family than to change their minds after they've started a family. So we essentially short-circuit all of the government's analysis and take it. I'll fuck all of the dinos including, Matt. 
+</dlo>
+<mg>
+Panel, I think there is a great reason behind why kids that are coming from extremely rich, privileged, and career-oriented parents are often the most depressed cohort there are. And I do believe that this narrative pushes parents to behave in awful ways, in the end, harming the kids the most. I think so far, the top half has been about how this affects people who are in the workforce or who are out. However, I don't think they are actually the biggest stakeholders that we should care about because primarily, Ideally, they’re the ones who, to some extent, having the agency to choose whether they want to respect this narrative or not. I don't think kids of these parents, right, have the same agency, and that's why our impacts are going to be solely focused on them, and that's why I do believe we will win this debate. Prior to going into my arguments, I just want to do a bit of weighing points out. Almost all of their benefits are dependent on people not having kids because of this narrative, right? And I think this is just foolish, as all points out, there's still many, many other persons who have kids. And I don't think, I truly do not think that outside of the bank plan, any parent decided to not have kids primarily because of this narrative, right. But mostly to some extent, right. If this premise is not correct, part of their impact does not stand, right. Second level of impact that they have is the workers, right. I do believe this is correct and just fine. However, what happens when the culture of a company is good, right. Notice, in a social circle, a bunch of extremely family-friendly companies exist, and they do it because of selfish interest because they want to keep workers who value family at the workplace, right? So, that's why I don't believe a bunch of OO scams actually occur if these two instances that I mentioned are not fulfilled, right? That's why we'll focus on the internal questions which everyone feels even regardless of the fact, whether the companies, family-friendly houses. Alright. Notice that all of their claims are contingent on the fact that the alternative is people having kids very early. Notice that they almost never provide an explanation for this. They just assert it. Here's why it is very unlikely in the alternative world people will have kids when they're like twenty, right? First of all, let us bond to our culture of the woman. It's incredibly individualistic, right? We want to experience the world for ourselves, right? Like we want to travel, we want to see the world. That is something that is very incompatible with kids. That's why, when the majority of 20-somethings do not have kids at the moment. But secondly, the financial aspect is almost impossible. This is POI, the Josie aspect. If I'm twenty, right. I'm not an idiot and I want my kid to have a good future, right. I see at the moment that that's not something which is financially responsible to do. That's why I will not have kids very, very early. So, to some extent, a bunch of all of us harm just do not occur because their alternative was asserted. Never explained. I think the likely alternative is people still have kids when they're about 25 or 30, like any other start of 30s, right. So, to some extent, I don't believe they are that harmful. Okay, it wasn't actually our case, right. I think we'll have a very simple claim. People are worse parents because of these narratives and kids suffer a lot, right? Because as we said, and I think like, oh, oh, kind of considered, right, people will have kids anyway, and they will need to work anyway because very often it's something which is financially responsible, and because a bunch of us actually do want to fulfill ourselves through work, right. I didn't just completely find to save, right. But what happens when I know the people at my job fundamentally think that to some extent, me having a family is incompatible with me advancing in the workforce? I think, firstly, I get paranoid, right. I get paranoid that my colleagues and my boss will gossip about this. I get paranoid with my boss. We perceive me as someone who is less worthy of promotion exactly because I'm maybe not as loyal to the company, right? Maybe I value my family far more than my job post. To some extent, right. This is a fear which is very internal, right? It can be very irrational, right. Our plane is not contingent on your company actually being treated. But just on the fact that because of this narrative, a bunch of people fundamentally get paranoid because all of us actually want to succeed in other job posts as ourselves, right. And in the moment when I'm paranoid, I will likely to overcompensate it, the impacts related. But second of all, I know that very often when you don't succeed and you have a family, right. You start to think that maybe the reason why you did not succeed or get that promotion was exactly because of your family, right. Exactly because you had a family, which means and shows that you're not maybe dedicated to your job, right. This is something which often is just not true, right. Often, you're not promoted because of one of your other colleagues, right. But people often seek the easiest explanation and push the responsibility away from them, right. And this narrative is just like a perfect mind to basically say, "No, I am like, I was’t looking for it exactly because of my family." What are the impacts of this, right? Firstly, you're internally pressured to fundamentally work more and spend less time with your family, right? Because you want to overcompensate for the fact that you have a family and you're constantly afraid that your boss does not perceive you as good enough, right. This is why very often you will work long hours. You'll miss birthday parties, family trips, right. Very often even when you're on vacation, you'll still be responding to emails, right. But I know this is very often, the biggest impact of this is not fundamentally on you, but it is on the kids. The kids who very often grew up with a bunch of money but are raised by their nannies. They very often grow up thinking that their parents fundamentally do not love them because they did not spend that much time with them. So this is very often a belief that forms in you and basically isn't great when you're like six or seven, right? Exactly because you don't see your parents, right? Your assumption is that they don't think that you're working hard for the family, right. Do they prioritize your job? Is that actually love for their job far more, right? This means that when the kids grow up, this fundamentally creates more tensions, more fighting, and more emotionally unstable kids, right? Because they don't have the fundamental self-confidence that their parents thought that they were working hard and giving them attention. And I do believe the harm of this is just so fucking huge on the psyche of the kids. Secondly, parents also often have a silent resentment towards their own kids, right. Specifically, women, if they don't succeed at their job, right. Like very often, if they don't succeed, they feel the reason why they did not succeed is because of their kids, right. So, they're far more likely to raise tensions with their kids because very often they will perceive that the kids just do not see the amount of sacrifices that they make for them, right? "I sacrificed my promotion at work because I had a family," right. This again creates much more ground for tensions and bad parenting relationships, right, and this also harms kids, right? Because to some extent, you don't feel shame like dirt in your life, right? Because, to some extent, like, you succeed at 45 and become an executive, right. You don't have to just need to spend less time at work, right. But often, when you actually, now at 45 or 50, actually want to engage with your kids, right.  They feel alienated from you, right. They very often feel a huge amount of remorse over you, right. This is when all the shame kind of kicks in, right. This is where you basically feel like you are likely to feel, basically age with the father, right, and this is where again the crisis kicks in because I don't want to feel like I'm a bad father, right. I need to come up with other narratives that I will kind of justify to myself and the narrative is I will perceive my kids as ungrateful, right. How can you not be grateful for all the sacrifices and all the money that I give you? Again this creates, I guess, shame also in kids, right? Because they don't feel that their parents actually understand the amount of harm that was done to them because the parent prioritizes work all the time. Look, I don't think the biggest harm if I do this narrative will be on me. It will be on my kids, and that is something that should matter the most in this debate. Very proud to oppose.
+</mg>
+<mo>
+I’m going to first offer two responses to closing government, then go into our constructive. One, the idea that people will massively overwork themselves and never see their kids. Uh, I would posit that the first response to this is a reality check. Most people don't work in management consulting and corporate law. They work in jobs that have upper limits on their time that probably are not easy to combine fully with family but not impossible in the manner that closing government characterizes. Meaning that the issue is significantly less impactful than they flag. The second thing I posit is that to the degree that you still have to work, and presumably have to work at least one parent will have to work a reasonable amount is, the resentment that they flag to is that they draw a lot of the remaining material from is probably status quo and so far as if you on government, go home earlier to spend time with your kids, you still observe that the guy who doesn't have a kid and who therefore stayed longer got promoted over you, and I'm just going to be real with you. I think people are smart enough to observe that distinction and still resent their kids. So, I, unfortunately, I just don't think that claim was comparative. Moreover, though, I think that all of our material will respond directly to the notion of work-life balance and, in particular, making work compatible with having a healthy family life, at which point presumably just on quantity of cases affected, we are also making the decision less urgent for people given that they will still have to engage in the labor market, which is probably more significant than their material. I want to talk about two constructive points, one,  about the experience of young women and girls and secondly, about specifically fixing the situation that the current labor situation is just incredibly poorly suited to the demands of working families, particularly with working parents and young women and girls. Matt here says they'll get degrees more, and also says something for the same effect in DLO's speech. I want to actually characterize what the comparative on this looks like. Why it is so much more likely than just getting the degree, but rather becoming the kind of person who could even make like properly evaluated choices on whether a degree is right for you. Framing, having a career isn't the same as having a job, the  pressure the opening government wants.
+<poi>
+How does your work-life balance get better? Once women have to balance both home duties and work duties.
+</poi>
+I'll get on to that, but also broadly, I think there's just lots of reasons why this is a universal pressure. I'm genuinely unclear why this pressure, unless it was actually analyzed in either team, doesn't apply to women. Cool. Let's go into why you improve work-life balance. OO for impact here is incredibly individualistic. It is true. Someone who is successful in a career can probably get themselves private childcare and therefore ameliorate their own situation. What we're going to prove to you is why the overall situation on work-family compatibility gets better. Two elements here. One, people desire family. I think babies are cute. I think you see families around yourself, but also they're just present in lots of cultural narratives, etc. And so far as it's incredibly unifying. On proposition, people, your family, and want to prioritize that will not progress to positions of power because they will prioritize family and therefore not get promoted because they're outcompeted on time spent at work. Also, there's a snowball thing, where as you have more people who don't value family as much at the top, that means that they also don't want to hire people who value family very much. I think that means that you have a situation that is badly suited for the modern family situation of having both parents work in Safari as we know, two working parents means in status quo. There's limited ability to ensure childcare if you don't have a lot of money. You can't respond to child emergencies. You can't spend a lot of time around them by having remote work. That means that the vast majority of people, whether they are successful in their careers or not, cannot meaningfully combine their career with a family. On opposition, I think they succeed more because you work and you still prioritize your career even if you still love a family and you would want that because that is something that has been brought into you. But crucially, I think at one point, at least a decent number of those people will still have families and will still want to prioritize them. You care about that because you feel a pain because at the point where you have a kid and you are unable to spend time with them, you miss them and you like the fact that you aren't able to do so. That is something that means that within your own context, once you have actually progressed up a career ladder and you have some power and leverage in a company, and so far as you set policy, you implement that so that it applies to yourself. But secondly, you are aware and understanding of the fact that it is important for other people because you want to have happy employees. You want to be in an attractive workplace. You want to make sure that people are actually happy for you. You understand how important that combine family and work is. That means that this change trickles down even to the people who don't have successful careers, meaning they are able to have and eat it too at the point where work-life structures actually adapt, which they never do on the government side because people get sorted out of progressing. For all those reasons, please vote closing opposition.
+</mg>
+<gw>
+Panel, first summer building, then weighing to top half. And then rebuttal of a closing, then weighing us against top half. Let's, let's first start with revolt, because the rebuttal we hear is basically that the idea that people massively overwork themselves needs to be reality checked because people have upper limits, note a couple of things here. First of all, even people that don't work like the McKenzie type jobs, often in status quo, have to work multiple jobs because they're low-paying, oftentimes, have to work shitty shifts, like nurses, for example, working night shifts, prioritizing their job, etcetera for income. It is up, it not clear to me that it's only these up pressure on jobs that apply to our to our analysis. Presumably, the majority of jobs in today's workforce require some amount of overtime. Notice however that if they don't and you naturally have all this over time to spend on your family then presumably the impact of the narrative itself is also just not that important on either side of the debate. Notice if even, even if it only applies to those highest level jobs it is ultimately that's why those the children of you know, upper middle management not matter in the state. That is not by closing opposition. Note finally that according to opening opposition the whole point of the narrative according to them, people do maximize how much money they have. It is advanced somewhat intention with closing, with opening opposition and at worst potentially in life. I don't think it's actually a knife. But there is some question on what extent that then actually applies and it is you know disagrees with the opening opposition told us. It's the primary thing opposition wants. Next however CO is essentially adds further mechanisms and characterizations to opening oppositions about how this impacts women and girls. Two things on this. First of all, most of those acts are unclear why they act specifically from the Royal Female. It is unclear to us that this narrative only applies to women. Presumably it also applies to men. But even if it applies more to women it is unclear why this is the narrative that does it as opposed to any of the other narratives female empowerment in status quo. It is necessary for closing opposition to actually explain that to us. Maybe in the next speech. I don't know. Hopefully they'll take a POI from us if they engage with that because right now I don't have the chance to.
+However, I'm incredibly happy that kat found fulfillment in mathematics. Really I am. She's a good friend and her happiness is my happiness. That being said it is not clear to me why she wouldn't have found happiness and mathematics on either side regardless of the pressure to work or not. That, while anecdotally very persuasive, it does not inherently stem from from the motion itself. It is necessary for them to link that to us. So far, it hasn't been linked. So, I'm not clear on why I should evaluate that more highly than the significant impact on children that Martella lets you in terms of why it's likely that parents are going to be more abusive to them because you know, they're the, they're to blame for their lack of success in life potentially to them just generally children feel unloved because they're not prioritized and actively feel that prioritize. Third, that because this is something you've internalized overall, you know, 10 years of your career, you're very likely to actually, because you've become, you've gotten used to it, and because you've conditioned yourself to primary, to prioritize work consistently, and because of the, the narrative of this pressure But that also translates into how you how you rear your children. Even if you're doing all of this purely with the intent of being the best parent possible later down in life. It is still likelier that this actually makes you a worse parent down the line. Opening opposition wants to clash on that. 
+<poi>
+We are logically prior to every claim your case makes. The time and resource trade off you put in towards attempting to form a family on your side makes it far harder at the point with your family exemption stability by virtue of you working longer on our side and having more time to figure out what trade offs you want. 
+</poi>
+No you're not logically prior. Using a fancy words does not make a true math. Let's be very clear. POI to you that highlights that presumably people aren't idiots. People want to, people
+who really care about having families. Presumably want to have you know, the necessary financial means to actually give to their children, you know, food, shelter, clothing, presumably these kinds of mechanisms exist either way. People who actually go through with having children at 18 before they have any financial prospect probably aren't impacted by this narrative on either side of the debate because these people already are great as good. They presumably they make that choice. Regardless, people change on the set of the debate. Most people actually be impacted by this narrative on the side of the debate aren't people that definitely don't want to have children, aren't people that definitely want children. It's the people on the margins in the middle that actually have the impact that you claim they will. They the people that actually make the tangible changes based on this narrative you claim and you don't actually persuade me at any point in your speeches. Why you know you're inherent more likely that you select all these things. Let's then weigh us against opening in general, right? Because I think the first thing to note is that OG's impacts squarely fall under what is good for the people making these choices, right? Our impact swirls on what benefits the children. Oh, OG, RO. I already took y'all taxio later. Uh our impact is therefore more important because note that in top half, I'm not going to say it's a deadlock because probably like, it's probably someone is winning it but there is ultimately both of them have that and both sides will have families, on both sides we'll have jobs. on both sides we'll want to do generally what's best to them. But what we explain in closing government is that the narrative of pushing yourself to prioritize work at the extent of your family is something that trickles down into everyday decision making. That actually makes changes the way we behave towards your children. Both explicitly and implicitly in terms of just your general behavior of deprioritizing your kids at the expense of your work. This kind of narrative harms your child's conceptual makes them lose confidence, less loved, make them feel that they are not really wanted. Before I continue closing. 
+<poi>
+So, Kat explains to you why having people who who think families are important, be at the top of the ladder, makes it easier for everyone to have both. With past extension. 
+</poi>
+Yeah, that's because people who think that families are important are probably not the most likely to be at the top of the chain. You don't actually prove that to us in your extension. You won't have your side of the debate that the women who makes the top of the of the career ladder are the ones who prioritize families to the extent simultaneously claimed. Presumably those the the women who prioritize family the most will probably have more conservative values, more religious values, dialogue, all the stuff that OO actually ironically explains to you know presumably prioritize that even on top, even if this narrative exists in society. Meaning that at that point, if that's your comparative, I'm just unclear on why those are the most likely. In fact, you're significantly more likely to probably have women who deprioritize family on both sides of the debate and they're then actually less likely to want to promote women who want to create because they themselves also deprioritize that, meaning that they see it as a more acceptable trade-off and therefore are less likely to want to make that trade off. Ultimately, we come over opening over top of specifically because our impact regardless of work happens, the prioritization of family happens, it doesn't matter. Ultimately, the children who otherwise would not have the best possible parenting are fucke up, are more fucked under offset, are less happy, are less fulfilled, have worse attachments to their parents, and are generally less happy. They don't have a choice in being born. Parents have a choice in giving birth, proud to stand in closing government.
+</gw>
+<ow>
+Panel, I will start with an old and radical claim. If a motion does not specifically probably refers to society, then it doesn't only affect 50% of it or 49 or however many men are, but it probably also applies to women. So I actually find it quite offensive. Both government teams for some reason think it's a good rebuttal to say, "Oh, but why does the societal narrative change how women understand being by pretty much all average intelligent voters?", that if family is something that is important, the vast majority of the work falls on women because of childbearing, because of childcare, because men can't really lactate, but also because it's just traditional that women are the ones who keep the house, and also because throughout this debate, it's been thrown around by both sides that, you know, men have to provide for their families. 
+No side of the debate has fiat or even attempts to provide to you any analysis on why women would be better off if family is something that was put on them. What we do have, is a lot of empirical evidence of many, many centuries and also a couple of decades of liberalism and progress where that did occur, and we're still significantly more disadvantaged because they were told they were only there because they have to earn a wage. But they should be content with being at the bottom of the ladder. They shouldn't aspire to be more or they shouldn't try to advance, because how they get fulfillment and their role is at home, raising children. That is why having put on people even more pressure to raise children than already exists in both sides of the house is presumptively, is going to result in either women feeling oppressed in some ways or simply, even if the men are the ones who hear it, guess what? It's still their female partners who are probably going to end up bearing the majority of the work. So I actually do think that what Kat explains to you, that if we tell everyone in society they should prioritize career over family, at least in the beginning of their careers, that probably significantly affects some girls. OO already deals with the fact that they will probably go to university, they think they need to get a career after that. But what Kat explains to you, is about your life, when you are in your formative years changes the way you view yourself throughout your life. As a woman, you had to be pretty, you had to be quiet so that men liked you and so that you would have a boyfriend because that was the measure of success. Lucky for me, I was also raised by doctors in a family of intellectuals who pushed me to be smart because otherwise, I don't think I would have done any of the things that I did. Here's the difference here and here's why it's important. On both sides of the house, women will be under pressure to have children and to have a family. On our side of the house, not only do you not add additional pressures that put you under pressure, which acts as a balance. Which Kat explains to you, makes it much easier for you to access all of the other things that could give you fulfillment because you are told, it's okay to access fulfillment from all these other things. And by the way, I do think this also applies to men who don't want children or family. I think this applies to those as well. And Kat also gives you analysis on why there are a lot more diverse options, you are a lot more likely to seek them out if you think it's a fulfilling career. And that is, that's the, and you're probably going to meet a better financial situation, or maybe some people won't. I don't know, however, I think the way that many people who are in their affirmative years and have a lot of time, think about themselves, it is going to change. Now let's look at what government has been telling you because like CG talks a lot about how, you know, just men are never going to be at home and children are going to grow up neglected because their father is never at home. Like, one, I am unsure why more time spent together necessarily means quality time. Like, I'm pretty sure that most people would rather see their parents a bit fewer hours each week if that means that the hours they do spend with their parents are a lot less stressful financially or that those parents aren't coping with alcohol or God knows what else because they don't know how they're going to pay their bills. And they are not just being mean and miserable to each other, blaming themselves. But that's OO. So, I'm not going to get more into that. I think OO also beats these. I think what is also important is what Kat explains to you, that the likelihood of you coming home after dinner in time for dinner is much, much higher if the people who are already who are going to exist on both sides of the house, just like some people are going to prioritize to pursue careers, and they are told it's okay even if you want a family, it's okay to delay it, or it's okay to not prioritize it. It's okay to still go for career, a lot of structural reasons why that means that in some cases some of the positions of power will now be occupied by people who care about family that otherwise wouldn't have. Given that people usually get into positions of power when they're like, in their 40s or 50s, I think that is perfectly comparable to a stage where they already have kids, even if they've delayed it, as opening opposition tells you. And I think the announcement Kat gives you and why that probably means that everyone has more access to work-life balance is something that hasn't been refuted by closing government. So therefore, it needs to step in this debate and needs to be credited. Opening government, do you have a POI?
+<poi>
+You're yet to prove why your side has the most accessible form of fulfillment. Why women succeed in this? And why money is fulfilling? 
+</poi>
+Yeah, look, I'm not saying money is inherently more fulfilling. I think just OG's view of it is flawed because they tell you, "1 million dollars in five years is what most debaters would get." Well, I assume most of the world is not debaters. I, personally.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Cambridge IV 2020 Round 1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+<pm>
+Okay. So the motion for the house is this house regrets the decline of tightly integrated families. I'm going to do a bit of work sort of explaining what this means and what we think the unique changes. And I'm going to tell you sort of why we think our world is better than the world. Like, the world that we could have had when we had this tightly integrated families that are more common is better than the world that we have today. Where we sort of see this defined. 
+ So when we say tightly integrated, right, in terms of a family, what we understand this to mean is essentially sort of like families that, where the default is sort of that you look after each other and that you're sort of less independent of each other, right? So this means that, you know, families where there is like more looking after your other family members, like financially and also personally, like into your adulthood, which entirely integrated here probably means that, you know, for instance, it's more likely that your family is likely to sort of live close together geographically and support each other within that way, right? Which means that you're more likely to, for instance, see people living close to their grandparents or to their siblings sort of, when they grow up and become adults, right? In terms of what we think the decline of a tiny and independent family means, right? We think that this is a shift in the norms of society that has occurred over the last 30, 40 years in terms of families becoming, families, family members becoming more and more independent of each other. There is no longer this norm that you sort of, contribute back to your family financially. There's no longer this norm that you sort of, give personal care to people. There's this norm that in general your grandparents, you might put them in sort of like, aged care and not look after them personally, righ. We think that like, you know, when you don't have this decline, there could have been cases where families might choose to break apart anyway due to conflicts that would have existed within the family or just opportunities that were too good to turn down. But critically, this isn't a norm that exists where people live independently. So basically, we say that in the world that exists today, we have fewer of these tightly integrated families than we would before. So then I'm going to tell you from government side, what we think the world could have looked like, had we not had these tightly integrated families and why we think that would be better. Before I do that, I'll take the POI from OO. 
+<poi>
+ Doesn't the existence of tightly integrated families create huge taboos for other household structures such as single mothers?
+</poi>
+um no, we don't think so because of the fact that like you know, those those single mothers like they ended up becoming single mothers through like, no fault of their own right and we think that like you know, those single mothers can be supported by like other people within their families such as like their grandparents or their siblings. Which is exactly something which we think is a benefit that exists on our side of the house that you don't get on your side so we don't actually see sort of why we think that's a point that goes to you. Okay, so critically, I think the first unique benefit that you get from this type of integrated families, right, is that like, you know, you have a unique system of support, like financial support and personal support that is more likely to exist, that you may not be able to get from anywhere else in critical stages in your life, right? So for instance, you know, you have other family members which are likely to sort of pitch in for your various
+ things that you might need financially or provides you a roof over your head, when you need it. We think this is critically important, especially when you are turning the clock from childhood to adulthood or making transitions in your life to different phases, say for instance you get married or you're saving for a house or something like this. This is particularly important for you to be able to get all the support that you can be because affording those things in life can be very costly and it's something that's very difficult to do when the norm is that you sort of do this on your own and you do it sort of independently, right? We think this like benefits particularly people who are like, you know, likely to be like sort of less well off in the sense, you know, if there is one person who like into that adulthood might benefit like a lot from like further education, like that it's more likely that their family is sort of going to pitch in because they know that like there is sort of a cooling of wealth which is likely to occur as a result of this, right. We think this also like applies the other way sort of in terms
+ of people who are like more elderly, right, you know, they're less likely to feel sort of depressed and disconnected from their family because of the fact that, you know, that their family just thought, you know, the norm was just that you had this independence and they like sort of, you know, you don't sort of go and visit your parents and like look after them in the same way that they might look after you in your childhood. We think that there are like three main areas where we're likely to engage with opposition today, right. So the first is this idea of sort of like stigma that happens
+ when you don't have a, when you exist outside of a tightly integrated family unit. And the second is freedom and self-actualization and expectations to contribute back. And then going over all of them. So I answered the POI about how this might affect single mothers. We think that if your husband is unable to care for your child, then you have the rest of the family that is able to look after them. We think you're actually in a better position than you would have been otherwise. But even if you have a case where, for instance, there is a dispute
+ within the family and you might have to break off from that family, you might have to break off from one part of the family. We don't think this is necessarily going to be so bad for those people because of the fact that when you choose to do this, you already know what you are opting into, you're very sure of your choice, you probably make sure to prepare yourself financially for this. And there are probably other systems that you can rely on as a result of choosing to do this. We think as well like,
+ families are quite complicated. So for instance, there might be like one part of a family that is sort of not talking to like that part of the family, but you still have like another part of the family that is willing to support you as well. And we think that it's like important that when you make those big choices, that there is somebody that was likely to have your back. We think that's more likely to happen in cases where you have these tightly integrated families. We think then that like, and again, like, okay, this is going to hurt a little bit for like those people who choose to leave. But we think, you know, when you weigh it off, it's like all the benefits that you get from people who would like, do exist in this highly integrated family support. We think that the majority of those people are more important. I think just briefly in terms of freedom and self-actualization, what I want to say here is that even though it's more likely that you might go and choose to work within the family business or stay within your local area, what choices you think are important in life are shaped through your childhood? So if you feel that you are limited to these local opportunities, then you're going to see that as personally important. And so you're still going to feel self-actualized even
+ if you choose not to go to the big city and you choose to save with your local family because you see those things are important and valuable to you. We think that you unlock self-actualization in those ways. There are so many benefits that come with having the support of someone else behind you. My partner is going to talk more about the societal implications of this and the political implications of this. So very, very proud to propose.
+</pm>
+<lo>
+ three things in this speech. One, i talk about why individuals are much better off uh because of this trend. Two, I'm going to talk about why children are better socialized and have better opportunities under our world and three, i'm going to talk about
+alternative family structures but before that, just a bit of rebuttal on this idea of old people are screwed because of the decline of traditional family units. I would note two things. One, because in the status quo that is the site that we are supporting old people know that their families are going to be broken down i think this incur, encourages two sorts of responses. One, I think all people in our world, parents, grandparents, are encouraged to impart more care towards say, children or other members of their family because precisely, because the precise fact that they know that these people are people who can leave them at any single point and it won't become a social taboo. So I think this generally means better practices within the family unit and less I don't know force towards the children which I'll talk about later on. But the second thing I'll note is, this isn't a big harm in prop model because if all people know that family units are going to be breaking down I think this encourages things like saving up for their own future etc etc. 
+ So there are ways to mitigate this. I don't think this is an important part of this debate. Now, in terms of individuals, I just want to characterize how conditional family units operate, why tightly knit units are bad. I think the first note over here is about power. And I think power is concentrated because of three things and dispersed because of three things within family units. One is the simple fact of age. The older you are, the more power you have in a family unit. This can be looked at, like, you know, if you're a grandparent in an Indian family, you will have lots of power and will have the space to negotiate for yourself. 
+ The second thing I want to note is financial capacity. The people who bring in money to the family are the people who have more say. And third thing I want to know is all of this intersects with gender. That is to say that male patriarchs are likely to have more power within tight-ended families. Why is this then bad for individuals? I say individuals in their world are oftentimes not really able to pursue the lives that they want to live. They are not able to self-actualize. What is the comparative then? I think power is decentralized in our world much more than it is in theirs because of a couple of things. If you don't have tight-ended family,
+ I think one reason for why people move abroad or move to a separate city is oftentimes in search of jobs. Why are jobs then crucial? I think one key mechanism here is the fact of financial independence. That is to say that oftentimes if you move away, have your own job, have your own means of, means of earning, you are able to dictate how you want to live your life better as opposed to if you are dependent on a pool of resources that were coming in from your family patriarch. The second one note is the fact of distance. Oftentimes people move apart because you know, they're students, they need to go abroad. 
+ I think distance gives you lots of room to negotiate things for yourself and live the life that you want to live. I think you have more opportunities in our world because you do not have to face constant scrutiny by the family or in the worst kinds of instances, financial blackmail. The fact that you are away from your family means that you're not communicating with them 24 seven. It becomes easier for you to keep secrets. The fact that you have a boyfriend or girlfriend that you don't want to talk about or hide from your family is much easier. And I would note that the most vulnerable communities, that is women perhaps homosexuals in deeply homophobic societies are the people who enjoy these liberties the most because they are able to keep these secrets to themselves, live their lives without this constant scrutiny. The second thing I will note is with regards to conjugal rules. Now I've already talked about the fact there's a pool of finances with entitlement family units oftentimes, whereby people share their resources but I think in our world what happens is there's more self-reliance economic pressures on family units especially in the developed world things like you know a rising cost of rent rising costs of child care rising cost of goods and services generally means that one person in the family unit, say, a nuclear family household is not able to sustain the whole family unit. Why is this a good thing? I think what this does is it encourages women's participation in the market. Economic pressures mean that it is much more likely for women than to be forced into the labor market and therefore have much more choices available to them because the fact that they have more money, they have more friends, they have a bigger network outside of their home. Notice that this doesn't happen in their world specifically because you have a pool of resources, where male patriarchs, male siblings can get together, have the money and then dictate how these women live their lives. The second thing I want to note is that cultural barriers also disperse. That is to say that because distance is removed, women within finance, even if your husband is an asshole, I'm assuming he's not going to be as big of an asshole as say the grandparents. I think this gives you more distance and allows you to not be seeking to like cultural barriers that limit the kinds of things that you can do, which means that you have greater likelihood of joint conjugation
+ relationships where perhaps you share things like household responsibilities and caring responsibilities. And I want to spend some time on caring responsibilities, right? Because in tightly knit family units, the responsibility of women oftentimes is not just to provide emotional labor and sustain their husbands, it is oftentimes to care for the whole fucking family, that is care for the husband's parents, care for other siblings, so on and so forth. I think these sorts of responsibilities disperse and women have much more room to think about what they want and not disperse this emotional labor where they don't want to do so. The second thing i'm going to talk about is children, before that if there's anything from closing,seeing that as there is none i'm just going to go straight into children. I think the first thing that happens for children is socialization and distance from problematic childhood role models increases right. The reason why this is an important thing is oftentimes the oldest members of your family unit are also the people who have the worst kinds of cultural practices ingrained in them. This is because they have not interacted with I guess the new world technology, so on so forth. They're often times patriarchal homophobic so on and so forth. Children spend much more time in their world with these people and are therefore influenced much more by these people because the fact that they are living with them. So i think children are bet, much better socialized in our world where they have more space and are not going to be you know, limited by by these cultural confines. The second thing I'll note is with entitlement family units your family relationship is the most important thing. So oftentimes the people that you end up hanging out with are your cousins or your brothers or your siblings or whatever, this is how how lots of these kids are socialized but i would know that diverse friend networks happen under our world. So you spend much more time with your friends it's much more okay for you to go out and spend time with them as opposed to your family. Why is this crucial? Because I think this negates OG's claim of most adversely affected families. Because oftentimes, note, in the most vulnerable communities, family businesses oftentimes go bust or you have things like financial hardship. In these moments, it is almost always crucial for you to have outside networks that get you access to financial opportunities as opposed to this. So I think having a diversity of friends, so people in CSS or doing other kinds of jobs oftentimes means that you can get financial opportunities by virtue of having these networks and notice that the key mechanism here again, is that you have more time to spend with them and build stronger relationships and therefore, get stronger benefits. The last note on alternative familiar structures, I would note that single parent households exist cohabitation exists under our world and theirs but in their world the space for these alternative households to exist is less why because notice, if there is a trend of traditional family households declining, necessarily there's a numerical rise in other alternative familiar structures rising up why is this important because visibility for these financials, for these familiar household structures increases. This is great because oftentimes note that single mothers are financially discriminated because oftentimes jobs like Boston will ask the question, can these women work and also raise their children? But notice if there are multiple or a plethora of these kinds of households which are much more visible in your friend networks and so on, it becomes much more okay for you to accept them. I think for all these reasons, we beg you to do so. 
+</lo>
+<dpm>
+okay, so first a small rebuttal towards our case before, I have two substantive response so I guess with that place so. So first I think like they said that like it would be better because they're all people can care more about young children because they expect that in the future like if they do not care enough the children will get away and do not care for them. I think like this is wrong because at least in, this at least on our side of the house where there are strong integrated families there are always incentives because the quality or come from social norms that everyone inside family need to care about each other it means that in our side of the house
+ the old people have a lot of care towards the children, even life spending, sacrifice their finances with their savings for a very long time for their children to be able to get into college in the state side or outside. I think that because the normal relation, it means that old people will not let the children, but it's like that even if the parents or the grandparents give to them a lot, let the children receive that as a gift and they do not have to cut moral obligation to pay back for those gifts. And therefore, no integrated families
+ It means that those children, you can easily get away. It's just like all the kind of benefit that the grandparents give them. It means that now, in the old side, there could be lots of connections, like less incentive for old people to care about younger children, and also less incentive for young children to care about grandparents or older people. I will put further our substances on why it's especially harm on poor families. Okay, so my two suggestives in here. The first one about why
+ this kind of production in integrated families, structurally, hamper families, and secondly, why on our side of the house there can be much that they will be able to foster the work of social change compared to our side. Okay, so with the first sentence of why it is very harmful for poor families, I think that basically in here we see on their side of the house there will be less people caring financially or support on healthcare for each other,
+ It means that, first of all, we see when some old people in families have some kind of cultural, it's less the least that actually going to go directly to support for them, and maybe just spend a little bit money to support for that grandparents to stay in the hospital. It's just that it means that old people maybe suffer a lot more in the case that they do not get like rare people, who they know before to support for them or do not have enough money to care about and solving their health issues. They may die sooner and also having
+ must less watching or happy life, right. It's already behind them. But it's a second place to see that it also harm to the children to reduction in investment towards children. Because we see, for instance, I think it's less impactful for middle class or rich families, but actually for poor families. Now if the parents see that, yeah, I will save the money for myself, I will enjoy that in the future. My children, if they want to go to college, they need to take their own debt, I do not pay money for them. It means that now the children need to put in much
+ higher risk for season because they need to own like get the debt, a very high debt, and try to buy it later, which means that there are certain places where they could never be able to make if they do not get a workshop or they sacrifice and not go to college at home and take time to a low wage job. It means that for those very many poor families, it's structurally like much more difficult for a lot of children to basically get a way to get to higher income and get into a higher social ladder. It means that now you constantly keep on the skype for family stay in still a low income bracket in in the society and therefore income inequality was i think that is very important in the case that because we see that those people lives will be much better on our side of the house because the children are now able to must be able to get to college. Means that like if the highest income they can get from a good show they much more likely to enjoy their life also able to be spend source money on their children in the future, if they get who's salary instead for their colleagues right. So why in this site is very difficult to change that i think that like they may say that yeah but now the world may care more about poor people. This will not not happen as I said before those kind of impact from from the listening state um families do not affect much for middle class, because like they will get good salary anyway right. There's very little risk for people who are able to vote now to get a to lose central and get uh and lose all their monies right because like we see that at the time about people able to vote right, over 18 years old the future income are quite clear now because like if you will come from middle families or reach a million you see that you can easily get a good police already or the parents who do not want to sacrifice so much financially, but they're still able to spend a lot a ton of money to their children together to police. Means that those who have from middle class originally not have incentive to vote or have any kind of change to government towards making uh, more credit to poor families, if you see that the perfectly in here suffer from themselves and therefore much more likely to lose out uh on their side of the house. But secondly, why this uh doesn't lose in the foster brothers social change I think like a lot of argumentation from  O. O. only talk about like, yeah, young people can easier get away from their families and keep secret, make them stay out. Women are more likely to get the job themselves and therefore,they matter for women.
+ I think that those cases only restrict to the kind of family which maybe rich family who people like women have advantages, and can stay and like keep growing up the children by their own because like they need to have a lot of support from their families or have a lot of money to do that before. It has to be people who also able to get away with it somewhere else and pick their own job. Who also need to come from an advantage background. Otherwise, radical to break away from those kind of families. But in that case, we see it's only good for those people, at least on outside the house. Now when people stay within the families, most people do so. Like you see that it's already like what happened before. Like there are a lot of activities and changes within society already. It means that now in outside the house a lot more family have connections. It means that the fight will be much better on outside the house because now all the people who have advantage, the woman who have advantage, and peop who have a lot more money,
+ They are able to talk with their parents. They need to let, they have much more incentive to change the mindset of parents in that case to make themselves look good. And the parents now also understand a lot because the stake is much higher. They might more likely to change their views on LGBT or women getting jobs or not. And those are people who later on have the ability to change the social society from political, be a source of like many people have their money so they are high rank in the company. They're more likely to hire women if they know that. 
+ Yeah, that not just a money to need to get a job that takes like that. Of course, what a money to support for entity rights in the case of a clearly see that this benefit of doing so or they understand what every team or so in outside the house at least more people understand about those minority issue rather than the outside. That's why outside impact is much louder if it is not a speech. 
+</dpm>
+<dlo>
+The structure of this particular speech is fairly simple. And firstly, when we look at macro impacts, these are impacts which I impinge on every member of the family, then I'm going to look at
+ the micro specific people and specific communities which are impacted. Before that, I just want to make two comments. I think debate is a tendency to debatify very human motions and I just want to forward to a human observations of what I think the integrated families look like, which aren't based on like primary socialization or the pooling of resources. You're basically living in a familiar panopticon when you're living in a tightly integrated family. Everyone is watching you all the time. You have no private space to yourself. 
+ And this is especially true for people who tend to be on the wrong side of the age and gender hierarchy. In this case, female partners and children. This has nothing to do with the argumentation in the debate. I just think it's a terrible thing that happens in tightly integrated family generally. Secondly, just like a very human observation, this entire intuition about, you know, how you can bounce kids around and then they can be cared for by an aunt instead of an uncle or an uncle instead of a mother. This again, in a debate sense, makes sense. But think about how it feels
+ is a human being. Think about a kid who grows up who barely gets to see his mother. Sometimes he's his aunt, sometimes he's his uncle, and then sometimes he's his elder cousin, right? Like, again, in a debate sense, yes, children are cared for by pooling resources. But in a very human sense, it's a very terrible experience for a child where there's no continuity in child care development, because most of your socialization is spread out over six different, fairly different and diverse sources. Let's talk about the macro first. I'm going to forward three claims here. The first claim is an economic claim. For better or for worse,
+ the economy today is globalized, it is agile, it is flexible. The labor market has to respond appropriately and be flagile, flexible and agile English. What that means then is that you should be allowed to move wherever the economy takes you. This is the difference, for instance, between the difficult decision of coming to London to study an educational degree or as my sister is doing working in Washington because that's where the job was that she got. In their world, what happens is that tightly integrated families create barriers to
+ to entry within these situations they make it difficult for you to leave because of the literal definitional meaning of a tightly integrated family which is that they want you to stay back. Note, that if you do take these degrees and scale yourself if you do get these jobs then this leads to economic empowerment for every member of the family, irrespective of who they are. The second claim I want to make within the macro is to do with culture and here's where I directly clash with deputy prime minister's argument about how morals and cultures evolve. I'm going to posit that when you live in a tightly integrated family, A, it tends to have a patriarch so there's problems with command and control but secondly, these tightly integrated families tend to be echo chambers. The same family of 25 people with aunts and uncles thinks the same things and often reinforce their opinions. Clash this panel with the idea of a nuclear family, in which case, if there's five people and your individual who disagrees about LGBT rights, disagrees about voting for Trump, you can make your opinion
+ and affirm your opinion in a way that you can't in their work. So if anything, cultures and models stagnate between the tightly integrated families and are much more open to progress and evolution in our world. The final macro claim, I'm going to discuss is to do with care, and they often argue that caring for the elderly, caring for children, caring for those with different needs is better achieved in their world because of the pooling of caring resources. This is the generic claim on government bench. I have two responses. 
+ One, the reason that tightly integrated families have declined, for instance, in the United States, but not for instance, in Pakistan, is because something was happening there called the socialization of care. What that strange difficult phrase means is that now you have state-based daycares. Now you have state-based elderly homes. Now you have state-based facilities which exist to displace and replace existing facilities and functions which the family traditionally cares about. 
+ This means that they're forgetting the reason this trend happened in the first place, which is that other people are already fulfilling the role that they want families to fulfill for some reason. Secondly, within care, also realize that this is a bit disingenuous to our side, right? Because we can have communal care networks anyway. So what this would look like, for instance, this is what happened with me if my mom is working and I'm growing up, she doesn't need to have an entire family set up to make sure that I have daycare somewhere. She can talk to our neighbor if she's late at work. She can talk to our friends, because that's because families aren't tightly integrated doesn't mean that they live on eska bank right like they still have friends they still have communal networks that they can utilize to get that sort of care in before in. Before I discuss the micro and the granular detail of how this affects specific communities, I'm very happy to engage with closing government please go ahead 
+<poi>
+So recognize the comparative. There's two families with patriarchs in it. One's a nuclear family, one's a larger family. But within that family where you have one patriarch, you have no one else to really access who can talk sense into the patriarch. As opposed to a larger family, where you have like aunts, uncles, grandparents, a lot of people who have control over those patriarchs. Recognize the comparative engagement with it. 
+</poi>
+ the problem there is that you have patriarchs on both sides. In our world, patriarchs are reaffirmed by all the aunts and uncles. In your world patriarchs are reaffirmed by the two or three other people at the dinner table. Patriarchs are reformed on either side, I completely agree with you, I'm just saying that they have less of an audience on our side and do on yours so you're fighting against four people now instead of 26, micro. Four claims one, we showed you that other households face systematic taboos in their world the point at which single women raising their children do not have any place to go, their responses were strange they said look people understand that these women are living in single-payer households through no fault of their own. Panel I wish that society was just generous but basically what happens is they look at their own communities and say we have a traditional family set up, we have a safe family set up, why is this women at the corner of the neighborhood living alone. This leads to systematic taboo against these women and also for same sex couples because any household structure which deviates from the norm of tightly integrated families faces huge discrimination, both social and economic from these groups. Secondly, we've shown to you that systematically women are much better off in our world, A, because of economic flexibility, two, because it don't face the terrible double shift of both emotional care and childcare within our world. But three, if opening government is correct and families are now under pressure because fewer people have more things to do then isn't that a reason why women will say, the husband also needs to chip in right, because the logical extension of their point is our point, which is, that now women say i have 10 things to do now i have less people to do it, you should probably help out. Thirdly we've shown you that lgbt couples are disentangled from the communal structures and societal discrimination that exists on their world. But finally, we impacted you that children are significantly better off in our world when in their best case they bounce around to different family members and in their worst case they're completely neglected. Panel, the economy and society is flexible and agile. The family has adjusted appropriately. That is the reason that we are very proud to oppose. 
+</dlo>
+<mg>
+Right off the bat on CG, I want to do a couple things. The first thing I want to differentiate ourselves very clearly from OG, which is our case on CG will be why it is that families themselves are the most unique actor when it comes to things like, for example, caring for your children or being
+ able to access that pool of resources in a different way. Because I think I want to engage right off the bat with what OO said about let's take them at their best. Let's assume that there are things like a shift in the world where you have like more state-sponsored care facilities where it's like you're shifting the way that the norm of how families obligation comes to caring for children, for example, or like the way that women work in families. Even if we take them at their best, I don't think that they're engaging with what this debate should be about, which is why did that families have the most unique role when it comes to passing down values,
+ are passing down different cultural things that you otherwise, can't access from anyone else. So it's particularly unique for people who are a diaspora. I think this debate largely takes place for diaspora individuals or immigrants who have to move from the global South. Because a lot of times, the integrated family structure already exists in the global South. Because a lot of times the integrated families  because a lot of times the integrated family structure already exists in the global south but it's but the point at which integrated families end up dispersing, is when you have to do things like assimilate or move to the West that has a largely highly individualistic norm. So that's what our case is going to be about. OK, first, we want to explain to you some quick framing
+ What's the problem in this debate addresses? Why is there a decline in family values in the first place? First, we want to know that there's pressure in the status quo when it comes to moving away from this integrated approach. Because a lot of times in the West, there's a high emphasis on things like individualism, or buying your own house, or having your own car, or having some kind of working under a company. It's things that are conventional forms of capitalism that oftentimes states want you to participate in, because obviously that's good for things like the economy and that those are norms that exist. That's why you have like nuclear family, like getting your own house, car, a wife, a husband, or whatever, and like two children. The second thing is that a lot of times this norm is successful because it oftentimes connotes that independency is the only means to success. I think that's what OO assumes a lot of times in this case. But I think that the issue with that is that it ignores largely what families have to contribute, especially in an integrated approach. I think OG was incredibly vague in how they define what integrated families look like. So what did that look like? A lot of times integrated families can be two things. First, it can be spatial wise. A lot of times it can be living with you. You can have your grandparents and your extended family living with you in one house and you guys live together. Even if that's one of, and if you're immigrating, a lot of times there's things like green sponsor. So if OO tries to say that they, that integrated families locks you out of economic opportunities, we reject that because a lot of times it means that you're still able to access these economic means, but it looks like like other frameworks being accessed, which looks like things like green card and sponsoring your family to move with you. Oftentimes, even if you don't buy that spatial approach, a lot of times.
+ it looks like tightly integrated families are often times emotionally like connected and like there's always like family familial events like holocaust dinners etc. Okay the reason why this is important and I think that family structure specifically and integrated families allows people who otherwise don't have access to things like your language or your cultural background being able to pass those values down and the reason why that's important is for a couple reasons. The first is  just looks like things like your ability to access your language especially if you're a person of color because note that most times
+ These are racialized individuals. The reason why this is important specifically for people like diaspora or living in the West is you are racialized anyway. Your ability to access economic opportunities, your ability to enter a job is going to be based off of your skin color or like the way you talk or even how you look. But even if you don't want to opt into that culture, you are going to be judged off of anyway because you're racialized and that's like a clear link. So at that point, your ability to access your culture is going to come down to a few choices. One, should you have that choice or not,
+ that shouldn't be taken away from you. Your ability to do things like understand why your language or why your culture exists and why you're treated differently only can come from your family bond and you having access to your grandparents and your language. That can only happen if you're living or like highly integrated or like in connection with that family so they can like spread these stories or this culture with you. The second reason why this is important is a lot of times when it comes to like the political environments in these areas, especially if you are living alone or especially if you are like like in the west your ability to understand
+ that political environment and how people react to you can only uniquely come from your ability to understand why you're being discriminated in the first place. So you can only take political action or you can only like, like join groups of people within your culture. If you empathize or sympathize with those people and understand why that's happening, that can only happen if you're if, if your approach to like that culture and that access to it significantly widen. The second thing I want to talk about is woman and why this is good for like diaspora. I'll take a POI actually from OO before I do that. 
+<poi>
+Okay, I'm terribly sorry, but you seem to be propping the wrong motion. Like ethnic enclaves still exist. Friends still exist. Even if I don't have a huge Chinese extended family, I can live in Chinatown and New York. 
+</poi>
+No, that's like, I'm not propping the wrong motion. Because I'm about to get into why that family is the best people to do this. Okay. So when it comes to family, like I feel like, OO like rejects the fact that it comes both ways. If family integratedness means that blood is so important, they have to take you at your best and at your worst. If you are a single mother, for example, it is incredibly taboo in that family. 
+ It means that your ability to be shunned from that family becomes significantly less because like blood triumphs over any other means because people value that family integratedness so importantly. So your ability to nurse with your own family, for example, if you have kids and you need to and you're single, your ability to pass it off to your grandparents actually becomes better because you're not living alone and putting that economic burden on yourself. The way that you're isolated becomes less because that blood obligation will
+ always triumph over any other obligation and that and even if there's bad blood in the first place. The third thing is that when it comes to women's ability to negotiate and enter the economic workspace, your ability to again negotiate with your family and get that connectivity can only exist if you're not isolated. There's like the comparative in this case that my partner put it out in a POI is that nuclear families still exist in the status quo on ops world which means you're probably going to be isolated living with your husband or wife or whatever or with the child even if you're single or not. So
+ if you're in a like toxic situation and your husband does abuse you, you're like you can't there's no unique mechanism for you to escape that. And in our world, if you're living with a family and you're in an integrated family that has relatives, your accountability increases because you wouldn't do that in front of your grandparents or like in an abusive toxic household, that ability for people to step in increases. The second thing I want to tell you is that like when it comes to things like economic opportunities and family businesses, like your ability to access that family network, especially
+ if you're a diaspora, increases, because usually it means being obligated to a family business off the start because you are going to be racialized or shut out from better economic opportunities compared to white people. We'd rather take that on the world if it looks like accessing a family network and being able to get economic opportunity in that way. And then later being able to get a job or at least being somewhat financially comfortable and living comfortably in that. So CJ takes this debate because we tell you explicitly why families are able to pass down certain values to you that are much more important than any other. 
+ that you get better economic opportunity. We beg to propose. 
+</mg>
+<mo>
+Okay, cool. So I'm going to begin with extraneous rebuttals and then I'm going to get into my case, right? Because like the government, like the closing government have a funny case here. They come in to tell us that like with these strong family bonds, we are able to do political actions and organize around a single issue, right. To give all these examples like Black Americans first, I think that people organize around issues that affect them either way. I don't think that I need like a strong family bond to tell me that i have to organize to fight against racism, if I'm a black person and every day i'm subjected the effect of racism like every day i see how people are being killed through police brutality, if I'm a gay person and I see how he is oppressed within society. I don't, I don't need like my father my mother to tell me that these things actually happen if i think that i'm experiencing and like I need to actually change around them but second they come in they like they say like it's it's more likely to have some negotiation and be able to change things like in my analysis of the motion I would say how this actually does not happen because it's, it clearly misses the poor dynamics which operates within firmness. But then they talk about like family values and how you access cultures right. I will also explain this in in my poems but like which kind of family values are which kind of values are more likely to be passed down through these highly integrated feminists because you have to understand that when you're talking about cultural selection and like how we get to adopt some aspect of a culture. Usually when something is positive we are likely to accept it most of the things which you do not accept is negative aspect within the culture and i'm going i will show you how specifically like these families exist to kind of to be like keeping to reinforce this negative structures like negative cultural values. But also they talk about like financial support, emotional support in both house, like on both sides of the house. I really don't, I feel like this is basic compassion, like even though we already exist, you know, like where most people we are likely to even make fundraiser for, for like friend people where we go to and visit people that we do not even know like where we go to know houses to help old people. We do not even know. I don't understand how we need like this strong family bond. 
+ So have acts of basic impact. Things that we even do to strangers. I really don't understand why it's necessary that these families can bring those things. OK, cool. In my speech, I'm going to give a social cultural contextualization of families. This means I'm going to talk about the underlying premises or structures on which families operate. I'm going to see how families exist as social functions. I'm going to see how social cultural success determines how families are created and operate. 
+ And then I'm going to, and then I will elaborate like other things that in which for me is function. First, you have to understand that families exist as like basically what we mean when we say how like underlying premises and how families exist as social cultural functions. Like when we are talking, like I want us to talk about like the biggest part of this world, right? Like let's talk about the mid-day, let's talk about Africa. Let's talk about different, different kinds of societies. Like you have to understand that like the way we come to create families is not just that I wake up and decide to create a family, right? It's usually through, through values that are already shaping them in my society. Like not just patriarchal, like, etonomativity, but even other kind of practices, right? Like when you get into the details of how family are created. So for example, like when I teach young women to endure in their family, like, you remember that every time before, like, actually, like, wedding happens, they're this, like, telling the women how they have to respect their husbands, telling them how they have to endure within their families, like, telling them how they have to preserve their race. For example, like, already to the point when we're talking about integrated families, we have to understand that it is families
+ that do not defy the existing social cultural status, but it's families which adhere to this. Because all the all the all the societies and all the cultures in themselves, they have they have this kind of notion of preserving the race or preserving their religion. If it's like religious society telling people to marry within the religions, if it's some sort of cultures or races, teleport to marry within their races, giving advice, like giving women instruction how they have to stay within their family, how they have to be supported into their husbands. Right. So already when you have those
+ of narrative around the families and that kind of narrative is actually gatekeeping the kind of families that you can have given that if you want to marry outside your race, outside your religion, it's very unlikely for your family to support you. Most people who want to do this kind of families which the government might want to talk about, they don't get to create these families in the first place. There is the whole society and cultural forces which are pushing against that, which want to preserve it right because you have to understand that families do not exist just to pass down offspring or for emotional, like emotional support, right?
+ Family also exists as a function of society and they exist to preserve the social values, right? And this is where we talk about the kind of values which the government is talking about. Because like, if we most more like you have to understand that like most of the this like rebel ideas that we have are relatively new, right? And you have to understand that the way that the family function is that they create this sort of part dynamics where they tell you that, for example, when there is integrated like families, they create this kind of dynamic where like through a array socialization they tell you that you have to respect your father, you have to respect your parents, that the people who give the kind of the most advice and the best advice that it is impossible to to to be able to listen to other things that, for example that changes the task right for example, if I go to my school and the teacher tell me that's like, for example, you have to be like understanding to lgbt people you have to fight against patriarchy, you have to to allow these all people to have the rights even that I was raised in integrated family, I was socialized to believe that what my parents think is better than what any any other other person think, given that I was raised to absorb the values of my parents. And given that already for this family to be integrated for this family to happen in the first place, it's also because they adhere to the values of their grandparents. Then we have a chain which keeps, keeping all values. And this chain keeps like putting itself in a position of power, determining like which kind of values we're supposed to accept or not accept, but also deciding which kind of people we are supposed to listen to and which kind of people we're not supposed to listen to when we have those kind of won't have those kind of system. Then it's more likely, it's very likely that within integrated families we are very unable to change the status quo right we tell you that when we have this kind of detached families then I don't I'm not socialized to risk to to like to respect blind it whatever that my parents are telling me, i'm able to get out of the system, i'm able like to to kind of make my own way and like be able to have my own actualization and be able to advocate for social change. So basically we believe that we believe that like society and families they co-opt to decide who to listen to, the corrupt decide which criteria you have to adhere to as a society, and given that this is some sort of gate keeping, then we have all trends which keep being repeated over and over again, and then we have less change happening on the government side. On our government side, we think that most of the positive things which they are talking about is actually symmetrical, right? It's things which come with basic empathy, right? Even at schools, we learn about basic empathy. I don't need my mother to tell me that I have to help old people or like that I need to help them when they get old. 
+ These are things which can happen either way, but we tell you specifically that families exist, most integrated families, they exist to be keeper of old values and we are unable to change society for the better on the side of the government. 
+</mo>
+<gw>
+Just to very quickly take CO out of the round. When they tell you that you believe what your parents tell you and that it really affects socialization in a way that you are unable to self-actualize, I think they make a similar mistake to OO, which is that they kind of ignore the actual dichotomy in this debate. The dichotomy in this debate is not that you have fully self-actualized individuals able to access all opportunities versus a large strictly like homophobic family. They're giving us the worst case scenario and then arguing just on those grounds but I think that any problems they talk about and understand this framing because this is what I'm going to be using for the entirety of the speech, if they're going to talk about traditional families within sorry, traditional values within families then, all I have to do is prove to you that those values can be much worse in nuclear families as opposed to larger families. That is the only framing that Ii need to knock those teams out of this round having said that, let's move on to the different things that I'm going to be talking to you about. One, I'm going to talk to you about women and children as stakeholders. Two, I'm going to talk to you about preservation of culture, why it's important, why it only happens in our world. And three, if I have time, I'll talk more about economic safety net. I think that kind of died on front half, but we'll still pick it up if I have time. Okay. So let's talk about women and children and why we think that we are the side that uniquely proves to you that you benefit those stakeholders instead. So uniquely on women, OO tells us a bunch of things. They say, well, it's difficult
+ for women to leave, they remain stuck in patriarchy, and it's super bad. But the problem here is that when I bring it up in a POI, like I do get a response, but I need to explain further why that POI was important. Because we understand that the thing with larger families is accountability is something that is much more possible. Why is that true? All's own framing about how older people in the family are seen as wiser and you listen to them. What does that mean? That means that like, you're not going to yell at your wife if your father is over there because he's going to be like, what the fuck, dude? You're not going to like,
+ you are pushed to evolve yourself, pushed to be on better behaviour towards the rest of your family simply because the rest of your family is there. When Ola talks about audience, they can't just ignore that the audience has no impact. We're telling you that it's because of the fact that your dad is in the room or her parents are in the room that you're not going to do those things and eventually it turns into a pattern where because you stop doing it, due to other people being there, you kind of stop doing it later on entirely. And that's what we're telling you is that
+ because of that accountability specifically, we think it's easier. Why is that different in their world in nuclear families? It's different because you have a smaller family. You're not seeing others that often because you're not that tightly knit. You're not very open about your issues. You don't really share what problems you have because you don't want them involved. The problem then is that the woman is then stuck in like a small household where she has very little avenue or any very little like means to speak to a person that can actually get through to her husband and explain what the problems are. Given that we think on that comparative, we take this. 
+ Two, they talk about single mothers and how it creates a taboo for other alternative types of family arrangements. Here's the problem with that. Sara told you a bunch of things for this. One, she said, actually single mothers most of the times are getting help from like their parents or a lot of the times are getting help from like their ex-husband's families simply because of this idea of like blood is thicker than water and the idea that family sticks together. These are all things Sara told you. This was our mechanism that that's why families are more likely to back you up than anyone else even when times are even when times are tough,
+ because they believe that their family also because they don't want to seem like shitty family members. That is also a huge part of it. But two, we told you a lot of the reason for why women were even able to access economic opportunities to begin with was because of things like grandparents. A lot of like my mom negotiated with my dad to get a job simply because she said, oh, the kids can stay with the grandparents. So many women are able to access like jobs and opportunities to self actualize simply because they have like aunts and uncles and parents that are willing to look after the kids when they're not home. That is the,
+ that is the only way so many women are able to negotiate with their husbands. And thirdly, it's also because again, older family members are the only ones that these husbands tend to listen to because they can coax them into like understanding those things and like changing their behaviors. That's why we think compared to a nuclear family where it's just you and your husband and the kids, we don't really think you have much of an avenue in that case. And if they want to talk about things like sending your kids to daycare, I think in a lot of cases, it takes money. A lot of people don't trust it. 
+ It's not a valid alternative. Three, now having talked about women and why we think women exclusively can only gain access to so many other things because of extended families and large integrated families, let's talk to you then about children and why we think we went on that stakeholder as well. They tell us, well children are socialized into problematic values, one. Two, they tell us that a lot of the times children are unable to separate themselves from their families because things like homophobia but also attachment. Okay, I think children are not socialized into problematic values in larger integrated families,  simply because they'll have different narratives like, you have a cool ant that may like think like being gay is actually okay. I think it's a lot of the times it's not like families are not homogenous and that's not that's something that opposition doesn't understand is that large families have a diversity of people in them when you have access to those experiences is only when you're able to break out of that cycle when your aunt calls out your mom for like being a bitch towards you that's when you see like oh yeah like that's a viewpoint that I have access to and because it is someone
+ within your family, you're likely to like believe them and likely to actually take their word. That's we think it's like education of children is much more better. It's much better done in that case. And as far as things like homophobia, etc, go, I think, again, just the access to other family members and their ability to maybe convince your parents about like things like that. Or even if your parents don't listen to you, just the fact that if you if your parents kick you out of the house because you're gay, at least you might have other family members that are willing to take you in and financially support you to make sure you like you don't like die and that's the thing. And finally, like, as far as like, we talk about this idea of grandparents, we think because they're generally seen as like softer towards kids. That's how you also break a lot of cycle of abuse is when it comes to children that are abused by their parents. Okay. Let's talk to you secondly, and more importantly about this. Like huge case that we gave you about, about diaspora individuals and the indigenous communities. Why is this so important? It's crucial because indigenous languages are dying out. Like when you talk about the Haudenosaunee's that are like, they're dying out. 
+ that are in Ontario right now, they're fighting against land treaties. They're trying to preserve land and culture. Why is that important? And why does that die? Because of families disintegrating. Because a lot of the times it's only the grandparents that know these languages, only the grandparents that know the histories who can tell you what the land treaties were and how the government is violating them right now. This is important in so many ways because that's what leads to political action within diaspora communities. Because you're able to like understand the language of your people, your culture, your history. You're able to feel angry on behalf of your
+ collective issues, that is how you get political action. And secondly, as far as enclaves are concerned, yes, they exist irrespective of family structure, but your access to those enclaves is dependent on things like, oh, like do I speak the language or how close am I to my culture because they might not want to associate with me. I think all of those things are super important and we uniquely bring that stakeholder to you. For all those reasons, we're very proud to propose. 
+</gw>
+<ow>
+Dear panel, today, before building my case, I'd really like to start with some rebuttals made to the members of government. So first of all, I'd like the Aspara claim that it's so good, then it's gonna keep you, gonna keep the values and the language and everything that you have within your family, and so on and so forth. First of all, when considering the aspire, you should also consider that you're there, you have migrated to another place, but that doesn't necessarily mean that your entire family is going to be there. So it's not a large portion of your family. But even if there is, and even if you go only through, this is as much good as it is to keep your own values and everything I believe in that, like you keep your own family values, you keep your own language. But you also need to consider that you are also migrating into another place. So it becomes very risky when you only engage within your family within your own language and your community. You only build your everyday life around your community while you migrate it and you you now on another place, on a new place is the different kind of perception on the people, there is this different kind of dynamics in the society which might be very different from, from your values and from what family values you have and then when you go to this community and they have different values from the one you've talked to, it's much harder for you to engage with them and it's much harder for you to actually belong there, feel like belonging there. But it's also for those people on the other side who have found you, if you go and constantly talk about your, constantly talk only your language, how are you going to communicate with them? But even if you learn their language and you communicate with them, if you're just keeping your values and your past with you, how are they going, how are they likely to accept you and to want to engage
+ with you and think of the all psychological problems and all the difficulties it brings with you when you're not able to take the place that you're going to spend and you're going to live your whole life there. They've talked about how it's important for a single, for a woman who has problems in her family, how it's important for her to take advices and to talk with her family members. We don't believe that's necessarily the case. Why? Because we have therapists there when they, when those women, where those women can go and can talk to. We don't believe that just because someone is blood, like it's that blood obligation there that someone's necessarily gonna give you the right advice, they are not professional, they're not therapeutic, they're gonna give you an advice on the basis of how they think but that doesn't mean this advice is the right one so just because he is your fam he or she is the family from that there loves you. yes cg, I'll take cg quickly 
+<poi>
+So if we're talking about things like you being conditioned by your family, like you're not living in a vacuum, your ability to access other means like education, or other social values exist, but the unique benefit on gov, is your ability to educate your family through things like trust or having discourse of why things like gay is totally okay. So how does that change an ops world?
+</poi>
+ Yes, exactly. Before going to the gay thing, it's very important for someone who is gay to come out with them when they have a bigger family, when they have conservatives in there, and they keep in these bubbles of values they've created and constantly keep this language. 
+ It's hard even for this person it it constantly has that fear that could to come one day and help tell their family oh i'm gay, by the way I come from albania, we are a very conservative society, I don't believe that in one day i'll just, if I was gay I would just go and tell my family oh i'm gay regardless of how many aunts I can have, approving my acts but i know that most of the family doesn't approve me. So if I constantly see this family every day and constantly engage with them every day then, I'm very afraid and like uncomfortable of telling them who who I'm really I am coming out. That's why we don't necessarily believe that in your side of the house when a person just constantly engage with their family, they are more likely going to tell them who they really are and their true feelings when they know the beliefs that this family has. Let me move to my case because I'm running out of time. So Chris, to clear something, we don't, we not necessarily are. We don't believe in nuclear families. 
+ We just don't like tightly integrated families and why why is that? Chris told you already about how those families Exist to be gatekeepers of all families of all family values. So think about of the cycle that is there.
+<poi>
+ So look some families are super strict But this isn't the majority of families if the norm is tight integration, then cutting someone off because they're different isn't something that you want to do. Most families are likely to adapt to someone being different Rather on your side where people just never talk to each other again because they're so polarized.
+</poi>
+ No, it's not like people don't talk to each other again. They're going to engage and they're going to continue talking to each other. But they know that they are not, they feel like they are, they no longer feel like they are owned by their family, but or family obligation. Cause when you have that idea of that blood is very important. You also have that idea that you are owned by this, by this, by these circumstances. When you, when you, as much as family gives you something in, you have to give them something in return. And what's that usual something is that you have to adhere to the values and the beliefs
+ that they have. So it's not like that you're going to go against their beliefs. But in our world, what you get in our world, you get an independent person who thinks of themselves first, who doesn't have this strong bonds with their family. They feel like they own this to their family. They own their life to their family. Or if I'm not going to do this because I will ashamed of, I will ashamed. Just only in the Middle East, think of all those conservative societies. Just take the gay people. How much are they going to,
+ How much are they ashamed to claim that they are gay and just say that, oh, I'm going to just make my family ashamed because I'm gay, like it's not something you do. So think of, we advocate for a world where people are more independent from their family, where people can have the right to choose, to choose themselves and to choose the path that they want, not the path that the family wants for them. But all we know, what do we want? This family is most likely gay people of all family. The transition that they pass those values to,
+ to their, it's very, because those kids are very bonded and they will be the family values regardless of they like them, they will just say, oh it's my family it's my family has done it like this, my grandfather did it like this, my uncle did it like this therefore, I have to do it I have to do it ike this.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Cambridge IV 2020 Round 2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,238 @@
+<pm>:
+Three things in this speech, firstly, framing what the power of these religious figures and institutions actually are. Secondly, explaining why, in both cases, that is, in cases where the religion is not supported by the state and in cases where the religion does support the authoritarian regime, why in both of those cases, we're able to get these people onside; and then finally, listing off a bunch of impacts as to why getting these religious figures onside actually helps the movement in terms of buying, etc. So, before I get into that, just the mechanism. I think the way this works is that these protest movements are going to do things like encourage these religious figures to speak at their broader protests, etc. They're going to encourage them to give sermons and so on about the protests and about how bad the authoritarian regime is within that particular institution, so like within the church or within the mosque, for instance. And also, on their bigger protests, they're going to encourage the main imams or priests to come and speak at those areas. You're essentially going to tie themselves to some extent to this religious group, and that's kind of what we stand behind on our side.
+
+
+Okay, on the first thing, what the power of these religious figures and institutions actually are. Being the power of these figures is really important. We think that these figures are seen as having epistemic access to God, particularly with priests, for instance. They're seen as having a direct connection with God, and therefore the thing they say is an interpretation for religious people of what God actually wants them to do. So we think that these figures have massive amounts of power over the people that actually subscribe to their religion in the first place, given that they're seen as having this unique access to God, which normal people lack. There's that sense of the divine actually supporting your protest movement against this authoritarian regime, which we think is really important. 
+
+
+But the second thing is the fact that religion itself is really important and is really open to interpretation. The Bible or the Quran has loads of different interpretations to it, and these religious figures are really important in doing that, which means that they have unique knowledge which they can then transmit down. So if they say this is the correct interpretation, and the interpretation of our religious text means that we should take down this leader because he goes against our values, then people will follow. Thirdly, it's just the importance that religion has in people's lives. It's one of their most deeply held beliefs; it's the most personal thing to them. It forms how they make their decisions and so on. So at the point at which we gain these figures onside,  these figures who control how this religion is interpreted and how this is seen as having this link to God, we think that then you're better able to convince those people to come to our side. That's the power that these groups have.
+
+
+Yeah, so as I said in my setup, there are two possible cases, one, where the religion is kind of repressed or at least not supported by the government, and secondly, where the authoritarian regime is supported by religion itself. I think in both those cases we have the ability to get these religious leaders onside. How is that the case? We think, firstly, obviously in the case where the religion is to some degree being repressed, or at least the government isn't actively supporting the religion, then it's really obviously easy to get them onside, right? Because if you're a protest movement and you're protesting against this communist government that doesn't like religion anyway, it's very easy for you to get these priests and church members onside. This is what happened with Lech Wałęsa in Poland, where he managed to get the Catholic Church to massively support him to overthrow the communist regime, right? Because they had a direct interest in seeing that regime overthrown so they were then able to practice more openly in public. And crucially, even if the state tries to repress the religion, the religion can never fully be repressed because the whole point of religion is, that it's a set of beliefs that people have internally. No matter how repressive a state is, those beliefs are still held internally by those people. You can't brainwash enough people out of it, which means that these figures still have power even in the case where the authoritarian regime isn't actively supported by them. 
+
+
+But secondly, in the cases where the religion does actually work with the state, we still think you're quite likely to get some elements of that religion onside. Firstly, because you can target specific members, like specific religious leaders within that group. Even if the overall religion supports the state, you can get a particular cardinal or whatever onside. And crucially, this links back to what I was saying before about there being different interpretations of religion, right. Which means that even if some elements of that religion support the state, you can get other different elements within that religion to actually support you. You can appeal to these religious leaders and these institutions on the basis of their values. You can say this authoritarian regime doesn't support egalitarianism, which is a key value in the Quran, and actually that's what our protest movement is all about. So you can get them onside by appealing to their values, but also, crucially, I think you can get these religious leaders onside by just appealing to their self-interest. You can say, like, if we get you on our side, and in the instances where we're actually successful, you're going to have this even greater power and you're actually going to be able to preach to these people. And given that some of these figures might be self-interested, you can appeal to them on those grounds. 
+Okay, why does getting these people on your side actually massively help the movement? Before that, I’ll take a closing if they have one. 
+
+
+<poi>
+Yeah, what sort of resources or influence do you think these movements have to genuinely recruit powerful religious leaders? 
+</poi>
+
+
+Look, I think part of this debate is acknowledging that the movement has to be able to, in order to have the debate. But also, I think they can easily do this. They can easily go to send stuff to these members or whatever, appeal to them, like, attend their sermons and so on, and ask them to help out or just meet them in person. These can be quite big movements and have a lot of traction. So for instance, the Muslim Brotherhood is an example of that. 
+Okay, so why is getting these people onside really good for the movement? Firstly, and most obviously, it's buy-in. You get people coming in from the religious group, and who are being led by the religious leader. Remember the analysis I gave right at the start about the power that these religious leaders have to actually influence people? This is the mechanism through which protest movements in Mexico and Uruguay were able to successfully overthrow their autocratic regimes. But secondly, we think that the protest movement is now done in terms that people understand. So for instance, you're no longer doing your protest movement in Western terms of rights, human rights, whatever, but you're doing it, if you're in Iran for instance, in terms of the Quran itself. And that's something that more people, if it's a religious country, actually understand compared to the more Western terms. So the point where you have some religious leaders giving these sermons even in the first instance means that people are more broadly able to understand it. 
+
+
+Thirdly, it means that in instances where the state is supported by some elements of the religion, the state no longer has a monopoly over religious understanding. That's what Zoya Ulhaq had in Pakistan, which enabled him to have massive power. We think that now these religious movements are able to challenge that narrative to some extent, once they get some elements of these religious leaders onside. And finally, we think it's much harder to repress once you have religious members onside. This is also what I was saying before about how it's impossible to completely eradicate religion even if it's repressed, because it goes down to the deeply held beliefs that someone internally has. That's impossible to get rid of. 
+
+
+Crucially, though, this religious group of people who you get onside now is a group you lacked access to beforehand because you couldn't go to them in their own terms. On the other hand, the secular group of people who the opposition might talk about as being alienated probably won't be, because they want to overthrow the regime on both sides of the house. Now you're just getting an additional group of people, namely religious people, onside. And that greater buy-in enables you to have bigger protests, enables you to more effectively resist the police, and so on, which enables you to overthrow the regime for all those reasons. 
+So, proud to propose.
+</pm>
+
+
+<lo>
+ We want to be absolutely clear, this debate is about protest movements and exactly what benefits are most possible and greatest for them. What are the interests of the protest movement? First, we think it's about staying true, obviously. Look, firstly, it's obviously about overthrowing the authoritarian regime. Secondly, it's obviously also about protecting their own values and what they stand for. And third, it's about installing a good, sustainable regime that is in line with their values after the authoritarian regime is overthrown. This is very important to keep in mind because I feel that the government hasn't been keeping to this very much. They can't just say that, oh, you know, we won in Poland, we won in Uruguay because of the religious figures, without, A, giving us any explanation as to the specific circumstances in which these people won, and I think it's incredibly reductionist to claim that they only won because of the religious figures and institutions, and if it weren't for them, they wouldn't have been able to win. I think it's demeaning to the other factors and the other forces that enabled these protests to be successful in the first place. And we are going to contend on opposition that it wasn't because of religious groups and figures and institutions that existed within it. Also, we're going to suggest how this creates more harms later on.
+
+
+Let me just move on to some quick points of rebuttals and then integrate the rest of them into my arguments. First, they say we get larger and stronger support because people are more emotional and they can support it more. Actually, I'm going to rebut this in my arguments later. But I want to revert this one thing that they say, which is that they have lots of power given to them by God and there's unique access to God and some kind of divine support which lends greater support to the protest movement. Hang on. The fact that these people have a lot of power given to them by God in some kind of divine authority sounds eerily similar to authoritarian regimes. This means authoritarian regimes are most often propped up with the idea that, oh, you know, I'm sent here by God, and that's why I'm holier than you. And we think that's a harmful mentality to have. But we don't think it's something that protests should be standing for in the first place. And that is why we think supporting religious figures and institutions is so antithetical to the very system of divine birthright that they're seeking to overthrow in the form of the authoritarian government. Rather, we think they should be supporting a more democratic form of election and that not one person is divinely ordained, but multiple people get to decide what is the best governor for them in terms of a political process. We think it's extremely empathetic and disingenuous for them to suggest that they want to support the divine right to authority while trying to overthrow authoritarian regimes.
+
+
+Now, I'm going to move on to my arguments and weave in my rebuttals in here. First, I'm going to say how it's bad that religious figures and institutions get involved because we think religious practices are rarely homogeneous. This means that you risk alienating a large source of people. So they say people are very, very emotional, you want to get into their hearts and minds? Yeah, that's true. But also, if you get into their hearts and minds and you get on the wrong side of their hearts and minds, and let's say you're promoting the Dalai Lama comes and endorses your regime in Thailand or Myanmar, for instance, but you're like a Christian living in Myanmar. Myanmar is very diverse, by the way, so there are tons of almost equal numbers of Muslims as there are Buddhists and Christians as well. So that's terrible precisely because it's so personal, these important support bases that otherwise would have supported your regime in the first place get alienated. This means that what was once political support turns into religious souring and bitter feelings and infighting within the protest itself. That's terrible.
+
+
+Secondly, we think that we lose mechanisms to protest. Often, religious groups have their own laws and doctrines that prevent them from doing things like violent protests. We think this means that they're severely inhibited. For instance, if Buddhism is anti-violence and if the protest groups need to employ civil disobedience or things like that, a Christian group might oppose. And that's why we think you lose a lot of important mechanisms to protest. And that's terrible, just because it limits your practical ability to protest the authoritarian regime because of all these laws and additional restrictions that are imposed on you.
+
+
+Third argument, though, we think that the religion as a whole might be in line with the government. We think religious institutions and figures often are the ones that propped up the government in the first place. We see this in the case of how the Catholic Church, for instance, supports the Filipino government and its authoritarian regime, or in other countries as well. So we think you risk reneging on their own values or where the religious groups tend to be conservative and align with the government. You risk compromising the movement with concessions to them, and it's really terrible because you're basically supporting the authoritarian regime while at the same time seeking to overthrow it, simply because these religious groups already operate covertly with these authoritarian regimes in the first place. Just look at how the Buddhist Sangha is very tight with the military regime in Thailand.
+
+
+But the fourth most important argument that we want to make is that it exposes the protest to more harm. That means it's more easily shut down by the authoritarian government. Why? Because we think, as they say, you pin all your hopes on one guy, like the Dalai Lama or the pope or whatever, which is great. But look, if it makes it easier to moralize people by one figurehead, it also makes it easier to demoralize and defeat you by torturing these people, by putting their heads on sticks and parading them around the city. The same thing that moralizes everyone is also their greatest vulnerability and weakness. We think it's terrible to peg your entire regime or your entire protest to one guy or one religious institution because once that collapses and is held under extreme scrutiny, it increases the vulnerability of the whole protest in general.
+
+
+My fifth argument is how it's terrible in terms of succession in the future. We argue that protest groups generally tend to be very interested in increasing the amount of stability and democracy of that regime after the authoritarian regime is overthrown. However, if successful, you risk replacing the authoritarian regime with a theocratic one. They already suggested that these people have a divine right to authority and power, so what’s not to suggest that they're going to want to promote their own ideals? In fact, this is even more likely given that religious groups only agree to join hands with the movement if they're given certain concessions or certain promises, like a seat in parliament, which could lead to 10 seats in parliament and eventually an overthrow of it. Because religious groups always want to promote their own ideals and spread their sphere of influence by definition because they feel they are God-ordained and that their way of being in the world is correct, and that is why it's harmful to a more sustainable, stable regime later on. My sixth argument is that it's incredibly bad simply because of their reluctance of the religious figures to participate and also might create more friction in terms of undermining confidence in the regime as well. Now, we know that on the point about transitioning to a less stable government, modern Poland has a lot of issues with religious extremism as well. So their very own example shows how one authoritarian regime, overthrown by the Catholic Church, could cause massive protests because of the overturning of abortion and currently threatening to slide Poland back into authoritarianism. We think religious groups only create more propensity for these authoritarian regimes arising again in the future because of their very nature.
+So not only is it harmful to the protest, it's harmful to the values of the protest, it's harmful to the goals of the protest to install a long-term stable regime. And that's why in both the short and long run, in the small scale and the large scale, we win on the side of the opening opposition.
+All right, I'd like to thank you very much for the speech, and I'd like to call upon the second speaker for the government. 
+</lo>
+
+
+<dpm>
+Here's why opening opposition has already lost this debate. Every single argument that they've made is talking about the harms of what they conceptually and we'll talk, I’ll talk about that in a second, but the harms of religious movements and religious figures without actually drawing an actual comparative picture. They don't actually provide you a mechanism of how these protest movements can succeed in the first place. Right? I mean the first thing, the first challenge they show us, which we think is a mischaracterization of our cases, apparently how, you know, Aniket came up and talked about how the only reason that protest movements succeeded was because of religion. The main point we're saying is protest movements are more likely to succeed in places than we have precedent for that, like in South America. It's not so much that we're talking about a necessary condition, we think that's an unfair burden for them to place on us, but we're talking about the degree to which religion actually played a huge part in that. 
+
+
+And I'm going to talk about it in a second, but really all opposition talks about is like three things, right. The first, and by their own standards, right. They first talk about this idea about how one of the main interests of protest movement is overthrown, and we think we've already won that. Opposition didn't provide any systematic mechanism through which overthrowing will happen in their case, whereas we did. 
+
+
+First of all, we said that we're actually having mass appeal under our case. The only thing that did that is that they misconstrued that, oh, you know, they played around with Aniket's description of his epistemic access to God and how that's important. I'll get to that in a second. But really, why is mass appeal important? Because that's what a movement is all about. It's about getting mass appeal; it's about the ability for people to mobilize in a meaningful way to get through. 
+The biggest problem with movements is numbers, is strength, which is why stuff like “strength in numbers” is a thing when it comes to movements, which is why stuff like the Arab Spring is huge, because you have a lot of people out on the streets, which is why the same protests that happened in Latin America in the 70s and 80s against right-wing dictators because of slight inspiration from religious people was also important. 
+So we think on their side of the house, the fact that they acknowledged that there are significant religious groups that will be, you know, and that they’re not catering to means that you lose the most important aspect of protest movement, which is numbers. 
+
+
+But the second thing is, that we tell you, they sort of say is that, you know, we have to protect values, because at the end, religious people will tend to be conservative and so on. First of all, the first goal of a protest movement, which they admit to, is sort of the idea of getting rid of the authoritarian regime, right? So we don't think that they actually apply a fair comparative, but we think they actually mischaracterize what protest movements are like. They pick the worst-case scenarios, right? On the whole, if a religious group is actually siding with other secular forces in a specific group, its religious figures are being incorporated. 
+We think the main movement is egalitarianism, right? And that's one of the reasons why Mexico and Europe are prime examples of that, is that you have an anti-authoritarian sentiment in a lot of these religious groups, and the reason we win that is not just because we're sort of fighting, well, here, look at our example versus their example, but because we provide you with another mechanism, which is about how religion is itself open to interpretation. 
+
+
+Something that Aniket said. Why is that crucial here? Well, because we think that there are specific versions of religious readings that specifically become salient in these instances that allow for an anti-authoritarian regime. So, yeah, so generally speaking, we think that when religious figures incorporate these movements, they are, and for the vast majority of cases, doing that; But even if we take them at their best, we think that in an effort to have this notion of sustained values and a sustainable quasi-regime without massive appeal, by the way, we think you just don't end up getting rid of the authoritarian regime in the first place, right. Because you lose the initial goal that you set out to set for yourself. 
+
+
+But okay, here are some other things that we're going to develop in the rest of my speech. The first thing is, that one of the other things that we're clashing on here is this notion of alienating other religious groups. First of all, we think we're talking about countries that are, we're appealing to the majority religion, right? So the reason places like South America are examples, or places like Pakistan, is because in the vast majority of cases, you have clear ideas of a majority religion. 
+But secondly, we think that for people who want to overthrow the regime, it's on both sides of the house. The crucial feature that the opposition’s missing out on that we're bringing in is that it's not so much that religious people will come in and now you have a singular manifesto, but you're broadening the coalition, right? 
+And this is crucial because broadening the coalition means you're expanding the range for appeal. And we think this happens all the time. I mean, think about, I mean, I can name a few of my head, but think about all the countries where you have national movements, where parties ally with each other to get rid of a single authoritarian regime. The idea is you set a set of goals, which means that you have a consensus on those, and it doesn't necessarily mean that you have a consensus on everything else. 
+Why does that matter here? Because we think that insofar as protest movements are concerned with overthrowing authoritarian regimes, broadening a coalition doesn't mean that even in the worst-case scenario, if you have, let's say, an anti-abortion church that's kind of involved in this thing, we think that still helps because at the end of the day, you're broadening the main goal that you're trying to take, and yeah, that you're trying to have. 
+Here's the last thing that’s really crucial here, right? That, this idea about parliament and stability. So basically, the opposition's case rests on this notion that, for, you know, once you get these people, they're going to actually take places in parliament and because, you know, at the end of the day, we have the authoritarian regime, then we get rid of that. 
+
+
+Here's the problem with that. Aside from the fact that you don't have a mechanism for how you get rid of the authoritarian regime, we just think that the opposition is living in a wonderland where people aren't religious, right? The key feature of the countries that we're talking about, the vast majority of them, is that religion does play a part, and that in the comparative, people are religious. So at the end of the day, if people demand a certain kind of policy, and if the vast majority of people feel a specific way, we think it's kind of bizarre for the opposition to have their normative conceptions or, you know, like some sort of constitution that they have in mind that they want at the end of the day. 
+But here's the last and most important, I think, one of the most important features of our case that they totally missed, which is the comparative. One of the key features that Aniket kept telling you about is that, even when you don't use these religious figures, what happens? We think exactly, we get instances like, you know, Zia in Pakistan in the 80s, where religious figures, or sorry, politicians or state leaders, specifically authoritarian ones, can co-opt a religious narrative, right? 
+And when we think that happens, that's what we think leads to more extremist politics. That's when we think that religion gets smeared and is used in a negative sense, right? Because it's always authoritarian leaders' interest to actually have religion in their backbone or the idea of a religious narrative, because it makes a case for a certain kind of religious authority and legitimacy. 
+
+
+When you bring in religious leaders in, people who are influential for all the reasons Aniket mentioned, they didn't contest it, creates an opportunity for people, for a protest movement to actually have a say and incorporate that legitimacy. So on one hand, you might have a religious leader who says, “Well, here's my authoritarian system, here's why I'm like legitimately religious,” and you finally get an opposition voice that is sympathetic to people, incorporates the masses, but finally, and most crucially, also has a religious narrative that, because of the egalitarian nature of a lot of these movements that we've seen, actually allows for people to get authoritarian leaders to get removed. 
+</dpm>
+
+
+<dlo>
+All right, so let’s go with the frame we were given and start on overthrowing, right. Because that is the prerequisite for a lot of these issues. First thing you have to recognize is that we do talk largely about mass appeal, and it goes pretty unresponded by the government. The first issue here with the mass appeal is the issue of heterogeneity. 
+Now, we get some argumentation here on a few things. First, we hear from OP, we hear from GOV that most of the authoritarian states we're talking about, are homogeneous. First of all, this isn't true. Even in the areas that they give us, like Pakistan, you still have divides, right? Even within the Muslim community between the Sunni and the Shiite; And in the more homogeneous areas, what we see is that if you end up aligning yourself in Pakistan probably with the majority, you're going to end up largely disenfranchising the minority, hurting the most disenfranchised groups, and because that ends up causing a lot more harm, additionally, we get this idealistic notion of like, some very progressive collaborative religions working together all under one broad coalition. This goes directly against the framing of religion that we saw from the first speaker because if we're to look at religion, which as it is, is the one ordained truth given to these religious groups by God, then their ideology is directly opposed to notions of collaboration. They are the ones who have the truth; other religions are false believers and heretics. 
+We think that there are really two broad religious groups out there. We have our more open, progressive, collaborative religious groups who we feel are more likely to work with our organization, work with our protest movements without us actively trying to integrate them, and we have our more conservative, less collaborative, more maybe truer to their religion groups who are just going to tear apart our broad tent and make it their own. 
+So looking at that first group, it makes sense to have a discussion about what active integration actually looks like, which we haven't really heard anything from governments because that's what this debate's all about, and we think that active integration looks like, you know, going to churches, making concessions, listening to their speeches, and having these different religious figures be the figureheads or spokespeople of the movement. 
+Sure, OG, 
+
+
+<poi>
+if the super conservative population is 10% of the people, why would the, why would incorporating that.
+</poi>
+
+
+Got it, okay. First of which, these 10-15% is still a significant portion of the population. It's important not to disenfranchise them. You can also look back to whence I told you before about how they're the most vulnerable groups. If you're now having us replace this authoritarian regime with a theocratic Shiite regime, who's going to now oppress the 10%? I don't really consider that to be a victory, and additionally, we think that attempting a sort of collaboration is gonna be working. So, on to the points I was actually in the middle of saying about what being active actually looks like, so we think that these concessions we're giving means that it's very, that is the focus here of the debate. The religious groups that we actually have to actively integrate to have as a part of organization, all the ones going to actually have to make promises and concessions to so because of that our values are going to end up being hampered and we think that when you have to make these for the concessions you're going to disenfranchise these other sort of religious groups. Additionally, even in areas like pakistan when you have different levels or even if you have like a majority I believe sunni population i'm not convinced that all of them are going to be okay with having the sunni religion be the figurehead, and end up basically oppressing these sort of Shiites . So going down to this idea, and yeah and additionally, just when we look at attempting sort of broad correlation, uh, coalition we have to recognize that religion in government ends up trending towards authoritarianism just by nature, again, of believing in one soul truth that they now have to force out onto other people. We explain this to, in our leader speech, and it goes again uncontested. So let’s lastly talk about sort of comparative that we're given in the previous speech about how, yeah, about how we can go ahead and co-opt, or if we don't co-op religion, the authoritarian regime will. 
+
+
+A few thing, first of all, we never actually hear, why the religious groups are going to want to side with us. If the authoritarians now are willing to work with these religious groups and we're trying to grab them too in the government world, they're asking us to view a sort of race to the bottom where it's a fight of whether protesters or the authoritarians can effectively concede more to these religious groups, and it's, A, battle we're definitely not going to win because the authoritarians have much more to offer these religious groups, and B, we think that a more theocratic authoritarian society is even worse than the authoritarians we started with because they actually now have not only a stranglehold on the society, but they have a stranglehold that specifically excludes segments of the population. 
+
+
+Additionally, we have this conversation about how maybe like statesmen or politicians will, and in case, it comes up later around this discussion of whether the fact that religion is going to seep in eventually, if we do have victory, it ends up becoming a very weird argument because the whole point of opposition is that we're trying to keep out religion, at least in so far as making specific concessions to them. 
+
+
+So at the end of the day, what is this case or what is this round really coming down to? First things coming down to is again whether or not we can actually end up overthrowing these groups. And it's important to realize here that not only is it not nearly a contest between one religion and the other religions at play, it's also a contest between the single religion and the other bodies that maybe don't feel as religious, that have more progressive tendencies, and even the other subsections within that religious group. 
+Even the Sunnis and the Shiites in Pakistan aren't a monolith, and we can see this happening in the very example they were given to us of Poland, right. Where, although Poland had a reasonable democracy, or had a reasonable ,or fledgling one, what we're seeing now with recent elections is that it's on the verge of collapsing. We have massive protests as an extremely radical trending towards authoritarian government, and the Catholic Church are hampering down on abortion laws, hitting down other rights, and overall trying to dismantle the government that was fought so hard for. 
+So additionally, the main issue, though, that the government completely fails to encounter and that ends up being also very key for this overthrowing issue is the fact that the movement becomes so much easier to demoralize once you're attached to a religious figurehead. This part goes completely uncontested because when we start having the whole point, the reason why protests can be so hard to hamper down is because people believe in an idea. There's not any one person that the government can capture and prison and torture and kill the movements. That's why it's been so hard to take down protests in places like Taiwan;
+But when you go ahead and connect and make a single religious figurehead, that figurehead can be captured, killed, tortured, broad coerced. And just as it may be easier to moralize groups of people if you center around one figure, it's also that much easier to demoralize. The strength of our protest lies in its decentralization. The fact that it's multiple people working towards ideas that they all share, not being spoken by any one person. That's what makes it so for governments to defeat protest, and that's the sort of structure that we need to make sure we stick to. 
+Thank you. 
+</dlo>
+<mg>
+Panel two extensions mainly for me. First off, on legitimacy and why we exclusively can bring legitimacy to these movements which need it. Secondly, in terms of manpower and why we can amass more people. And I will identify some mechanistic links that were missed by our opening. But before I move on to rebuttals, though, note that most of these movements have the nature of being grassroots movements, right. That is to say most of these movements start from the populations and people of the general public, mostly young people trying to amass together and trying to fight against an authoritarian government. We don't think that they have the necessary means to continue on, in terms of a long-lasting sort of movement and continue to establish themselves without some sort of established institution that is backing them, right.
+I think that is crucial in today's debate and crucial for these movements' success. 
+
+
+Okay, before I move on, several points of extraneous rebuttal. I think most of OO’s points are contingent on the idea of how religion will basically corrupt movements, right. I think one main thing that they pointed out is the idea that, okay, this idea of like a divine birthright of these religions will kind of transcend and like be carried into these movements. Several responses to this, one, we think that at the end of the day they neglect the fact that these religious groups themselves actually have that impetus to join these movements, right. Why is this the case? One, in terms of on the moral level, there are people within these religious groups that are being oppressed by the government that, they have a moral impetus to go against these authoritarian governments, but even if this is not the case, right, there's another practical level in terms of interest, right. The ways in which these religions are able to be practiced and the ways in which they’re, these religious figures are able to politize is very much limited by their own, very own governments because these authoritarian governments are what is controlling the reins and holding everything under their control, right. At the end of the day, they have a motivation to join these movements. What does this mean? This means that a lot of the times, they will not want to characterize themselves as a threat to the movement, right. They will want to also complement these movements and be part of it and be part of the movement to fight against the authoritarian governments that are a threat to these religions in the first place, right.
+But even if this is not the case, right, note that at the end of the day, secondly, having a religion and believing that this transcends into something that is like a divine birthright are two different things, right. Just because I identify with something and believe deeply and connect with a belief and connect with others through that belief doesn't mean that I believe that this should dominate every aspect of my life, right. I think that there's a clear missing mechanistic link. Just because we co-opt certain narratives of the religion, we don't think that this will completely dominate the movement simply because at the end of the day, the general gist of the movement will be overthrowing the authoritarian government. And at the end of the day, this will not be completely dominated by religion, right? 
+
+
+Okay, secondly, that’s the second push that we get, is the idea that, okay, these movements will be easily shut down by authoritarian governments. Two responses, one, I think this is even worse on their side, right, because there's simply no legitimacy in these movements. There's no institutional power to back these people up, and many of these grassroots movements are led by young people, and they're more likely to be quashed by the troops and police forces of the government, right, but we think that this, secondly, under our side, we have a higher chance of these movements being sustainable and carry on for the long term because of the fact that we co-opted a lot of people from diverse backgrounds under this religion and have different levels of political power, right, more on this later; And lastly, in terms of their idea of heterogeneity, we think that under their side it's even worse because there's no way in which you can amass enough people note that currently a lot of movements are again dominated by young people and you don't get enough buy-in from people from higher levels of power. We don't think that this will necessarily be better on their side but under our side it's much better, because you have more chances of success, when you have people united around the same beliefs and people actually striving towards tangible goals, right.
+Okay, moving on to my substantives. In terms of my first extension, right, in terms of legitimacy we think that crucially, no house has identified the fact that religion itself can be a factor that holds people back from joining movements right why for instance take islam for an example, religious violence is not legitimate until it is sanctioned by a religious authority, right, look at the arab spring, the reason why most that is mostly bought in by young people rather than older people is because the older people simply don't think that this violence is religiously legitimate, right, but the point at which you co-opt religious narratives, right. This is the tipping point at which, people will actually want to opt in, people from various different backgrounds, people from different ages because of the fact that now it is legitimized and it is seen as something that is something that will actually lead to tangible goals in terms of overthrowing the authoritarian government, right. We think that this is much more weaponized under our side, right, but secondly, we think that also, people, these movements are often not seen to be legitimate because they don't have institutional backing, right. It is really easy to fizzle out, but what having religious authority on your side is uniquely beneficial is because this type of authority is so tied to people's identity and their daily life and their figment of their being, right. This means the movements will be much more likely to be long lasting. Again, this sort of analysis has been neglected by our opening, right. So two main impacts from this, one, we establish the legitimacy of our movement and we allow people to actually flourish in the long run and secondly, we remove the barrier that is stopping people from opting in especially when religious, religion is holding them back, right. Also, in terms of my second point, in terms of manpower right, we think that we have long-term benefits for a lot of these grassroots movements because these long, these movements often can't enough, can't amass enough people because the main demographic is like, young people, right. This, they're easily quashed by the establishment but with the religious institutions co-opted, given the large demographic that will be, that is encapsulated within these religions. You have different people from different levels of who have different levels of political capital. We think that we have a lot more mobility in terms of having a diverse group of people along the power hierarchy to consolidate the movement, right. we think that apart from what our opening identified, which is like more people in general. We get more power under our side too and we think that at the end of the day this is crucial in terms of having a these movements to be long lasting and to have any sort of chance to have success, right. So that's why I'm very, very proud to stand CG. Thank you. 
+</mg>
+
+
+<og>
+Okay, so I think we're going to win this debate in CO by first of all, giving a more accurate picture of how religion works in these countries and what specifically this integration is going to look like. I think CG fallout of this debate, the point of which they proved what could happen but don't actually show you the likely scenario of how religion will be played out within these members. 
+
+
+I think they massively underestimate who has the power to control these narratives to begin with and who has that power to dictate their narratives and decide how religion will be interpreted in these events. How does religion work in these countries? Extending on massively from our opening because our opening has already established that these are very religious countries because often it's set within the developing world of authoritarians and also incredibly diverse.
+But it's also crucial that they're often very, very divided. There's often huge religious conflicts within these societies, a lot of hatred and pain between these religious groups because they've been specifically fueled by those leaders of those authoritarian groups in order to maintain that soft power, because obviously having a divided populace is much more beneficial for you as a leader to maintain political support. Because how do leaders specifically use religion to strengthen their power? This goes on much further from our opening when they just say they’re appointed by God. I think it's true they specifically frame themselves as appointed by God, but also protectors of the faith and they are appointed by this higher power not just to carry out their role as a government but also protect the faith. 
+
+
+There are five mechanisms how they do this, descending from our opening,  one, they specifically frame their, often their political party or their agenda around their ideology which is often religious. Therefore, religion and their state becomes inseparable. Therefore, if you're against this particular leader, you are also against the religion that they stand to protect. 
+Two, they often recruit the military based off religious faith. They say that, hey, they use a narrative that they are not only defenders of the state, but defenders of the faith. They have this commonality between them and the shared purpose that is much higher than themselves and any form of political values. 
+Three, they often pay a lot of religious elite, religious members through things like private privileges in order to get them to vocalize their support and often stand behind these leaders to begin with. They often use their private benefits or their policies to privilege certain individuals and say, “If you back my regime, I will also help you as a religious leader.” It's like sharing your influence, which often means they have a lot of support and vocalized support from the most powerful people in these religious groups. 
+Four, finally, they do also divide and conquer rules within their own populace, which in order to fuel resentment between these different sectors, because the minority groups aren't just oppressed, like OG talk about; they're also being actively demonized. These repressed minority groups are specifically framed as being an attack on other people's safety. They're shown as people that want to have power; they are power-hungry because they want to impose their religious beliefs onto the rest of the populace. They're not just people who have different beliefs to you; they are an active threat against your religious beliefs, and if they ever had power, and if they ever maintained their power, they would directly entrench on your rights as individuals. This is specifically how leaders are able to justify very oppressive policies against minority groups by framing them as attacks on the faith and also claiming legitimacy on God. 
+
+
+Therefore, why is this bad for political movements? I think, political movements within authoritarian regimes have two main obstacles they need to overcome. I think one is internal divisions because obviously having a divided group within yourself just means you are less powerful as an opposition. But also two, a united opposition is probably a massive thing. The point is you have a military that actively backs that leader and the elites that have a united front against you means it's much harder for you to gain momentum and gain any sort of leverage. 
+
+
+Therefore, why is it bad the point in which you introduce religious leaders? Because I agree you are going to get some buy-in as OG talked about from those that buy into the faith. We're also going to go, it's also going to come at the cost of a huge turn away from most everyone that doesn't buy into the faith because I said, before these often these different religions aren't just portrayed as different but things have been actively against you and against your religious beliefs as a person because of these years of divine rule, conquers, and also I think when you actively integrate religious leaders, you frame this protest as a religious protest rather than just like a trench on human rights. Because you're saying that we gain legitimacy from this unique religion; therefore, those who are unrepresented by that religion or specifically and perhaps more crucially, though, that religion is an attack on their own religious beliefs will inevitably be turned away. I think also, especially within the context of these countries, religion is a hugely important part of people's identity in their life. I think it's probably more important than perhaps even democratic values, where especially when, like, places outside of the West, democratic values just aren't as entrenched in their social values. I think religion will take the forefront in these scenarios. 
+
+
+Therefore, I think it's also important to note what type of religious leaders these guys probably actually look like and what kind of leaders they'll probably be able to integrate, which I also appear, why? Because I think it's just one very unlikely you're going to integrate religious leaders that support the government or that are part of the religion that the government claims to protect. Why? Because often these leaders are specifically co-opted by the government through things like private privileges in order to gain their support and power. I think also these particular leaders have a lot to lose. They have a lot of privileges and rights to lose by necessarily turning away from their government, such an oppressive government where turning away from them could actually cost them their lives. 
+I think if you are going to get any sort of religious leaders from that religion, they're going to be much lesser leaders that, like, in the face of a much higher authority standing against them, probably going to have much minimal impact. There's no point getting one priest to stand out against the Catholic government, if the pope is supporting it, as an example. I think it has very little impact. 
+What I think is more likely to happen, though, is therefore you get religious leaders from those minority religious groups to begin with. They have far less to lose, they have far less state, and they're probably more negatively affected by that government and have a greater incentive to take that government down to begin with. 
+
+
+Therefore, why is this a bad thing? I think it specifically strengthens the narrative that authoritarian regimes used in order to maintain soft power to begin with. Because now, again, and this is why CG can’t really get their harm, can’t get their benefits to begin with about how like, you claim legitimacy through religion. Because I don't think it's these small protest movements that control the narrative, specifically the leader that will say, "Look, this minority group is now being who they have actively demonized and not just oppressed." They are saying that they are attacking us as a faith because again, because they linked their government specifically to the faith. 
+
+
+They're saying an attack on us is an attack on the faith, the leaders are specifically able to often depersonalize these protests and say, “Look, they're not attacking my government, they're not attacking my policies, but they're attacking me because of my religious beliefs and how I want to protect our faith.” 
+And specifically, the point in which they have religious leaders they can point out, I think this becomes far, far worse and far easier to do so on this side of the house. The things want to know who controls the narrative, it's not these individual religious leaders, but specifically governments who have one, media control, or two, have the buy-in of lots of elites that will be willing to vocalize their support, especially when those elites often come from high religious establishments. 
+Therefore, the impact, so this is probably threefold. I think only three. One, probably get more likely that those elite religious leaders will likely vocalize their support, empower the government, which will fuel further dissent, so all their followers will be like, "No, we actually support this government," to begin with, and this actually is an attack on our faith and probably also like to do things like donate resources and money for these governments in order to help them. I think two, you also get a more united military, the point of which they have a more common goal to attack. They're not attacking their neighbors who want greater human rights, they're attacking those that want to attack their faith, the faith that they have been designed to defend. 
+Therefore, they have a much more shared common goal, and that goes beyond the individual self, I think, which this probably looks like things like greater repression of peaceful protest and far greater military impact. 
+I think finally, just get a more divided process. The point of which you're never going to get full buy-in from the population at the point in which you introduce religious divide. I think it's probably bad because you get less band power and just a far less effective protest. 
+So for all those reasons,I’m proud to oppose. 
+</mo>
+<gw>
+Panel, we see three examples of people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer. We've seen three examples of genders, these examples of Gandhi; that the sheer power that religious institutions and religious leadership, through its sheer magnitude of having support and buy-in, can grant these movements success. 
+We show you better than any other team does, why we managed to get success for these movements and why we managed to oppose ourselves to authoritarian regimes. First, I'm going to give you some examples of like how, what is it, how like the other teams haven't meaningfully engaged with our extension. And then I'm going to go away team by team as you do with a web speech. 
+
+
+So first of all, no team is meaningfully engaged with our point on manpower, organization, and resources. Rachel showed you very clearly how engaging with these religious institutions and religious movements will give you greater amounts of manpower to the tipping point where you can actually overthrow these regimes. And the fact that all the division arguments that were put forth by CO, don’t necessarily manifest in the way that they characterize them, we're going to, we characterize this in a moment. 
+
+
+We always, we also showed you how organization works in these movements and how organization is more able to happen within the framework of religious institutions, where they are more of a basis for organization as compared to other sort of very, very diverse movements that you kind of have and trying to overthrow authoritarian regimes. 
+And we also talked to you about resources, which is something that nobody managed to touch. So now let's look at the best case that we have, and in the best case that the opposition games gave you, we still win, because we still have the pluralism amongst religious groups because these groups have greater incentives to want to coexist than they do to want to exterminate and kill each other and mobilize the state against one another because they know the numbers just aren't on their side to help them target one another, and that the people will still be like their religious institutions would still be oppressed under such a status quo, so they won't be willing to take that chance versus way against closing. Closing’s main argument is that religion is used like a political tool to claim legitimacy over the state. 
+So what's wrong with this argument? First of all, fundamentally it isn't necessarily true since these groups often have common incentives. For instance, even in Pakistan, which is a much-used example in this debate, people don't necessarily vote on religious grounds because even within religion there is enough diversity of political interest for them to want to divulge. 
+
+
+So what does this mean? This means that there would be, like, if you can incline people to converge on a common interest, this doesn't necessarily mean that there's enough sort of commonality for the kind of oppression and the kind of harms that CO tell you to exist. 
+
+
+So what does this mean? This means first of all that these states don't usually have a single majority large enough to have a monopoly on state power and claim any of the harms that like CO give you about military and state convergence on power and narratives to actually manifest.
+But even if they did, the competing institutions who aren't a majority of these other religions are still larger because like this majority isn't big enough to be decisive, so what happens as a result? What happens as a result is that they can mobilize to such a large tipping point of people that they will not succeed in the kind of narrative control that you're talking about. 
+
+
+First of all, the state won't buy it in the first place because they're not big enough, and second, even if it's like some case scenario where they did, they can't mobilize the military against them because there's just so many of them in swades that are divided across so many points that they would be significantly overwhelmed by the sheer number and scale of these people. 
+So they cannot succeed, and in the best case, and like in the worst-case scenario, none of these benefits actually manifest, so we win anyway. So why is this better than their best case? So we show you that these divisions don't necessarily exist between, to the point where they would not be willing enough to engage with other religious institutions. 
+
+
+And I'm going to come on to that when I weigh against the opening because we can talk more about that. So like, even in the best case scenario that they give us about religious institutions having some kind of monopoly on state power and state narratives, we still win. 
+So that's way against opening. Here, first of all, it's worth noting that we break the deadlock on opening half about overthrowing and whether or not it succeeds because opening couldn't decide. Teams couldn't decide, like, would you isolate or put off competing in other religious groups? We answered this. We don't put them off because they have a common interest because these movements are probably being suppressed at some level or like not being suppressed more. 
+For instance, look at Nazi Germany and the fact that different sects of religions, like different sects of Christianity were suppressed first before Catholicism was eventually suppressed because there was enough conflict happening there. Look at the fact that eventually the religious monopoly power that happened with Zia in Pakistan eventually fell apart because there is so much conflict happening there. 
+Like, ultimately, there is so much, like, these groups who are being suppressed disproportionately to other groups. As soon as they're united in their suppression, they have a common incentive to engage and struggle against authoritarian rule and resist it in a meaningful way because they can care more. They care more about their survival and their religious and political capital remaining intact than they do by the legitimacy of these other movements. 
+They can't spread the word of God if their mosques are shut down and their Bibles are being burned. Now the second point about this deadlock, this overthrowing happens. We show you yes, it does because these groups are probably being suppressed to some extent. Like I said earlier, like Zia explaining with religious groups like the tomatoes Islamic due to theological disagreements and opposition to his actions. 
+We showed you, Rachel showed you clear tipping point analysis as to why without the sheer number of movement, like sheer numbers that you get in the movement as a result of religious buy-in, this will not happen. Why is this first of all? Manpower because these religious institutions usually have such a hold over the population that the majority is religious to at least some extent. 
+And that without the sort of hold back that you have on legitimacy, without having them buy in in the first place, that you won't get enough support to overthrow them in the first place. So any of the harms that OG give you are meaningless anyway, and the second thing is the resources of political communities like religious communities, rather. 
+Like look at Martin Luther King and look at the sheer amount of power that medics would have or the fact that you have so many people they can have mass resistance on that economic level and on civil disobedience levels. The result of this is that ultimately what happens is that there is enough manpower and enough sort of resource buy-in for there to be able to be a meaningful counter to the state. 
+This counter does not exist without the legitimacy of religious institutions, so it does not exist for opposition. So opposition says, like, this whole thing about it being bad for succession because these movements are seeking political capital at any given point. 
+I will probably existing governments would take too much power. I'll tell you what's wrong with it. But first, like if opening I have anything.  Okay, let's move on. So what's wrong with this? They don't analyze why religious groups want to get involved. Rachel tells you very clearly that they won't be the centerpiece of the movement, divine birthright won't necessarily be the controlling force. We're co-opting narratives of religion; we're not making this a religious protest. 
+So what happens as a result? People may be religious, but they don't necessarily want theocracies because they're simply buying into the fact that they're fighting an illegitimate regime. So the best case where this argument from OO is true, religious institutions don't necessarily want autocracy or theocracy because they think they'll need to make compromises to have success in the political spheres. And religious institutions, since they have the epistemic value that OG talked about, they won't want to dilute. And the worst cases isn't true at all, and we see religious institutions called proper protest movements anyway because they're usually being suppressed in the status quo. 
+We tell you that religious movements have clear incentives on moral grounds and political grounds because even against their best case, we show you why they won't discern the political capital but they'll want to get involved. This helps vulnerable and oppressed faiths in significant ways where they're not able to participate, and like they won't be able to engage in the struggle anyway because they're being oppressed at such an extent. 
+And they won't be demoralized if they take out a leader because like martyrdom man. 
+Okay, now let's go like, weigh up against the bench real quick. So they look like they went on the manpower argument. However, no, they can't access any of these benefits except for our analysis because we materialize how conservatives buy in, how we access a large and greater amount of resources and a greater amount of political capital because of all these people all over the spectrum of political capital and diversity that you have within religious movements. 
+Look at white people and the world that they had in like swinging support from Martin Luther King and for like black movements in the 1960s. 
+For all those reasons, opposed. 
+</gw>
+<ow>
+Three figures in this speech. First of all, holistic overview of the debate where our case falls within it and how you should judge it. Second of all, dismantling GOV's individual cases even further beyond what we're going to do initially. And thirdly, if they have time, specifically weighing against OO. 
+Let's talk about this debate then, right? So I think what's really important to note is all of the scenes in this debate talk generally about the impact on the protests, the efficacy, etc. This is fine, but this is only one half of the coin because we tell you that this protest group always exists in contrast to something else, which is the authoritarian regime, right. It exists to counter it, the regime exists to counter the group, etc. So I think to whatever extent the protest can get stronger, that's fine, but it only works so long as they are stronger in proportion to the regime, okay. So you always need to be considering with, like, regardless of what happens to the protest movement, its size, how does that also impact the size and power of the authoritarian regime? I think at the point at which we engage with this, we probably win this debate, right.
+Why do you think this is? Why do we think that the increase that we tell you that you get in the power of the authoritarian regime is disproportionate to any increase that you may get in the resources and power of the protest group, even if everything that GOV tells you is true?
+
+
+I think it's got a couple of reasons. One, that the resource gap in terms of how many resources the two have, right. So that the people who you're more likely to be recruiting to the protest group are likely to be more impoverished, because specifically, because there are people who have not been benefited by the state, but the people who are benefited by the state the most, i.e. the wealthiest people, are more likely to be in the pocket of the government. I think at the point in which these people believe that there's a kind of existential threat to their religion, something I'm going to tell you a bit more about later on, this is when they're more likely to do things like donating to the military, the government, etc. 
+Brought back providing more resources behind them and using their media empires or whatever to recruit more people. I think there's a disparity in this. Second of all, even if you don't buy that, even we assume that there are equal resources on both sides, I'll take POI later. 
+Note that leaders stay in power by co-opting the majority narrative anyway, right. Because that's the best way to do it. If you can have the majority narrative or at least a majority of the narratives, then you're more able to stay in power. It's just kind of common sense, and whether that's by divine rights of kings or some other mechanism, so to whatever extent you get active engagement increasing in the protest group and support there, I think that support increases in the regime more because they are seeing either one, an enemy religion if it's a different religion, or two, blasphemy if it is a different interpretation of the same religion. 
+
+
+So not only do you get this sort of existential threat to their religion, which is more important than anything in the mortal life because it affects them for eternity going onward in the afterlife, but it also depersonalizes everyone else. But everyone else is just like evil in the eyes of this religion. So you get angus people; it turns people away from the protest group and towards this regime because of this monopoly on your religious media, etc., and that it's had, and also because just like that's what the majority religion looks like. You know, the kind of people you're going to be recruiting to this regime are probably people who weren't agreeing with the state anyway because if they were agreeing with the state anyway, then you're obviously not going to be able to get them onside. Okay, let's talk about the rebuttal, let me get to it. I think we get told essentially a couple things, around you're, it's not true and there is some kind of diversity within these groups. I think what's more than to note here is that there's still going to be some majority or some sort of larger scoop right and I think that even if you don't buy that, whenever you introduce some kind of antagonistic religion, this is what causes splintering, right. It doesn't matter what extent you put commonality of religions or united religions beforehan I think at the point in which you introduce an enemy that's when, that's when you, so, you've got disparate religions beforehand at the point which you introduce one antagonistic religion that is out to get everyone else which is how this is framed. I think everyone else is more able to unite and get behind it, right. I think this isn't about like diversity as CG tries to tell you our cases that's the OO case. This is about conflict and the extent to which these groups are able to be in conflict or unite with each other and tell you they're more able to unite against these protest groups when you're the, the motion happens. Additionally, we just don't get any mechanistic analysis, right. Now, that we give you like four or five mechanisms as to how militaries are able to construct their narrative to be ideologically more supportive than what this actually means they haven't engaged with any of these. This looks like the party framing their beliefs around their ideology, it looks like recruitment to the military, it looks like private religious being given to religious leaders, it looks like the divide and conquer policies no engagement on any of that. So, I think ultimately, we win this debate because we tell you why the side of the scales that no one else engages with is actually the more important side of the scales, to consider, in this sort of delicate balance of power between the authoritarian regime and the protest group. I'll take opening.
+<poi>
+why is your case of a majority oppressing the minority more likely than the case of soviet countries, where the majority is oppressed and in these countries where religion is key, why are democratic values on your side sufficient for a successful protest movement?
+</poi>
+Right I think a couple things I think one note that there is still the gap in terms of wealth and power so like power that you have over the media power that you have in terms of resources, which I think happens regardless of whether it's a majority or minority in terms of the population it's still a majority or minority and her majority like leading in terms of the resources and the capital so the point of which we also have a mechanism relating to that, I think that we can still stand even in these instances that you're talking about as well.
+Okay, let's talk a bit more about GOV specifically, right. Because they try to tell you that you get more people inside. The point at which you have religious people backing them, I think we're going to show that there's a pretty mitigatory. Why? Because I think one, note there's the wealth gap, which I've already talked about a fair bit. Two, note that the people who are probably going to be likely to join these groups would have been supported of them anyway, right, because you already have to disagree with the state in some way to even consider joining these groups. 
+
+
+So I think these are probably the kinds of people who are still going to direct people to these groups; they might give some kind of backing to these groups already, and their followers are already. So these are the people who are already listening to these religious leaders. Their followers might be, are probably going to be reached by the group either way. 
+
+
+The difference then is whether or not we platform them, we accept them, we integrate them into our protest groups. And I think that's when we tell you that you've got active harms because you synonymize the group; it's a religion as opposed to the religion just being one backer amongst many. 
+And anyone else, I think this also beats the CG case, right. Why? Because one, note that when they tell you that people are held back from joining these groups by their religious beliefs, I think we tell you that you can still encourage joining without actively making this group, part of your religion, that your religious leaders are still likely to encourage joining us. 
+That your religious leaders are still likely to encourage the ones who would have joined this group anyway, so likely to encourage joining us. We just don't have to platform them in return or integrate them. I think that this is probably the main thing that CG has, the only other thing that they have is the resource manpower stuff which one is sort of the rivers of og second of all again we give you the weighing terms, like the wealthiest elites and thirdly, even if that's not the case, we give you all the other stuff that I talked about earlier. Very briefly then on OG, I think we beat og because og tells you one about corrupting the movements, I think this is dependent on the movements actually winning in the first place so it's kind of secondary to us. Two, they fill you up putting off people from other religions, I think that, one, we give better mechanisms for what happens on the side of the scale such as protest movements at the point which we tell you about the symmetry in og. Second of all, we just engage uniquely on the other side of the scales which is more important anyway so we have to beat them in that regard,see you thank you.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Doxbridge 3 Round 4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+<PM>
+A couple of points of model before going into a bunch of arguments. One, the way this probably works is we cross-reference a particular policy within an election plan or program to the socio-economic and demographic situation of a particular person, e.g., Trump scraps Obamacare. We will calculate the harm of that to good individual person and reimburse them in that way. Secondly, we see this as an opt-out card from politics. Therefore, if people choose to engage in this option, they are banned from political activism. For example, if you are the owner or CEO of a company, if you choose to use this option for reimbursement, you are banned from donating money to political parties or influencing politics through lobbying. We say this is one or the other has to ensure that the system is not overburdened with financial influence. Let's move on to a very important principle frame, which feeds into the principle we want to run. We feel that there is no objectively good political outcome from elections, ideologically, insofar as you have no epistemic access to which ideology is the correct ideology. And when choosing between moral preferences, the very choice of the metric is in and of itself a subjective moral decision. But also in terms of what the correct allocation of preferences is, given that the system of one person, one vote cannot account for the intensity of preferences but also calculate the sum of the quantities means the system is necessarily skewed against creating the correct decision. Consequentially, we do not care what the outcome will be or whether Trump wins, insofar as they cannot prove that it is objectively the correct decision in the eyes of God. What we want to debate then about is the maximization of individual agency within the political system because insofar as there is no objective truth, the only thing we can regress towards is a subjective definition of happiness. Because every individual has the largest access to the full breadth of their experiences, desires, and wishes to be able to define that for themselves. Note, in the status quo, you practically cannot influence the outcome of elections as a single voter. Even in the most swingy swing states of the US, the difference in votes is like 10,000 or 20,000. So even if all of your family members vote, you are still not decisive in the election. This means that with greater collective action problem in which you essentially, as an individual, have no power. It is therefore rational for us to create a backup plan for you in situations where you know that your influence is not the decisive one. This is important because of the principle of recourse towards this thing, when the state is infinitely more powerful than you in a couple of regards. One, it controls your entire life through legislation: your welfare, education, your health care, and so on and so forth. Secondly, it has coerced it means to enforce its bidding, insofar as it can send the police and the military in to control your behavior if you disagree with it. But thirdly, you can never escape the yoke of the state. Right? You can move in between states, but you're always under the control of the state. This means that insofar as happiness and the achieving of happiness is related to your ability to achieve your goals, this is directly related to the material conditions of your existence, which you can only control insofar as you control that which defines it through its legislation, which is the same. Which means that in order for you to ensure that you have a good life, or at least the best possible life, you need to have ability to operate within the boundaries of this state. Insofar as you cannot control the outcome of elections, but this policy ensures we at least compensate you. This amount of money is proportional to the harm that can be done to you, which means that it allows you to undertake planning for the next term of the elections, like four or five years. It enables you to keep up a business if that's the proportionality of the harm to pay for your health care, the essential basics you need for you to define your path in life, therefore your destiny. Through this, then we maximize the agency of people through allowing them to have the means necessary to control their life in the way they want subjectively, which is the truest moral definition we can have. Therefore, the only morally satisfactory outcome in this debate we already read it principally. Note that it's independent of practical outcomes, but let's move on to practical outcomes. We said this is also a self-moderating mechanism. Note that the people who are going to vote and not insure themselves against the win of a particular candidate are those who are relatively insured, regardless of which option wins, right? Who are not going to incur a large amount of costs if one or the other option is the true striatum in the election. This therefore likely means that the people who vote are moderate, center-right, and center-left who probably will not suffer a lot of harm, regardless of what happens. The reason why this is important is because it also moderates policy because it means that the people who vote do not have a preference for radical overhauls of the system with health care or education but rather the continuation of the current system with some incremental tweaks on one side or the other. This is important because policy consistency is incredibly key to the survival of a system, insofar as when we have radical changes of policy, this means there is a large sunk cost in debunking and destroying the underpinning of the policy that happened before, because it probably is underpinned by a different taxation policy, different logic of welfare payments, and so on and so forth. There's a huge sunk cost in destroying the infrastructure underpinning of the previous policy and crafting another one. As administrations changes sunk costs repeat over time, which means whenever we have a functional policy that has a time-tested system that has been incrementally adapted to the needs of the citizens, but rather a lot of time and capital is spent irreparably on shifting these policies around. On our side, we ensure that we have a consistent path-dependent system with incremental tweaks that are better adapted to reacting to the situation. But secondly, it also reduces polarization in the system, insofar as people have lower ideological clashes in between them because the system has less people on the far right or far left voting. This means that elections are more likely to revolve around policy rather than around ideological purity or other ways to get cheap political points that are not related to policy efficiency. Note that although we do claim there is no morally correct outcome, this argument shows that you have a pragmatically more efficient system and a system that is more responsive to the individual needs of each citizen, insofar as their unique moral actor that has equal rights for the politicians to represent their needs and their demands in political debate. So we win this in the practical as well. Before I move on to my last practical point, I will take closing opposition. 
+<POI>
+Presumably, in the best case of this situation, you get one cycle of moderates voting, which leads to moderate policy reform, which means that the insurance that people get paid off is basically now because of the incrementalism. So this incentivizes increased circles in the future of polarization once people find that the vote is more important and more impactful in their lives. 
+</POI>
+One, we say that moderate policies are not necessarily those that will incur low compensation, depending on your socio-economic and demographic status. But secondly, then the best that you can prove, if that's the case you're going to run, is status quo, in which case we still win because we have a principal benefit over status quo even if nothing changes, so that no change is not to win for opposition. Last argument, which is why this probably empowers underprivileged groups in this situation where a lot of people are not going to vote. Those who are underprivileged are likely to see a niche for them to finally influence the system. Know that you're most politically active at the point where relative deprivation decreases slightly. Have always been underfunded, underrepresented. Nobody has campaigned towards you. Finally, in the situation, you see something that has never happened before: the ability to influence an election. You're likely to want to utilize this opportunity insofar as you probably fear that it's going to go away. Also, community leaders and activists are probably riling you up to vote and framing this as a historical opportunity. This therefore means that you are more likely to take the vote, an individual white middle-class person, and probably get more representation, but also more campaigning towards you. Insta-party's politicians know that you are probably the decisive vote. This equalizes agency because everyone is a unique moral actor, and therefore we can prove that this shows more representation. First, people have comparatively less of it. This equalizes the game within the political system because they are another decisive vote. For all of those reasons.
+</PM>
+<LO>
+As we saw today, small margins matter in elections, and whereas the opening government says that means we don't know what people want, we say that if 30,000 people in Pennsylvania would have taken out insurance, that state might have gone in the other direction, leading to significantly more power for a person that doesn't represent the poor, ultimately robbing them of the agency the opening government so desires. Our case clashes directly with him. We're going to explain two things. First, when representations of poor will drastically decrease, and second, why this polarizes politics further, disenfranchising the poor. Why is this directly unclashed with the principle that they've brought in this debate? They basically say that we care about agency and people and to sort of maximize their preferences, and we're indifferent between this. We agree, but we think that we should care most about the agency and the preferences of the poor in this debate because on them, the policies of the government which they rely on simply have the most impact. What we're going to explain is what this policy does is it robs them of their agency to change that powerful tool that influences their material conditions, which they claim are important for freedom as well. I have two or three other points of the bottle before I move into the case. First, on this reimbursement, I think it's generally unrealistically high and not going to compensate if you really for Obamacare, which gives in order to compensate appropriately for it for how expensive care is. It would be millions of people to every person in the United States. We think it's likely therefore to be much lower because of the huge costs. But second, even if it was high, it's impossible to predict. For instance, will this person get sick? And that's true for a lot of particular policies, which you simply don't know the future of what's going to happen to people, hence why we think they never can be appropriately addressed, especially when another powerful person is voted in power. Second, we think that they make claims of our world. If you are in the middle of politics and if you go this side or that side of your rights, you are more likely to be indifferent between which option is going to be because you are closer to your ideal utility point. Hence why more and more men are much more likely to take out the insurance because they at least get the money, but the two other drops are slightly different. Hence why it's true people would want more per se, we have so much about politics but no amount of money. Thirdly, I think actually the opposite is true. The opposite happens because you know lots of other poor people aren't voting as well, hence why my individual vote is unlikely to change things because I don't have a coalition of poor voters, which creates the kind of path dependency in the opposite way because poor individuals are now then incentivized to also not vote for that particular reason. Moving into a case where I will further deal with them. So look. Right where for the third representation. It's very simple. We think poor individuals under their policy could have voted out politicians that pursue policies that harm them or don't help them, and now, for instance, will take out the insurance instead of incentivizing them to change them and instead will take the money even though they had the chance to win the election. Why would they take the money even if they had a chance to win the election or significantly increase the margin, which would also help them in a drastic way? Four reasons. One, it's incredibly uncertain what is going to happen. The polls are close, and you don't know which one is likely to be true, but there could be enormous amounts of changes as well into the future in terms of the economy or what will happen, for instance, with the particular country or with that particular politician who you don't know very well. So it's very uncertain if your vote what will actually happen with that, but the amount of money is extremely certain. That's why you have a big incentive to take it. Second of all, it is in your individual interests. Look, if everyone would vote out, for instance, the politician that pursues policies against the poor, that is obviously an interest of all poor people and better than the amount of money that they will give them. But your individual interest is better served if you take the money. So you often think enough other people will vote for it; I can simply take the money and have my cake and eat it too because I get both the money and the politician out. When everyone thinks that, that ultimately leads to a collective action problem in which politicians that will pursue policies against their interests are elected. Third of all, the amount of money is way more concrete. You don't know what the exact policies are going to be. It is an election relatively far away, and you can feel the money right now. There are particular things that you could do with it straight away, hence a much more concrete option is much more easier to visualize for people, hence why they will take it even if a realistic path for change was on the table. And fourth of all, other campaigns will abuse this to scare voters. What if you lose out on the money? What if, for instance, it doesn't matter and then you could have, for example, gotten all this money to go on a vacation with? For instance, those particular scare tactics on social media by hyper, like using that data to like target voters in a hyper-specific way are likely to change people's opinions. Why does this matter? At first, when established why this matters, even if you don't win the election, because even if you increase the amount of poor people that vote, it drastically can change policy because it creates an incentive for politicians to cater to that group because they see that they turn about the election that they're not taking out the insurance, and that is a block that they can win in the future. Hence why they change their incentive. But also you get more bargaining power. If you increase your representation in the parliament or you win certain local seats, you can already pursue policy because your bargaining chip on a national level and on a local level has increased and massively improves their lives. But in some cases, we actually think you will win the election because, as we've seen, small margins matter and hence why a large amount of people taking out this particular deal will lead to politicians being attacked. This is by far the biggest impact in the debate for these people. For instance, a subsidy or welfare or cheaper health care can drastically change life; you could literally make the difference between life and death to a severe struggle or having a day without unrest and terrible worry because these people depend on those particular policies. Hence why we think this is the most important impact in the bench. I'm going to further explain why this further polarizes things in two particular ways after the election happened. It is for two reasons. First, there is now much more legitimacy to disenfranchise the other side. Why? Because the other side has taken out the money. We can take away policies from them. We cannot care about them because they got the enormous amount of money that the opening government promised them in the first place. Hence why it feels kind of fair they have gotten their compensation, hence why we don't have to think about them. We don't think that the amount of compensation can level up to the amount of disenfranchisement that those guys will create on their side of the house, hence why it's a clear loss. Okay, this will create massive amounts of extra polarization for the following reason: if you now a politician, what is easier? You could make the other side hate you so much that they will take out insurance instead of voting against your competitor. Now they are obviously going to the incentive is the opposite. You don't want people to take out insurance but instead vote for you. But think about it, what is easier for Trump versus Democrats to convince Democrats to join his side or to hate him so much that they will simply take out insurance instead of voting for Biden? The second is way more plausible in already heavily polarized worlds where people, through misinformation and echo chambers, often are very hard to change their particular opinion. But instead, it's much easier to convince them to hate the other side so much that you rather take on insurance and vote for someone else. Hence why this is the easier option for politicians. Why is that polarization problematic? I think it also just generally disenfranchises voters because the policies picked do not represent the majority, defeating them on their metric but also are way more problematic often for poor people who say to go to much more extreme ends in hurting them after the work election outcomes for poor individuals that robs them of the agency. That's why I'll post.
+</LO>
+<DPM>
+I think that the opposition in this debate assumes that, first of all, poor people vote unanimously for one party or the other party, that one candidate is better for people, even though maybe some other people might vote him in, and that's generally what we should prioritize in this debate. I think we will win on this grounds too, but I'm not sure that they've proven you, except for the idea that there are people who are less economically, how do you say, stable than other folks, that they should have more rights in the democratic system than the same folks who have the same citizenship as they have. But first of all, I think with the technical rebuttal, we will just pay for their insurance premium. I think that that solves the issue of we don't know if they're gonna get sick or not, and this is generally the tendency to which we're gonna compensate. So if you lose something, you get something in return for this if the policy is as follows. And secondly, I don't think that, how to say, when we talk about the poor folks generally, I want to first engage with this idea, you don't know whether you will win the election or not with your vote. I think this is crucial. Even if we assume good polling, and polling is shit right now, even in the country with the best democratic tradition of voting, and whatever, and such small differences, there is no way you can gauge whether you're gonna help someone win or help someone lose the election. In order for you to win the election, your vote needs to be crucial in your district, and your district needs to be crucial for the whole election. This means that the difference, I know, between in Pennsylvania is one vote. This was your vote, and Pennsylvania decided the national elections. Other than that, there is no meaningful individual agency for you to change the course of the election. Other than that, voting is largely irrational and done on the basis of other things and not necessarily that you have a rational expectation that you're going to change the system, even if you believe so. I've just proven that there's no way that you can know this, so this is still irrational. Secondly, I contest that people who are of low economic situation vote unanimously. I think there's a lot of people who voted for Trump who are poor currently in the Midwest, and I don't think that they that you can put them in the same take over they want to vote for Democrats because Democrats offer maybe a more beneficial welfare state. I contest that they have a lot of power today because of disenfranchisement that happens because of tendency to be angry at politics and emotional at politics because they have every right to be so because they are not given the cozy solutions that the middle class has and the, how they say, the candidates that represent them because of a tendency to be apathetic, not vote, or not to engage in elections in so ever. I also contest the idea that just because the government could do a lot to you and probably won't, because otherwise there would be no poverty and this would be already alleviated, you have more rights than other folks to which the government has, let's say, a lesser influence on life. But that's the potential influence, right? Without them proving that you can actually influence the outcomes of the election by just voting, that means that, how to say, they have no impact on their side of the house. And this is where I want to go into our case and reinforce it because I think I'm more or less done with the attacks in this part. All mechanisms of checks and balances, the bills of rights that we have, limits on terms, all of this, this ensures limited political influence on an individual right. So this protects you from the political process. It also gives you some rights in terms of engaging with the political process but it also limits the, I don't know, the idea of how much an executive can influence their power to you and so on and so on. Here's why this is mitigatory, right? Because the influence and the harms that are done to you are to some extent mitigated by the rules that we have and by the limitations of power. However, they are not compensated, which means that if the harm is 10 with these protections that exist right now, the harm can be lowered to five, but you still lose five of utility if you're losing if you lose the election. This is why on our side of the house, it's through being anti-political and this ensures that you can be anti-political to the extent by refusing to accept an outcome that might happen or refusing to live under the influence of an outcome that might happen. The only freedom from politics is actually achieved. And given that structurally, I think that a large part of opening opposition's case proves this, that politics is maybe screwing some people, they're not giving them a chance, they're not giving them a decent life, and all of these things. The ultimate right which every individual should then have, irregardless of the outcome of the elections, is the idea that there's going to be some more agency in the political process because I don't care if 80% of poor people vote for Democrats and 20% vote for Republicans. If on their side of the house they have a bigger turnout and the 80% are good, the 20% are still very much screwed, right? On our side of the house, every one of them can ensure for the outcome that they are going to lose their sort of utility. On the idea that there exists a collective action problem that exists in the status quo, guys, right? I mean, there is, how do you say, there are more folks, there are more people in the United States than the poor folks, I guess, who the government can fuck up more is the people who are, let's say, of less economic, how do you say, status. But this is actually ensuring that you are able to, how do you say, cope with this because right now the collective action problem is that you depend on other folks, right? You depend on other folks right, you depend on folks in other states or in other jurisdictions in the voting, so this is the collective action problem that you're facing in the status quo. But the problem is that even if they say that we make the collective action problem worse because people are just going to be inclined to take the choice that benefits them individually, we say that's a benefit compared to the status quo that they have to uphold in this debate because you still have to say the score of collective action problem and depending on other folks and what they are going to do in this specific issue. But you have no way of ensuring that you are going to somehow be kept safe. I want to take closing opposition before I finish with two more points.
+<POI>
+So I'm curious, in your world, what exactly is the difference between, for example, fighting for more welfare policies for the poor or for that matter, on the flip side, why then do you stand for vote at all if you believe that they are all irrational? 
+</POI>
+Because I think that inherently voting is irrational, and what gives voting the ability to be rational is that you can hedge against the said irrationality, right? Because there's other people who are influencing your decision, and you, as an individual, cannot do anything about it. That means that folks are most likely to use this as a means of political activity are the folks who are disenfranchised, who have the most to use. But in the end, this means, as Tiny has already contested, and this hasn't been engaged with this, that you're going to have moderate folks who don't have to lose so much who are going to be deciding elections. Closing opposition's response to this is there's going to be cycles of radicalization. I think it is ex-ex in this new system it is really expensive and dangerous for people to start going on the idea of emotional, how do you say, the influences on the electorate and to go into the radicalization part where they are going to influence their identity a lot. And why is that? Because in this sort of situation where you know that voters are going to act more rationally, they're going to hedge against the potential of the other person being elected. They're less likely to just base this on the emotion and all of this and go and vote against the person, right? Because this is the only choice that they have in the status quo, and this is why radicalization is possible because you get both turnout on the other side and the other side. I think we break this deadlock. This is why you won't have cycles of radicalization. Thank you. 
+</DPM>
+<DLO>
+Before I go into more extensive rebuttal against Opening Government, let me start with bashing their model. What they want to do is compensate individuals exactly for the harm that they incur. There are three responses I have to this model why I think that is unrealistic. The first one is you simply cannot do this. The policy that will be taken and the policy questions for which a government will stand are completely uncertain. The effects of those policy choices are completely uncertain, and the life that individuals are going to lead for the next four years are completely uncertain. So I think that model is a cop-out out of this debate. But even if you accept that model, I have two more responses to this. The first one of those other two, so I guess my second response, is that the harm that is incurred by those people from that person getting into government will likely increase during the time that that person is in government. Why? Because that person has more legitimacy and will increase the number of harms that are sort of put on these people during that time in government when he's there. The motion I know says you don't know who voted against your insured against you, but you kind of know, right? You don't know the individuals; you don't know their identity, etc. But Trump knows that Black people don't like him, right? Or you know which photo groups are against you or afraid of you. You've seen the stuff on Facebook, online, etc. Why then do these people get the significantly worse time during your time as president or parliament or whatever? First of all, you have an incentive to screw these people over, right? Because these people aren't part of your voter base anyway. They're not part of the opponent's voter base anyway, and you can simply get money by for example either taxing them or saving money on education or something that's provided for them. And now you also have the legitimacy to do this because these people have been bought off in the first place. We think that is problematic because the harm will increase during those four years and not be the exact same. Third of all, you have second-order impacts, not just first-order impacts. The result is on the lives of people isn't just this election cycle and this government policy. First of all, you have the political importance of your group, of your ethnicity or something like that in the next elections, right? Seeing that these people are either voting a lot for certain people or not voting at all decides whether people are likely to design more policy for them and trying to activate them into their political base, right? That has large implications in the future. It is other implications are who gets appointed in other positions and what are their actions going to be during those four years and all the time after. It is the general political climate of your country and what happens in that—all those things change at the moment of vote gets different. So therefore, we don't think you can compensate people exactly for the harm that is put onto them that is likely in the future to be significantly larger versus a short-term gain that you can get now from the money that you're getting. That is the debate that we're having today, not some kind of fictional fairyland that Opening Government is trying to propose. Then a few other points of rebuttal to the general case that Opening Government is bringing today. The first one is that there is no actual rational reason to want to vote, and therefore this is good for individuals. Here, Opening Government makes a crucial thinking mistake because they are right on the individual level; as an individual voter, there is no incentive to vote. But this question is not given that the system exists. Should you, as an individual voter, take out insurance? The question is, should we implement this system? And therefore we have to look at the aggregate level, right? And at the aggregate level, because all these different people have incentives not to vote, all the lives of those individuals are going to change because suddenly all those other people are changing it as well, and the government is going to be different, right? That is very important because that means the implications for you are going to be significantly more severe, even though initially for you as an individual it is a dominant strategy not to vote anymore. We think that is bad for the future of your group, of your community, of your society. Second of all, they said you have a principal right to insure yourself. Note that they never explained why that insurance has to be in you of your ability to vote. If you want to give everyone a society insurance against what happens with the government, we're completely fine with that, right? We have a problem with taking away people's right to vote, especially at the moment they are people that need money, right? Because those people are the ones that are not going to vote and are going to get screwed over more and more and are going to disappear more and more to the political background, those large long-term effects are going to accumulate, and they will get screwed over. Then they try to run the case, but not really, but a little bit that you only get functional policy under their side of the house with only some small tweaks. First of all, note that they're saying that it is better because, you know, you have massive cost transaction costs switching your policies. But people know this when they are voting in an election, right? And they can take this into account, but apparently they still find it more preferable to change the political sort of leader and accept those transaction costs because they care more about that other thing than at that point. I don't see why that is a problem because apparently people change their mind; they change their views on what they want on the future, and that is completely logical. Second of all, I'm just not sure why you're going to get more moderate and more stable futures, fears, etc. change too. It is still volatile which people are going to share them, which candidates are going to come up, which what party the moderate voters or something are going to vote for. I'm not sure why that is so stable as they are claiming. Third of all, Flores explains to you why you actually want other voters not to vote for their candidate but to vote against you because that way you can actually guarantee that you are going to get in power, right? Because at the moment you take away votes from the other candidate because they are so afraid of you, that means you're more likely to win your position. Therefore, we think politics is going to be more divisive. You have an incentive to make people fear you or hate you because then they are not going to vote for you. We think therefore it is likely to be more radical. Fourth of all, we think at the moment you have less people in society voting in general, many groups who are out of the democratic sort of system because they would more likely want to take the money. That means there is less democratic control on the actions that you take. That means you can do more crazy shit, take more risks, screw more people over. We don't think it's going to be the good policy that's going to survive. The last thing that they're saying is your vote is going to be bad anyway. We think, so therefore it doesn't matter for an individual. We think that a super nuanced people's votes aren't perfect; they don't know anything, everything, but they're pretty good, especially at the moment you look at the aggregate level and all the noise gets compensated. You get a pretty clear picture of the preferences of a country, and we think that matters because it might win you the majority, but even if it doesn't, it can win you house seats; it can win you political importance for the next elections. Panel, incredibly proud to oppose. 
+</DLO>
+<MG>
+One point of extension from CG today: why you will have way more moderate parties and policies and why that's indeed so important. Notably, the stakes are over Opening Government because why they perhaps give some access to why moderate policy might happen. They didn't explain why it's important, whether they're all or there's no absolute truth to feel. But secondly, it'll be a more concrete practical impact that will be exchanged and more important than the principal idea of the agency because indeed, agency in the status quo is not gonna aim for you principal in the first place, you trade off your consequential impacts all the time because in the absence of good policy or largely less harmful policy, individual agency of the poor and of people has already been compromised. Crucially, this will also challenge ODE more directly simply because, well, we showed you why in the vast majority of cases elections aren't actually quite close. The liberals don't actually win in most cases. You don't have liberals in the first place and how this will ensure that you don't have politicians towards the right, as Trump, in the first place. So let's begin: why would you converge around having moderate policies and moderate parties? I think there's a huge incentive to converge, and so inspires a huge sum of money has to be paid. Or, trying to remember that if they say no, will it really be that large? I would just encourage them to read the info slide, which clearly says you'll compensate them for the degree of harm. Encourage them to fire policies like health care and so no one can have large degrees of harm. Yes, it will per unit be very large. I think that's yet to that. I think OG set it up quite nicely. This crucially means that lots of people that you otherwise would just shove off as perhaps people who are not significant enough to change the outcomes of an election, you can't shove off anymore because that's what twenty, thirty thousand, fifty thousand people can now detrimentally screw your wealth you have as a need. This is crucial because obviously the less amount of government resources you have, the all the problems amplify. More, you're more likely to go into debt; you're more likely to spend on resources—all of which means you can't implement your policies as much, which affects directly the amount of voters would be in the next election cycle. This clue should take down your weird idea. Oh no, you'll actually make them vote, like, make them like they can choose against you rather than trying to converse. No, it's a huge sum of money. You ensure that you don't take someone off to the extent that they actually take insurance against you. Surely this won't be literally any random person, all people taking insurance against you. It would be a lot reasonable some, but I think lots of people, the vast majority, will still vote. A couple of reasons why: one, lots of people recognize, like the importance of voting, and surprise, they want one party to come and over the other. Secondly, simply speaking, lots of people subscribe to the culture of personality or have been long-term parts of political parties, like people in the PPP or people in the PTI. They simply won't grow away, even if there's a self-interest related to them, which means they will still largely vote. And indeed, their leaders will still encourage them to vote for them as opposed to take out insurance. So sure, there'll be a reasonably large sum of people who will take control, but it's not like this one with anyone. Lots of people, the majority, will still vote. Notice then, because I showed you why the sum of insurances is likely to be high, this means that the incentive towards all parties to actually ensure appears in the chat and take you later actually ensure that you have stuff like, you know, moderate policies and things of that sort. What does this ministry look like? This looks like ensuring that you will take off people to the point of which they'd rather take insurance against you than vote for their own political party, who they have leavings against. This looks like you reaching out to the most disenfranchised people, who you otherwise would have screwed the most, i.e., pre-post elections, all things of that sort. What does this look like, and why is this important? Taking over OG on this particular metric, firstly, you are likely to focus on common policies as opposed to policies that only affect the selection. I would like to know, sure, all policy cannot be common, but there are large things that do have common interests in society. Stuff like better economic situations, stuff like more access to health care. But even, I mean, I think that's only contestant in the US, which is a pretty up country. But I think even as opposed to that in the developing world, notices, which is a large amount of debate, stuff like anti-corruption sentiments are really predominant parts, and pretty much all quality people believe in it, which means that there are common policies that you can focus on. The comparative is you will only focus on their side of the house: people who actually give you votes and donations specifically because you only need to focus on the 50 plus one. You don't need to give a rat test about anyone else. The example of this is the PML party in Pakistan who only focus on the province of Punjab, screwed over everyone below, just like literally all political parties in particular screwed up on instant. You can't do that anymore. And surprise, all of these people in Balochistan can literally ask for insurance against you, which means that while you might not necessarily prioritize them, you have an incentive to have most common policies. This is truly a huge impact, and so far you get benefits economically or otherwise, your infrastructure, at the very least, that was only restricted to a particular ethnicity, particularly a group that has now happened even more. The second thing I want to note is this much less antagonistic shit and much less, like, you know, like hate speech or just like calling out one particular ethnicity over the other. This might seem weird for people who are like, you know, white countries and so on, but it largely happens in like the South Asia and subcontinent in Africa, all of these places where democracies are relatively weaker. So it's important, crucially notice here on in status quo, you have an incentive to shoot on, like the most vulnerable group, i.e. in Pakistan, you see literally all parties—and that's the point. It's extraordinary. I don't exist like any meaningful left-wing party because the democracy is so shit. All parties should run the remedies and call them out in their particular campaign slogans. Simply not because they're not, they're completely small, simply because there is this racist tendency that exists sentiment against them. You often use how much shit against the minorities, like the Shias or the Ahmadis, as a metric to get more elections in status quo. All of this means that in their side, they have incentives to further hate speech or further screw over the minorities. On our side, you do not have those incentives of society and minorities can actually have insurance against you, which I've explained why it'll be so important. There's a few impacts to this, but before that.
+<POI>
+Yeah, you don't just you are the only one who is getting compensated. All the people that still voted and were hopeful and now lost because you opted out of that election are getting screwed over without getting any compensation. How's that legitimate?
+</POI>
+This presumes that in the absence of this policy you would have won. I'm gonna talk about that in just a second. A couple of hints here. Firstly, in lots of the developing world, you don't actually have people who are standing for the lecture the common man simply because there's weak democracy. Then there's not actually a fully functioning system that lots of poor people don't vote, but they might show up to collect insurance. Secondly, right-wing people like parties are dominating elections across the world. Maybe the US is a minute example, especially in the developing world, simply because there are a few structural reasons why they're always going to vote. You might as well bring them towards the center as we do on our side. One, it surprises. They're more pro-corporation and stuff of that sort. They automatically get more lobbying power and more donations. There. Secondly, and so far they've historically been in power, especially the developing world, they're likely to stay in power. And surprise, they manage to recruit money and corrupt and invest their money and engage in corruption practices and things of that sort. But third is crucially speaking, they often tap into the racist tendencies and the insular tendency of people, so like ostomy majorities in Pakistan and things of that sort. And surprise, there usually is like a big ethnic majority and a small ethnic minority. This seems like writing parties are always like you to win, like in the vast majority of cases. This means that while your impact might stand in the US, for example, I don't see why the impact stands across the board. This then wins simply because, well, you know, insofar as writing parties are going to win most of the time, maybe on the US, maybe not even in the UK, although they are kind of now, when the vast majority of the developing world, which is the most important stakeholder in any debate, we socially bring them towards the center, which means they focus on common policies. But which crucially focus they don't focus their rhetoric, and they think of on extreme hate speech against a particular minority, which inspires on-the-ground discrimination, which inspires underground violence and aid against Shias and Ahmadis, which indeed makes them seen even shittier. All of this means that if you're writing our life to win anyways, might as well bring us towards the center and recruits with huge practical benefits. So proud
+</MG>
+<MO>
+OG might be trivially true that many things in this world aren't things we can control. But just as the belief in self-determinism and self-flow is important for us in making good decisions in our lives, we think at the worst case, the illusion of agency is key to believing in the democratic system and creating a functional society. That probably brings me to two extensions in this speech. Firstly, how the belief in the democratic system normatively is key to shaping and solving a lot of the problems in the side of the house that government talks about and why you shatter and destroy that and create far more worse things, particularly in developing countries that CG wants to talk about. But secondly, and importantly, we will actually map out the counter factor of how democracy improves and repairs, because without this, OO does some harm analysis but doesn't do a lot of positive contribution in terms of why, for instance, the poor who fairly asserts our disadvantage in any ways get representation or why things are particularly better on our side. Before that, I have four responses to CG's extension, which is basically, "Ah, you know, money insurance is expensive; therefore, financial incentive to do good things." First response, it's contradictory because on one hand, they assert that quite a lot of people would probably vote anyway to exercise their preferences, which means logically that the amount of sum that you dole out won't be as significant on the budget such as to allow for government to incentively change policy. But the second reason this is extremely crucial, right? This doesn't trade off the next game that politicians have to get into power. That's structurally far more short-term and far more important than some long-term thing that they cognitively can map their head around about losing a specific amount of budget that's uncertain anyway down the line. But I'm pretty sure if you look at things that are expensive in the short term, things that literally go into war, countries always do to amp up nationalistic sentiment and get elected and to seem strong. I'm unclear why a long-term budgetary constraint is not important. But thirdly, structuring, there is also a time lag to this, right? Brought you in, these policies from people would probably take certain cycles and probably will be phased after the current election anyway, which means that it's unclear why this specifically affects people so much. For instance, if you have a disease ten years down the line and you claim based on the policy your institution back then, it's not the current government that's responsible anyway. We're doling out that insurance; politicians can have the hands feed they can also blame this exact policy and blame and demonize the opposition for costing so much fiscal budget, which means that they won't be put at a policy disadvantage anyway. I'm broadly so unclear as to why this is a tipping point for why politicians actually make policy. But even more importantly, right, and this is the last response to this, the premise of that argument is there'll be moderate politics, and I think I responded to this immediately from a POI to OG, which is to say at most if you have one cycle of moderate policies in your best case, which means that people broadly who ensure get no compensation and don't benefit from it, it broadly means every advantage that government does only is structurally hinged on one cycle because after that, people are going to vote and going to be divisive anyway. It broadly recreates all the harms that we talk about anyway. I'm unclear why this wins the debate. First extension, therefore, why is the illusion of autonomy and control in democracy key and believing in the system? And this is very simple, right? To the extent that democracy that we tell people through medium like education, through politicians' speeches, through things like learning about civic society that our vote matters and we could be a tipping point structurally, what this is, it empowers people and makes people believe that the democratic process is the only means through which they should vent their disagreements. They should seek negotiation and they should seek agreement. Now, government might say that this is trivially untrue, given the way that democracies are, might be dysfunctional. But the first thing, one point is we need an aggregate of how this world functions. For every America, there are broadly functional societies, socialist countries, systems, and democracies in Northern Europe, for instance, there are broadly healthy and well-functioning democracies. The more important thing here is this: it is that to the extent that government has to push for this policy, it literally delegitimizes the existence of democracy and devotes as the only option that people have to change political preferences. That is to say to the extent that you give people an alternative to expressing your opinions through the vote and the policy justification for that quite often are the exact arguments that OG asserts about how voting is meaningless, how you should not be enfranchising the political system, how this ultimately can't change much, it necessarily disenfranchises and makes people lose faith and shatters the ability for democracy to function at all. Why is this extremely problematic on several levels? I think the first reason why this is problematic is because it largely skills the ability for countries and democracies to function well because now people are unwilling to proactively participate politically and actively put their preferences to the table. It means that, for instance, a policy decision-making amount of raw data that you collected but different to implement good things excuse because people simply lose hope and lose faith that government can do anything for them. They would rather take the easy option now to ensure. But the second argument here, and this is also important, is that broadly, it just leads to the inability for politicians to see countries as a cohesive unit normatively. That is to say, to the extent that you see this group of people as always insuring and people that would not be politically significant in your calculus means that you necessarily alienate them because you don't see them as people that you want to care about anymore because of the fact that they're insured anyway. What this means is broadly and what happens is if CG is correct in saying that there are sort of tyranny of the majority to a certain extent, I'll explain later why this is unlikely to happen on our side, becomes far worse because now that tyranny gets entrenched and perpetuated through the fact that the minority will always choose to ensure rather than try to push for changes in policy or try to get political representation as well. But lastly, and this is extremely crucial in developing countries as well, to the extent that CG talks about this, right? The alternative, even in countries like the US, but also extremely poorly in developing countries that often have existing ethnic tensions and ethnic tribes and have arbitrarily drawn borders to dispute resolutions through democracy, it's violence and destruction of society. If you look at how the disillusion of democracy in the US has already led to people going up to arms and complaining of the electoral fraud, the literal alternative in places that CG talks about is civil war and people not opting to resolve things on orderly elections and inheritance of things like voting in the blood rocks because they think that this is meaningless and they would rather ensure anyway. What this literally leads to is humongous impacts beyond the policy level stuff that all talks about, literally social unrest, economies not functioning, people losing jobs and dying, being unable to access any agency. OG, I'll take OG. Yes, go for it.
+<POI>
+Given that even in countries like Germany, last waves of people do not vote, your impacts are marginal in that situation. Why is it an illegitimate political preference to be protected from politics if your metric is literally an expression of preferences? 
+</POI>
+Perfect. The reason why we think that broadly this short term is expression of presence is illegitimate is because it significantly harms the long-term outlook of that person to the extent that society can't function and people literally can't express any preference whatsoever, as I explained earlier. So yes, people might have a choice to do certain things. The reason why, for instance, a state makes you do education, have seat belt laws, is because they want to preserve your choices in the future because those matter and you compromise that as well. Why is the alternative better on our side? It's very simple. To the extent that people believe in democracy and that's the key premise here people who see erosions in democracy have an incentive to fix that through the aggregation of preferences. And this is key because I think it's correct for OG to point out broadly that small numbers matter in elections and in particular in tight parliaments and with things like, for instance, coalition bonding, small minority votes have the key decision-swaying power in the political process. That's how you avoid the tyranny of the majority because literally, when your only option is to vote, it literally empowers each and every person, regardless of their background, to be politically important and empowers people to aggregate your preferences towards the center because you need these votes to win over other people as well through policy differentiation. That's how you get, for instance, the squad in the US Senate right now, which leads to better democracy. I'm very proud to stand in closing. 
+</MO>
+<GW>
+I'm unsure if CO believes that a large number of people will take this insurance option or a large number of people will not, because presumably their ideas about like social discourse collapsing about the inability to ever get any kind of political gradual change is contingent about the idea that lots of people will choose this sort of policy and then be subsequently alienated from the political process even more than they already are. Which means then again, because it is contingent on so many people taking this option, does that not support Essan's extension, where he argued that once politicians see that they are in danger, that their future policies are going to be in danger because of the fact that lots of people are going to become are going to to stake a claim onto the budget that they have to work with, why will then not those parties that end up winning try to cater to those people who potentially will be taking this insurance, right? Secondly, I think it's unfair to assume that parties care or like politicians care about the short term. I think that's untrue, because parties want to be able to win re-election consistently, to the point that they can be entrenched within the political system so that they can lay their groundwork there solidly, so that they can continue to win elections and just compound on each effort that they engage in. Which means that they necessarily have technocrats and advisors and PhD advisors who tell them that if you do XYZ thing right now, this will have subsequent consequences for your re-election campaign four years later, eight years later, twelve years later. This is particularly important in most countries where political parties want to be important, right? I don't think just because you argue that Trump might be short-sighted doesn't mean that the vast majority of politicians, especially in weaker democracies that again are the dominant number of majorities in the dominant number of democracies in the world, are right. So they want to necessarily be entrenched, which means again they're much more likely to cater to whether or not the economic policy that they're proposing is something that's going to benefit a large number of people, because even if in the first election they have a negative policy that people even then some people don't like, even if let's say in one election the insurance option doesn't hang over them like a Damocles sword, it's likely to do so in the second election or in the third. The ones where they're probably going to try and continue the same policies that they did, which then are going to increasingly have less appeal to the people because of the fact that those policies haven't necessarily solved their problems. Right, secondly, I again have a question to opening opposition here as well. If in your characterization poor people are rational, like people in general are rational enough to be willing, or for example, that opposition parties are viable alternatives to like entrenched politics or entrenched demagogues who are very bad for politics, especially in developing countries where Essan told you that necessarily there's an entrenched system of parties and then just a very weak opposition that actually tries to care about people but is never elected. If this opposition is viable and if poor people are rational enough to see that this opposition is viable, then they are not going to necessarily take that insurance scheme, right? Again, this is operating on the sort of characterization they're always talking about. But what exactly was the extension that SN brought in? Why was it the most important thing, right? One, I think the argument wasn't necessarily contended by CO when we argued that right-wing parties in the status quo tend to dominate. Right-wing are just generally parties that don’t care very much about the people or the policies that right now even like that's the vast majority of circumstances in this world, like developing countries with weak democracies, even like the United States and United Kingdom to some degree are suffering from their democratic standing, right? Which means that these are likely to be elected, and the way that they are elected is by trying to exclude certain communities, right? So when their policies, for example, are going to exclude people who need the most amount of health care or they're going to exclude people who are racial minorities simply because of the fact that they can then rile up or like use xenophobic or like racial tendencies or like racial ideas from the majority to try and rally up those particular kind of votes, right? The reason they’re able to do this—and then before that I'll take a point. 
+<POI>
+What we explain to you is that actually at the moment people, at the moment, sort of the government isn't representative, that has very long-term sort of spin-off effects. Why then don't you think that people's individual short-term incentives is worth more than the long-term incentives of the group that they represent and exist? 
+</POI>
+Well, I think like on a principal level, if there is a large body politic that necessarily feels disenfranchised from the political system, I think like on a principal level, and this is to some degree Opening Government's characterization, like you should be willing to give them the option of opting out of politics or opting out of needing to support someone whom they just genuinely believe they don't want to support or believe they just don't want to necessarily cater to those policies, right? But the point here is that even if, let's say, the insure like the void that necessarily works is the incentive model that we're talking about, right? So the only incentives then that you can give to parties that are right-wing or parties that necessarily want to exclude certain communities is by arguing that this is going to be a financial burden on you that you need to then cater to. I think like opposition bench both argued that this gives demagogues and entrenched politicians a lot more legitimacy to, like, shit on the opposition or, like, shit on waters. One in weaker democracies, this is a problem that is largely symmetric, simply because of the fact that, for example, people often look to their like the entrenched party or the demagogue looks at their opposition waters and says that these waters are ideologically subservient to the opposition party or, in some extreme cases, like in my country, that these people are anti-state or they just generally don't want the benefit of the populace, right? We just don't think that this policy adds to a significant amount of necessary gives them a significant amount of more ammo to be able to, like, what, like, to be able to then to be able to necessarily act against, like, ideologically or spread propaganda against their politicians. What the incentive, once again, the incentive that this does create for them is a fear that this is going to be a significant burden on their budget or that's simply for, in fact, that they'll have to concede, right? I think like most of them don't want their image to suffer, but their image will suffer in a world where they necessarily need to provide compensation to people where then their opposition can say, "Hey, look, you are such a bad leader that people would rather like take money, they'll rather step out of the political system and rather than just vote for you." Everything in fact gives the opposition a lot more ammo in any case, right? But again going back to why extension is important, right? So again in the status quo, there's a trend of right-wing populism, there's a trend to increasing global capitalism, like corporations are stronger than they've ever been before, which means they lobby governments to enact certain policies. Neoliberal policies in developing countries are very common because the IMF has been implementing its programs for years. The problem here is that these parties have no incentive to cater to these people because of things like geographical distance or Essan gave you the example of in Pakistan, where if a party gives a shit about one province, they are likely to win the entire federation or national election. If in the electoral college, the Republicans give a shit about certain states and certain constituencies because the proportionality ends them winning the debate and even winning the match, like winning the election even if they don't win the popular world. In our model, you are unable to do that simply because you are now fearful of the consequences that that can have of your image of the policies that you implement, the fact that people are now potentially at least there is a potential fear of people choosing the insurance option. Word for sight, CG. 
+</GW>
+<OW>
+I want to start off by being very clear: CG doesn't have an extension. Their extension rest on a faulty mechanism that suggests that individuals, like politicians, sorry, are really afraid of having to pay compensation because it detracts from all the amazing economic policies that they want to pass in developing countries like Pakistan and India. Here are some responses that we think are just trivially true. One, insuring against that party doesn't actually stop them from coming to power, which therefore suggests that to the extent to which political office grants you things like patronage networks and personal benefit, there's no reason why they're particularly afraid of vast laws of individuals insuring against them as long as they actually get to power. Two, they don't actually respond to any of Joshua's arguments about the incentives of governments that don't really give a shit about having to spend money. One, because of time lag. Two just because, like, it puts them in power anyway like nations go to war, it's a multi-trillion dollar business, they still do it. Three, presumably if they are so discriminatory, they already expend a significant amount of money, like oppressing these areas. I'm going to assume separatist conflict in Aceh, for instance, is really expensive for you to deal with. That's not really an argument. But lastly, I want to argue that if whatever they say is true and these people are already being discriminated, the counterfactual, as Joshua tells you, is one which you're able to vilify these individuals. I'm going to take it one step further and explain that, given that to be the case and given that the mechanism that you're using is the vote that these people have, it's just more incentive for them to push for things like non-voter, non-citizenship laws, like what we've just seen happen in India recently, where four million Muslims would give like, not given the right to vote because now literally it also saves you money as well. There's just no reason why, in such a horrible context as one that the CG paints, the government is slightly going to become benevolent enough to have the long-term foresight of having to save money so they can implement fantastic regulations. I just don't understand how those outcomes come about. What exactly did we present to you in this debate that we thought was important? We argued that the primary criteria in which individuals should care about in a democracy is the concept of norms. We agree to some extent with the OG, but we also think that this debate means to note something that's again trivially true but something that we've all been arguing on, which is that we want democracy as a method of expressing our preferences, and we want democracy to be the method to which we choose our governments. Presumably this is because, to some extent, we just can't think of a better system that enables the representation of a pluralistic community and enables some measure of fairness. Even that to be the case, how many do we deal with the arguments on the OG? Who can argue a few things? The first thing we argue is a very strange and unknown argument that there is no agency in voting and it is ultimately irrational. We think we've responded to this quite well when we argued that this notion of irrationality is to the extent to which the notion of collectivization in the democracy means that your vote must have the equivalent voice of everyone else. So yes, it might be irrational that you don't know the outcome, but ultimately the choice itself is an exercise of agency that on a collective basis enables this form of government to happen in the first place. Their side literally just argues against democracy, in which case this particular motion in terms of principles is just inherently contradictory to whatever they want to stand for. Number two, let's talk about radicalization. They told us that in terms of radicalization, this is going to make things less radical because, you know, you get the people from the far out away because now they want like, I don't know, like they argue that now only people in the center will really be voting. You don't get the people outside because they want money, etc. All argues against this through the platform of the politician, i.e. they become more radical because they want people to insure against them, and that's how they're able to capture more votes. We argue to you this on the notion of the voters themselves, i.e. the people who are actually voting. The problem is the debate presumes that politics happens on a scale of left to right. That's not true. The politics actually happens on the granular levels of various identity groups that may have specific positions that don't align perfectly in any one particular party, but they choose to express those preferences, one, to the vote, which we agree doesn't necessarily express those intensity or preferences, but because they have those votes, they are able to engage in conversation and dialogue that enables them to use their position as voting members and communities to negotiate with the people in democracies to create those incremental changes that OG cares about. So given that to be the case, then the illusion of agency is ultimately important. Why is that the case? We argue that counterfactual that the undergirding notion of democracy theory to care about is the notion that individuals recognize the other side as being a legitimate representative of parliament, even if they don't personally agree with what those spencers are, but still recognizing that these people care about forwarding the interests of the country. The reason why this is important is that democratic institutions are necessarily fragile and are only held together by the norms and the conception that people have about democracy. The tolerance and forbearance they are willing to practice because they recognize that the democratic vote is not at all or nothing, but rather something that shows the preferences of individuals that are on the ground. But crucially, this requires individuals to believe at heart that democracy is working for them. What is the unique difference between this particular policy and everything else that exists currently? Before I move on to explain this, I'll take OG.
+<POI>
+The belief that the individual vote is your only way to have recourse where the system is specifically the reason why people feel powerless and disrupt the system today, our policy, anything creates the awareness that the state is aware that the system may harm you and is known to compensate you for it to compensate you for it, that probably increases trust in the system which is your metric.
+</POI>
+Yeah, it's perfect I was just about to move into this and explain why this specific shift in that narrative is so particularly harmful. So presumably the difference between this and any other policy that we've had so far, is that even if we acknowledge that democracy is broken, what we don't do is not make people lose faith in democracy altogether. I think Joshua demonstrates certain positive trends to which we are able to achieve this I'll build about this in just a little bit. I think crucially, the difference between this specific policy is that the notion that you ensure against a candidate coming in, is the first acknowledgement of the system that the other side is reprehensible will destroy you and will never represent your interest and that these people cannot be seen as legitimate hates on state. That is actually what you're doing when you insure against damages to yourself when a political party that's legitimate like is seen to be a potential legitimate representation of your state comes into power. But also, given governance as a whole deals with necessary tradeoffs, that notion of insuring yourself against harm means that you don't actually accept that government has any ability to make tradeoffs in your welfare with regards to the common good of society. We think that will break democracy entirely. But I think that Joshua demonstrates to you that we've already seen civil society recognize that democracy is somewhat damaged. The crucial difference is they believe that democracy can be reformed which is why they work within civil society in terms of agitating the collectivization of these granular identity groups that don't feel represented to push for things like more members of like more female or progressive members in the senate, for example, in congress in order to show that their voice, can work towards reforming the system bit by bit. This also works crucially in CJ's arguments on developing countries, where we often believe that the articulation of these political and ethnic identities means to find space in parliament and the only way that that can happen is if people check into the system and able to check out of it through insurance. We're very happy to oppose.
+</OW>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Doxbridge 4 Round 1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+<pm>
+Let's be clear as to what the goals are of these types of organizations, which are major nationals like, not national, major professional sports leagues for individual women's sports your goals are very long-termist. That's to say that currently, you have an established fan base but cultivating a new rabid fan base who is going to expand into the future is something that takes years of effort and isn't something that just like a one-time quick fix is going to be able to solve which means that your goals are the following, generally speaking, it is more views and people who are watching your show so that way you can get more advertisers and consequently more money to your players into your individual profit given that you are a league that exists for profit and who has negotiating with their players. This is likely your primary goal but what we're going to establish from opening governments is that the primary way that you can ensure long-term engagement from fans, is through making sure that as many people as possible are playing your sport and I want to be clear here, as these types of leagues, you are not competing against the british premier league, you are not playing against you know the uefa champions league, you're not playing against the nba, you are often competing in terms of television ad space for things like you know, uh, for things like sorry, sorry, sorry darts or poker which regularly get like 3 p.m time slots which are quite prime but often are things that are male dominated to the greatest extent and that you have the financial capacity to compete with directly so why is it then that prioritizing men and men’s competitiveness within these sports is a better way to ensure a large amount of participation and therefore viewership in these sports. Let's be clear as to how it is that people as a society and as a culture ends up playing a sport, it is fundamentally through access to this sport, let's look at all of the soccer fields that exist globally right, that are just in parts. That are built by governments or that private organizations in establishing any sort of league for young kids to play in have already built. The consequence of this is that it has meant that many, many children have been able to play soccer for free or for very close to free for many years, right. Which means that you get a large amount of player base who's already invested into this sport because it means that they've familiarized themselves with the rules which means when they go to watch this game happen on T.V, they're invested in what's happening because without much education required on their behalf, they're intuitively aware of what is a good play of what they are interested in, of which players they like or dislike just off of the intuition that they have about the rules but further in the long term you would argue that this means that they're more likely to pass down these games to their children, right, because in a lot of circumstances, if parents are deciding what sport of all of the many different sports they want to put their kids into, in many circumstances parents tend to choose ones that they themselves played. So that way they have the capacity to teach their child the very game that they enjoyed playing and that they were quite good at, so that way they can have a better relationship with their own child right so when we end up prioritizing men to be able to play these games by hyping up how men can just enjoy a lot of these games, what ends up happening is, you get to be able to co-opt a lot of the family structures that already exist because when it comes to deciding which sport a child is going to play. In many circumstances, it is men who make the decision about this because men are often prioritized when it comes to understanding what family finances are going to take or in regards to athleticism in sports often they are prioritized so if they see your sport as something that they had a lot of fun participating in as a kid, they're significantly more likely to start putting this up within areas but it also means that you're much more likely to see a large amount of sports leagues built around this sport because a problem that exists in the states quo, is that because a lot of sexist narratives continue to exist, girls tend to drop out of playing sports once they hit puberty. Which means that a lot of house leagues don't make that much money because they see a massive, for girls sorry, drop off, they see a massive drop-off in the amount of people that play their sport. If we get more men to play these sports, it means that these leagues are significantly more profitable because they are doubling the amount of people who are playing the sport but also massively increasing the amount of time, some of their consumers are playing this sport. Which means that you get a large amount of infrastructure that exists to be able to play this sport, but notably when we're talking about things like figure skating or gymnastics or other types of sports. The barrier to entry under status quo is incredibly high, right, because the access to a lot of these equipment are very, very expensive, on our side it gets significantly cheaper because we're able to just produce more of this equipment, which in turn means that the price of it is much more likely to go down in the long run, closing.
+<poi>
+yeah can you please clarify how exactly is it going to look like that they're going to get mail engagement like, what are the things they're going to do?
+</poi>
+Market to them directly you know, market on T.V., shows that then currently tend to watch, use marketing tactics that male dominated sports use right now, build more arenas in areas that men happen to live in, not that difficult, cool. So, why is it then that this then creates more infrastructure going on into the future? Ii think it means that because a lot of men when they're deciding things within governing structures which men are disproportionately represented within they have to then decide what sports infrastructure might exist within a park. It means that men in these circumstances are much more likely to consider building the infrastructure. For this specific women sport, means they're more likely to teach this in schools. Which means more people are likely to be involved in teaching this sport. In the long run with this means, is more people than are teaching their children teaching their young girls to play this sport because it is something that they were a fan of, it's why we've seen this particular rise of girls soccer over the last 25 years because of how ubiquitous it has been and how easy it has been to teach your own children this, I'll take the poi from opening by the way. 
+<poi>
+You mentioned something about girls dropping out due to puberty, could you explain that point a bit further.
+</poi>
+Yeah, because in a lot of circumstances because of sexism once girls start getting their period and a lot of times, there's a lot of pressure to make girls drop out of sports. I think that you destigmatize this to a large extent, once it is that you start normalizing a lot of people playing a sport that is also predominantly and historically record set by girls, cool. Short term incentives, I think in the short term, you start prioritizing men here. You get a massive increase in viewership which you can use to find a lot of the types that we're talking about. Why? Because a lot of sports viewership under status quo is male, right. Which means that a lot of times if you just market this to more men, means you're more likely to see an increase in viewership because the people who watch sports programs already, tends to be male so they're more likely to start viewing your sport in comparison to other programming that's available but it also note that this is the highest impact demographic because these types of leagues have likely already been prioritizing women for a long time in their own market. So, it's unlikely to be the case that you haven't thought of a specific way to market to girls that you know these leagues haven't tried before and you haven't already come close to not maximizing but to very much expanding to the greatest extent possible, how many girls you can get involved into the sport.This is a new demographic of people, who will pass down these sports to their children, who are very, very likely to be girls which means more people watch the sport into the long term which makes it sustainable. We’re proud to propose. 
+</pm>
+<lo>
+Two things in this speech, first of all explaining why as a sports organization, you're simply unlikely to succeed and then secondly, explaining the obligations of a major sporting obligation to the people it has already bound itself to. Before that though, two extraneous responses, first, I think they have a good point when they say that a lot of girls drop out during puberty. Which is why we think that there are equal and, there's an equal amount of space for sporting organizations to increase the participation of women in sports by proportionately increasing the amount of support they might have or the salaries that they might have to make it a more viable option for women that now ought not rely on their families or perhaps methods to directly market to women or to their families and making it like less of a weird thing for women to do. We think broadly speaking, the matter of fact is that because of the fact that it's out of school there's not quite that much funding for these women, we think it would be a bit of a shame for you to take away your preexisting, to take away the fuel for your preexisting fan base and instead put it into something that's quite unstable and quite unlikely to succeed. We think this brings me directly to the second response which is that, yes, it might be possible to market the voice but gov does very little the way the likelihood that it will succeed. Simply saying that because we pay, because we tell people to do these things and because we will advertise on television, now people on the ground will start picking it up as a sport because it's more accessible to them. It might be more accessible but that doesn't win against a counterfactual, which is that they still might choose soccer because there's already a preexisting soccer field so they have to prove why the competition and the necessary marketing will lead to an increase in participation as opposed to just saying assuming it by consequence. Okay first argument, so why will this not succeed and to briefly explain this we're going to first set up the trade off so we think a natural trade off is that you're going to be spending money bandwidth on marketing and money and medical bandwidth on marketing and recruitment. You're going to be splitting the amount of hosting events that you have and the time slots that you have between this sport that you have and the other preexisting leagues that you have for women. So, we're fine with not having a lot of men participate in the sport, our main concern with this is simply that you're expanding men’s participation in the sport crowds a lot of spaces particularly, for women as well as reduces the ability for them to participate as well as reduces the ability for the league to participate. We broadly agree that the interest of the major sporting association is money and it may be long term but we first say that this is terrible for the long term but secondly, it also destroys short term which is necessary for us to even reach the long term. Okay bringing to the argument, we have four structural reasons why you will lose out on money and why you will be unlikely to recruit people in a meaningful fashion as well as unlikely to make a profit. First of all, you divert a lot of air time from the personalities and narratives that your fan base already cares about, in that major sporting league whether it be rivalries between teams in the female league whether it be the personalities that are dominant in that league that may lose opportunities for interviews or even competitions that your league runs so this new setup naturally comes at the trade off for mainstay personalities and narratives in your old sport as well as comes intermixed with definite criticism from teams and players that will feel betrayed because of an explicit contradiction with your previous expressed preferences. This means that you now have a lot of criticism internally from the sport players might leave or stop playing out of protest. Additionally, we also make the observation that many fans will simply be turned off because many of the things that they actually do care about in the sport will be given less priority and spotlight. Secondly, note this is a new league, which means they also have to deal with having to build it from the ground up. Which means that they don't have any previously established teams or sponsors because you're breaking new ground in sports and because you're working immediately from the back foot this means that even if it might be the case, that this might be good for the long term. This is a substantially more unstable investment which means that you're competing with sponsors and you're competing with potential people that might want to set up a team with other more stable sports that and since you're already deprioritizing the stable sport that you have, this is likely to massively decrease the total funding and likely to be diverted to other sporting leagues that are substantially more stable. Thirdly, you're also competing with other sports for viewer basis, so in particular, they just kind of assert that you only compete with darts or poker but clearly that's not the case, all sports compete in a similar space first of all because it's an involved physical sport which means that you're debating, you're competing on limited personal time and effort from the players themselves who are choosing between sports as well as limited funding. From the players as well as the families bringing the players into the team as well as individual teams choosing which sports set up in. This means that you are competing with sports like the nba and you do have to be very, very careful about the strategy that you choose for stability. We also make the observation that limited viewers themselves have a limited mental bandwidth so if you have people looking for the pinnacle of athleticism and force they have a limited amount of time to consume things and they're not going to be watching sports all day at some point they're going to have to stop. Fourthly and lastly we also think that you hit natural barriers when it comes to recruiting men, which you don't hit when you're recruiting women first of all because there are lots of internal pressures not to go into the sport. That is getting shamed by your family, such as internal feelings like, this is the girly sport for a male kid to play which makes you feel ashamed of yourself and you'll get bullied by your friends at school because the fact that in the interim period there will be a lot of time where it hasn't been fully accepted yet and i thought she'll be bullied even if it is the case that it's supported by the school but also because of naturally dominant conceptions of masculine sport that go against this which makes you feel ashamed to do it but naturally there's also, naturally no viewer base, which means that there's not even going to be much money you're going to be making in that sport in the beginning. Which means that even if you pour lots of funding into it the amount of value you get per dollar is massively demystified. What does this mean, not multiply, but the opposite of amplify basically, why is this a terrible thing? There are two impacts, the first is the long term considerations directly clashing head on with opening government. All they do, so their considerations assume that they succeed in the long term because they get more people playing the sport in the long term but there's also a disproportionate decrease in the amount of people investing in the other sport that they have which is substantially more stable that is to say the female league. A dip in success directly correlates to the long term reliability and cultivation of a fan base and healthy competition between teams they remove their ability to keep the female sport which they're likely to be the largest league in either side that the major sporting association has, to keep it healthy and competitive beyond that the long term impacts also go away as you're likely to see many long term legacies simply die out due to things like covid because the fact that the short term is the most important period to remain stable because of covid meaning that the league isn't making that much money and because the fact that athletes are feeling awfully uncertain about the career in this league and now you're taking away funding from them and you're taking away the ability for them to sustain their careers, in this league. This means that they're massively likely to pull out and you're massively likely to lose out on short term and long term participation, before I move on, I'll take apoi from cg, go. 
+<poi>
+So, these athletes probably train their entire lives because they really want to be good at it, I don't think they're suddenly going to pull out. Also, presumably, if these sports already so established, you don't just lose like, funds overnight, right, because presumably you need to build demand sector that score from the ground up so it takes some time.
+</poi>
+First, that's a good reason for why we should have a massive we have a disproportionate obligation to the large amount of women who have trained more for the sport than any other group of people but additionally, we also make the observation that governs og themselves says that there are gigantic social pressures against women to continue participating. We want to alleviate these pressures as opposed to exacerbate them by taking away opportunities for them. Just because they might, it might be harder for them to drop, it doesn't mean they won't drop it. If they can't make money from this, which is why many female athletes are already working a full-time job. So lastly, we also say that this massively fulfills the obligations of a major supporting or organization, in the sense that many of these women are already in the sport signed major contracts with the organization. They did not want to pursue athleticism as a career, they did want to pursue another career but they were shoehorned in these female dominated sports and is the only place for them to go and many of these teams are also wholly reliant on the sporting organization for support and continued subsistence. We say that the major sporting organization cares for these themes comparatively more than the potential male viewer base because they already have an explicit and express obligation to these people as they already signed contracts with them but also because of the fact that these people have been with them for a far longer time and essentially owe that obligation to these people. At the end of the speech, we do two things. The first is we give the first argument which makes us win, and the second thing we do is, we give the second argument which also makes us win. So for these reasons, thanks.
+</lo>
+<dpm>
+OG has set up as clear of a debate as you can get. One, this is a major sporting association, so your incentives are to get viewership, attract attention and then profit. Two, the burdens were incredibly clear, OO says that our competition also extends to the nba, also extends the premier league but what we are trying to clearly make was be very realistic about what the actual short-term and long-term goals of this association was. Netball is not trying to become more popular than the nba, sure, they may be competing against them but their incentive and their main goal is not to be more popular than basketball the goal then, is to try and out compete smaller sports at the level of getting viewership and time slots for actual sports to be portrayed on like media and T.V. in general, right. The comparative is that on opposition world right now, to watch women is netball you need to find a weird stream on reddit to try and even access it. Our goal is that, such that, we can get those weird 2pm-3pm slots time slots away from men’s darts and towards netball in general regardless of the gender or the particular league that is happening. That is why the clear comparative is that. Thirdly, specifically why men’s marketing and recruitment convert short term and long term goals, let's deal with everything OO says and why they're incorrect. One, they have given us many mechanisms on why this does not succeed. First, accessibility does not mean participation, so CO also asked us, how are we going to achieve these aims, right, and it's very similar to how every single other sports league does this, as ethan already tells you but just as the nhl funds hockey arenas for smaller communities, we think that a netball league could fund a creation of a netball court in a smaller community or maybe even a larger community, right. What that means then is sure accessibility goes up but inherently, it also means participation goes up because one of the biggest barriers to entry, for a lot of these sports is the inaccessibility of the equipment necessary for that sport, right. People who want to go into netball gymnastics, figure skating whatever, depending on wherever their communities are, cannot access it because they literally cannot have the means or the resources necessary for it. We think that the initial first investment of having these kinds of resources available means that it's more likely that you do get participation. We don't need to prove 100 participation for the accessibility funding that we put in, we need to just suggest that there is an increase and we believe that this major barrier of lacking resources does lead to the increase. Second, trading off with spaces of women and diverting air time to men that are internally criticizing you, fans getting undermined, right. Three things I'd like to say here first, first is that fans currently like, I said intro, find their own streams in the pockets of the internet and that they can't even add, access their own sports you know, broadcasting so we'd suggest that the death like, the comparative in which these fans are able to access their sports in a more accessible way and also gets more fame and attraction is a good thing too. On the idea of internal criticism, we would suggest that a lot of these athletes would actually welcome an increase in interest within their sporting, within their sports in general but thirdly, even if fans or these athletes get upset in the short term. We think there's a massive long term benefit that are cruised when more individuals are engaging with the sport when the sport is able to actually grow and have more individuals playing it at a younger age and that is why we get those benefits. Fourthly, they also talk about natural barriers why girly sports won't be opted into anyways, right, and here's the best part of our mechanism, right. If you build the netball court and you meant it to be for males or like boys to play in that court. Who says that that is the only way you're able to use those resources, if it’s too girly of a sport and boys don't sign up, you now have all the resources you need to start up a girls league of netball, right. So we think that the initial marketing strategy of trying to appeal to boys works anyways, to get the resources in place and means that it also sets up futures for girls who want to play that sport. Finally major contracts, right. They have a very, very weird trade off of resources. They are suggesting that these sporting leagues are dumb enough to divert so much funding away from their very profitable female league, such that it crumbles, right, like, take this for example, the nba wants to start funding the WNBA, that's great but they will never allow it to crumble or never have so much funding diverted from the nba, such that the nba is going to start losing money for them, right. So the kinds of money transfers or the kinds of marketing that is going to change and the trade offs that exist are not as extreme as opposition team would like you to believe because in reality it's only such that you're trying to grow the sport, so maybe you'll do less marketing of your most like like your famous female icons but it does mean that you absolutely still have a main profit incentive to prioritize your women's leagues quick poi from CO .
+<poi>
+Do you think any women dominated sport could potentially be in the olympics without increasing participation to men?
+</poi>
+Okay, so this point is basically to say like, look, simone biles and gymnastics are in the olympics these sports are able to get a lot of fame, right, but the issue with that is that it is very temporarily, a temper, temporary and very, uh, yeah, short-termist as an approach to use the olympics to try and get any kinds of success. So can sports succeed without men? Not to the extent that these leagues want to, that's my answer. So, then in this debate, what is within the realm of possibility? Because this debate does still operate within a world of sexism and male dominance of sport in general, right. The sports that we're talking about and the big question I'm sure, opposition will ask is, what if men start dominating these female sports, right, but one, as Ethan says, they're dominantly female record sets. Which means that like, the fact that you have athletes like simone biles, probably meaning that you have the best gymnast in the world being a woman. Means that it is very difficult for it to become men dominated but secondly, why is men's participation key then, in these, in these instances? We think that in many, in cities, especially smaller ones there's not much pre-existing interest. So, here's what the kinds of investments that exist on opposition are, in the city of calgary canada. I'm sure there are some people who want to learn netball but not many, the current strategy that these institutions have been using for up to 30, 40, 50 years has not been working and that's what opposition misses. They just completely are not comparative because they're saying let's just keep doing what we are doing, what we are doing means that we are not getting any air time, it means that we don't have a single netball court in major cities in most countries, it means that a lot of individuals male or female are not able to access their sport and fourthly, it means that people tune their T.V.’s away even during the olympics because they simply don't know the rules of the sport and do not understand how the sport works and that causes apathy towards that close kind of sports, what do we prove to you in this debate, very mechanistically. One, the fact that we are able to market specifically to boys and also men in general playing the sport, means you get more resources funding. Two, that means you are more likely to access broadcasting and viewership. Three, that means in the long term that also helps your female leagues grow and of course, you're not going to neglect them because they're your main money source and fourthly, this is an absolute win for all individuals who are trying to access these kinds of sports, you beat out men’s darts. Proud to propose. 
+</dpm>
+<dlo>
+I agree with one thing from the previous speaker, simone biles is absolutely phenomenal. She deserves that spotlight and she better continue to have it and she deserves every single type of fame that you can get. The thing is, is that what is happening at government side is that they have chosen to defend a significantly minute and marginal benefit that I think has not been proven to be guaranteed, has not been proven to be more important for the league particularly, because they have also not proven or disprove the fact that you are actually going to reduce a lot of the viewership or at least the potential for you to cater to existing female athletes or future female athletes that should be able to exist, because we say simone biles is popular because we're able to inspire future girls, future women, future individuals who at least grow up in a sport because they have been locked out for many others, because now, they are told by society that you cannot go into basketball, you can't go into soccer because you're not physically capable but at least here, we know that many individuals can at least make a dream, many individuals can at least be inspired, many individuals can at least try and be able to get the achievements that people have been continuously saying that they can never have done so. We say we access that and unlock opportunities for a lot more women and that is why these major sports associations have an interest particularly with their existing fan base and that's why they have a special obligation to them. Two things, number one, why this is a principle betrayal to these female athletes and number two, on the even if even if you are successful in attracting more male participation, you are significantly likely to reduce future female sports culture entirely. Firstly, on the response and the principle betrayal to these female athletes and existing female and future athletes, I have two things to point out here. Number one, in the aftermath of several reports and claims by female dominated themes such as the gymnastics teams for the olympics led by simone biles and a lot of other women that have come out recently, to go out and come out against many of their male coaches and perpetrators prioritizing male participation emphasizes a form of masculinity and a form of idealization of trying to change a sport and make it better because the way you have to market this to more and more men and the way you have to market this to society, is that we can improve the sport and allow more men to be able to at least, make it more competitive, to make it more appealing, to make it more fun and the notion of trying to buy into this narrative makes it more and more toxic and buys into the masculinity that allows them to outshine many of these individuals. You make it less of a safer sport to participate in, because you give more welcome or you give more platforms and more voices and screen time to more of these male athletes and more of these team managers. If you don't believe the argument I have a second reason for this, the second reason is this, this is a speculative benefit at best, so david gives you several reasons that are responded to by the previous speaker as to why many of these boys and many of these investments on many of these netball courts or at these other places where you invite more men to participate in, inherently do not work and it will be unlikely to be unsuccessful because the many misogynist reasons that at least the society coerces these individuals and men to not participate in these sports even if you are marketing it, it doesn't fiat it that you're going to be successful in it. You can get a marginal niche of individuals but that's not going to be an incredible significant amount that changes the tipping point of this debate but more than this, I want to say is that future athletes are less important than current athletes because female athletes are more vulnerable because they have less options in general. David also points out that many of these individuals have already been locked out of many other sports and therefore, in a comparison of probability and of moral calculus over importance and obligation as an association you have a special moral obligation to these particular individuals who have invested their time and efforts to give and building themselves in this sport. So, the previous speaker and closing government also points out, you need to spend a lot of time building yourself up because you know, you have to protect your attendance, you shouldn't get an injury, you have to spend many years practicing with a gymnast so that you can be incredible and you have a few years to be able to do so. These individuals are in the prime time of their life and that's why they should be prioritized more, whereas at least if you are a man or if you're a male individual going into the sport you have so many other alternatives to turn into and that is why it is significantly less important for you to prioritize these individuals. Government says they have a growth potential but we proved that the guaranteed cost of you having to at least significantly like, take out screen time and marketing potential for many other women is worse and it's not a trade-off that we cannot accept particularly, because you make the sport less entertaining and less appealing for individuals to watch because of an existing fan base that cannot be less supported. I'll go into the more important argument now, on the even if. This is even if, it's an even if argument, even if you are initially successful in attracting more male participation at younger ages, at a younger level, it's more likely that you will reduce future female sports culture entirely. At a very young age in a school setting, let's remember secondary school, middle level school, elementary school, where you are likely to market this most to many children. Safe spaces are very important to explore sports for the following reasons particularly, for female younger students for the following reasons. Two things, number one, self confidence issues, sport groups are very necessary for female participants at a very young age because they likely over exaggerate their potential and they over exaggerate, It undermines the type of judgments that other individuals have on them such as the judgments that they put in their body, judgments that other social comparisons that are not good enough in this sport, etc. etc. but number two, it's also the social comparisons that you view based on gender because a lot of the time very early on, you're already compared against your male peers because of mansplaining because of social conditioning that you are physically inept compared to other men, in these sports. That is why safe spaces are important particularly, within these particular groups. Male participation at a younger age breaks up this potential for the following reasons for safe spaces. Three things, number one, many of these schools often cannot afford to segregate students by gender because teachers are limited and facilities are limited. So, that is why, it's more likely that you are likely to make it difficult for women to participate in these sports at a very young age. Number two, toxic masculinity is very prevalent at a very young school age and a young school level because of locker room talk because of rough play or bullying tendencies that many of these individuals have. Before the last reason, I'm going to take closing government. 
+<poi>
+presumably like if you're a high schooler you don't train like seven times a week you train like two or three times, so you can probably coordinate and use the gym simultaneously. It's unclear why you just have to force all individuals to interact and play the same sport together at the same time.
+</poi>
+But most of the time, you have one sports team, most of the time, you have other subjects to go to, you can't say that you're going to make schools do more sports in general and then double the time for everyone that's just significantly unlikely, especially, in these places but because the time for you to be able to invest in this at a very young age for those that are most committed to the sport, they do use these facilities a lot and they do train a lot often like, you have a swimming pool, you use that every morning, you cannot always share that all the time with a lot of individuals and that's why it's very difficult for you to do so and especially, you want to specialize and allow women to participate more and more for a very long period. Like, if you want them to join the varsity team, you need to be able to have a reg, regiment program to get them interested into that, that's why it's likely. The last reason is this, young female students have less room to be able to shine and to be able to at least be emphasized for their achievements because the screen time is also divided between men and women in these sports, for these reasons because you are dividing the resources internally within these schools, the potential for safe spaces and participation for women within these places also reduces and that's why it is a harm endemic to your existing fan base. I am very proud to oppose.
+</dlo>
+<mg>
+It's quite telling, the issue of opening oppositions paradigm, because in their world, there's a sharp binary between the type of sports that young boys can play and a sharp binary between the young sports that girls can play. On closing government, we aim to bridge that gap and make sports all inclusive. I also think, generally speaking, that is probably the biggest obligation you can have and also probably the thing that sports organizations care about the most, given that the vast majority of organizations care about things like equity and care about things like access. I'm going to talk about three things. The first thing I want to do is respond to the argument coming from opening opposition regarding a lot of the harms about obligation, first of all, I just do not really think that obligation exists and so far as there's no written contract for example, for that obligation, also, don't understand why there's an active trade off for that obligation. The second thing I want to flag under the obligation argument is, presumably, if you listen to a lot of their analysis, the obligation also extends to vulnerable individuals who are playing that sport so young boys for example, who are shunned and called gay as a result of, for example, going to figure skating so presumably, that obligation extends to those individuals.If you want to argue about the degree of harm, presumably, those individuals are harmed more because they're forced to for example give up the sport, as a result of all of the bullying that luigi talks about in dlo. So to that, and maybe an obligation extends there as well, i'm gonna prove why you benefit all actors in extension. The second thing I want to flag out about the issue of opening opposition is, I just don't think individuals leave the sport, I don't think the extent of pullout is that significant, like, let's be realistic. DLO tells us these are people who are in the prime of their career, you're still able to win things, you're still able to get reputation that benefits you for example as an athlete. I just don't understand why you suddenly walk away because of this horrible decision, even if the decision is really bad presumably, you're still able to compete, no thank you. We're going to run two things in extension, first of all, i'm going to prove why there is no trade off and i'm going to do a better job than opening governance of actually proving what this policy looks like, this beats opening government because we then do a better job of role fulfilment, this also beats back a lot of the opening opposition argument about trade off because the vast majority of OO claim in this debate is contingent on them playing why there's an active trade off that takes away opportunities for young girls and women leagues, I don't think that's true. First of all, what does this promotion and recruiting actively look like? So OG just kind of goes like, oh well, like, reach out and show you ads like, yeah, I think all is right, that's obviously not enough. I think it's far more than that, it looks like, for example, having posters that show both young girls and boys playing that and having that sent for example in local educational facilities, it looks like, for example, actively promoting subsidies or promoting cash prizes to get individuals incentivize to play that sport for example, looks like, for example, setting up new competitions or setting up like foundational training camps, in which you're able to improve your skill. The reason as to why this is better than opening government is because all of these things tangibly lead to you thinking you can play and tangibly give you opportunities to do so. Why then there is no trade off? Because I think always right in saying that to an extent there might be trade off, I think the issue is that doesn't actually engage in the nuance of athletics in this debate. The first reason as to why there's no trade off is because like, it's just really not mutually exclusive like, I think dlo is right like, if you as a 14 year old play sports eight times a day then maybe there will be a trade off but I just don't think in the vast majority of instances schools are that cash trap. So often times, for example, the junior varsity or the varsity team takes like three or four times a day to that and you're able to often share the gym for example, or often you're able to share like the times in which you use that so like, for example, when someone is doing cardio work outside, the other team can use the gym for example, and you can have that vice versa, you can also do things for example like share coaches or pay them more like presumably the state has the capacity to do so and it's not like significantly a lot of money that you're taking away from like state funding and the athletics department. Also, I just think it's just really impractical to say that there's an active trade off like, there's a reason why most schools can have a boys volleyball team and a girls volleyball team and still be fine. We imagine the way this debate will play, is probably similar. Also note here, this is probably good because if all says there's a massive interim period, it means there's going to be a long period of time in which the guys probably suck for the very reason that the infrastructure of that sport is low. This is important because if all wants to talk about building the confidence of young girls, you probably got that more on our side of the house when there's a comparable metric you're able to use to say we're better than guys we want more awards as a figure skating team than the guy figure skating team, so to that i think it builds more confidence, on our side. The second thing I want posit, under why it's not mutually exclusive is because oftentimes the type of ventures you get in professional leagues that for example, goes into the men’s department, often gets you more money that you can then in turn investigate or like put back into the entirety of the sport. The reason that's the way this is, the case is because the way in which it often works is you have for example, like Manchester united. So the way this motion will work is you have Manchester united and you're like Manchester united guys, Manchester united girls this is important because really die hard fans are likely going to like, buy jerseys for example buy like, like stocks for example or like buy certain merchandises from other teams because they like affiliate and identify with that team and often there's a sense of community. So I think you probably get some degree of investment that's going to come from local fans anyways, I think that's probably important, also like family members will probably like invest as well. So the reason that's why this is important is because I don't think there's an active trade-off that delinks a lot of opening opposition's argument. i'll take you later david, the second thing I want to posit under this is like, I just also don't think there's a trade-off because often sport fields at a young age are relatively multifunctional so to that I don't think you actively take away opportunities I think if anything given ideas are probably going to be done by local teams and local community as well. You end up shelling for more money to build other things that doesn't actively trade off with existing infrastructure because you don't like remove the infrastructure and then like, go like,’hey it's for boys now’. you often build additional infrastructure side by side or you share time so I don't think you actually get rid of a lot of that. This deals with the crux of opening opposition. What then is the second extension? I'm going to prove to you why we revert gender norms and why that's uniquely important, they probably. Go on OO
+<poi>
+So, to clarify, the active trade off is the very existence and investment of a separate male league which naturally takes away resources from the women's league, which is itself a massive risk for sponsors as opposed to a certain benefit of adding new teams to the women league and promoting them instead.
+</poi>
+No no no like, you got more money from the guy team so like, if manchester united gets another team, you got money because people buy jerseys from that team that money then goes into the entire enterprise which you can then reinvest into women’s team. Which presumably they will do because your characterization is that women's teams are significantly more popular. Great. Argument, why is it also better for gender stereotypes? The first thing that approve as well OG didn't prove, why you got more guys opting into the sport, there are four reasons why. First of all, I think you just generally will get that because the existing of those promotions oftentimes revert bullying from the very bottom up, so you get a signaling change from the bottom up, that leads to individuals changing incentives. Second of all, there are probably people who suck at soccer, who now will go to figure skating on our side of the house, who are guys. Third of all, I think there are existing athletes who already play for example figure skating or netball, who are not for example girls but fourth of all, usually young kids play multiple sports because often parents don't have time to take care of them, so you throw them into different sports also because as an athletic person you usually want to try new sports and also because it builds community. So that proves why you likely get individuals opting into it. This is important because the comparative you don't get access at all, so even if guys hate the sport, at least you've got some degree of access, which is important because some individuals will choose to stay onto it. Why is this important? This is important for a few reasons. First of all, you get some degree of quantifiable metric in which young girls are able to use to beat out boys, so this probably empowers them to an extent. Second of all, you change stereotypes because over time you get the norm that says, it's okay for young boys to also try and play the sport. This is important not only in empowering women in sports that are male dominated but also allow for some degree of intention for individual guys, who are shunned from figure skating for example, because they're called gay, we give them some degree of safe space, so more individuals who look like them or identify like them are able to play. For all those reasons, you also empower them as well. We're very happy to propose
+</mg>
+<mo>
+Panel, when in school in pe, when we had a gymnastics class that was all for boys, most of the boys there decided to pretend they were sick so that they didn't have to look feminine because they thought being flexible was something that was inherently feminine and something that would be embarrassing, the stereotypes that exist against these sports in particular against men joining these sports is incredibly strong. I think it's insufficient for OG to go, ah, we're just going to market it to them and if you yell it loud enough at them, they're going to join and I think it's an insufficient for cg to go, ah, we're going to have training camps and cash prizes, when these exist for other sports as well. Presumably, if you're athletic, I'm unsure of why you joined the other sports, minus all of the stereotypes with probably more money in those leagues than particularly this. I think first bit of framing, probably looks like, one specifically more airtime to existing male athletes over existing female ones. You want them to be particularly established. You have limited amount of money in your pool. Second, you just market the male leagues more, if you have specific prime times for your own sports, you give those to male leagues rather than female leagues. Three, you take away the focus from more female elements. You make them less things like dancing, you make it less things like importance of costumes or aesthetics and you make it more about like, the grit and risk that exists within the sport itself. Four, you have to be extensive about these because these stereotypes are incredibly incredibly strong. You need to make it less gay and change away, take away the specifically female elements. What all of those mean, is that very, very few men join in the first place. It is already unlikely but also two, you have to make major changes to the support to even get that limited amount of male participation. Are we going to win? One, we're going to show you, why the established participation that exists goes down massively, second, we're going to co opt a lot of OG’s mechanisms as to how they get increased things like, funding and therefore, increased participation and third, we're going to show you why viewership goes down. Firstly, on reduced participation, importantly if you are taking away female, so the useful thing about female sports is that sports generally are seen as quite masculine but female sports are seen as quite feminine, in the sense that you have, you can play into established gender norms, right. In the sense of things like, where you enjoy dressing up, where you enjoy making specific like dance routines, where you enjoy like wearing pretty leotards. All of these things are useful in terms of getting women interested in the first place. Importantly, when you have a smaller focus on these you are, the sport is less about these now the perception of that sport is less about these therefore, women are just less interested in joining in the first place and young girls are less interested in joining in the first place, because they have their established interests, they already exist and probably exist for a while. Importantly, those don't change and therefore, you're less able to play into those and therefore, you are less likely to be able to get that level of participation. Second, there are women’s barriers that exist, so opening tells us the material changes that happen that affect these barriers. We tell you why the perception is so incredibly important. Importantly, this perception is something that government isn't able to mechanize away, in terms of like, oh, we'll have like, different sessions etc. Importantly, when you put yourself as a woman into a specifically, a male sport, a sport where male specifically compete there are a few things that happen, one, you see yourself as entering a masculine space as in the advertising that you're seeing on to this is like, powerful male athletes like doing incredibly like strong and strength bearing routines as in you see the sport itself as masculine. Second, you see yourself as competing against, entering masculine competition and allowing yourself for masculine critique as now it is more men who are doing the things like critique and men who are involved and therefore have their gaze upon you and therefore that is something that you necessarily have to enter into. Importantly these are things that act as significant barriers enough such that people that women generally, don't enter masculine sports despite there being women's leagues, this now just extends to women's sports as well. Next, why? Particularly because you have a focus on, why? currently because there is a focus on women and because of the mechanisms that OG’s tell, given you. You probably believe that it's largely women who follow these sports in the first place. You allow for women themselves to allow the sport to change right, as in now you can make them less sexist because it is less important that men are retained and watched and therefore you allow for things like longer leotards etc. Importantly, when male viewership is increased and you're trying to market yourself to the male viewers as much or more so than the female viewers. It means you allow the sport to get worse, importantly notice fulfilling openings obligation as well as to why you make the sport more comfortable for the women who exist alternatively to, if you try to increase male viewership. Next, why particularly you get why you reduce the amount of arenas and shit you have built. Importantly the Nba doesn't go around building basketball courts, it is governments that do. Few reasons why governments build things like gymnastic gyms and things like netball courts. One, they are, they themselves are interested in increasing women's participation in sport. This is bipartisan, importantly, this doesn't play into making women more masculine that like conservatives are so against but importantly allows for things like women to be more healthy, they get to see their children having particularly fun in specifically space safe spaces, they see it specifically as increasing the competition that women are able to engage and they see it as women being able to have more fun initially there are like feminist pressures that exist in the world, in order to do more of these things. As in fundamentally, if you masculine the sport it is less clear that one, like it's less likely to be bipartisan but also secondly, why specifically, you as a netball association are just less likely to get this funding because it's more likely to go to women is football because that's just the bigger sport and you are now just the smaller sport and you're no longer the female dominated sport but rather the mixed sport rather it's unclear why they should give funding to you, it's unclear why less funding goes to building things like netball courts Which means all of opening governments mechanisms don't actually happen in the world because you aren't the people who are building them, rather it is extra ladders. It is really this fucking expensive to like keep a plot of land and keep maintaining it rather it's governments who do it. Third, why specifically viewership goes down, given the previous mechanisms as to why specifically you are changing the sport, it means the things that attracted the previous viewer base to the sport itself are now less existing as in the previous viewers just don't care about that sport anymore, they can probably go to different athletics that do the specific risk taking etc better than specifically for example gymnastics. Why particularly there are less involved fans who enjoy watching women do it, who don't want to watch it anymore, especially if you think like for example, ben figorsig. Thirdly, if you just start this league, very few people will watch it but it will anger a lot of fans because you are taking the focus away from the things that they particularly love. All of these things mean and understand that it takes a long time to grow a sport as you're doing these investments early, as you're just wasting lots and lots of money and losing all of your initial player base. Please oppose.
+</mo>
+<gw>
+I want to talk about two things, firstly, on why this will succeed in pushing men to participate in the sport and secondly, why this doesn't in fact, push out women in a sport that is already female dominated and therefore, already has traction in supporting fans who are of a certain identity but i want to firstly clear on what og is missing in this debate, because og mainly says a couple of things. They say that you need infrastructure, infrastructure is the biggest and the only barrier to men participating, so if you solve this therefore, you will magically increase male participation, they also say a number of things like men decide for what children play etc, but i think what you have to know about OG and what makes them lose this debate is, just the fact that one, this relies on them proving that more men play which they also have not been able to do in both speeches and two is that infrastructure is not the biggest and the only barrier. So, I think, talking about the next two teams. First thing on why we succeed in pushing men to play and secondly, on why women will not solve play. So firstly on whether we push men to play, so let's look at the mechanisms that were given to us by OO because OO says a couple of things. OO says first, that airtime will be divided into other things that fans don't care about and there will be criticism because you're focusing on male players or there will be a certain trade-off between females fourth and female media versus male media. I think I want to first note that I don't know what CG is saying because that painted a very clear picture of the model and the policies that we're willing to support, we're willing to support sending more of these role models to boys, boys schools or sending for more boys to participate in these sports, we're also supporting things like creating boys only teams or having more boys participate in this local gym or just like three, like, you have ads posters or 30 second ads that includes this I think there's a very minimal trade off between ads as well as forms of participation like this versus like, an entire two hour game or entire performance by someone else, but I think secondly, even if we want to concede the policy that co tries to push on us, which is that one, you will have to like change the sport entirely by making it less dancey or that you'll have to like show more male players in terms of airtime, i think that's still okay. So let's look at the first policy which is that you have to change the sport. I think the first problem with this like making it less dance or less gay for example, is that they drastically overestimate the degree to which these scores are actually feminine because what figure skating literally is, is that you have triple axe spins you jump in the air and you spin two times it's incredibly difficult to do or if you do flips, I think these are things that are not incredibly feminine, i think even in gymnastics you're doing back flips, you're doing many flips in the air. These are things that are pretty like not gendered, even though that modern society has arbitrarily decided this is not masculine enough. I think this is where if you look specifically at what the sport does there is nothing in it that is inherently feminine or supposed to attract more women than men it is simply that the name gymnastics or the name figure scheme is associated with more of one that is feminine. I think the second reason is just like women are going to like the sport regardless of how you change it, i think the reason why a lot of people play gymnastics is because this pushes their physical abilities the fact that you have to do handstands you have to be incredibly badass and do like triple flakes backwards. i think this all means that women are still going to be attracted to the sport because there is already a lot of women who are playing the sport so you have a lot of support structures, a lot of role models, a lot of historical youtube videos they can dig through 30 years of records into, i think this means that people are still likely going to play. The second thing the policy coming from both OO and CO about how you show more male players in airtime. I think one, they also drastically overestimate the degree to which this will there will be a trade off. Of course you will have to divert 30 seconds of trade off or you have to divert a half an hour in terms of showing a male doing men doing gymnastics as opposed to women but it's a comparison between literally thousands of post-sports and thousands of players there's a reason why these leagues have been able to divide between thousands of women players because the trade-off between you showing less like 15 minutes less of an interview of a famous female player is incredibly low. No one is counting the minutes or counting the seconds as long as you show the person doing the interview or you show the female score, it doesn't matter if you cut to the male gymnastics section for like 30 minutes because people will just go and like get a coffee or something like the fact that it's just this just has such a minimal impact in terms of how people view the sport. The third thing is, i think, there's a minimal trade-off in terms of finances because most financial expenditures are local these leagues are focusing attention and money in terms like marketing or expanding access to low end access areas, these are not the people who are funding for school teams or advocating for you to get more boys into your local gym because think about it there are so many women or so many people engaging in these sports, the vast amount of funding that comes from these sports are inherently private. Private coaches, kids paying for their private like, it's like membership cards at their local gym. I think this means there just really isn't a financial trade off in terms of the ground up funding of people playing more of these sports and just like, I think just finally there isn't much of a trade off here. The second thing that we hear is just that you will be competing with other sports and you will be incapable of competing because then you no longer have your advantage, i think one 10 already gives you the rebuttal for the ground level assumption how you can like watch and play many sports as a kid like, i can do i do group sports at the same time just like, casually and leisurely. Second thing, you can also watch different sports like, at the same time, you don't need to engage and dedicate yourself to a single one and three, there are obviously guys who don't fit the jockey stereotype that most people who play soccer or basketball might be, considering that these environments are indeed often toxically masculine, so you're just going to attract more people who don't fit into this traditional stereotype. This is important because there is more buy in of a positive cycle on a ground level but secondly, even if you're talking about funding from like all these people who are you know funding these institutions these are big businesses, i think it's completely fine as well because one, presumably people who are funding these institutions already believed in the idea of having women play more of these sports, they like these sports by themselves, you can also probably persuade them at the board meeting that this is a good investment. I think secondly, just the fact that you're a mixed sport doesn't really matter, it's not the perception of what sport it is but it's the fact, there are a lot of women who are watching the sport and a lot of women who are likely to support the sport that makes people want to invest in it. Fourth and finally, i think the comparative on off is just horrific, right, because it's not a stable investment, let's be clear, there are so many female sports leagues that have died in the past decade because there are not enough people who are watching them, this is your only lifeline. The alternative is, one in which you're a funny woman and you're a funny woman only and you don't have men watching, you don't have the community buying and therefore, people stop watching your score altogether because there are enough people playing. I'll take OO
+<poi>
+A 30 second trade off seriously cannot be the real trade off in this round, either you will not be successful in setting up a sports league or you will have to spend more time on it which means that you will end up taking away time for the other league.
+</poi>
+One, your comparative is still bad, no one is watching female sports. Just count the number of female leagues that have died in the past couple of years. I don't think there is a sufficient financial alternative on your side. Secondly, even if it is like a half an hour trade up, you're cutting to a female like, a male athlete like, that's completely fine as well. It's just no one is kind of, as long as you're showing women which are still continue to be able to do it, people will be able to appreciate and watch their most famous players. Let's finally talk about the idea of obligations, right. There is no obligation because of the fact that unless it is in your contract, you're a contracted athlete, if it's not written there, you don't have an obligation to them because these organizations and leagues have to counter a lot of other interests like money survival of the sport etc, you can't just have random obligations to people everywhere. Secondly, you also have an obligation to increase access to those that were structurally prevented from being the accident scores, i think boys who were called horrible names because they wanted to figure skate, also deserve to be able to access this and three, i also just don't think the safe space argument makes any sense because if you buy this argument, you have to divide women and men into different elementary schools, which obviously doesn't prepare themselves well for the sexist world or for a sexism in like literally the rest of society in general, we're very proud to propose.
+</gw>
+<ow>
+Two broad things in the speech first you know, how this is going to change the way in which these leagues generally organize and promote things and then secondly, how this affects the like, the viewership and like the participation of women and what that is the main thing that all of these organizations care about. Starting with the first thing, and i think that the main biggest problem that like the entire gov bench has is, that they are randomly asserting that absolutely no one wants to watch any of these sports, i think that they're completely forgetting how world famous simone biles is, i think they're forgetting how important actually it is for like, how important figure skating is at winter olympics. This is the status quo and this is what they are taking away from, i think that they are trying to fix a problem that isn't essentially there because all of these women that are already famous in those sports are actually feeling great and are feeling empowered and i think that this sport is watched enough, i think i'm unclear firstly, in what the problem is that they are solving it. I think what Areen tells you, in terms of who are the fans and how you're going to lose them, is something that is significantly more important like aspect or dimension to it. I think at a point at which you're forced to do things like, change the nature of the sport in order to attract more male participation that is, when you lose out on things like getting into the olympics or having lots of those fans and i think at that point, that is where the problems of the got bench start, But let's firstly talk about things like funding and like how that is given that, that is probably a prerequisite to getting any of the other types of things you want to achieve especially, like, i think that this is also the first thing that puts us over our opening, given that we provide you a mechanism as to how you're likely to lose out on funding on the gov side of the house, but let's go through the stuff that like got bench tells you. CG tells you that like, ah, don't worry about funding, this is going to come from things like, look manchester united has the male team and has a female team and that is the main way you get funding, that's the first thing they say. i think at a point at which you already don't have an established male league and that is the basis on which they operate, i'm genuinely unclear how in the first 10 years, you're ever going to get enough of a fan base that is going to support that separate male league. So i think that mechanism from cg just simply falls out because it's untrue given that there won't be any fans for it and a small amount of boys will probably join, initially. That means that there's going to be massive trade off in money away from girls, into that male participation, i think that's regrettable. The second thing they say is, ah, look most of the funding is private or it comes from like, i don't know, parents. At a point at which the main funding that you right now get is from girls and their parents buying leotards engaging within the sport, at a point at which you are now focusing all of your marketing efforts on boys then that is the group of people who are no longer joining, you're no longer getting any extra money coming on top of you. So it was out in that private funding that you previously had. At that point, I think it's genuinely unlikely that you're going to be able to sustain your sport in the first place. Additionally, i don't think that private money is the only way in which exists, especially, in areas where you have like, i don't know, less participation in the first place, at that point government funding is something that is just fundamentally crucial and this is something that like cg failed to engage with. Areen really tells you that at a point at which the government is now like, if it has like a general obligation or desire to fund female sport, at a point at which it becomes now cheaper to just fund football stadiums from everyone and you don't really need to fund a separate female sport that is smaller. At that point, I think you're going to lose out on things like, government funding as well. I think overall, what this means is that it's probably already in the interest of the sports league to get as much funding as possible because that makes all of the other goals that they generally have, i think that makes them possible. At that point, if you lose out on that funding and cg has absolutely no mechanism to prove how they're able to sustain any of their change, i think you're going to lose out and you don't fulfill their goals. The second thing cg does is like, look, there isn't really a trade off when we have to do this.At a point in which cg starts their own first speech going like, oh, but the most vulnerable group is the little boys who are getting called gay, i don't think that's a stereotype that you're going to change with a 30-second cameo. The way they characterize themselves of who the most vulnerable actor in this debate is, also shows the way these stereotypes are really, really strong if the focus was previously fundamentally always on women, you need to change it quite massively, in order to change the existing stereotypes, if you don't want to counter doing all of those things, i think that's when you already have the problem and you're not achieving anything that they're doing. At that point they're just taking away the money that they already had in the status quo, they're pushing it into something and not getting any type of change out of it and rather just like pushing more girls away. i think this is the way the characterization that it really provides you, is actually the one that is the most accurate. In order to change the narrative that if you participate in figure skating, you're being called names, you need to change the way the sport looks to the male gaze and you need to change the way it looks like generally, and how you participate into this cg does it like, oh, you can give some access but i'm genuinely unclear how that access comes from. They said that you don't really need to change and make it look less feminine because it's still eventually about like, i don't know, doing back flips look, if the thing that you were trying to achieve is, you get boys to do back flips that have never done back flips before and they don't know how cool and fun it actually feels like, at that point it's the barrier to do that and to compete with that is, you have to look feminine, you have to look, i don't know, pretty put a nice leotard, do makeup, look all of these fancy and funky ways. I think that is the thing that is going to be the turning goal of those boys, that is the thing that you're going to fundamentally be changing and i think that is the most regrettable part because you're going to not only push away the women who would otherwise participate because they do enjoy engaging in those feminine aspects of the sport they do enjoy engaging in, i don't know, the aesthetics of it and getting like graded, the way they present themselves artistically. At that point, i think it's very unlikely that you're going to be able to change the perception for the men, unless you change these aspects. The comparative that we offer is when you keep the support focused on the female participants that you generally have, at that point you allow women to design the sport to be in ways in which they want it to be, i think you allow them to, i don't know, say that we really like the part that we get to, i don't know, experiment with very fun dance routines like, you see in college gymnastics in the U.S. but at the same time you tell them that, oh, you want to wear a long leotards because you don't want to be, i don't know, sexualized, that is something that is okay as wel.l i think that is the thing, the key thing that also fixes the opening government's problem of like girls live within puberty, girls leave at a point where you don't make them, make all of these sports masculine and you make them inaccessible for those girls, i think at that point that is something we're able to fix, if we don't cater to women specifically. But before I move on, I will take opening government. 
+<poi>
+So, even if people like, men do not play this sport. The creation of private and public infrastructure can still be used by girls as june notes but under status quo, governments and private companies have minimal incentive to invest in girls youth sports, so that's a comparative win for OG.
+</poi>
+Yeah, i think, one, you ignored all of the analysis that it does, as to how we are able to get any of this funding and infrastructure in the first place. Second, your characterization is untrue. I would just posit their own shit on the gymnastics gyms within the US that allowes simone biles to become several times world champion, i think all of those things already exist. What you were doing is, you're taking away that money because governments no longer have the incentive to do it, you're not getting any more airtime, you're not fulfilling these slots of poker. I think those slots existed for women but if you're now introducing a new lead that is probably also worse you're not getting any viewers for that but you're losing up on the participation you previously had for girls you're getting less and less female stars into the sport because they don't want to participate anymore because they're now in a male dominated sport. At that point, I think you're losing out on any funding you get. The reason why we'd be opening opposition is because I think we're better one, able to fulfill the obligation that they talk about. But secondly, the government funding that areen talks about is a prerequisite to all of the mechanisms that opening opposition wants to do at a point at which their main problem is, is that materialistic you need to share the gym, i think if you have government funding we're able to fix for those problems in the first place. Lastly, stuff we have about participation is the prior, most prior interest that all of the, all of the like sports leagues have given that this is the thing that gives them viewership and and like support in the first place vote co. </ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Doxbridge 4 Round 2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+<pm>
+Through long-distance methods or just like shared interactions of sharing what your day looks like. We think obviously there's like a priority in the minds of a person, in terms of physical companionship. We think communication or just like this care, respect and like an ability to share about your life are just as important, because they create comfort in relationships.We think communication becomes just as important then. We think:
+1) Companionship in themselves when it's expanded to these things, notes that, we think then that sharing of spaces is not just the most important thing in the world physically. Which means that sharing spaces through zoom call or sharing spaces through communication or pre-planning dates which will be of physical nature are just as important in this scenario. I think the trade off is obviously that you can't meet each other every day or you do not meet each other every day. But the impact is on three levels:
+One, learning to respect choices that individuals make apart from the physical living space that you are forced to share on opps world. That is to say that your prioritization of time might just be different in this world. We think it's a problem on opp, because if you prioritize time even if you're living together, the other individual might feel neglected or the individual is more likely to feel that this other person does not want to spend time with them and they're alone at home. But, Secondly we think spaces to grow individually are just not limited to the spaces of mind and office. But also,[but also] expanded to individuals on how they shape their room or how they want to live or their habits of leaving the towel at a certain place or leaving the toilet seat at a certain place. We think these habits are extremely important for this individual in the way that they have shaped their life and in the way that they want to move forward which means that certain habits might be incompatible with the habits of someone that you're sharing a room with. We think the problem then, in this debate is that when certain habits between two people, who love each other immensely and want each other there physically all the time are extremely incompatible with each other, the chances that their relationship might go sour because of the fights that happen because of this incompatibility are much higher in that scenario. We think, thirdly we're okay with this temporary deprivation of not meeting the person you love so much all the time but we’re okay with that person being forced to learn and love and respect you, eventually. Before I move forward i'll take opening. 
+<POi> To be clear you think this motion primarily applies to premarital couples, i.e.  before marriage and before having children.</POi>  
+No, I think this debate can be people post marriage also. The fact is, that people post marriage also need to grow, also need to have their own spaces. it essentially becomes a problem. The issue here is that individuals, especially women and developing nations are forced to work around [the] like the culture of what the man puts on the table according to his work culture. Especially in spaces that they're forced to live there. Like i've heard my mother arguing about how she does not have a space to her own in a house so many times. But secondly, why this distance or unshared space is beneficial. We think lives of long term couples are also as much about the relationship but also about their own lives. Which means that non proliferated spaces where they do their own things or where they have their own space to do things are just as important for their own growth and their own path in life. This is true for both premarital and post marital couples these individuals are allowed to, and should have goals where their life shouldn't just become [or just become] what this one relationship. We think, secondly, usually a couple stays together because their trade off is not to make the effort to meet but the problem at that point, is if the meeting becomes toxic at a point of time. The act of being that someone becomes so tough to sustain which harms the relationship we're not okay with that. Thirdly, notice how the primary or goal of your life might just be your professional goals or other goals that you have in life. Which means if you're a lawyer or a painter who spends 12 hours a day teaching or working in the office and you come back home and you want to spend time in your own space, reflecting. The problem is if you continuously do that you're more likely to make the other person alienated or deprived who's living in the same shared space as you, all through time. We think this leads to relationships often suffering. We think this [misinfo- from like] miscommunication or like these things often lead to people feeling, even if you’re in the same space you can't communicate. We think fourthly, things such as shared anxiety and mismanagement also often lead to fights and frivolous issues, which leads to people believing they're incompatible on small issues such as the towel being wet on the bed. Very quickly (asking for a POi from) closing, seeing nothing from them(continuing). What is then important in terms of impacts is the sanctity of moments. Notice when you live with someone throughout every single day. Where you're also having these little things that are nagging you negatively, you're much less likely to care about the moments that you spend together of shared smiles and all that jazz, which means that things such as pre-planning often lead to you caring for those moments much more maybe. We think that dry relationships are just feeling bad in relationships or not feeling excited enough at that point of time is much more likely in opp’s world lastly in terms of how it helps people break the ideals of what ideal relationships looks like in impacts. Not as important for you to prioritize your own both as well [just as like or just] rather than over just this romanticized idea of what shared growth all couples are supposed to have. We think fallouts are just as common, (in fact) you might know more about (them). So in opp’s world they'll say that relationships are more successful because people know more about each other. The problem is, when you know more about each other you're more likely to hate more things about the other person as well. The impact is that when you shape your life and your physical spaces around this one person the chances of your relationship becoming emotionally abusive, because you're so committed to it and you're so caught up in it and because you’ve deprioritized other things, is much more likely. We're here on (the side of the) opening government for a happier relationship. Very very proud to propose.
+</pm>
+<lo>
+Let us right off the bat, (provide) a bit of mitigation to opening government because we think they have a very negative view of what relationships are. We think, in most healthy relationships there also exists a healthy level of respect. insofar as you've spent a large amount of time with a certain person you know what their interests are and you know the specific ways in which you want to exercise those interests. 
+
+
+Presumably if you care about them, you’re also going to communicate ways as to how you're going to give space to each other and you've presumably learned that through your relationship. But there's also secondly, a selfish incentive to do that because, insofar as people do need space apart from each other as conceded by opening government and you have an incentive to get that space you want to give the space to the other partner as far as you have a leverage to request it for yourself. So I think just a lot of opening government is mitigated but it also means this debate probably is most impactful in relationships which are not ideal which is where I think the government case exacerbates harms the most. 
+
+
+i'm going to run a bunch of arguments and rebuttal is going to be integrated. 
+Let's get right into it:
+First of all, we think that the government side of the house encourages people to make bad decisions but also makes them less able to opt out of relationships in the long term. There's a reason why people decide to move in two years before they get married. That's because they want to experience life together because you may love each other and see each other but you've never run a budget together, you've never divided chores, you've never spent so much time together and you've also haven't learned the most intimate behavioural patterns of that person. 
+
+
+The reason why this matters is because we think that still a huge amount of individuals are going to want to move in at some point when they get married or have children. First of all because the majority of society still does that and you've been told by your parents and grandparents that it’s a model you want to follow. Secondly, because there's religiously inculcated ideas that marriage is something you want to live in holy communion together. Thirdly there's this pressure from people around you to do that insofar as people want to see you as a happy family and have their own definition on that. Your family is more likely to pressure you on their side of the house because, like a five years apart, like what the fuck, move in, start building a family and start giving us grandchildren. insofar as a large amount of people are still likely to do that and the government has provided no world as to why they’re not.
+
+
+We think this is probably going to lead to more failed marriages in the first place because the premise of the opening government is you have certain habits which make you fight. On the government side of the house you've never actually learned to deal with those habits, you've never actually had the experience of communicating, how to temper those habits to not annoy the other person. At the point where you get married then you become codependent on each other, have absolutely no heuristics just to resolve these issues so the respect that the  government wants is not learned on their side of the house. And you encounter the same problems in the long term, but you encounter them at a point where the level of commitment is far higher than just having an uncommitted relationship which in which you can can break up at any point. Which is both a harm in and of itself insofar as (it) leads to failed marriages and kids living in unhappy marriages and unhappy families. 
+
+
+But secondly, we see on their side of the house it's just harder to opt out once you do move in. Note that divorce is a very stressful proceeding. it's also costly in terms of having to pay for legal aid but you're also afraid of the consequences of divorce, particularly if you're a woman because you may lose custody over your child, you fear the court is not going to believe your side of the story and so on and so forth. 
+But secondly, if you do have children you feel the internalized guilt of abandoning these children but you can also be guilted by your spouse by saying, you have to keep this marriage alive for the sake of our kids. Do not be so selfish.
+Thirdly, know that you do not want to disappoint your family, who probably has a fantasy that you and your spouse are a happy couple and [you also do] you're also probably going to be pushed by your family to keep the marriage alive as far as they don't want to see you unhappy then they project it on to you and try to tell you you can talk it out. You just have to, you know, push it through. Do not try to end this marriage. 
+But lastly, the longer you live together the more you're economically co-dependent insofar as, have a shared budget and so on and so forth, which means that on their side of the house insofar as a huge amount of people still decide to opt into marriage and having children.
+At the point where they haven't learned who the person that they're going to live is. At the point where they haven't had a chance to opt out before that level of commitment or at least developed ways to cope with that character if they're not going to opt out in the first place. 
+
+
+We say that: 
+one) people are less likely to leave bad relationships and 
+two) this produces more bad relationships. 
+
+
+The reason why this is important is because probably the reason why people do this is because of fundamentally different lifestyles, right. The reason why they make this decision is because they probably perceive some elements of their partner's character that make it impossible to cohabitate so these are probably relationships which are likely to be unstable, anyway. 
+
+
+We would like them to break up sooner rather than later. if a couple you know is going to implode because someone leaves a toilet seat up, we think it's healthy for that couple to implode. 
+
+
+But secondly if they can see that this is post marriage it's just so much worse for them because one, I think that your family, your people around you are going to question why you live that way because you don't conform (to) the traditional norms. 
+
+
+You don't get to enjoy it but also, second I think it's horrible for children first of all because I think kids lose time with both of their parents. Secondly, there's an incentive for parents to compete with each other, insofar as you probably share custody over the child you want to compete in terms of being the more fun parent, the more permissive parent which both create envy in terms of who the child likes more. 
+
+
+But also conflict in terms of how you raise the child, making the relationship more unstable. But lastly insofar as most families are still traditional things just hard for the kids they're going to be asked questions like, do your parents not love each other? Why are your parents divorced? Having to explain that all the time is just horrible for children. I think that generally this is bad for relationships and creates bad relation dynamics. 
+
+
+First of all, because I think this encourages people to fear codependency insofar as the rationale behind this is, we want each other's space. Confiding in your partner is breaking those boundaries and becoming codependent this means that people are less likely to confide in their partner. 
+
+
+But secondly, as far as they're less likely to communicate issues within the relationship they're more likely to be communicated too late or not be communicated at all which means that you are less likely to be able to solve problems once they arise. 
+But secondly, I think this engenders doubt because I think for people especially insecure people always ask themselves the question, “why is my partner proposing that we live apart from each other, there has to be a reason.” So it can be either one they genuinely don't enjoy my presence which then fosters feelings of self-doubt. You're less able to enjoy the relationship, you overthink it rather than enjoy which can also create negative behavioral patterns. 
+But secondly, you presume negative intentions as part of your partner. They must be cheating, they must be hiding something from me. 
+
+
+i think that that makes abusive relationships worse, because what abusers want in relationships is the feeling of control. At the end of the day this person comes home and I have some kind of oversight over them. When they don't have this oversight they're more likely, to be controlling, to aggressively question that person as to their whereabouts to gaslight them and accuse them of doing something behind their back. To be more controlling and try to get their password to their facebook, to control their communication. Try to control their bank accounts and what they spend on. Generally spy on that person, which engenders conflict but also means more aggression (and) more violence. People get hurt physically and mentally. it's horrible. Before I move on to the last argument i'll take (a poi from) closing government. 
+<POi> Do you think your family is more likely to pressure you to live together if you're the only couple they've ever seen living apart or if there's a general trend in society that normalizes this. </POi> 
+
+This trend has to be a huge dominant trend that most people do and that overcomes traditional norms inculcated through tradition, through religion and through culture for decades. in order for this to become as normal as you would want it, otherwise you're still probably mostly surrounded by traditional marriages unless you're a hipster in downtown New York. 
+
+
+Final argument, why do we think this is economically bad? Most middle class people just cannot afford to own a flat or it’s simply very hard for them to do which has just two consequences:
+One on our side of the house, people are just better able to make economic decisions insofar as they have a shared budget which they discuss but just have a large amount of money to pool together. 
+More importantly the space and leisure that the government team wants is more likely to accrue on our side of the house because if you have a shared budget, it's probably more likely to be money left at the end of the month that you can spend a leisure in your hobbies whereas if you're living alone as an average middle class person or a student on a student loan you have to work two fucking jobs to be able to pay your condo. You don't have time for yourself, you don't have time for your hobbies, you're unhappy and you're alone. And for all of these reasons, we think that opening opposition clearly takes this debate.
+</lo>
+<dpm>
+The problem with opening opposition's case is the fact that they're vastly concentrated upon individuals who are long-term couples and are more likely to get married. I really want to point it out at this point in time, is that things of benefits or harms, which accrue to things such as: familial pressure, things such as budgeting like better budgetary management, or things such as divorce—like the impacts of divorce—are largely contingent to [only like] only couples which are more likely to get married. 
+
+
+it's important to understand that, even though there is a trend wherein couples do get married, but in vast amounts of instances, individuals who are [like] in long-term relationships don't get married. it's still a minority of cases wherein individuals don't end up getting married together, and a vast amount of individuals who do end up in a long-term relationship, which is, let's say, like one year or two years long, are people who are still trying to understand each other and they don't have a definitive understanding of what their future looks like, which means that if this debate has to be [like] how do I say decided from a vast majority of considerations, how the vast majority of the world looks like, it's less likely that their case becomes the majority to begin with. 
+
+
+Okay, so first level of rebuttal on opening opposition. Firstly, I think opening opposition says that your ability to [coop-] how do I say, to make yourself a better individual and more adaptable to another individual is important to live together. i'm not really sure where the premise of that comes from, but there are two bases on opening opposition that contends: firstly, on the basis of habits, and two, on the basis of behavior. 
+
+
+So firstly, habits. Notice that even if there are habits which are incompatible with (the) other person, we are not likely to show that why these habits are likely to lead to acts such as divorce and are likely to lead to things such as breakups. There are smaller habits which are largely incompatible with other [like other] individuals at large, but these are habits which may lead to anxiety, may lead to in-fights, but don’t lead to active, active breakups—[like] like active divorce to begin with. Which means that even in opening opposition, these are [like like] a likely harm, but on our side of the house, when you live together and these habits don’t overlap, that’s a definite harm to begin with. But secondly, habits are easily overwritten, which means that in vast amounts of instances, so even if you have to eventually get married, you will co-opt into those spaces and you will let go of those bad habits anyway, which means that habits are not inherently going to be a dealbreaker and cannot be a primary consideration when we see that whether these individuals are co-opting into each other or not. 
+
+
+But secondly, on the idea of behavior: opening opposition says that this behavior is important for you to [like] make yourself a better individual because you can adjust your behavior to them. That is true, but i’m not really sure (about) adjusting [like] what behavior do you necessarily need to can [what] behavior can only be adjusted when you live in a [like] live in the same house? I think in vast amounts of instances, how you treat another individual, how aggressive you are, or how [like how] toxic you are, vast most amounts of things can be adjusted by simply [like] co-sharing spaces in multiple times, that other individual coming over to your house for a movie night, or things such as like sleeping in together, or things such as going out together, or spending a vast amount of the day together. i’m not really sure that constantly being in touch, being in communication—how does that change in behavior—is so exclusive to living in together and can only happen when you’re like 24 hours around each other, which when in vast amounts of instances, individuals can still explore each other to the best possible extent by not living in together, which means that in opening opposition’s (case their)best damages are still likely outcomes but are not definite outcomes. 
+
+
+So what does opening government give to you in this speech? 
+But before that. (POi from) Closing, seeing nothing. (POi from) Opening.  
+<POi> So your argument is that you're going to let go of bad habits when you marry, and habits aren't a dealbreaker. PM says that there are some habits that are so salient that you don’t want to live together because those habits just piss you off so much. Which one is it? </POi>
+
+
+Yeah, so here’s what we’re saying, right? Vast amounts of couples who decide on marrying will definitely let go of those habits, but the problem is that it’s very few people who actively decide to marry, but [most live into, but] most couples who are in long-term relationships are individuals who just want to live with one another, which means that in vast amounts of instances, these habits are likely to lead to things such as active anxiety or infighting, which deteriorates your quality of relationship even in a stage when you’re actively exploring another person. This is the problem, because even if it’s true that towards a certain extent, you can let go of them, but in a lot of instances, individuals are not capable of dealing with them. I think habits come on a very lower scale of priorities when you decide when you want to marry another individual, and at a point in time, these individuals are clear that they want to marry. They already are decided that sure, we’ll make certain changes in our character at a point in time, and it becomes necessary to begin with. 
+
+
+Well, what’s the premise of opening government’s case? I think the premise of opening government’s case is important to realize that there is individual life that individuals need to consider, but secondly, that there are most relationships who, even if long-term, do fall apart. The problem is that relationships do fall apart because of a couple of reasons: one, there is infidelity; things such as individuals growing simply out of love; or three, that there is a lack of excitement, and individuals don’t feel like they are [like] being fulfilled by another individual; or fourthly, like individuals always feel that they are being neglected simply because the other person is involved in things such as working for like 16 or 18 hours. We think that these considerations continue to arrive in a vast period of time, [for over a stretching] for extensively stretching over a long period of time, and these boundaries are far easier to be established when you live in separate houses. When you don’t live on the other side of the bed and in the same house, and you don’t give attention to another person, we think that it allows you to generate a far more [like more] healthier level of boundaries to begin with.
+
+
+But why do we think it’s far more problematic in this space? I think that love, in vast amounts of instances, blinds individuals and prevents them from making good choices because in vast amounts of instances, it makes sure that the choices that you make are dependent upon each other. Things such as going to college together, things such as moving into another city together, or things such as taking a job wherein you want to be together, are choices which may actively harm you on an interpersonal level or your individual growth, because you always think that living with another person gets prioritized over a better paying job or [probably a better or] probably moving into a better city, simply because you think that these considerations will last forever. And this is exactly the problem, (suffered) by vast amounts of individuals who continue to suffer by the consequence of a long-term relationship falling apart because they didn’t think it through. And the reason why I want to make this argument is that i’d also like to argue at this point in time that love makes you a stupid person because [like] it generates dopamine, right? it’s like it's reductive in and of itself, and at a point in time, like the lack of [like] even if [like] when you imagine the lack of dopamine that gets produced by another person initiates anxiety within you, which means you're more likely to take calls which are largely short-term beneficial to you but may not be beneficial to you in the longer term. Which means that vast amounts of individuals who are unable to understand what their relationship will look like [like] coming next one year, are individuals who end up taking huge personal harms before realizing what their life will look like. This is exactly the reason why I think [like] it’s a bad thing to move in together, even if you're a long-term couple to begin with. 
+
+
+But secondly, notice that breakups, like, in vast amounts of instances do quite hurt the most, but the reason why we think like toxic relationships and abusive relationships worsen off on our side of the house and are more prevalent on our side of the house is simply because of the fact that you are becoming more [co-dependent and] co-dependent upon another person in a sense that you cannot [like] conceive a life independent of them. Which means that you have always spent the last two or three years living together with them, and at a point in time when you have to think that, okay, it’s time for me to move out, you are always scared because I never have had a house of my own. [i have never allocated,] I have never run a house on my own. I don’t know [like] any other individual or any other friend who [like] exists outside this other individual’s life, which means in vast amounts of instances, you generate a shell for yourself which [like] it’s extremely tough to break off. And this is the reason that vast amounts of toxic and [like] abusive relationships stretch for a very long period of time and don’t implode. They only implode when they have [like] boundaries which can be easily built and they can [like] stick to those boundaries in an office.
+</dpm>
+<dlo>
+Opening government is correct: the majority of one- to two-year couples do not end up together. Much of that is because of lifestyle choices that different people in different relationships have that are different or unpalatable to your partner. This is fantastic because, quite literally, we would much rather prefer a one-year couple breaking up because one person just does not put the toilet seat down or because someone keeps a [towel like the] wet towel on their bed. These are small examples, but I think you get the point. We would much rather that people break up now, based on poor habits, as opposed to getting married and either being forced to give up those habits that you spent 30 years doing, or much worse, have a terrible marriage because you just don’t like the things that your partner is doing. You don’t like the way that you live. You don’t like the choices that you’re making in general, and as a result, you find yourself being placed in worse and worse decisions. Tim tells you that not only are there massive pressures to eventually get married and cohabitate, but that when you do this, it is almost impossible to leave, fostering these same problems with emotional dependence that opening government themselves points out. At that point, we’d much rather that you are cognizant of these stresses, cognizant of these worries, far before you ever opt into the point where this becomes irreversible.
+
+
+The thing that I want to talk about is simple: one, I want to talk about what this debate is or is not about. Then I want to talk about new substantive arguments about gender norms, especially in the developing world. I want to talk about what Tim gave you in the LO. Then I want to talk a little bit about these norms and the stress that you impose on people in general. 
+
+
+What is this debate not about? This debate is not about the worst forms of relationships. it is not about abuse because the bottom line, as Tim points out, is that abusers will foster emotional codependence regardless. if they cannot select where you live, they will select your friends or their activities. They will pick apartments that are purposely close by because they want you to remain co-dependent on them, whether or not you live apart or together. in fact, it’s actually much worse because, as Tim points out, insecure people on their side of the house are so much more insecure. They think their partner is proposing this because they don’t like their presence, and they feel forced to do more and more to win their partner’s approval. On both sides, controlling people now have an incentive to be more controlling. On our side, it is much worse because you feel more and more pressure because you think your partner just doesn’t care about you and doesn’t fall to the same level of [emotional independence] emotional dependency.
+
+
+New substantive argument about gender norms. One, I want to talk about the developing world. Prime minister says that it’s very hard for women to have space because women are expected, and [like] through gender norms, they have all the pressure to do all sorts of housework. That is to say, they have to take care of their husbands, they have to take care of their spouse. imagine how much worse it is on their side of the house because these same gender norms still apply, but now you have two apartments or two houses, so you’re to do two times the housework. it is cooking and cleaning, you’re expected to do this for your husband or your significant other still, but you also have to do it for yourself. I think it’s just [like] massively increasing the amount of work and decreasing the free time and other outside opportunities. Opening [like] the second thing to say here is that the opening government wants to [like] change this debate so much, [like] I think the bottom line OG is probably out because of the severe case tensions in their case. Not only because of the case tensions between PM and DPM, but just because of their framing. The Prime Minister can see that this round is about couples that are married, about couples that are very, very long-term, and then the DPM tries to walk it back because they realize it’s obviously terrible for their side—too late, you’ve already accepted it. I think the bottom line is it is much worse for women in general, not just in the developing world, because the lack of emotional intimacy that Tim points out in LO is extraordinarily important. That is to say, Tim points out when you don’t live together, you are much less likely to foster emotional bonds because a consequence of you not living together is that there are some things that you want to keep to yourself. There is some reason why you don’t want to let your shell down around other people, why you want to remain emotionally guarded. Those are the consequences that often come in choosing to live apart. As a result, I think those relationships just tend to have less emotional intimacy, which hurts women far more than men. Like it’s acceptable in society in general for men to be [like] the less emotionally committing or the more [like] philandering part of relationships, i. e. a society is much more permissive of men who cheat/slash roam free than women, so when relationships have less emotional intimacy and are designed to foster less emotional intimacy and commitment, it is actively terrible for women because they are the ones that are most hurt by society’s double standard about who can step out, who can't, who needs to be emotionally intimate, and who doesn’t.
+
+
+On what Tim gave you in the LO, which I think is just frankly winning: there is so much material that Tim gave you about, in and of itself, why there is so much pressure to eventually move in and get married. This is your parents, this is religion, this is family, this is the government that offers tax incentives to cohabitate or get married. This is the financial pressure to eventually cohabitate. in that vein, one, the argument that OG misses is that these lifestyle choices that people seem to have that are so different, that they have to live together, must be extraordinarily severe if they want to overcome all of the current bias towards living together. Which means that these lifestyle choices endanger you for an unstable relationship in the first place. But the second thing to say here is just that when you eventually cohabitate—because look, all couples, and almost all couples, will eventually want to cohabitate—it is easier to raise a family, it is easier to raise kids, it is easier to make those sorts of decisions when you do that, it is so much worse because you’ve reached the threshold past which there is no return.
+
+
+What else did the opening government miss that the closing government should honestly deal with? But I don’t know if they can because they didn’t have [like] seven minutes of un-responded material. Second, this is just terrible for kids because if you buy opening government's standard about who this applies to, it is absolutely terrible to see kids raised in two separate households. But this creates bad dynamics in the relationship in and of itself regardless of whether or not people get married. The amount of insecurity and lack of trust that you’ve fostered when you tell your partner, “Hey look, I like you but I don’t want to live together. I don’t want to live together for the next two years because there’s just something about you that I do not like living with,” that makes people more insecure, makes them more vulnerable for control, and makes it much, much worse at large. 
+
+
+Last, I want to talk about economics and norms: why the CG POi was just terrible for their side, but hey, CG, if you want to defend yourselves, go ahead. 
+
+
+<POi> Why, in the developing world, if norms are so sexist that women have to do the housework in two houses, would women have the ability to live separately altogether? </POi> 
+
+
+i'm willing to say this happens much less in the developing world but I think it's actually quite frequent. Think about if you're rich in the developing world, you are much more likely to be able to afford two houses in the first place and maybe like the family of the woman is like, "oh we want a separate house." I don't think it matters. I think the point is that you can have norms that are sexist that encourage women to cook and clean because that's what society wants them to do irrespective of whether or not women are literally allowed to be outside of their own house. Like in America, which is a pretty non sexist country, I think there are still pressures on women to cook and clean, and [like] it’s also totally fine for [like] women to live in separate apartments, so I think the CG POi is crazy. The other CG POi about norms in general: if closing government is right that this motion supports norms, and that norms impose pressure on lots of people, this is terrible because right now, i’d say, [like] couples that [like] live apart is [like] probably [like] maybe 8–9 percent of total couples that are in long-term romantic relationships. So, thinking about how massive the change has to be in order for them to correctly normalize it, it impacts kids much worse because, as Tim points out, most couples that stay together and most couples that live together are the ones that have kids. So, if you want to affect it, you need to affect all those relationships. it also imposes undue financial pressures on the average person. Like, look, the average person cannot sustain two households. They can’t sustain two apartments, even. it is much easier to make financial decisions. You are more able to make financial decisions when you make them together as a couple, and you live together as a couple, rather than making them separately. All of those things become much worse on low-income couples, if closing government is correct and this becomes normalized. Very proud to oppose.
+</dlo>
+<mg>
+What's missing in this round so far is a real characterization of why couples actually do this, when there are all kinds of emotional reasons that people want to live together, that people want to raise kids together because they love each other, they want to have sex. I think that's missing from the top half. There are two misconceptions. First, I think opening government's misconception is that there are lifelong habits that don’t coalesce, and people just don’t want to live together because we don’t point the toilet seat up or down. Maybe this is true in the minority of cases, and we think their arguments are persuasive in those cases. I think what's vastly more likely is that women increasingly want the ability to forge their own career about being subordinate to their male partners and having to subordinate their financial decisions and their financial stability to their male partners. So, I think what that means, I think on our side of the house, we're going to talk about why this trend is crucial for giving women more freedom to do what they want, both in terms, financially and in the long term. 
+
+
+Second, opening opposition, I think it's completely wrong about the idea that people commit to long-term relationships because of purely social pressure. I think on our side of the house, it's more likely that people just have more optionality. That is to say maybe there’s financial reasons that you don’t want to live together, at least temporarily. Maybe you want to see your family, maybe you want to take care of your dying parent for a year and a half before you move in with your significant other. We think on our side of the house, there’s significantly less social pressure forcing you to move in together because there are so many other examples of it in society. 
+
+
+So, that said, two extensions for exposing government rebuttal will be integrated: first, why you get less social pressure on our side of the house; and second, why women gain in the long term.
+
+
+First rebuttal will be integrated: why do you get less social pressure on our side of the house? I actually think that the opening opposition argument here is a little bit crazy. They say that after like three or four years in a relationship, like when you're living in a long-term relationship and you're very far apart from each other, your family is gonna force you to get married because you've been dating for so long. There are at least two problems with this. First, your family is much less likely to force you to get married if there are lots of other examples of people who have lived apart and don't get married for long periods of time because that's the norm. And to be clear, we're not saying that this is going to be a super wide-spread thing that every couple is going to raise children from different halves of the country, but we think that when there’s even a few examples, it’s going to be easier. (To POi) i'll recognize that in a second. But second, I just don’t think, but I think on our side of the house, it's much easier to break up with someone. That is to say, if you're living far apart from them, there’s going to be less of a reason to actually do it, that you have to stay together in the long term. So maybe they don’t even reach this point where you’ve been dating long-term for like four or five years, and your family pressured you to finally move in together. 
+
+
+Lastly, I just want to say I think that they say that it's important to know how to divide chores, clearly I think people are going to move in together for some period of time before they get married. They're still going to make reasonable decisions about this. I know the LO gives lots of mechanisms, I just don’t think they're very good. I don’t think they're going to get their argument. 
+
+
+Why on our side of the house do you get more optionality? I think there are a few reasons, and again I just want to be clear that if this is really bad for women, so for example if like a woman doesn’t want to do the cooking and cleaning in two houses, they can just say no. They can just move in with their partner, like this is really just more options for people and only makes their relationships better and more easily accessible. I think a few reasons we get more options. Optionality: First, because I think you're vastly more likely to be stigmatized by friends and family if there are no other examples of people in long-term relationships not living together. So if you want to take care of your dying parent but your family or you want to, or sorry I guess if you want to be in a different part of the country for economic reasons, then your family is going to say I know you shouldn't do that, clearly that's crazy. Whereas at least on our side, you can point and say, “Hey, look at these people in your social circle who’ve done it. it’s not everyone, but we can do it for two years and it’s going to be fine.” 
+
+
+Second, I think people themselves don’t even think of this option. That is to say, the norm of living together was previously so ingrained that people didn’t even think there was a possibility that they could live apart. So I think you just get more optionality on our  side of the house, the way I think you're less likely to be dismissed in discussions. That is to say, your male partner may not say, “You don’t love me unless you live with me,” because they’ve seen other examples of this happening, and maybe it’s even happened to them before in their life.
+
+
+i want to be clear that this flips almost the entirety of opening opposition's analysis, whether it's about gender norms, whether it's about the pressure to eventually move in and get married, everything that Aditya says is the most important part of their contribution, is completely flipped. I don’t know why they made this argument. I think it’s completely counterintuitive. I think this trend can only give people more optionality. Opening save yourself (by asking your POi). 
+
+
+<POi> This is a crazy argument, not only does closing government strawman us by saying I just don't believe their reasons, which guys, come on, it's a debate, like actually respond to them. But the bigger problem is it has to be so massive. Like think about how small the current trend is in order to convince everyone that this is normal. You have to have like 80 percent of couples doing this. </POi> 
+
+
+i’ve already answered this, so Plum and I are dating, we’re going to be living in a long-distance relationship for the next few years, and Aditya, you can tell your parents about that, even though all of your friends may not be doing it. So I think you only need a few examples for these conversations to make sense, and look, maybe we're not going to change the most conservative people's minds, we'll bite that bullet. You already agree that that’s likely not the delta in the debate at the end of your DLO.
+
+
+Second extension: Why do women get significantly more freedom, both in terms of their career and in the long term? I think first, this normalizes the idea that women don’t have to be subordinate to their husbands. That is to say, there's massive social pressure on the status quo for actually women to live with men in the short term. And I think on our side of the house, I think this is less likely to be their social pressure, which means that women can prioritize their careers. I think second, this is a particularly effective trend because it's so visible. That is to say, if a woman is prioritizing a career, but like in some other way, it's not obvious that she’s doing it, but if she's explicitly not living with someone else, like, you know, maybe she’s not living with her husband, even in the most extreme example, although we do think that's probably a minority of examples, then it’s easy for you, as a young girl, or even as one of her friends, to see that she's prioritizing a career and you feel more empowered to do that too. 
+
+
+Finally, I think that this also means that even in the long term within relationships, men are more likely to see it as like— for example, if a woman has the option to live apart from the man and the man knows that, and it may be in a slightly conservative part of the world for example, then the man is more likely to try to be nice, more flexibility within the current arrangement so they don’t move away from them. So even if you don’t live in long-term relationships, I think women get substantially more flexibility because it’s an option that's on the table. This means all of opening opposition's harms, because you don’t actually have to live long distance to get the benefits here, it actually just improves equality in the relationship. I want to talk about why this is actually more important even if you believe everything that opening opposition says. 
+
+
+First, I think that this is probably the most important way to reduce pressure on women in the long term. The primary pressure on women isn’t just social, it’s financial. it’s that if you sacrifice your career to live with your boyfriend for three years, even if you don’t want to marry them, and even if your family is not pressuring you to marry them, if you don’t have any financial prospects, you feel that you have to do so because you have given up all of your financial alternatives to live with him. I think on our side of the house, it’s much less likely that that’s going to happen. 
+
+
+Second, I don’t think this is necessarily going to continue into marriage. So, for example, like after you’ve been dating for four or five years or six years or something, maybe you’re able to figure out a way to reconcile both your interests and live together, but even if it does, I actually think this is probably good for kids because: A) I think it means that there’s more sources of financial stability for the children, which means that, for example, if the husband is abusive, or even if the wife is being abusive, that they can live with the other one because everyone is not in the same household. I think it means that there’s more financial stability, so if one partner loses their job, the kid doesn’t have to get pulled out of school and be moved to a different location. it means that the kid is more able to access their quality of life. 
+
+
+We also just think it’s a good role model for daughters. That is to say, it’s nice, it’s good for them to see that their mothers are working, they’re not sacrificing for their careers. This literally liberates half of the population. With that, very proud to propose.
+</mg>
+<mo>
+One point of framing, two points of rebuttal, then extension. 
+in terms of framing, I think the reasonable way to read this phase is that it is probably most impactful for those couples that actually consider this to be a viable long-term option for themselves i.e. at the point where you don't, then you probably reverse engineer that to indicate that you shouldn't be living like that early either. I think that means that the most relevant couples are the ones that actually perceive this as being relevant for themselves into the future. I think we'll also be reasonable and take opp at their best and say that like probably those people exist like I agree it will probably be more the hipsters in New York than the people who live in super conservative communities. But i'm also unsure why the people in super conservative communities are then negatively impacted in the way that other people are claiming in this debate. 
+
+
+Two points of rebuttal: A) On opening government, kind of also on closing government that you make worse choices because you don't maximize your career and therefore you don't find values, like, I just think that this requires a massive, like, intuition cap for you to buy, which is that people otherwise make great choices about their career? Like, reality check, most people are deceived into what is good for them in terms of their career. Most jobs kind of really, really suck and require that you get emotional support or alcohol at the end of the day. They are frustrating, they’re annoying. You believing that moving to “insert big city” instead of staying with your relationships is better for you, I have no idea why that actually is. i'm pretty sure gov teams would have to actually analyze that prior to gov whip in order to actually get anything like meaningful mileage out of it. They literally just assert it. I have no idea why oh I will go to like, other city for a better paying job is good for me if that job is also emotional—you said like what the fuck?
+
+
+Secondly, presumably, that I think it’s actually relatively likely that I make vaguely okay decisions about the relationship that I stay with. And so far as I have already got some experience with that relationship as is, i’ve already interacted with my partner and presumably know how they make me feel, etc. At which point, if anything, you're making a slightly more informed decision to stay than to leave.
+
+
+Secondly, with regard to freedom for women from closing government, i'm sure Lucy has more structural rebuttal to this. i'm just going to intuition pump that for the husbands that are probably, like, most affected by this norm and who are most willing to take it at face value and believe that it doesn't mean that the wife doesn’t love them less. I just think that they're pretty good support to have around. Like, let me intuition pump this: when I came home from debating tournaments where I was treated like trash because I was the you know, sounding screechy, having my ex-boyfriend actually, like, be willing to listen to me and comfort me was pretty good. if we hadn’t been living together at that point, what I would have done is go home by myself and not talk to him about it, because I would have felt like a complaining little bitch  and like, he wouldn’t like me anymore if I did that. Because that would have been the easier option. Being that we live together, he saw me crying about it, he checked in, and he tried to make sure that I was okay. That is a positive mechanism that helps people deal with and confront the bad things in their life or effectively. 
+
+
+Why do you ultimately make better choices on the opposition side? A) With regard to worst communication, I think opening opposition, being reasonable to Tim. They explain why you don't bring up problems effectively and therefore you don't effectively resolve them within your relationship. On gov bench, however, it is relatively unclear within them why you do effectively resolve them at the point where you live together. We're going to give you three broad headlines in terms of why you do so. The first is that you are forced by the fact that there is a norm of moving in together on opposition, that you see everyone actually doing it relatively early to confront differences in expectations about your relationship, i.e. if after two or three years your partner is not proposing that you’ve been together and you aren’t feeling like you can propose it easily, you will know that there is actually an issue in your relationship, that there’s a difference in expectation, which will prompt you to effectively communicate about that. That means that it is relatively significantly easier for you to make decisions about whether you want to commit further to this relationship. if there is not something that is as clear an indicator that makes it harder for you to make those decisions, then it means that you're more likely to be caught off-guard. 
+
+
+Note that most other forms of relationship commitment are ultimately about words and they are even at the point where you are getting married, at the point where you don’t live together, getting married is a much lower level commitment. it means that you're less certain about whether your partner is just doing this out of conflict avoidance or because it's convenient or because they haven’t gotten around to replacing you in a relationship yet. That means that on our side, you have much more certainty that is able to confirm to you what is going on.
+
+
+Secondly, communication at low points. That means that at the point where you are not living together, there’s a couple of things that make this difficult. The first is that it’s just hard to be the first mover to be vulnerable in any given relationship because you feel like it's unclear whether the other person is actually as serious about it. But there's also just the insecurity about being a bother that I flagged earlier in my intuition pump, and you don’t necessarily understand why something makes you feel bad, and you don’t necessarily fully follow what is going on. 
+
+
+At the point where you live together, there is a default that at some stage, while you're feeling bad, you will be in the same place. The fact that your partner cares about you—they have empathy—meaning that when they see you feel bad, they feel bad in a similar way and they want to resolve it out of impulse to no longer feel bad. Because [you just] it’s much harder for you to practice avoidance, and avoidance in itself is a signal that something is wrong, meaning they will actively check up on you because they realize something is wrong. As opposed to, you know, your home in your own home the way you are every night being separate, meaning it is much less likely that you actually confront what is going on, meaning that you actually resolve this. That is something that is likely responded to by providing support to you by allowing you to sort of like, explain yourself and explain what is going on in your mind to your partner, meaning that they will effectively respond to you. 
+
+
+This is more important than the stuff on falling out of love with someone that we get from opening government or like stuff on excitement, because I think excitement is just ultimately much less important than you feeling like your partner cares about you and is effectively providing you emotional support. Even if my partner excites me, if they don’t provide that, I am sad. I am heartbroken. I don’t want to be around them, even if I am the reason, my avoidance is the reason that they’re not providing that.
+
+
+OG, 15 seconds, go.<POi> in a world where you’re all very extremely vulnerable and tired yourself. What is this obligation of being forced to interact at all points of times without any personal space?</POi>
+Like, i’m sorry OG, I have no idea why the fuck you think that being alone when you are tired and sad is actually good for you. it’s likelier to lead to you going to bed over a bottle of wine and being equally sadder in the morning. I have no idea why that's good.
+
+
+Secondly, why you make better relationship choices ultimately about things. I think the first thing is you are likely to oh well say that you see habits that will break up relationships. There's a question though which is why you act on most things correctly. There's two reasons for this: A) you are likely to experience urgency, i.e. the thing that annoys you repeatedly and at some point overflows to the point that you think there’s a concrete reason to take on the short-term costs of a social conflict with your partner, where they will frown at you and be sad. This means that you communicate. if the communication fails, it escalates into a fight, and it gives you the emotional legitimation that you need in order to leave. Meaning that you take the correct response to unresolvable problems. 
+
+
+The second layer is that, given how big of a materially important step moving in together is, you're likely to have scrutiny by others: your parents, your friends, etc., at that step because they think it is important to do so. This is significantly likely to be avoided if it's just an over-time gradual process. if there is a single step that is materially significant, you're likely to get that advice and therefore be more able to confront necessary information. For all of those reasons.
+</mo>
+<gw>
+I think it is outrageous that it took until closing government, aside from a half-hearted attempt from the DLO to give a real argument about the people who are benefited most by this trend.
+That is women who feel that they cannot prioritize their careers because they feel that they must stay in the same place as their husband as his career for their children or for a host of other social reasons. I think that we gave you two extensions of the closing government neither of which got adequate engagement from closing opposition, i'm going to talk about them each in turn, then I'm going to talk about direct comparisons to other teams. First extension on optionality, the first actually gives you a number of reasons why aside from this the ambiguous stuff about having incompatible habits from opening government. why I think it might actually be a good choice for some couples to be long distance that is, A, you want to have a financial, it might be a matter of financial necessity maybe one, what, maybe one partner has a really good financial opportunity in another city and has to go move there, B, you have to move in with your parents to take care of them or that sort of thing or maybe you want to have your parents help out raise your kids or C, and most importantly what i'm going to talk about later, maybe you're a woman who doesn't want to give up their career for their superstar husband. Now, asher gives you a bunch of reasons why all the arguments that oo gives you about social pressures actually flow in our direction. That is, if you believe that right now there is massive social stigma against this, I think OO is correct, you're not going to get rid of 100% of the stigma, so I don't think you're going to trigger the worst case scenario outlined, in the bottom of the deal below about ever all the, about all the households living like this but I do think that you're going to give a subset of people who might feel that this is the right choice for them but it might not feel that they have the ability to do so because social stigma the ability to engage its behavior actually gives you a number of reasons. At first, it you know, it's the sort of thing that feels more present to your mind it seems like an option versus it doesn't that your partner will be less upset if they don't do this, that it reduces the stigma if you don't see any examples. Note, that we don't need to win that this is a large social trend in order to win this impact that is you only need a couple of examples of a friend of a friend doing this in order to feel like, oh, that is an option that people do, and I think you're likely to hear about it. People talk about it, there's really no responses from from CO. Second extension is about women, actually gives you a number nice mechanisms here about how you need to normalize the idea that women can prioritize their career and second, that even if women do not as a result, live in another house that they might still feel because of the example the other women are set because that example is so visible, it's different, you don't know if women are prioritizing for their husband, unless they're literally in different cities because that's the most visible way to do it and this is why we think that it's like that women in general feel more okay prioritizing their careers. Now, to this CO does give a few responses, they say that first the husbands are likely to support you and so it's actually good for women. One, it's like it's true I think women most likely know that they can take into their calculus especially if co is correct as they say, that it's if you make a more informed decision and have more information about your relationship, if that's still true and you still don't want to do this clearly that you figure that's something you've considered but second, I think that if you have a reasonably healthy relationship with your husband, you can simply call them when you need support, I don't think this is that big a deal. The other thing, the only other thing that co says in response is that it's bad to move for a job because a job might stop. One, I think women can consider the fact that their jobs suck like, maybe they'll have total information about their new job but they've had an old job before so they understand what that's like, but two, I think that even if that's true it's less restrictive that if you take a new job, if you are more financially independent it's easier to leave that new job. First, it is harder to leave your husband so it's comparatively better, the impacts of fear. One, your financial independence about marriage which means all OO’s impacts about you know, having social pressure to commit, get less bad in our world and second, it's good for kids for the whole list of reasons that uh, ash are giving you. I want to do now correct comparison to everyone else, on opening government, three reasons why we take it over them. One, og doesn't understand why this trend exists in the first place, they talk about you know incompatible habits as I think the main source of this our arguments about necessity matter more, about economic necessity, about necessity to carry parents, about women, that's the first part of the first extension. Second, I think our impacts about women are just much better than they're sort of half-hearted treatment here that they hand wave a woman needing quote-unquote space. what actually is important for a moment is not having space, to have your own house, what matters is being able to move cities to have your own career and not sacrifice for your husband. this is more important than there are other impacts for two reasons. one, is it more likely than any of their arguments about abuse because I think if you're an abusive relationship, it's hard to move in the first place, but B, I think it's more, it's a better argument better mechanism for the argument about breakups, it's not about like you know more about your person, your SO, so you like them less. your argument is, if you have better social circles, if you're more financially independent as a woman, that is what means, cushions the impact of breakup. Final reason why we take it over o.g, I think we fall in the hole that is identified by a willing opposition that is it's not true that like couples are 100% apart in different addresses or 100% together for the entirety of the relationship in fact, it's a mix and I think we've identified why that mix increases the optionality, given by people. Sex on closing opposition, a couple of responses here, their argument is basically your long-term, worst long-term relationships because it's hard to communicate, you don't check up on your spouse etc. One, I think this is actually a good simulation of long-term relationships that is, I think in the long term, you lose the excitement you like either the sexual attraction or the examination of a new relationship, I think that's simulated by long distance so it's actually good practice for long-term relationships, when their sort of initial excitement resolved. but second, I think it teaches you to prioritize and communicate appropriately, that is you learn, you have to prioritize, you have to actively prioritize taking care of your husband, you have to actually prioritize communicating with them, so that actually builds important skills and if it doesn't then you just break up which I think means that bites into all of OO’s arms. Finally, I think that you get in healthier relationships because you have a more of a social circle if you're not spending all of your time with your SO, that means that then the fact that you can offload some of the emotional burdens onto your friends, instead of your significant other, means that you depend less than you significant other, which then means that if they are not sort of unavailable for whatever reasons, that they're not required to do as much work so it's more sustainable. opening opposition.
+<poi>
+the vast majority of people don't like distance and are going to live close by regardless long distance is just not the debate, given that cg fails to show why living 15 minutes away versus in the same apartment magically grants you a better career, be realistic.
+</poi>
+for the reasons you identified about financial reasons by social pressures, the vast majority of cases in which this happens, is long distance between cities i.e that's exactly, i.e having to take different jobs, having to live separately because your parents for exactly the reasons you gave. OO well quickly why would you take it over them. one, I think your argument the core argument is just crazy, if there's lots of pressure to move in, it's really not clear why that pressure only kicks in only after you're married that is, if they're correct about that then it's likely that you move in together given the social pressures before marriage. you spend two years living apart and then two years coming together and then maybe a year living apartment and maybe living together which mitigates the vast majority of their impacts about breaking up sooner. Second I think that if the thing you care about is the pressure to commit to relationships, about being pressured into relationships the main pressure to commit is financial. it's being 30 and needing a tax break, it's being 30 and thinking that you need to have, um, and needing like a source of financial disability, it's not social because I think that predominantly you know, most people can't resist social pressures, financial pressures feel more acute. so the thing you care about then is that then we are the ones who increase it because we give a woman increased financial independence, which then means that you mitigate a lot of the pressures on marriage. The opening of opposition talks about, happy to propose.
+</gw>
+<ow>
+I'm going to do things in the speech: number one - on scrutiny about how we're preventing bad relationships, secondly - the positive case for why living together is regionally good, makes people happier, that's a good thing. First thing is just in terms of framing who this debate applies to and how norms and pressure actually work. The first thing I would note, in terms of weighing, is that this is probably going to matter to people who which is realistically viable, right, i.e like if I'm a very poor couple who really needs the resource polling, that opening opera opposition currently identifies can occur, will likely perceive it as something a trend that doesn't really apply to them, right. Like I can just see oh that's like another rich people trend, I clearly can't do it, meaning that will not follow that trend. The reason why this matters and what is a framing is so important because, A, all the opening opposition material on financial resource pooling is probably quite unimpactful, given that we are mostly talking about couples who are going to be financially fine either way, if they are capable to follow that trend in the first place. What this means is that the most impactful bit on the debate and how we should weigh in terms of the bench is the uh the quality of the relationship and I'm going to explain later how we weigh over them in that. Similarly, I think the financial dependency material that happens, that comes from opening and closing off, is also marginal, right. Because, A, most couples that will be dependent on like a bit dependent on each other would not follow on their side follow that trend on their side or if they would, they would be dependent regardless, because like one of them would probably be just like spending money on sustaining the others club, etc, etc, like for that reason like for the same like basic logistics that wouldn't happen. Second thing in terms of the optionality thing on CG dealing with couple of things they say, number one, they say that it is good because people who want to like take care of their sick parents like are going to be able to do it. I would just know that like just reality check, like there is no pressure preventing people from doing that status quo, like I just realistically like if someone says like I've never heard anyone saying you are a really bad person because you are taking care of your sick parent, you should be living with your partner. Like this is literally a normal thing that people generally do and it's completely accepted. Second, like moving for your job, right. Either you're going to have a partner who is supportive, meaning that you can do it move with them slash just do it like without the trend regardless or, B, if they are not supportive on our side they're not going to be supportive on their side either, neither they are more likely to be pressuring you or you're going to feel the pressure to stay like in a residential address that is very close to like to the address of your partner. Like I think opening opposition script and the poi the wonder is probably not long distance, it doesn't matter. Clarifying that let's talk about scrutiny and preventing bad relationship. Talking about, oh I just know that opening makes that case largely dependent on the idea that you will move in together eventually because societal pressure. Like I would know that the trend would likely remove a lot of that pressure, right. Like we're going to be charitable to golf that they'd be probably able to use the trend to do this long term without pressure. Like I think the thing is that the trend is probably going to happen like apply to certain communities and it's not going to apply to others. Like for example, like the hipsters in New York it's probably going to become normalized, right? Like the 80 percent of those people are gonna do it then the normalization is going to happen. When it comes to religious people Alabama none of them are probably going to do it, I don't think we're talking about those in this debate either. But in the groups that we are talking about the pressure actually is going to get removed, it's actually going to get normalized. Because of that I think that opening opposition is very little left if the pressure to move in together eventually it's not going to occur. The last thing that they just say is that you can't learn things about each other but just notice under x under explained, right. Like if I like I probably would notice if my partner does with the toilet seat if I go to that flat and I see what they're doing with best toilet seat. Like I just don't think they explain at all about why you need to live together to have that. Given that, what does cut give you about why this is crucially important in terms of preventing bad relationship to live together? The point is that moving together is a massive and huge decision that is that works as a signaling effect. That is you know that there will be a huge codependency and both I am going to be aware and my surroundings are going to be aware of this. What this means is that huge scrutiny occurs, right. It is not about like habits like toilet seats, etc. It's about like general behavior patterns like toxic red flags. The thing is that what happens on our side, my family, myself, my friends are going to scrutinize and discuss that decision, right. They will sit me down because there's a clear mark when the relationship is becoming serious and they will be like okay, you're moving in with this person like what, you know, what about this thing, what about that thing. I'm going to think about it very clearly like, what is it, I'm going to be clearly thinking about what all the problems that might potentially occur. What happens on their side is that that scrutinization doesn't happen at any point because there is no clear marker that would actually make it work. What this means is that the dependency occurs anyway, right. Like it just happens slowly and it happens unchecked, like financially you're still gonna get kind of together, like you're still gonna have common friends, common groups, like isolation from other friends, etc. This can happen the problem is there's never a point of scrutiny. What this means is that you're going to, like on our side we are significantly better in preventing bad relationship and creating relationships that are healthier. We do this better in opening opposition because we are not dependent on the idea that like oh it's gonna be bad because you're moving eventually, even especially if you don't move it eventually we're just proving that you're going to be stuck in relationships that are going to long term become horrible, as opposed to on our side when you're able to escape from them significantly quicker. Second thing then about why living together is good. Just from the sort of positive way in terms of emotional intimacy. Opening government has like the big thing about like you're going to get sick of each other because you don't have any separate space. Just to challenge that like number one you probably have separate space at home, like you don't live in a studio you're probably going to have like two different rooms, one office or whatever, something like that. You can not like you don't have to interact with your partner all the fucking time. Second, you probably have jobs, you probably have separate hobbies, friends, you go to pubs, you go to your friends places. I think the thing is then that you get physical space on our side. On their side this becomes bad, right. Because when I come home from work I have to go and accomplish to my partner, I'm less likely to do it because I'm gonna be tired, I don't want to do it, it's much bigger commitment. On our side you then have physical space but you also have proximity of your partner. Take opening right now. 
+<poi>
+Often when people are sad or tired they might also need space for themselves just as much to reflect, communication not being a foundation why the debate is more of.
+</poi>
+I get it okay if I'm sad and I want to have space for myself, I'm going to go and sit in my bedroom, in my office, I'm going to go outside and sit in a park or I'm going to go and sit in the bathroom on the toilet. The point is that I can do that if I live with someone, the problem is I can't do it if I want to not to be alone, I can't do it as effectively on your side, right. I'm going to have too much space, I'm going to have space when I don't want to have it. The thing then is, now I have the capacity to be close to my partner when I need it, right. I come home someone is there is close. I don't have to reach out and text them "can I come over," the communication is normalized, right. Like I feel sad in the evening and I want my girlfriend to be close to me. I can immediately ask and reach out there. That is not an option on their side, right. Because like there is a coercion, there is going to be insecurity to ask about that commitment from that person because it's no longer a normal thing. This is small and it sounds like a soft impact, right. But note that it is a day-to-day massive thing, right, the happiness and the little things that happen to individuals on the ground matters to most, right. Like this is the what I'm thinking about that makes me happy, that makes my life overall good. What this means is that it is even that small impact is still better than the huge unproven stuff that other things say for all those both reasons. Closing off. 
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Doxbridge Worlds 2021 West Round 4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+<pm>
+Panel, religious extremism is rising in the west, it can look like lone wolf attacks from those inspired by isis or other islamic terrorist groups, it can also look like christian fundamentalism on the rise and attacks on things like blm, for instance, or other kinds of protest movements. It is generally on the rise and we think alternatives to battling this kind of religious extremism have failed. But before I get into argumentation, let's make it very clear what is the kind of model that we are supporting. I think the first thing that we need to talk about is, that we have a panel of experts and clerics who are obviously going to be representatives. So this looks like people from within the Islamic community, from different kinds of races, different genders collaborating together, assessing the syllabi of these schools, perhaps also giving recommendations on what the syllabi should be for these schools to go forward and therefore advising the government on which schools to invest in and which schools to not invest in. The second thing that we're looking for obviously is whenever the government is coming up with syllabi they have anti-racism and sexism guidelines which are used in setting up curricula. We obviously want to use that over here as well. The third thing that we just find with is that the government can either set up new schools which teach this sort of curriculum or give funding to additional existing schools which already teach this sort of curricula. The fourth thing I want to emphasize is in terms of the curricula, we already use these kinds of hermeneutical devices when we're talking about progressive religious texts and interpretations. What are we talking about over here? I think there are two things that religious communities which are progressive oftentimes do. One is, there's a selective interpretation of events that gears towards more progressive ideals. What does this mean? This looks like, for instance, us telling Muslim kids that Hazrat Aisha was allowed to go on the battlefield and it was okay for women to not only fight others but also help actively so their role is not in the home. The second thing is there's a selective ignorance of events and also other kinds of things in scripture. So for instance, not teaching kids about verses in the Quran which support sexual slavery or slavery of any kind. I think these are the kinds of things that already happen within the status quo which we are absolutely fine with doing. 
+What is the problem in the status quo? I think the existing alternatives to fighting religious extremism are already failing. These are failing in two respects and we just need to look at what the kinds of responses from governmental authorities are over here. The first kind of response is retrospective or after the fact. This looks like maybe a bombing has happened and now the government is on the hunt for who the terrorists are or who this terrorist organization is. The problem there then is that the harm has already been incurred and this is merely retrospective. 
+You're only trying to bring people to justice as opposed to preventing the harm to begin with. The second thing is you're often aggressive and reactive when you're trying to preempt harm. So this looks like more securitization and more policing of communities. This looks like what happens in France, for instance, where Muslim communities have more police involved within their respective areas and zones. Or this looks like brown people at airports being stranded for hours that end because they're suspected as terrorists without any sort of knowledge for whether they are or not. 
+Why is this harmful then? Because I think in the first instance, this is useless because this is happening after the fact. But secondly, this is oftentimes counterproductive. That is to say that you perpetuate cycles of violence because these people specifically feel discriminated against from things like the police or from events that happen at the airports. And the problem with this is even people who are moderate within these communities because of feelings of otherization and discrimination go towards more radical forms of action against a society that they feel is discriminating against them. Arguments then, on this side of the house. Firstly, I just want to point out, we have more buy-in for these schools. What is the existing problem within these communities? I think ethnic and religious enclaves have formed within the West. This looks like Muslims, for instance, sending their kids to only Muslim high schools, which oftentimes have very radical interpretations of what the Quran says or what Islam says. This also looks like, Christian community sending kids to, you know, Christian schools and so on and so forth. So you only either go to schools within your own communities or religious schools or secondly, even in the instance where you go to public high schools, which don't have religious texts as part of their discourse, the problem then is the socialization that happens at home. That is, parents who are oftentimes either radical in terms of their beliefs or are first generation or second generation immigrants who have carried on those beliefs from the countries that they came from oftentimes are the only source of information that kids have for their socialization and their interpretation of Islam. This is what we stand to change. Why are parents likely to send their kids to these schools? but before that I'll take a point from CEO.
+<poi> 
+this is a clarification there are different educational systems in the west some of which allow parents to opt for their kids to go to certain schools others of which force kids to go to certain schools would this be part of a system which forces kids to go to specific types of schools you set up
+</poi>
+I mean in in areas where you're forced to go to school we're happy with including some part of you know religious education within your syllabi like, an extra class for muslim students, I don't care. Okay, in terms of buy-in, two reasons for why we have nuy-in, one, clerics and religious authorities have said that this is the right syllabus. So within these religious communities, these authorities have a lot of power because they are literally your conduit to God. They're telling you what God said, but also your only way of speaking to God. So I think that's one reason for why there's bind within these schools. But secondly, these schools are getting investment from Western governments. This means that they have more resources, more facilities. Your kids have better life chances if they go to these schools. Their education is much better off. Parents are incentivized to send their kids to these schools. Now, what are the impacts of this? The first impact that I have is you battle the us versus them mentality. So right now the problem for these people is they feel otherwise because even when Joe Biden is trying to solve the problem of Islamophobia, what he says is we must talk to Muslim communities as Americans or Americans need to deal with this Muslim problem. This obviously misses the fact that Muslims are also part of America and are Americans themselves. So they are otherize. What we do is we make them feel included and cared for crucially because the messaging now is we care for your religion and we're going to help teach it to you and we're going to give you access to discourses within your religion. So that's the first thing. The second thing I'll note is that kids are much better off because oftentimes note kids oftentimes lock themselves out of opportunities. So for instance, Muslim kids who don't want to get into the banking sector because interest is in haram in Islam, for instance, or more crucially, girls within these communities who are told, don't go for jobs in the future or don't go for extracurricular activities because this is un-Islamic or irreligious. We prevent this sort of locking out of opportunities because what we are doing is equipping the next generation with the ability to obviously interact with these sorts of discourses which are much more liberal and tell them, please access these kinds of opportunities. So in their lives, they're much better off. The third thing we do is we battle media discourse. So regardless of whether we actually get kids or communities to be much better off, what we are doing is we are changing interpretation of say Islam within media in the Western discourse, where Islam is only noticed as this extremist sort of religion where the Afghan-Taliban interpretation dominates Fox user and evenCNN and what we are now forcing these sorts of because the messaging of the government policy and that sort of tech will be forcing these communities to do is realize what Islam actually is. And we are therefore reducing discrimination against these communities for all these reasons. Very proud to propose. 
+</pm>
+<lo>
+The problem with opening government is that they assert they're going to get imams and religious scholars to work with them but they at no point explain why this in their interest or why this is something that's likely to happen. We pose that the interest of these religious authorities is to maintain control and maintain the religious interpretations in the way that that they currently exist. So the likely way that this policy is going to work is one where the state is imposing on these communities and creating like a specific progressive interpretation that goes against a lot of what these people are preaching. Two things in opening up. One, why even the progressive schools that you get are bad and are limited in their ability to help these people clashing with opening government. And second, why this doesn't actually solve the root of radicalization and why you likely get worse backlash from these communities. First, I think the counterfactual on our side is pretty simple. I think what we will do is we'll do things like support mosques and we'll support other avenues of religious authority and show that we are supporting these communities because oftentimes the reason why radicalization happens is because people feel that the state neglects their communities and they don't get support or they're not accepted in the mainstream. Second, we'll also support secular schools in these communities. And I think this is far better and I'll explain why this is true. Because what opening government wants is for these people to have more opportunities and to have more more freedom. I think the fundamental problem is that when you have religion at the forefront of your education, this crowds out the access for you to get opportunities or other things. So first, then why is religious schools in particular bad, even if they're progressive? I want to know there are a few key aspects of religion that make it so that it guides your education and is likely to be the guiding doctrine of prioritizing other things like prioritizing over other things. One is I think that because of how religion is preached to you, it is very hard for you to question these doctrines. So because it is authority from God, because you have, like these people have authority in these communities, and because this is preached to you in other areas as well, it is very hard for you to question these specific things, even if they're progressive. So I think the problem then is that there are some cases where your religious authority or your religious teaching is going to contradict with other things that you see in school, or is going to contradict things in like science classes or other things like that. So I think in those cases, what happens in your religious schools is you deprioritize teaching them things like reproduction or like women's rights or like safe sex and things like that. And a lot of these things get deprioritized because you are trying to propose religion. The second thing is I think when you have religious schools, you also deepen and strengthen the authority of these communities. And I think it makes it harder for these people to escape the kinds of problems that opening government talks about. Because opening government says that a lot of these people limit, like artificially limit their choice because they are brought up in religious communities. I think when you have progressive schools this makes it worse. One is because I think you reinforce the other avenues of authority from a young age. So now it's no longer just your parents telling you that religion is good or that this is something that you're brought up in. It's also in school where you spend most of your time and most of your time is dominated. So this is this becomes like becomes like far more like involved in your life. Second, I think there's just far more religious authorities that you interact with when people in your school are also religious authorities. So when you have an imam at school, instead of just at the mosque, your religious identity is no longer something that something that's spatial, that's just when you're in the mosque or when you're in that particular zone. It's something that is all-encompassing because you spend most of your time in school and you interact with more religious people. So I think this means, one, you're going to feel more obligated to this community and it's going to be harder for you to break away from these values. So I think even if you want to do things like break away from religion or you feel like this isn't meaningful to you anymore, it's harder for you to break away from this. Second, I think you're more likely to feel obligated to these authorities because these are people that are going to help you with like your tests, like help you like understand math and science and all these different things and you're going to feel a greater obligation to them. So they tell you to do certain things or they tell you like oh you shouldn't be acting this way or you shouldn't do certain things. You're likely to listen to them and you're likely to have greater control over your life because you interact with them more. I think generally this means a few things. One, I think it just means that a lot of the restrictions to like people's rights, that opening government wants to talk about, doesn't actually change. So even though you may have like some like more progressive interpretations of these religions, you still get restrictions, these people's rights and you still get restrictions to these people's freedoms. Second is I think crucially, you crowd out other types of investments because a lot of the times in places where you have religious investments or religious schools, you don't have other actors moving in to have secular or like non-religious like schools. So instead of the state setting up like a secular school where you can prioritize things like sexual education or science and things like that, you now have this progressive school and you no longer have the ability to build the secular one. So I think for that reason, like these progressive schools are still bad. Second, then why do we think this is counterproductive to solving radicalization? Before that, I'll take CG. Sure.
+<poi>
+Based on your logic, would you then oppose the existence of Sunday school for Catholics or is there something different about that?
+</poi>
+Yeah, we are fine opposing that as well. What is the root of radicalization? I think the main reason why people are radical in these states is because they feel like the state has failed them or the state doesn't support the identity and they're isolated. I think the other major problem is that you have religious authorities that have the ability to interpret scriptures in a way, that like goes against the interests of the state. There's other key thing to note is that this doesn't just happen in schools. These religious authorities also exist in mosques and other avenues in these communities. So given this, why is this bad for radicalization? I think one, it means that even if you are progressive interpretations in your school it's unclear why you are going to get those progressive interpretations in the mosque. Given that, the mosque is like a greater religious authority than your classroom. I think it's easier for these people to just reinterpret things or say: "no, no, actually what you are learning in school is actually more in line with like the traditional type of islam that we teach." And it's unclear why these interpretations actually change. The second thing is that they have an incentive to do this and they are unlikely to want to change their thing. So I think one is because like the collective memory of these people in these communities is one of more conservative or more radical teachings. So it's unlikely that these people are going to change. But second is there's no incentive for these people to change because it helps them maintain their authority when they have more radical forms of religious teachings. Why then is this a bad thing? One, I think when you have the West intervening in these places, it's likely to be seen as an imposition. So it's not the West trying to help these people. It's the West trying to change their culture and change their identities and shift it away from what is tied to their homeland and tied to their identity. So I think this is more likely to receive backlash and people are going to feel threatened in these areas. Second, I think it's unlikely that you change authorities in other avenues that are more powerful. Third, I think the comparative is just better because one, you can just create avenues where these people are more skeptical of religion by teaching them science or logic or other things. And two, I think you just create less spaces for these people to interact with religion. So religion is less powerful in their lives when you have secular schools. Very proud to oppose.
+</lo>
+<dpm>
+Opening opposition's policy is like the Spiderman meme where they're basically doing the same thing we are except stupider. Their policy, secular schools and supporting liberal mosques. Somehow our policy doesn't have a efficacy where why would their parents send their children to religious schools but their policy of sending them to secular schools definitely gonna work out. Somehow our policy about entrenching, you know, alternative progressive interpretations in the school is going to lead to backlash but their policy of doing it in the fucking mosque is not going to lead to backlash. Not only is their policy simultaneously contradictory, it's also completely incoherent. It's almost argumentatively impressive. Two points on opening opposition side. Firstly, I want to talk about efficacy, showing to you that Taha did talk about efficacy, although in an ESL accent, so I'll try to use my British one. And then secondly, I'm going to look at how this changes mentality. Let's talk about efficacy first. Four reasons for why we have efficacy. Number one, you finally look like you care about Muslim communities. Taha has clearly showed to you that even within progressive politics, there's a tendency to use an us versus them language. The point at which you say, here's a billion dollars from the Department of Education, where we're going to look at alternative interpretations of Islam. By the way, we're going to use the British Muslim Association and the Association of Muslim Americans as part of our independent panel of experts. I'm going to intuit Muslims will say, finally someone cares about us and have buy in into this policy. In the country where they have been systematically neglected politically and socially. Secondly, just the economics of it. If you're putting money into good school, then school is better school. So kids send it, parents send their kids to better school. Like it just trivially speaking, if you're leveraging the schools with more resources, it's unclear to me why these people don't change. The third reason that these Muslim communities will favor this policy is the reasons that Taha gave, which is, for instance, that current policies are really bad. They're bad in two ways. One, they are retrospective. They look at things after the fact, after the bombing, after the shooting, all of that stuff. But for Muslim communities specifically, they're bad because they're reactive. I have to fucking stand at the airport for five hours in security and miss my plight. I would much rather prefer studying progressive Islam 10 fucking years ago. So again, it's a comparative debate, right? Where existing policies are so inherently reactive that Muslim communities would exponentially prefer this sort of policy, which tends to be much less inclusive than the sort of policies that exist within status quo, which opening opposition on some level had to defend. Number four, and I'm really sorry I'm saying this but we have to have some efficacy, right? Like it's just like fiat, like realistically speaking we are going to have some efficacy, some change in our policy. It's not going to be like "there's going to be no change." But the final point I want to make, this is the second contradiction this really confused me, is on one hand they say: "no one will listen to anything on school", when on the other hand they say: "this is going to strengthen the legitimacy of religion in this communities." Only one of those things can be true because if they're not listening then none of the strengthening of legitimacy stuff happens. If they are listening I'm happy to rebut the strengthen of legitimacy point which I'm going to do now. Two reasons why strengthening the legitimacy of religion is not a bad thing. First, and this isn't some sort of progressive call out but I do think this is important, this argument implies that religion is a priori bad. Why? Like if you're strengthening the legitimacy of progressive religion why on earth is that a bad thing? If anything I just think that doubles our impacts because we get a lot of more progressive Muslims, a lot of more progressive Christians because the argument implies that more religion is bad. No, we say extreme religion is bad. Progressive religion is good. Show to me why that's not the case. But secondly, again, deal with the competitive. We're systematically either these kids are funneled into schools where they're taught much worse things, funneled into mosques where they are taught much worse things and live in communities where they are taught much worse things. So at least on the competitive side. We're getting some incremental change the final point then that they had here was to do with this idea of like, you know, there will always be some restrictions. There's still other means of socializing these communities all of that stuff. Two or three responses here? Yes, there will be some restrictions. This policy is not perfect I'm happy to lose the debate on that. Two, now these kids have something that's really crucial. They have a language in which to push for progressive change. Now I'll give you an example from Pakistan where if my feminist friends say something like: "we want rights for women because Judith Butler said so" the mosque tells them to fuck off. But if they say: "we want rights because Hazrat Aisha in 710 AD fought a war on the battlefield and you know, it's in the Quran," they're like: "okay, now I'm willing to have a discussion with you." These progressive kids and these progressive generations finally have a language with which to debate religion now because they're using their own weapons against them. They're using the text, they're using the pedagogy of all of this stuff, which I think really helps out. The final point that they had again was crowding out, which is you can put this money somewhere else. I've shown to you why the places they're putting money in is a bit stupid. Let's talk about two additional claims that I'm going to make. The first claim is to do with the idea of remittances. And this is really important because as Taha said, a lot of these people are first generation and second generation immigrants. Now, what that means then is that when they're sending money back home, they're not just sending money, they're also sending ideas. These people, the point at which they have the occasional Skype call, with the family back home in India or travel back home to Bangladesh, talk about these progressive interpretations, the point at which they've learned about them in school. This means that you're creating discursive change not only within these communities but also outside these communities. The second part of this claim I'm going to discuss but before that I'm happy to take closing opposition for engagement purposes. Serena, go ahead.
+<poi>
+Sure. So, the comparative clearly isn't one where unfortunately Muslim people aren't going to stop being stopped at airports or for example, going to continue to not have these reactionary policies. So in that context, do you really think this motion is beneficial?
+</poi>
+Wait, this was brilliant. I want you to think about this poi for a second in the meta way. She asserted thing something about the policy being bad and then said it's bad. No, I'm going to counter assert, we're not going to stop people at airports anymore. Did you notice that she just said we're still going to stop people at airports and hence it's bad. No, I'm not going to stop people at airports, I don't know why you said that. Like, I've given you reasons for why we're shifting the funding towards funding of liberal schools as opposed to stopping people at airports. Unclear why that was a valuable point of information. The final thing that I wanted to talk about then, which I think is really really important, isn't just the remittances going towards other places but the generational change and I think this is really important. Let's assume according to opening opposition, I'm sorry Serena, our policy has 10 percent efficacy, why not. This 10 percent of people will grow up probably have families if climate change doesn't kill us all. And what that does then it creates a positive feedback loop. These people will become parents who would teach these children progressive interpretations, go to the mosque and discuss these progressive interpretations leading to a much bigger ideological multiplier than just the short term effects of our policy. Tanal, I've shown to you that there's a terrible relationship between the West and its minority communities. The discourse is the best way to solve it. And discourses within school are the best means within that. I am so proud to propose. 
+</dpm>
+<dlo> 
+There are a couple of things I want to talk about in this speech. The first thing I want to talk about is the idea coming out of the DPM, that you look better in the eyes of the Muslim community for some reason when you put your thumb on the scale to influence their religion. And then I'm going to talk about three other overarching points, how this fails to root out radicalism and makes it worse, and then interacting with the government's best case of when education moves the needle in these people's minds and why secular education, we think, is a far better solution. Starting with the idea of how you look better in Muslim community's eyes. First of all, it's an absolute straw man in the DPM that we're trying to influence like thought at the mosque. What Amar said specifically is that we are fine with unconditionally funding these communities to support them. That is something that's fundamentally different between us and Gov because we are the ones that are not trying to influence people's religion and trying to have Western governments put their thumb on the scale in people's faith and trying to change thought within their lives. This is a pretty overt policy on their side of the bench. Even in their best scenario where they're like trying to cherry pick like different Muslim scholars to be the ones that check off like, what's okay to teach and what's going to be in the syllabus. Recognize at the end of the day, it's still beholden to the authority of western governments as to how this is being chosen. And it doesn't even matter practically if it's out of their hands, it still be perceptually portrayed as such. And that's all that matters because it's not that you care so much about the community. So you want to change their actual way of thought. 
+ That is something we fundamentally disagree with on our side of the house. We think that makes problems worse and instead entrenches the exact causes of radicalism. We're fine with funding communities unconditionally and stop like leaving them behind in the way that actually foments radicalism in the status quo. Now I want to like, talk about how this fails to solve and root out radicalism and makes it worse. I want to make a couple observations here on radicalism because if you look at the top of the PM, it's a discussion of things like Christian fundamentalism and like the rise of terror bombings that have occurred across the world. What does this context tell you? It does not tell you that these are individuals who are homegrown fundamentalists who went to private schools and were taught conservative teachings. This is not the relevant stakeholder that is the one perpetuating these kinds of attacks. Their solution fundamentally leaves out Christian fundamentalism, other forms of religious fundamentalism, and focuses on specifically on homegrown Islamic terrorism. That's what it focuses on. But secondly, most of those terror attacks, at least in recent years, have been related to Islamic fundamentalism, haven't even been homegrown. And that makes sense intuitively, because people born in the West are probably less susceptible to these narratives anyways, even if they're, as opposed to being born abroad. The scope of this solution, then, is incredibly limited, and it trades off with public secular schooling that we think is a far more expansive solution. but then recognized as another observation. The teachers only have so much control over student thought, and this isn't me trying to say that God has no fear to influence people. It's just simply saying that the way that radicalism actually happens is like a lot of the influence on these students and individuals is out of the school's purview and they have limited ability to actually influence or be the authority in their thought. Like, I'd say like 75% of like the influence of students, like in terms of their thought probably comes from the home, probably comes from like outside the school contact with mosques with religious institutions. Like, students are the ones that select which schools they go to and which thought that they're okay with. Ones that are probably going to be radicalized aren't going to be okay with schools that take an aggressive stance on attacking conservative portions of the faith. It means that their solution is unlikely to be effective in challenging the authority of the religious figures that people already ascribe to. That's the nuance in this legitimacy point that like the DPM tries to brush off and saying, oh well you can't have both of people not listening to things at school and also increasing legitimacy of religious authorities outside of school. That is absolutely not the case. You can have both. It is one in which like they literally do what they say in Gov bench where they say, for example, that you just like, to like, try to filter out some of the like conservative teachings in Islam. But those gaps are then picked up and taught to you like outside in mosque teachings, right. And like that authority remains and that authority is strengthened in those individuals lives. What then is the cause of radicalism? And how do we think we better deal with it on our side of the house? Before that, I'll take a POI from CG. Go ahead. 
+<poi>
+In the next 15 years, what is the demographic data of the West going to look like? 
+</poi>
+I don't know, but you can tell me in your extension, I guess, but it doesn't really change my argumentation at all. And I still think that it's like, my argumentation is going to stand relevant regardless of demographic change. What is the cause then of radicalism? We think generally it's a disenchantment with the state when people and communities are left behind. This is the gap we feel on our side of the house and we don't try to pretend like we're like, so generous to these communities so as to influence their faith and teachings like government says. I think generally it's also what I, what, what Gov bench identifies but it's otherization, discrimination that occurs. If they get to stop like stopping people at airports for no reason then we get to do that as well. We just don't need to fund progressive Islamic schools. Like I think this is a pretty reasonable thing that we're arguing as like a counter prop. Like finally it's a lack of interfaith dialogue and contact between communities. This is something that we strengthen on our side of the house and something they fundamentally do not access on their side of the house. It's unique to solutions of public schooling and to solutions that actually bring communities together and like no longer otherize or keep them separate in their own different bubbles. Why then like interacting with the best of gov case, where they're actually can influence these people, is it not effective in reducing radicalism? Like, progressive Islamic teachings are likely to only have a soft contact
+ of contests of conservative scripture, which means that even if you're like, going to be taught something like certain secular values within a progressive Islamic context and then and they say things like oh, like, you're able to like use their words against them and use the faith against them. It doesn't matter because the authority that you're ascribing to is not one that is secular. It is one that is still in your mosque that is a dictator of like the thought that's going to be like, occurring outside of that school within your family, within your community, within that context. You strengthen the role of faith in their lives that like leaves the gap of actually having ties with like other communities, like having friends at school that aren't the same religion as you, like having people, like having ties to a greater national community that you like, no longer have to, like, that would otherwise not drive you to like, have those kind of like radical thoughts or to be like, otherized against the state. This is the reason why we think secular education is far better. The goal here is fostering ties across communities to break echo chambers, for students to be able to have friends at school that they care about that aren't within their own religious communities. This is the way that you're able to introduce secular values into people's lives, not by continuing to ascribe to an authority that at the end of the day is going to have the final say on that kind of thought and those religious teachings. Those reasons we're very proud to oppose.
+</dlo>
+<mg>
+okay OO takes the doughnut in this round, i'm sorry guys, you're losing the linear championship right now and the reason for it is very simple. It is because they want you, they're claiming that og is like horribly bad for muslim people because they're telling muslim people what to believe and what your religion should bem but the stance of opening opposition, if you listen to them carefully is they want people to only go to their own like religious ceremonies once a week. They want you to not be able to learn religion within schools. They want you to not be a large part of your own community They want to effectively whitewash all religious people and for some unknown fictitious fucking reason that's something that Religious communities would prefer my take is that's not probably the case. So, here's the reason why they're bad, because the reality is is that when kids are going to schools. The kids aren't the ones making the decision about what their education is going to be. What we've seen, for example, like here in Canada, is that when you didn't have a lot of like Muslim schools, like schools specifically for Muslim people that would have people who are Muslim teaching, who would have, you know, readings of the Quran after school and stuff like that, who would still be a part of like the provincial-wide curriculum, before you had the introduction of that, a lot of Muslim like immigrants, especially first generations, would not send their kids to school, opting instead to like homeschool their children, right. So for every argument that they want to suggest about the necessity of learning science and logic and sex-ed and having white friends, because for some reason that's a good thing, I'm not that great of a friend, that goes better for our side of the debate. The seconds that you start providing alternative options, right. For every argument they want to make about how people need to be able to make a decision about whether or not they want to be a part of their own religious community. 
+ That goes to our side of the debate. The second that schools that cater to individuals that allow you to feel comfortable sending your kids to a school now applies significantly greater to our side of the debate. That doesn't necessarily work for their side of the debate. Also, they have this really fictitious idea of how institutions should work, about how often you should be engaging with your religion. But that's not really how status quo works. People are going to be trying to make sure their kids are religious, are going to make sure that people are involved in their religious community. So you can't let them run away by just fiating that, that shouldn't happen. 
+ They had to engage with this in the world that exists. I want to first extend by talking about Islam, I then want to talk about the other radical group mentioned by PM But that has been missed in this debate, which is evangelical Christians who are the biggest terror group in the United States other than actual Nazis in terms of just number of atrocities Committed in their name by domestic terrorists. So first on Islam the debate in the front half is primarily centered around would Muslim people support this but I asked this poi to the DPM sorry to the DLO, in the West, there's a very big problem of like, we're getting entirely too old and don't have enough young people to replace the amount of elderly people that are going to be a drain on the system in the next 15 years. The reason for this is because basically, we've had so many people stay in their careers for a very long time, who have had very limited amounts of children. And as a result, what that means is that we're going to have very overrun state run healthcare systems, because of the amount of people who are going to be retiring, state funding is going to be limited because of a lot of people taking out their pensions simultaneously. And the problem that this creates is twofold. One, you have large scale harms on the economy because government resources are massively drained for all of the money that they're going to be spending on the elderly. But you're not recouping that money and status quo because you don't have a lot of young people entering into the workforce. And especially given that people have been taking a long time to be able to retire, the people who are entering into the workforce aren't particularly good at the jobs that they're doing, meaning they're less likely to be productive, less likely to be able to contribute in taxes. 
+ That's why right now within the West, both Canada and the United States need to take in literally to the tune of millions of immigrants per year if they want to be able to continue the amount of economic growth that they have. And one of the primary regions in the world that is trying to immigrate to the West are people from the Muslim world, right. Are people who come from majority Muslim countries. So, what currently happens in the status quo is that you get a large amount of backlash by people in positions of power, predominantly white people. 
+ who have access to capital who are more likely to be listened to by their politicians, who are more likely to fund political campaigns and be involved in the campaign trails because they have a rather large conception of Islamophobia that exists within them, right, and as a result, they advocate for two kinds of policies. The first is restrictions on immigration from the Islamic world. This being a bad thing because it means that the future problem that they aren't willing to assess because people generally do not want to talk about consequences that happen in the long term.
+ Means that you're not going to be able to deal with that in any meaningful fashion. The second kind of thing that they end up arguing for, is the actual comparative, which is what's happening in Quebec right now, where you're not allowed to display your religion in any meaningful sense in public, especially if you're a public officer, which to a large extent is much greater of a form of whitewashing and telling people what to do in regards to their own religion. This has looked like bans on burkas. This has looked like bans on other religious headgear throughout government buildings and throughout government schools. 
+ which I think is much more likely to alienate people. The reason they start supporting those types of policies is precisely because they want to do preventative measures to make sure that people don't feel that they're able to be radical to a large extent. I think that those policies end up being significantly more damaging to Islamic communities because they're not able to engage in their own religion and to a large extent because you're enforcing that specifically religious people be committing sin. On our side of the debate, I think that you're much more able to limit the extent to which people are going to want to be able to like restrict immigration and restrict those kinds of like uh, legislation. insofar as they see that there's a valid alternative that is going to be able to limit the amount of radicalization that exists. So I think that it means everyone, no guys, so I think that it means that on a comparative basis, you do a significantly better job for these people and are allowing them to get access to like educational institutions financial institutions job markets that exist within the west the second thing i want to talk about is the evangelical community. I want to emphasize why they're important, right. A lot of mass shootings have happened on mosques and on synagogues by radicalized evangelicals, but also the evangelical church does a lot of elderly abuse by like, taking a bunch of their money and like idealized forms of like future benefit, right? But the problem that ends up happening in status quo is that there isn't an ability to challenge them because the way that evangelicals work is by having such a massive amount of megachurches that you aren't able to establish your own religious institution nearby a mega church because of how much capital they have, to out-compete other churches that exist that the church isn't able to exist in perpetuity, right. The second that you can integrate business schools, it means that you have a challenge to the hajiman that is the mega church while providing a countervailing narrative specifically, to children which does two things, right. The first is that in the long run the ways that they mistreat the elderly are not likely to be perpetuated insofar as you know you're just not likely to believe them because you've heard cultures but two, debate gets more like, discursive on the, on our side of the debate and insofar as you're coming from within the institution as opposed to an outsider. We're proud to propose. 
+</mg>
+<mo>
+In order to win this debate, I think it's quite obvious that we have to beat OG. We're going to run them close. We think we're going to do it. But before that, I just want to kick CG out of this round. I think their extension can be split into two parts. Part one, with their attempt to be derivative of OG by using the same analysis but adding the words financial opportunities in regards to Islamic communities. 
+ Part two, their stuff off on evangelical Christianity. I want to note two things. One, no mechanism given as to how this actually acts as a countervailing narrative to evangelical churches. Many of whom have millions of dollars in funding who post and bombard you on your adverts, on your TV screens, who also have their own institutions and schools which they set up and which parents opt into. Number two, and I think more importantly, I don't know how many sects of Christianity there are in America, but I think there are like 150 or something crazy like that. 
+ If you don't like evangelicalism, go to another sex. But crucially, evangelical individuals are never going to opt out of that and therefore they get no marginal change on their side of the house. This means, at best, they are wasting state funding at the point that you could literally just encourage another sex to challenge evangelicalism. I just think this kills the extension. If I'm being honest, I didn't really understand it. Cool. Let's talk about opening government. I think the first thing was there was a massive problem solution gap. 
+ in this case. I think OG realized that they had to support something quite bad to try to pretend that there was a trade-off to be made for like them alleviating something worse. What they tell you is that the problem under the status quo is we have to be reactionary. We have to do things like stop people at airports. We have to do things like pander to anti-immigration sentiment after a terrorist attack. I think if this was to be a trade-off in the debate where they can focus on one over the other, then they would have to prove that to a significant extent, this policy is going to eradicate the prevalence of terrorist attacks and therefore eradicate the moral panic which leads to these policies being implemented in the first place. But more importantly, that the kind of security measures which make people like, the Islamic community feel discriminated against, would not exist on the comparative. They can't do this because they don't have fiat power to just add the abolishment of a completely different policy to trade it off with their own. Otherwise I could prop this house would like, punch me like, my partner in the face by saying the alternative is me like, not punching the Dean. Here's the trade off. That doesn't make any sense. I think this is important because this policy is in addition to other policies which are also discriminatory to these communities as opposed to directly being traded off against it. Note how this damages a lot of their case because a lot of their cases are that this is better than the alternative. But if the alternative still exists, you actually have to consider the impact of this policy in conjunction with
+ existing status quo, narratives, existing xenophobia with existing anti-Muslim sentiment. That is what I wanted the DPM to engage with. The fact they didn't do this is going to lose them the debate. Why? They then say that they have, like the problem is that we have ethnic enclaves in the West, which means people go to homogenous schools. Sure, people might set up a Muslim school if they have money. That's probably a minority of people. The alternative is probably secular education, which the vast majority of people go to. We don't actually hear why this is worse beyond them telling us that home radicalization also exists, which is just mythicry. What was the actual solution? The first thing they say, is that clerics are going to support this school and therefore you're going to have massive amounts of community support. I think this relies on communities where the cleric is moderate and therefore is likely to espouse the views of both the government and the communities with what, which means there'll be no marginal change in opening government's case if it is these extreme interpretations which they need to change the minds of. Secondly, they say it builds trust with the state. I think this is wrong because the way that this is going to be messaged, especially if they think that there is a trade-off between this policy and things like stopping Muslims at airports, is that these schools are being set up to protect the wider community from these very problematic communities. So from the get-go, your perception as a Muslim is that these schools are being set up because you are a pariah and you need to change. That doesn't really build trust in the state, just intuitively. The third thing that I say is that you now, cannot opt out of alternative opportunities. Two points that you need to weigh this up against. The first thing is, I think that your parents are far more likely to make you reject certain classes and do things like truant and engage in lesser aspects of your
+ education in these schools, even in comparison to secular schools. The reason for this is because extreme parents or radical parents are far more likely to think that the devil is in the moderate version of their own religion than in like, secular education. This is for two reasons. Firstly, because of the fact that like, they have more knowledge of the moderate faction in their community. There's just more of a history of hate, like even when like, if for example, first generation, that would have been the argument that they grew up hearing between moderates and conservatives. Whereas this is like a devil, like the secular education and Western values are like a devil unknown, which I think means that you have a greater history of hating them. I think the second thing to say here though, is that these schools often will need to negotiate more conservative values, which means that on the comparative many kids miss out on opportunities of secular education, such as like LGBT classes, which I'm assuming you couldn't just fiat in, if you wanted these parents to opt into these schools in the first place. That is a trade off for those group of kids. The final thing or the penultimate thing they say is that funding for these schools will make parents engage in these schools. That is uncomparative at the point that we can fund secular schools better. But the last thing, I think this is most important, which came out in the DPM, is that moderate young people now have religious language to challenge more extreme interpretations. Four responses. Firstly, in order for these schools to have the most buy-in, moderates need to have the power in religion under the status quo. Secondly, why do you need the community to understand your view, given that if you are able to on either side and like make a critical mass of young people believe that extreme interpretations aren't the best way, that they are the future of that religion. Thirdly, I think that clerics are more likely to know anti-moderator arguments because that is what they grew up with, like opposing the previous instruction before them. But finally, and this is really important, the PM said there already exists a history of moderate interpretations and narratives which are accessible, which is how these schools are able to be set up in the first place. So it's not clear what the marginal change is. What then is the marginal change in this debate? Two things. Firstly, I think that for the most liberal parents, the comparative was genuinely sending their kids to secular education because they were just that way inclined. But there is a trade off in two ways. Firstly, there is a limited choice of schools. That is to say you can only place like, really one public school in an area because governments are broke, it's kind of sad. But secondly, if the community actually does agree with these schools and negotiations are made in a conservative sense, then there's pressure on liberal parents to send their children there over secular schools. If it is true that moderates make up even a significant proportion of those populations, that means all of those kids get a less liberal education than they otherwise would have. Not only does that not fulfill the preferences of those parents, but if we think that moderation is the key to these kids changing their views, then it also means that those kids are getting a comparatively worse education. But more importantly, the very conflation of conservative Islam with radicalism is likely to isolate these communities further and lead them towards a path of radicalization. This is a stupid policy, oppose.
+</mo> 
+<gw>
+Closing opposition has two downfalls in this debate. The first is that their entire extension speech is based around reputation on opening government. The second is that they did not understand our extension and those two things will be their downfall. I'm not going to defend opening government, but we're going to take the closest semblance to an extension that they actually had in terms of constructive material, take all of that down and then explain why our actual extension does play against the rest of this round that CO should respond to in at least their whip. First, the semblance of the constructive. There's two real parts they have in, I guess,
+ refuting OG, but they still have constructive material, I guess. The first is trying to prove to us that these parents would rather seek secular education over a more moderate version of their own religious education. The second part is suggesting a bunch of impacts on to how that might be harmful. First of all, we can have a quibble day after day about what these religious parents are likely to do. Some religious parents, sure, will say, oh, the secular option is better for us. Some will say that, oh, maybe we should send our kids to the more progressive. But even as the one, the most likely actual comparative that exists and has existed in many parts of the West is homeschooling, where individuals believe that already the education system has no viable options for them, which means the radicalization that CO is failing doesn't get solved in the secular schools, but rather gets continued to grow at the home. But more importantly than this, why is it the case that secular schools probably actually aren't the alternative that parents are going to turn to? Two reasons here. First, I would suggest that a lot of parents, especially when they're religious, do care about holding a religious education. Even if they are parents who believe that a more moderate version of their religion may be something that is harmful to their children, they still understand that they can send their children to Sunday school. They can bring their children to the mosque. At the very least, the perception and the knowledge that they and also the people who are viewing them in their community know that their children are going to a religious school is something that these parents likely care about. But the second thing, the funding and creation of progressive religion schools is what is being debated here, right? In either world of the house, secular public schools are going to exist anyways. The policy being proposed is should we have the inclusion of other religious schools that might be more progressive in nature in terms of religion. Three impacts on why it's good that the existence of these new progressive schools exist. Number one, note that these are literal children. CO's refutation to our entire case was just hop over to another sect. If you’re not in line with the evangelists, right. These children cannot simply hop over to another sect. It is up to what their parents are going to choose from them. But the second thing is note, that kids bring teachings from school to heart and can resist radicalization. And this is the mechanism Ethan provides to you. That's why a ton of university kids currently are quite progressive despite having very conservative parents. It is very possible that these children can take these learnings to heart and resist that radicalization. All that needs to happen is that they need to select these schools to go to. Finally, then, why is it the case that these schools are going to be preferable to these parents? One, if the comparative truly is homeschooling, note that the time gap that this sort of the time sink that creates means that parents are very unlikely to be willing to do homeschooling when they know that a viable option of a religious school exists. Secondly, the fact that you're able to send your child to a school that still has your religion is probably good. But the third thing, and this is the most important thing for white evangelists, sorry, white Christians in the United States note, that there are not actually that many different types of religious schools. There isn't a religious school for every sect of Christianity. There's a religious school for the largest and most well-funded Evangelist church within America. Which means the options for religious schooling in America is actually woefully awful. Meaning, white Christians who want to send their kids to a Christian school don't really have the option of choosing between sects. Meaning, the actual funding of progressive schools is going to be something that is chosen by a massive majority of individuals who care about those kinds of teaching. Finally, responses to our case. Ethan tells you that deep rooted influence over the population generation after generation is why the Evangelist church can abuse the elderly. This is why we have to actually make it an option so that these children are able to have some kind of teaching that is going to oppose the Evangelist church and whatnot. Okay, let's deal with both teams of the church on opening half by talking about the theme of central focus of radicalization. This is a notion that probably could be done for Islam, but not necessarily the focus of the round. For three reasons. One, religious radicalization in the West actually is most severe among the evangelical church, as Ethan tells you, and Islam radicalization is not occurring as much domestically. A lot of foreign terror attacks that are connected to Islam are happening abroad, not necessarily domestically. Two, the widespread narrative of Islam as dangerous is not in line with the terrorism in the West. Even opening opposition points this out, meaning that terrorism in the US is most often done by white evangelists as Ethan tells you. Third though, note that the white evangelist population in America is a majority population, but also are being able to get away with silent radicalization that is happening. Therefore, Islam is where this motion may apply, but in deliberation, you ought to prioritize the material brought to you on the evangelical church because this is where the impacts grant deepest. OO, quickly. 
+<poi>
+Yeah, so most parents can't homeschool. So if the only option is secular, you just send them there. If your churches have so much funding, this proves the authority is powerful, then why won't these authorities just, who feel threatened by these progressive interpretations just double down, especially when you don't equip kids with the tools to be skeptical or religious authority and you make religion more pervasive in their lives? 
+</poi>
+Okay, this is why the state is doing it, right? Because the state is out offering new options for individuals who are religious, but might not necessarily be in line with the particular majority religion in the area. 
+ Okay, two ways we still win on front half's own material on Islam. Ethan's extension was twofold on Islam specifically. First, more than OG's impacting on Muslims feeling more cared for, they say you defeat the us versus them mentality, kids are better off and better media discourse. The deeper impact is why this can make immigration policy much better. One, greater invitation of refugees in Europe, but two, combating the aging population problem in the US. This is a much deeper impact than OG gives you. Second, the likely response that they're comparing
+ is similar to what quebec or france is doing islamophobic policy. Refuting OO here then, right. Progressive schools are bad is what they say. OG is pretty accurate to say that their own refutation undercuts their own mechanisms. The solutions unique to religious schooling by introducing more public schooling actively avoids the religious context. Ethan tells you a lack of Muslim schools mean more homeschooling, some people are deeply rooted within religion, and a policy of secularization will actually create much more division. If our trite's slight trade-off is deprioritization of maybe sexual education, of providing alternatives for religious people, we can stop the next generation of indoctrination, look to the kids analysis, right. The comparative then, is suggesting that this is the kind of policy of secularization on opening opposition that actually makes and leads to Islamophobic policy. This is much worse in the comparative, so proud to propose.
+</gw>
+<ow>
+So, first of all, about the comparative between propositions model and other overlay alternative, the difference the most significant difference is kind of like vague by proposition side and that is there's a direct challenge of those conservative ideas in religions from proposition side and we tell you this direct challenge will have more backlash that make the radicalization even worse on said house. So two things I'm going to talk about in my speech and rebuttals to other houses will be integrated in that. First of all, how exactly this policy implemented in reality. So, the whole premise of proposition bench is that like somehow they will like, they will let a lot of representatives who have the authority to determine the syllabus and the content teaching and therefore, that somehow the religious parents and the the kids will believe this is quite like suitable for them and believe in and buy in the ideas but the problem here is as both opposition teams tell you like, those representatives in the religions can more about solidarity and it's like, dubious, why they would actually agree and choose to be the representative and like be part of this process in the very first place? Especially considering you're directly challenging the conservative religious beliefs, that's questionable. Like why those, well, there will actually be some representation of conservative ideas in the syllabus. That's to say, like the syllabus and teaching isn't like what proposition like ideally portray to you that somehow the teacher, the kids and parents will be happy about that. And somehow they will get the sense of being catered to because their original, more conservative and radicalized ideas are not included, but rather are directly and strongly challenged in the sense. So, why this is important? This means like CG’s argument based on the idea, somehow like those people could feel being more catered for will just collapse here and all this impact should be largely mitigated in the sense. And also we're saying like, both propositions team meets the nuance in terms who are these stakeholders in those religious groups and how exactly they will be influenced in the debate. So that leads to the second the, I'm going to talk about here so how exactly this policies what works our religious groups and what is the what is comparative better so at this point, what opening opposition talking about well somehow there will be outscored influence and we agree but the problem here is opening opposition didn't tell you, why this else will influence is much stronger
+ much stronger and will lead to backlash that bad and leads to their so-called conclusion that there will be more radicalization in the open world. Open opposition also tells you that there will be like alternative secular schools, but they never give you the detailed characterization of the comparative and the comparative benefits on outside house. So first, so we're saying that in what, who are the actors that will be even worse off on the outside house? Zarina told you that A, for those conservative people, for those parents already very conservative, you're making them even more radicalized and more isolated in the society. So two reasons for that. First of all, as we already mentioned to you, there's a direct challenge to their ideas. When they communicate with their kids, they say, okay, the schools, the teachers in these schools are teaching in this particular way that they do not like and they do not want their kids to be socialized in such kind of environment. That means this conservative, this radical and conservative parents will be much less willing to send their kids into the schools in proposition side in comparison with alongside like this, you're more likely who that they send the kids to secular schools, because even if those schools are secular, there is at least less challenge towards their ideas, towards their religious beliefs, which is quite important in their belief believing systems. But secondly, we're saying those conservative parents will feel like, there will be more stigmatization of their religious belief. So, CG tried to challenge us to say, okay, like we're teaching them doesn't mean we're making them, making this religion seem to be like terrorism or dangerous in the society. But that's just a claim, the problem is, you have this policy in the very first place to contact the radicalism and the very action that government take this policy suggests to the public and make public believe that there is some danger in this belief and this sort of stigmatization will be even more to those conservative religious believers who are already sensitive to others' perception towards their religions. So at this point, they were much, even much less likely to send their kids to those schools. Why that is important? That is important because that means, the most important stakeholder proposition side tries to change here won't even be engaged in the very first place and won't have the impact proposition claims they will have in their way. But secondly, let's see the other stakeholder liberal parents. So there's still a possibility that they will less likely to go to this course. Why that is the case? First of all, we tell, Zarina tells you why there'd be less choices and that is inherently hard to them. But secondly, what's a significant impact here is, when the society, when the religious groups see as a community that these goals are challenging their beliefs. There will be a pressure within the groups to force those liberal parents, not to send the keys to the schools in the very first place. And we're telling you that we think like in this debate, all houses already assume that religious groups are somewhat conservative, somewhat like a conservative and less liberal. And also secondly, we're telling you that religious groups as a community has a very strong coherence here. So that pressure is very like, it's very important  strong towards those liberal parents which will lead to less liberal parents sending kids to, uh, sorry um, didn't have time to take pois, um, sending kids to the today like the school's proposition trying to talk about here so comparatively speaking, the comparitive here is even taking pop at their best case scenario for those liberal parents the parent here on on other side house those liberal parents well send kids to secular schools anyway and all those benefits og identifies like, language and knowledge and more facilities and more liberal ideas will happen anyway on outside house. But like what is comparatively worse here is, in OG's world, there is more possibility that those liberal parents will be even coerced out of this liberalization process. So let's see the comparative overall. So the propositions, most important stakeholder, they never given any mechanism what exactly those conservative and radical religious people will be engaged, will be willing to step into those schools in the very first place and we tell you why this backlash is likely to happen and we'll also give you the reason why the alternative can cover most of the benefits proposition identifies and will even like, more likely to engage those conservative parties and liberal parents based on their reproach. 
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/LSE Open 2023 Round 2 Room 2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+<pm>
+I want to begin this debate by answering what a right to justice is. I think generally, this is right again, giving each third do its right to uphold from society. It's a right to fairness in relation to laws. I feel like that should be relatively uncontroversial, But justice is but what is a right to justice practically? I think it's three things. One, it's not just bias. It's an evolving right that's integrated into the general fabric of the society. This means that probably has a degree of precedent, even if it isn't entirely beholden to preference. I'm going to look towards like working conception of a chain novel here in terms of law, where it's an evolving story told by various legal rulings. A ruling might not deviate, they might deviate from precedent, but it still exists in relation to precedent. It should also exist in relation to a general right second, I think it's like somewhat integrated into society, and like, the interest of the law, and like what society holds right, like, society's understanding of justice obviously varies over time. The right justice probably varies. It's different now than it was in like, the 1800s However, it's still in the context of that Preston. Third, and finally, I think this exists in relation to constitutional rights. I don't want to hear some, like, dumb arguments about how, like, there's not going to be, like, trade laws in the economy. About this. There's probably still laws in, like, other parts of the world, even if there's some controversial disputes. I think the principle, like, there's still present that exists. It's just flexible to a degree. I'll take a PO composing now. No, I'll take one for you later. Okay, so I think, like, just principally, I think, like, the core sort of Clash of this debate is going to be a comparative, because I'm sure ops gonna argue like, Ah, this right to justice could be literally every anything you could just pass, like, arbitrary laws to get stuff. I know that's the argument, but I think equally you have to answer the question of, like, how constitutional laws are not just going to be so specific and so individually tailored as prevent the application of justice in a society. And what we're going to show you is that based on how the Constitution is written, it can equally be entirely arbitrary. But why is a right to justice general better as a general principle? I think one appeals to justice are just more likely to succeed in protecting the interests of citizens because they can operate in relation to preference precedent, but also like a social understanding, for example, like police brutality laws in the US that are technically constitutional via qualified immunity, but obviously do not accord with society's gender understanding from justice. So thank you. The second is, I think that the system disincentivizes arbitrariness ops. Worst case portrayal is going to be like, Ah, this is ridiculous, because there could be, like, literally anything. But I think that you have to understand how this would work in like, the real world, like courts would want to maintain a some amount of objectivity and precedent to allow things to work. That precedent is just going to be flexible in relation to society's understanding of Justice and the value that we accord to that preference precedent will be existed in relation to both the precedent and the general theory of justice. Now, what are the substantive arguments as why constitutional rights is bad? Because I'm sure lots to stand up here and promote like a very rosy picture of constitutional rights, that it's like the freedoms of minorities are being trampled upon, but this part of the law says they have freedom of speech or whatever. I think it's not always the case for a few reasons. The first is that rights are fundamentally inflexible. They don't change over time. You can look at this in like gun laws in the US that are, frankly, absolutely ridiculous because they were written in the 1700s this prevents society moved from moving on and, like, adopting logical things. But equally, I think it can also institutionalize historical oppression. Because if you believe that people can like, like, engage in like, have like, terrible views, and you think that might be arbitrary in our current society, you have to recognize that constitutions like internalize and integrate into law the terrible views of people 300 years ago, which are comparatively net worse than the views we hold today. And not only that, those views can't change, they are literally written into the law. I think, like, like, yeah, like, a race, status quo, people, racist press, which is what creates the Constitution. But second, I think fundamentally that rights do not provide enough protection. Why is this the case? I think that rights are generally very inflexible. What this means is they apply to very specific things, and they're very tailored. This allows gratuitous violations of these rights, given that the violation falls slightly outside the principle. For example, Jim Crow like was obviously like, very wrong, but did was technically legal be the specifics of the US Constitution, or another example, like burning draft cards, the way the First Amendment is written is like, very specific that like that does not count as freedom of speech in all specific cases. It was only when it was revised and understanding the theory of justice that did happen, but from the particular President which was used to disqualify it, and the constitutional ruling in that case, which still exists today, no thank you, is that if it incites violence like burning draft cards, does it is not allowed under freedom of speech. I think the third reason, finally, is that rights lend themselves to sort of overly technical interpretation that is restrictive. Why is this the case? I think you have to recognize that the writing of constitutions doesn't occur in a vacuum. It's shaped by like political influence, like lobbying the people like the Supreme Court justices who get like applied to interpret these rights are like come from a law firm that have corporate interests exist in relation to political parties. Why does this case the powerful applicants an active incentive to, like, make sure these rights are not accountable to the general population? If an active incentive to shape these rights, they're very inflexible and very textual, so that they don't protect the things that they should protect. You can see this and like specifics like Roe versus Wade, which got overturned. Not because the Supreme Court decided they liked abortion, but because of a cause of interstate commerce and primary privacy, and like states ability to regulate that because the federal restrictions are so hard, I think comparatively, this makes the poor much harder and makes the blind social justice much harder, because these systems get so esoteric. Is this closing? 
+
+<poi>
+Yeah, rovers was also passed because of a right to privacy that was in kind?
+</poi>
+
+No, it was passed. It wasn't passed through the right privacy that was enshrined. The right to privacy is an unofficial part of the US Constitution that doesn't exist because it's based upon the Fourth Amendment, which is no unreasonable searches and seizures. The right privacy could be struck down by the Supreme Court tomorrow because it doesn't accord by the text of the Constitution. It is only based on the full arbitrariness that the Constitution COVID, which I'm going to get to later, because your arguments collapse to a theory of justice. But equally, this means that all the symmetrical parts of like the oppression exist on their side, because the Constitution can simply be tailored, be as oppressive as possible or to be as not restrictive as possible. We check back. It's either. It's easier to get general influence in our society. It's easier to change general ideas in society. It's easier to shape our conception of justice that exists in relation to precedent. The final thing I want to deal with here is the comparative because ops going to be like, Ah, you can just change everything at will. There are a couple of reasons why a constitution won't change. Either. One, bigoted courts that interpret it, that internalize the same kind of bigotry to bigotry that would have been applied to theory of justice. Second, a bigoted government, they'll find ways around it to certain event it like happens all the time of the constitutions. Third, all their mechanisms about society being racist and doing racist stuff applies in either world. If it's not going to be solved by a theory of justice, it won't be solved by rights. Five, those rates have to be interpreted by someone, but that begs the question of their interpretation, and that begs if they're actually written in a way that lends itself favorable participation. Six, and most importantly, the threshold for change, and the threshold for changing constitutional rights is far higher than the threshold for changing society's version of justice, which means you can't remove equally messed up constitutional rights that take rights away from minorities because it's much harder to amend the Constitution. The fact that it can be changed proves that there's some overarching principle in society, which proves the other arguments, kind of constitution being a dead document or complete Yes, because we only change what's convenient for us, which shows that we Should just adopt over our should principal justice.
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+It is this debate to show that Supreme Courts are impartial, or at least significantly more impartial the governments are. I will show that this is not the case, and in doing that, it will integrate variable and take opening government, and consequently closing government out of this debate. You have to realize, in a vast range of countries, pretty much all of them, Supreme Courts are heavily politicized. We're not talking just about Poland, where the war on Justice Party staff the Supreme Court. Supreme Court directly. We're also talking about a United States of America where supreme court offices are directly appointed for political preferences and survive as activisms of administrations 30 years after that administration has been voted out of office. This means that on either side of the house, we have a direct government influence on how this court is going to judge. So it could be more later, but secondly, not a principal harm before I move on to any of my other arguments. This means that in so far as right to justice is easier to interpret, insofar as it's wider, I a different ideology interpret justice differently. This means that there is a fundamental political injustice being dealt with citizens who go in front of the Supreme Court insofar as their arbitrarily prefaced or disprefaced based on the accordance of their ideology, with the ideology of the particular judge of court, is not perfect on either side of the house, but the wider the scope of interpretation, the wider the arbitrary preference. Therefore, in support all citizens should have equal recourse to the state in support of the reciprocally give the right to the state. There's a fundamental principle and justice which already makes us win this debate. But secondly, on context, though, this debate is not about amazing, lovely countries where the arc of history bends towards justice, because probably people vote in good governments in those countries, and we don't need constitutional oversight. This debate is the more relevant, the more we go into problematic countries. The more problematic the country is, the more people need something to fall back on. In countries where there is corruption, where there are human rights abuses, where there are laws that exclude ethnic groups, where local district courts are corrupt and bribed by local mafia bosses. This is where you need the highest epilotor as a way to challenge the government. Disputes about rights are only relevant when rights are contentious. This is not about me being able to say, I love me as a friend in this room, because nobody disputes that. It's about me being able to say I love a man in a country advanced homosexuality in those countries, the status quo, it's already heavily tip towards the government, and this is where you need a counter balancing mechanism. Here's the comparative. In the comparative, we have at least some form of limitation in the sense in which the Constitution is worded, even in the worst case scenario for us, probably the USA is the SD country. We have right to self defense enshrined in the Constitution. Write the speech in. Identity, constitution, right to say, fair trial and events, corpus, etcetera, etcetera, as opposed to just rebate and broad right to justice. How does this work and why? What are the mechanisms as to why it's going to provide better protection to citizens on our on our side of the house, which we believe is a principle right in so far as the state has disproportion power over us to legislate and force us to be legislated upon, because we cannot present the state, therefore mechanisms to the legal system are the only thing and the only recourse we have. Firstly, a constitution, which directly gives you, say, freedom of speech, provides you elicitation for a particular act, regardless of the people around you. Think about that. IE, if the Constitution says I have the right opinion of speech, the current societal atmosphere might be that people don't want me to speak, but there's a paper that tells me that I can, which means it's the burden of group of the government to take away this right for me, whereas on their side of the house, we have an amorphous sense of justice which is dependent on cultural context or this general moral relativity, because either opening government is right, and the right of justice is going to be based on some concrete principles, concrete theories of jobs, because presumably the government of all reached organ on opening government side of the house. If that's correct, then we both agree and we just have more specific rules. Or that's not actually the comparative debate and the way countries shape their constitutions and their sense of justice. It's based on the particular cultural context at that point in time. The real point is just in Afghanistan and Iran vastly differs from what is dropped in this rule, and this word becomes problematic, the justices amorphous whistleblowers. For example, whistleblowers can appeal to the right to freedom of speech has been taken away from me. I spoke, and there's a paper that says, I can person because they can, because the state can say, for the greater good, we think we should ban this, or we think this is not within our definition of justice. Secondly, this course of inalienability, Bill of Rights do very often directly quote the idea that human rights are inalienable cannot be taken from the individual, not even by the government, which is a very literalist approach to law that lawyers can only take underserved house. Thirdly, though, the process of writing constitutions, the majority of this debate happens in post COVID societies, young countries, post colonial countries, due to the urgency of establishing the legal systems and institutions within these countries, what they most often do is they rewrite Western constitutions and build up right based upon Enlightenment principles, which means there is inherently a more a more progressive constitution in place than the current cultural context in countries where this debate is comparative on their side of house, that doesn't happen because they don't have a bill of rights in the first place. The Constitution creation process on their side of the house is a direct transposition of the current cultural norms. If those norms are good and the debate is uncomparative, but where they're problematic, the citizens of the rigorous courts, the state. Fourthly, it's easier on our side, for an international community to oversee these things. There's an incentive for them to do that, firstly, because they want to have stable and democratic partners, but also the verge signal to their own citizens they're protecting democracy. There's also an incentive for countries that are less developed to try to follow these rules and follow these principles, because they won't have good relations with more developed countries. However, build the bar in the status quo. When the Law and Justice Party stacks the Supreme Court, the EU can say, this is a very clear violation of your own constitution, and therefore we can activate the nuclear option on their side of the house. They don't even have to stab the Supreme Court. They only have to depend on the high likelihood that the random Polish judge appointed to the court is not going to be progressive, but basically it's likely is not, which means there is a less incentive for the for the governments to behave by an arsenal of the house, and they have a higher bar. They have to directly stack the court. They can be challenged for that, not just internally, but also, but external community. Before we move on, i take your proposal.
+
+<poi>
+Why would the constitution to begin with, the progress?
+</poi>
+
+So first of all, I already explained why most countries, comparative, it's progressive insofar as it's rewritten from other previous examples. But it doesn't have to be just post government societies, insofar as countries tend to want to join the international community as a country being created in the first place, right? You want to be recognized by other countries, by international institutions, because you won't have to establish diplomacy. This means you are likely to at least try to pretend, optically, that you subscribe to their principles. Which is why are going to take inspiration from US Constitution? I don't know. It won't take inspiration from the constitution of like, I mean, Croatia, for example. Lastly, President is clear on our side of the house because it's tied to a particular case in the case of freedom of speech, which shot and this or that way, whereas on their side of the house, we cannot point What the What element of justice, what part of job is exactly about it for either for judges to interpret. So President is less clear. But also president, here's how this works. Rulers would wait, would be repealed on either side of the house, because the justice is defined by the people and by the context of society. And people vote on governments that stack courts, then the people that voted for Trump would have, at some point in the last 50 years, defined justice as being not killing a pre board baby. It's an uncomparative debate in the side of the house, what is comparative it's an art of the house. Government undertake less egregious abuse because they know it's less likely they can get away with it. There's going to be well reasoned NGOs challenging them with that, and in five years time, they're going to have to deal with the optical problem of having a Constitutional Court take down their law, which can be instrumentalized by the opposition at the point where they can appeal to justice to avoid that they're more likely to undertake egregious abuse and harm their citizens rights. I think opening up concerns already won and. We still have another set of minutes of speaking.
+</lo>
+
+<dpm>
+Okay, so firstly, some rebuttal for the opening opposition about whether the Constitution constitutes something to pull back on for, like oppressed minorities in unprogressive societies. And then onto my pace, which is probably like, which is a direct clash, which is essentially that even if it is a higher burden for people to bring this, bring this case to court, because they have to show like, it's a specific right against right of justice, rather than just like, some specific right, I think that once they have successfully brought that case in front of the government, it is much harder for the government to then, to then, To then, like put down, to put down that case, they are much more likely to agree. You're much more likely to get change and progression. But firstly, on to for my rebuttal. Okay? Firstly is presuppose, as was pointed out, that the Constitution is necessarily liberal. The only reason it really we got for this is that people who people in developing countries, who are bored, people in post conflict societies are likely to want to copy the West. Okay, a few responses. Firstly, if they want to copy the West, I'm unclear why they wouldn't also want to copy the West when they're, like, giving judgements in Supreme Court and creating that kind of press in IE, people who are writing Constitution are going to be largely similar, have similar motivation to the first people on the Supreme Court of that country. So if they want to, like, emulate the West, they're going to do this on, like on from side of the Supreme Court as well, right? Secondly, we think that this motivation is large, is not, is not necessary or likely, right? We think that very often, like democratical liberal values are associated with the West, are associated with Imperial values. And so in case times of conflict, in times where there's a lot of uncertainty, in times, especially where there's a lot of urgency and people are scared and people want to hang on to something, they are much more likely to revert back to traditional values than just to just go with the west, to get, like, to get some kind of sport from a from someone they see who doesn't want to support them anyway, right? And then, yeah, so that's why the Constitution is unlikely to be present, right? Okay? Secondly, even if the Constitution is progressive, we think fundamentally that it still depends on interpretation. Right? We don't think there is a qualitative like difference on either side of the house on like on interpretation. It is simply like the amount of amount of interpretation freedom that judges have, and this specifically where it comes from, right? We think on our on our side of the house, they have more intact freedom up like first right. But in so far, as it has been shown that that this specific right to justice has been violated, they have no choice but to rule in favor of the person bringing their kids. Whereas what's the comparative right? We think rights very often conflict, and constitutional rights very often conflict. And at that point it is much more down to the free, again, the free, the interpretation of the judge, right? It's much more down to that, like, two precedents, right? So safe, like, someone's right to privacy and someone's right to, like, I don't know, freedom of speech, conflict. At that point, it's very much down to the interpretation of the judge, which one's more important, right? But on the but on our side of the house. If you can prove that your right to justice has been, has been in COVID, there is nothing that judge can weigh against. We take the burden that it is harder to prove that your right to justice has been, has been like, has been like has been has been violated, right? We take that burden, but we think fundamentally, that's a better world than one where the judge had the power to, like, weigh off the different rights in the Constitution. Why? Why is this? Um,...
+
+<poi>
+If you see that in situations of urgency, people will default to defining concepts based on their tradition, doesn't it also apply to how they will define justice, as per the theory.
+</poi>
+
+theory? Yeah, but we think, we think fundamentally, once you've kind of established you're likely to move away from that tradition. You're likely to be more open to progressive values once those grassroots movements in your country tracks come about. The comparative is that even if you start with traditional values on both sides of house, at least on our side of the house, they're not enshrined in your constitution for like, the next 300 years. You can develop, you can change. That is this flexibility. Okay, so on to my case. Yes. Why do we prefer? Well, in which where the people bringing the case have, like, the burden to prove it, rather than the judges having the freedom to decide? Okay, firstly, we think that is much easier to to access, like, greater support at the point of, like, bringing that case. We think there is a lot of there is a lot of international support at the case of which, like, there is fair, strong, international, particularly Western liberal, support for a certain case, right? What? What does this look like? This means there is likely to be like when someone's human rights, say, say, a journalist in the rhino shop, we think there's, there's generally a fair amount of a national support, international support and grants. Well, i.e., there's a lot of backing. So this type of like resources, you need to prove this case. This looks like things like funding. This looks like things like research. This looks like things like lots and lots of journalists going about and asking the right questions and getting that evidence. And moreover, it isn't just about like funding and hard resources. It is simply it is also about the kind of like moral spirit and like and motivation behind it, right? You don't feel like it on your own, when you have this kind of groundswell of opinion. Secondly, we think it's much more sympathetic. You're going to have a lot more support domestically improving your claim, even if, if you're like so say you're like a minority, and most of the kind of elites and middle class aren't going to particularly feel sympathetic. They're going to be fairly detached from your claim, like you're bringing against the court, right? What's the comparative? Hymn? Okay, on their side, there are competing rights that the government that people have to weigh off. IE, it's much easier for like, the people who may support the minority or may go the government's way, to go the government's way, when they are faced with excessive propaganda and funding against that right, because they have their thing to oh, I'm moral. I think there's like this other right, which I think is more important, right? But what's the comparative here? Right? Um, if, if there, if you don't have this competing rights, if you have this recognition of right to justice, that things conflict, but that means that there is, there is generally a right answer, but you just have to prove it. At the point at which you can prove it, then you're much more likely to get that sympathy problem, you're much more likely to get that grandchild of support, but you wouldn't otherwise, because those people who are more like people are ambivalent, are much more likely to feel sympathetic to your cause. And why is this so important? Right? Because we think in many countries, many countries, many, many countries with like, bigoted governments, with oppressive governments, we think that they they want to co op that middle class or that upper middle class, right? And we don't think that those those people are necessarily absolutely in support of the government. We think they are often fairly reasonably self interested. We think they like care about keeping themselves. They see keeping themselves like keeping themselves in a good position, like economically and politically. They care about keeping that country like fairly running quite well. So if they think that the government is like able to squash something, if they think it's probably reasonably morally right and they are able to ignore it, they are likely to go that way. But if they don't think so, if they are, if they think that, if they, if they if they think it is wrong, they are much more likely to be persuaded to start vocalizing support for such movements, right? And what does this mean? This doesn't have to be a lot, because we think that oppressive governments generally will, will kind of will make concessions, because it's quite expensive to like, oppress people. It's quite hard. So if you have this kind of support group molding, then you're much likely to get this change. Thank you. I'd like To my speech there.
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo>
+I find it interesting that opening government seems to think that the fact that on our side of the house a judge is going to have to be the one trading off various rights is somehow an argument for their side of the house. I do not think tin could have been any clearer that in situations where it is very obvious which party is wrong and which party is in the right, which party has a claim and which one does not, on both sides of that laws, the process is going to look quite similar. Tina has been also crystal clear that the reason why we believe the Bill of Rights is important is because the rights. Should be upheld and should be irrelevant, even in cases where that does not turn out to be the most important right. And I think this is the crux of the debate, because yes, opening government is right on our side of the house. What happens is the judge trades off two different rights on their side of the on our side of the house, the verdict is going to be something along the lines of, in this particular case, one right trumps the other, because you have to decide one way or the other. However, that does not eliminate the fact that the right that does not come out on top is still a right that exists and should be respected in practice that's most often going to look like some things, like if you have to pay damages, maybe you pay less damages if you still get convicted for manslaughter, maybe we'll know what you do with self defense, and even though you technically did still kill someone, we want people to feel moving forward, still feel comfortable to act in self defense, because that is something that they have the right to, even if the right does not protect them from all consequences in all cases, what happens is that moving forward, you can keep relying on that right, even if that right is not a get out of Get Out of Jail Free card. But secondly, it also probably means, in practice, you get some sort of reparations, minimize punishment, whatever. On site government, what they have to stand for is that you don't have a verdict that acknowledges two sides both have the right to something, but someone has to come out on top. There is one sense of justice that has to be defined, and one thing has to be just and the other one has to be unjust, because otherwise it doesn't make a difference whether you appeal to justice or to rights, right. So if the problem of government is that whites are too unspecific, that's just ridiculous, because they want to rely on precedent entirely. It's so much easier to argue that whatever precedents have been set all do not apply to this case on what is justice, because there is one detail that maybe matters that changes the understanding of justice, that changes the nuance of the social context in which this happens, that then might mean the Justice might look differently in this case versus the others. It's much easier to rely on rights that are inalienable, that have very Salish precedents where those rights are something you can rely on, even in cases where maybe they're not the most important thing. So to the extent that we care about protecting people, we should care about giving them one the avenue in which they can rely they most reliably can have rights that will be acknowledged in courts as valuable regardless of the outcome, but also to where they feel that those have the rights. And I'm going to deal with that later in more depth, right? But also like, Oh, gee. Said, like, ah, but courts want to maintain objectivity. Like, if that is the case, that's going to be the case on both sides of the house, and there's no point in changing, right? Because if courts want to maintain objectivity and be fair to everyone, they're also uphold to the Bill of Rights in a fair way. But also, here's the thing, gun rights are upheld in the US, not because of, you know, it's a right that's inalienable. You can still change a Bill of Rights right, probably you would even be able to do that. The problem is that you have very, powerful gun lobbies. And then everything that is up for debate in the US, rather than something that is enshrined, is politicized as fuck to the point of becoming dysfunctional, right? So on the idea of like, institutionalizing oppression, which is somehow something that OG thinks goes for them, I'm unsure how having a very, very clear view that is very like I think everyone in the US knows what is in the Bill of Rights. I think if something really ridiculous would be in there, they would that would probably end up being changed, because society would not stand for it, right? Good luck scrutinizing every single president that a court might rely on from the last, I don't know how many, at least 300 years, right? And good luck having most citizens join like most citizens don't even know the majority of cases in front of the Supreme Court. I'm unsure why, at the moment where the majority of the decisions in force in the legal courts are going to be to things like amorphous, vague precedents that are being set, where someone is going to be able to scrutinize that what is the burden of proof? Because OG seems to think it's easier to change society. It's not about what society thinks, because we don't have, I hate to go for the buzz word, but we don't have epistemic access of an aggregated view of the entirety of society, and not just their their general view, but also the nuances in each specific situation of the what they would prefer, which means that what we go on is not like the general what society wants and society teams toward, tends to being progressive, but how society expresses that, but does it express it through things like whoever has the strongest and the loudest lobby is going to win? There's probably a majority of society in the US who wants abortion rights and things that probably women should have autonomy of their over their body. It's just that the people trying to to get rid of abortion are louder, have much money, have much political power. The more things are up for debate in this way, the worse the race to the bottom of politicizing everything, grabbing power, disenfranchising minorities from voting all of the things get. Because the more you have to gain if you do those things, the more you have this incentive the more money gets into politics, so the harder it is for you to reach the threshold where you can pump enough money into the liberal causes for you to be able to match the Koch brothers or Elon Musk or whoever the puck is pushing dumb right? I've already talked about how people can't be expected to follow every single case that is going to happen. So whatever Reliance you want to have on public scrutiny gets a million times worse when it relies entirely on precedence, where you might have to know 100 precedents to decide which one of them is going to be more likely this particular interpretation of justice than just. This right is inalienable. How do we trade it on with something closing, 
+
+<poi>
+uh, most of the basic rights you're talking about are something you can't influence most people to agree with that? Why is it like? 
+</poi>
+
+Yeah, look, Dana's made it clear that if something is super intuitive and uncontested, it's probably going to be uncontested on both sides of the house, however, things like, Do we care about whistleblowers, or is it something that endangered national security? Is something that comes up relatively often, every few years, right? That's the kind of thing where I'm unsure why courts and the government would give a shit about the Justice right of one individual to be able to spill state secrets so they claim are horrendous, unless there is something that forces them to acknowledge that no matter the situation you have, the right whistleblower free speech or whatever it is, second process matters. I've already touched upon why how things are perceived definitely influences the amount of scrutiny that can exist, right? I come from a vaguely functional democracy in Romania, and still, because of the fact that there's an expectation that policemen are going to be corrupt and that courts are going to be corrupt if you go against someone with money, you don't even bother with it, right? We see that happening even in the US, where women don't really bother going after sexual assault cases if they don't think they can win on their side of the house. Not only do you have the problem that in the contested things where people of color already don't trust police don't trust putting the decision in the hands of the state, but on top of the fact that you have a hybrid of proof, you not only need to prove what happened, you also need to prove that is justice that makes it harder for everyone. It makes it worse for all human rights. Proud to close.
+</dlo>
+
+<mg>
+constitutional rights are a measure of last resort when the state and steroid oppress you, meaning, for you to be able to challenge them, to defend yourself, you have to go outside the compliance of the state. You cannot use that on individual rights are the qualified way in which the state perceives for running. I want to talk about three things. Firstly, qualifications from why a lot of all these out this debate. Secondly, why institutions like constitutions are not progressive, not changing the principle now, pre qualifications that take opening COVID out of this bill. First, constitutions are constitutional. Courts are a major request result. They're not local courts and they're not local legislations about not stealing, not killing people, not including their private poverty. They're taken in ways in which, firstly, some affluence, you are very humanity, or Secondly, quasars in which the whole society is affected, for example, rights of minority communities that can be systematically disopressed. Secondly, there's a massive difference between a case in the Constitutional Court and in local courts. Like firstly, very few are cases not so much time pressure, and you have much more time to make a decision. This is why decisions take multiple weeks. Secondly, you have to do an extensive report on why you have done this, and you have to justify every single day that you've actively done. Thirdly, it's not a random Polish judge that is taking that decision. It is multiple constitutional judges that, firstly, supposedly the most qualified within society. Secondly, give much more public pressure, and certainly because. Is also class action lawsuits. There's a massive pressure for them to be objective. Or, thirdly, they have different biases which cancel themselves are or this just is necessity for them to justify themselves to one another. Meaning, there's massive difference between random Polish bias judges in cases, in constitutional judges, constitutional judges, that they a few decisions a year at most. Are extensive amounts of time to do them and have massive public scrutiny outside of this now, later. Now, what is the constitution? Why is the constitution, firstly, inherently wrong in many cases, I would say there are a lot of issues that are supposedly that are supposed to be individual rights that are currently not qualified in many countries, this is abortion, gay rights, reparative rights for indigenous communities, or, for example, positive, positive rights, for example, the right to UBI the right to social welfare, the right to education, like there isn't, by the way, an individual right to food in America, even though this is supposedly very progressive, this is so because, firstly, previously, there was a bigger asymmetry between the people in The state and the state wanted to perpetuate its power. Perpetuate its power. But secondly, because certain social issues that exist today just didn't exist or were massively oppressed previously, for example, women, I would say that less than us, in some cases, they exist to some way, but are presented to the lens of the previous people that are dominating society. For example, in Bulgaria, you have the right to manage right, but the right to manage is qualified as the right between a man and a woman to marry, meaning they either don't exist or are qualified in specific ways that necessarily oppress. Secondly, why, even if society is changing something that OG doesn't prove the qualification within the Constitution doesn't change our legal fight. So multiple reasons as well. This is the case. The first which in many cases, those are minority issues, which means that, if parties are negative, monitarian just not a pressing issue for them. The second reason is that in many cases, there is an insufficient amount of political capital for you to do this. Why is that the case? Because many, in many parliaments, in liberal democracy, for example, or in developing issues, there is a lot of polarization. You don't have a secure majority. Secondly, you have a finite amount of political favors, which means you want to prioritize other things. Or third, in many cases, there are much more pressing things for you to have to extensively do. For example, the fixing the economy, legislation on healthcare or education, instead of focusing on constitutional rights, which means in the vast majority of cases, it is complete. But second, it is very problematic for you to change the constitution, because, firstly, in many cases, the Constitution is massively qualified. Let's say, for example, the American Constitution, in which whenever you want to change something, it triggers right wing arguments about it being a slippery slope. They're going to change this right. They're going to change the second right or second. It triggers the psychological Fauci of people to be riskable, to be resistant, to be resisted, to change, which generally means that you have insufficient sovereign political capital, even if it doesn't say this is why this policy is necessary. Finally, let's get to the point. Let's talk about the principle we completely agree with opening opposition in that there are different moral and cultural contexts. They say that they exist. They never just they never justify as to why we have to actually ignore them all together. I want to positive two claims, the first which is that morality is inherently subjective. Not only does it change over time, but it changes on the cultural to cultural basis and on individual to individual basis. Why is this trivially true? Because people have different moral intuitions. People have different lived experiences. People live in different environments, which generally means that if we don't have like, what was the fantasy, paperwork, epistemic acts, the preferences of other people, and we all have our own moral individual perceptions. This necessarily means that morality is inherently subjective. Sure, we leave some conclusions and qualify them, but they're necessarily qualified but by people with their own irrational, subjective perceptions of what morality ought to be. I'll take you later on, meaning that in some cases, some people believe the right to chemical is a right to self defense. Other belief it is not right because it includes other consent of people not people not to be violent attacked. Secondly, many people believe that taxation is dead. Other people actively believe that they entitled to that because the prerequisite polish, and this is why they should have UBI and social welfare, which means cautious on rights are inherently subjective. What is the issue in the status quo? The state mandates what is not right and what isn't a right, which means that, firstly, it is a blanket policy that is homogenized as morality, or whatever the physical world is, again, and secondly, it is a top down approach. It's not a bottom up approach, meaning what the state imposes a right is retained as a right. We massively change this, because every single person is you have a different conception of what morality is, if it is crucial to their self flourishing, for example, capacity to collect rights to other people, to protect their indigenous rights, necessarily means they can exercise the right to what a good life is, but also to defend themselves against the state. Before I continue I will take both openings.
+
+<poi>
+Maria SPI to Miri explicitly suggest that the values we converge upon are quite intuitive, which makes your principle relatively uncomparative, but it's also very good mechanism. Is why the Bill of Rights will be reasonable. Of Rights will be reasonable on our side, then what becomes comparative are the five mechanisms where it's easier to make your case on our side therefore fulfilling your more prerogative.
+</poi>
+
+In your site, in some case, in your site. In all cases, judges don't defer to subjective interpretations of morality because they care for their legal COVID In our side, even if they're engraved social rights. At least you can make one argument that could persuade some justice that asymmetry is not huge, because, let's be fair, this debate is about two cases a year, but at least it exists. But secondly, I don't care the principles. It exists, irregardless of practical considerations. And this is why it's important. Secondly, let's talk about state power like this is favorite document if we believe that the right to change the government and to control the government is prior to everything else because you don't consent to the government, because it has asymmetrically more power to you. That this necessarily means that we must give you the tools to control that state. The problem is in the status quo, the two the tools to which you control it are state defined right the state defined what morality is and what individual rights exist. Meaning, irrespective of practical considerations, you should give you the tools to defend yourself, to defend your own perception of morality. And here I want to give a very, very like, okay, intuition. Any you in the status quo, you cannot. You can vote for whatever candidate you want, right? You can just write up an empty ballot. Can write for whatever policy you want. You will not confine a specific economic and political policies by specific candidates, meaning you're given the freedom, even if it's Not necessary on all those grounds, i propose.
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+Okay one point of miscellaneous extra bubble to closing government, and then I'm going to spend the vast majority of my speech on the extension. So first they say that effectively, we don't have enough political capital to implement rights. And then they give a lot of mechanism as to why it's difficult to amend these types of Bill of Rights over time, etc. The first observation I make is that if the population doesn't have the political capital to amend something in the Bill of Rights, then probably it isn't a strong enough democratic belief of that population to actually implement it in the Bill of Rights. It's totally unclear on what values they're saying, like, why you're going to get, like, all of these really, really nice changes. And B speaking of really nice changes, I don't think they've proven that justices are going to be changing good things on net, other than saying that, like elite judges in Poland are particularly well educated, and that seems nice, I don't think they respond to the characterization that these judges are not Democratic, that they might be subject to regulatory or to capture from political parties like in the United States, where you have super conservative judges passing Awesome like terrible things, right? I think that's the main point. And then, like all of the other things I have in terms of democracy, are going to clash with that relatively directly. The first thing I want to extend on is trust in institutions, and why this is so important, and why a right to justice would erode the trust in the institutions, as opposed to a codified Bill of Rights. Why is that? The first thing to note here is that people are going to perceive this right to justice as less democratic than a Bill of Rights. Why is that the case a they literally just are right like note that when you have a bill of rights that was voted on by like a large body of people when they were making this type of constitution right, these are people that are more accurately reflecting the democratic will. You can vote on the individual laws. You can vote to amend these types of laws, as opposed to in the other type of system, you don't have influence over those judges beyond like a very highly removed democratic process where maybe you can nominate those judges over time, it's significantly less democratic in actuality, and as a result, people have the ability to see that. But secondly, note that rights enshrined in the Supreme Court are inscrutable and unclear when they are under one umbrella of justice. For example, in a public conversation, I can point to the right, the fact that I have the freedom of speech or the right to bear arms versus if we only have the right to justice, then I say actually a Johnson versus Ferguson 1932 the Supreme Court justices enshrined this as an interpretation of our right to justice. And thereby, I think I have access to this thing, right? It's far less tangible for the average person in order to grip it when they're having these types of conversations, and then see it's less representative, right? So we are you picking out the most educated elite people in power of society and giving them comparatively more democratic power? Okay? Note, these aren't minor concerns, right? So if you say, oh, like a court changes, does this really like fundamentally, radically view people's change and how they perceive themselves their states in accessing their rights. Yes, we're talking about fundamental rights, which people are talking about here. We're talking about in every single political debate. When you go on TV and they say freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, this dominates your political discourse and informs conception of yourself as a citizen and what types of things are possible in the realm of. Public Discourse. One final thing to say about this point, even if they say, Ah, but we're doing this as a wood motion, and probably, like in weird meta debate rules, that means that there's probably some sort of like debate, like society wide context. When you go into this, even if you have wood Fiat right now, you don't have it into the future, and it's unclear why you're going to have it into the future. Giving these mechanisms that I've just given you, what are the impacts of this that happens in a few main respects, the first of which is political polarization and radicalization that occurs when people don't believe that they are represented by their states. So first of all, note that we already have seen trends of this in the status quo with things like Italy, France, etc. It's totally unclear that we are going to like be able to avoid this long terms. But note that these types of like, especially right wing narratives, but also left wing narratives, are uniquely empowered by elite capture narratives which are only further supported by this type of motion. The impact of this is that that's obviously bad for the implementation of rights, or like, like radical, bad, extremist policy which tramples over the rights of minorities, right, which, by the way, can happen independent of things, like outside of the court, right? So you can not only pass laws which are particularly restrictive, but also in terms of people's overall perception towards minorities, but also, like, independent of actual conception, independent of actual conceptions. We think it's like, not not democratic right. But also note that it's like much slower to act if there's a political disagreement at the point where you have a higher amount of polarization and disagreement in society. IE, a lot of situations are kind of like value neutral, in the sense that if you just need to build growth and build healthcare relatively quickly, or respond to a type of crisis or respond to a war, we have more effective on the comparative political machinery at the point where you have buy in. But B note that this isn't just like super developed countries. We're also talking about nascent states where, like democracy as a whole, and faith in democratic institutions is really, really, really important, and you want to get people to buy into these and it's extraordinarily risky at the point where you don't have buy in into that political project. And we could get authoritarian backsliding in these type of states. That's another massive impact. They're potentially disenfranchising people if there's authoritarian backsliding. But see, finally, trust in society to begin with. That is to say you need to believe in your institutions. In the court, you're more likely to pay taxes, you're less likely to be corrupt, you get more civil engagement. This is good for society as a whole. Right note that that empowers the rights of democracies and make it so that people have better lives. Secondly, I want to expand on democracy as a principle, because I think tin gives this nice state power principle, and I think it's valid and fair in the room, but it's unclear by like the courts specifically, are insufficient to protect your rights against the state, right? What we actually need in this debate is a prioritization of why we need to maximize democratic participation in the court system, right? And so it doesn't go far enough, right? It's valid. But what you need to do is actually show why democracy in itself is good. Why is that a because people express their preferences their best, and everyone has their own conception of what they're good, of what the good life is, right? We don't know that, but B and we can't judge between the value of people, right? So we have to assume that everyone is roughly equal, because everyone has their own unique experiences and life events that they're drawing from. And given the fact that we can't meaningfully decide between those two, we should prioritize to giving everyone a vote and expressing their own preferences, and when we do that, it's much better that we prioritize a system where people have more direct control over the types of rights which are made as opposed to a highly arbitrary right to justice system, which is actually what CEO is arguing for, despite knocking finally, at this point about like The long arc of history, right? So we get this point from Oh, where they say these are nice because they're modeled after Western constitutions and, like, post conflict states. Here's additional analysis, a when constitutions are made, there are unique historical circumstances of constitute and like, it's a constitutional movement. That is to say you need buy in from all parties, right? So even if your country is relatively new and has a majority group. You still don't want to have a separatist group, particularly like regional separatist groups, which is why we often have a huge amount of concessions and overall, like fine treatment of everyone in society in order to get the buy in and order to get the first level of the Constitution to happen. B, you have some sense of political unity and optimism of making an equitable new society right. And no, if you can't just brush this off by saying, like, narratives aren't important. Aren't important, narratives are incredibly important in terms of influencing action. See every single school curriculum debate in post conflict societies, because the beliefs that people have inform what they do. But C, even if it's not objectively good, they are minimally democratic enough that they reflect the will of the people in order to get enough buy in at the time that they are created. D finally, we say that rights, most of the times, are protection from what the governments can do. They are not actively oppressive. They guarantee freedoms, and that's worth protecting. Please, I oppose.
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+I think what their argument essentially says is, oh, this society will not perceive this as an actual protection of rights. Therefore people distrust the government or not feel represented. I want to close in a few things. Firstly, not that they already say, but it's, oh, basically, it's hard to amend those constitutions. It's like, if people are not strong enough to change those laws, then the laws probably should not exist. But this is fucking ridiculous. We already proved to you there are literal constraints in terms of the bureaucracy that occurs for you to be able to change those laws? Okay? Firstly, there are a lot of requirements for you to be able to call the Supreme Court to be able to change a certain constitution. The reason for this is exactly because of what they close it. Constitutions are glorified to an extent that it's believed that they shouldn't be meant that. Secondly, though people not very regularly stick to the text in particular. Why? Because they glorify, for example, the founding fathers that created their country and protected their liberty, and it all those things. And so they're inherently very like, protect the text, the same way religious people are stick to the text of like the Bible. But why is this extremely harmful? Is the reason that people are very risk averse in changing those constitutions, because they deem it as something that will change the worlds of their whole country or generally, that they seem as something that's morally wrong, since you believe those founding fathers that what society should exhibit in most part, however, though I think the last thing that we need to look is that in here, very litigations, very lengthy processes that are overlooked for 1000s of years, societal opinion supported the reason why God people are not able to walk it was because of the litigation that you have to vote for and all, for example, for you the previous constitution and improve the legitimacy of the new thing that you want to support. I think this is inherently more accessible to most people in a change that you believe but few represent. I would say only two things. One, if all people and all their rights are presented by this notion, there's always people who presume to be believing as true. It's not as if some people are just going to have the right to justice and other one have the basic cool rights that opposition won't stop about. I think this generally shifts the perception that people have rights in the status quo. But secondly, though I am not sure why this is something more important than what previously grew, because what we do essentially say is that the moral society change over time. The reason why we are okay with having a state limiting our individual rights is because we supposedly have a state like power to recourse against them or not generally, we can express what we believe to be morally true. Laws are created to create to follow the current moral views of society, and if no moral views are sending that, we are able to change more effectively. That is prison policy is more important as it allows more people to access the dignity of controlling what happens in their life on an everyday basis. This is far more important than a few people not distracting the government in a way that I'm not sure what will actually happen, opening opposition. I want to pause a few things here. Firstly, what constitution be done? Well, I think what they're only announced is saying, Oh, you follow the West because you want to join our international organization. This simply that you do well, not those constitutions most of the time, are followed by very versions of the Western institution. But they won't that the West has continued to change in constitution. The Balkans and all of the regions come because they're very risk averse and are likely to have problematic virtues, particularly tissues are very vague, and if judges are out, but they want to prove to you, the judges can interpret the debates in a way that support them. I think this is fairly symmetrical on early though. What I asked, in my view, is that some rights are whether this might be you should have right to privacy or you should have control over your life. However, these debates about the rights of their not important to most people and that are dependent on the kind of moral relativity that you talk about not make yourself safe in university, presumably, we are okay with not supporting... Meeting that you allow, right now something very important view beast for you go into the court and act by people to be something that you do not deserve, such as to be excused of murder because you have to act. It's now dependent. It's something that's extremely important for the most important to have any protection in that regard. 
+
+<poi>
+Look, it's hard to change constitution, but even harder to understand and change entire web of precedence, despite people in Croatia changing the constitution to define marriage as men and a woman, people distrusting the government means that even if you get a better system, they don't profit from it, because they don't trust the court to go.
+</poi>
+
+Okay, but they don't distrust it right now, when something that they deem as their individual right is not within the Constitution, and if you actively annihilated and disregarded from society in a way that doesn't allow them to access the good of life that you suppose. Now let's deal with specific instances. One they say you have better protection of rights. And I want to to ask a few things. Well, why likely that the society that they talk about will disregard... it hurts people. I am not sure you want to write the privacy i am not sure... wait what... says there are certain rights that she Behold, no matter if society believes in them, I think, for the ones that are very always how to behold, or something that will do this regardless, what we even say On our side is better, because... not being reflected. I think that's fine, because we've done difficult... to reflect people's words at that time those people do not reflect that currently, we're going to justify because it's the only way for people to be able to access all dignity and freedom that they're supposed to be having. In that regard, you said to the secrets of art, you are still able to control yourself dignity in a way you live your life. Lastly, though, I want to just rebut a few things about why judges are not as bad. I think, firstly, most of that was mister said, are likely going to be the most educated ones. But certainly they were likely to be who could have escaped the bomb regimes and that go to the west, get educated, have certainly good views. The problem right now is that even if they want to vote in your favor that you know for some point, they want to vote for damage constitution that you have. Lastly, on on our openings, I think, firstly, the what we mechanized better than there is a white constitutions that are unlikely to change, or very hard to change in a way that it's hard for people to access their rights and the things that they deem morally important. But secondly, I think we far better prove the principles to what if you have certain perception of what is morally correct and what is something that you as a person, have a right to, that you should have the ability to defend this even you do not succeed, because it's a way for you to activate either provoke discussion about this topic. We're safe looking at this that you try to predict something that you deem morally important to you. I think this is far more than the more important the way that, if you do not currently are able to exercise your perception of what is modeling right and what you should have at the right in your life, then this is something far more important than how did it impact you? Maybe a sales pitch for That. We'll pause.
+</gw>
+
+<ow>
+throughout the entirety of the Second World War, and like the Nazi regime in Germany, the Constitution that was officially in for in power was the constitution of the Weimar Republic that gave like legal protections such as freedom of speech and association. Obviously those were not followed in that time period. What is the point I'm making here? What is written in a constitution is not as relevant as what people are buying into and the rights that people believe exists in the state, and that is where extension comes in, right? We're saying is to, first of all, one piece of framing and why that makes our institute, our extension. The most impactful thing this debate does. This debate is not about specific legal decisions for individual people, but what people perceive to be the rights that are the Constitution and a lot of direct, robust comparison, comparison to your issues. Constitutional cases take like forever, right? Constitutional cases are usually like regress once something is already happened. The row in Roe versus Wade never actually got the abortion that she fought the case for, because by the time the decision was made, she already given birth, right? What does this mean? This means, I think, this debate is not necessarily about the things that happen in the courtroom, specifically, whether people specifically can be like, can be given right or wrong in the court. I think this particular thing about this faith is what Braden talks about, is where people buy into rights existing and rights being a thing, and therefore changing the understanding of morality we have in the society at large and in public, appeal to certain to these certain rights. Right we talk about opening up. It started with opening up, reducing logic, opening governments say two main things. First of all, this right of justice is more responsive to societal movements and changes of the opinions in society. Four responses to that. First of all, this assumes that constitutions move incredibly slowly, and it's largely based on the idea that the United States Constitution never, like very other changes. The reason why it's the case was the United States Constitution is one of the most terribly designed political documents in the world. Like I can literally just counter example and say, like, Switzerland changes constitution about three times a year. Ireland does it every few years. I don't understand why that's true. But then B, we think judges are less likely to follow societal movements, because judges are generally decoupled from society to certain extent. Right? Judges usually are not as much in the public focus. Judges usually don't face re election pressures. Definitely a fewer incentives to actually go along with with like popular opinion, like an activist junction has a certain ideology is much more likely to be ruling with little accountability than, like a whole political body that can change a constitution thirdly. But again, like emergency cases where the Constitution and public opinion are really decoupled, that still gets addressed north side of house, right? Like Braden tells you it is poi to opening up about how, like Roe v Wade was constructed on like, multiple interpretations of the Constitution that can still happen in our side of housing. It's genuinely so hard to change that constitution. Thirdly, but fourthly, sorry, I think we flipped this point. We're saying that when we have this point of this discussions about changing constitution, these rights are like elaborated more in the public discussion and more on true democratic process, you have more buying. You have more acceptance, and more acceptance of the societal movements on the legal sphere. I'll take you in a second. Then second thing they say is you get better justice for minorities in particular, they assume that this justice ideal is more objective than their skills rights. We don't understand why right by their own acceptance from the DPM is usually a trade off of rights. It's completely unclear why, a situation where both people are claiming their justice has been violated in a certain way, they're going to rule in favor of the minority. Right. Look at when someone is saying that their justice has been violated because they have been, like, exploited, on on against the law, and someone says that their justice has been violated, they haven't been able to, like, follow economic freedom. We don't know why a judge is not just going to sign as the economic freedom on it, right? But if, finally, you also just think that is, even if it's true that you get worse, even if it's true that you get worse, you bet better results in the courtroom. Specifically, we don't necessarily think this matters when this is unlikely to be pushed on like a more broader scale and not an enumerated right you can point to and create public pressure outside the court of saying, I should have this right to freedom of speech, I should have this right to freedom of assembly. I should have this right to whatever right it is, because we think that when this case is more likely, that it's just going to be ignored in the broader population, right? Because most people cannot constantly litigate because, like, going to the courts is really expensive. It takes a lot of time. That means a lot of people, even if the court might rule in their favor, if they were to go to court, might still just abstain from doing things that are contentious, because they don't know whether the courts are going to rule their favor, and therefore people are still not going to dare to exercise their freedom of speech when they don't know for sure whether they don't actually have the backing of the court. Now we'll take opening.
+
+<poi>
+Yeah, under rubbish. It was struck down because my new constitutional texture was details. This seems to prove our point that instead, it should be endorsing general societal rights. We understand that abortion is okay. This constitution can't protect these things. 
+</poi>
+
+I'm completely unsure why. Like six Republican justices, they're all voted for striking down Roe versus Wade would rule in favor of abortion near side a house near never explained why they would all right. Moving on to closing government. Closing government. Tell me that laws should reflect morality of society. Laws that right should reflect the like morality of society and like the moral subjectivity of society. I'm very, very unclear why there is a point in favor of those things being decided relatively arbitrarily by a judge, rather than by a political process that involves multiple members of society and basically as many people as possible, right? We completely agree with this characterization, this principle. We think that brings you a lot of analysis of why when you have democratic, democratic processes. Sorry, English, hard, but if democratic processes that are going to be that are enshrining constitutional rights through deliberation and discussion in a whole society, you're much more likely to actually reflect all society in that process, right? Whereas on their side of House, is much more likely that judges are going to decide in a somewhat biased way, because buy it, because judges are more likely to come from like the same groups, because only certain groups of society are likely to actually like go to law school and make a massive legal career, even if you're not from these groups, once you are going through this person, you probably have assimilated. You're being more upper class. You're being more educated, etc. Therefore, the thing is, more likely that the vast array of moral Viewpoints is acknowledged when you have this democratic persons in place, finally weighing up against opening opposition. We think that, first of all, they're talking about these troubled states, right? We think in these threats particularly, it is probably not that important what the decision in the courtroom is going to be, because even if, like, a judge is going to say, yeah, you buy the Constitution, actually do have a right to be gay, that probably does not stop the average conservative Polish person that inherits rights from being homophobic towards you, right? Because it's unclear why, in a situation where you don't have that bind and only brain analyzes why it happens more on our side of house, people are actually going to like, respect your rights, rather than still just tread on them and hope they don't get litigated against. prior to proposed.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/LSE Open 2023 Round 3 Room 1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+<pm>
+We are currently living in unprecedented economic times where despite a crippling war and a brutal pandemic, energy companies have emerged victorious. Opening government is going to wrap it for this and make the world more fair. I was, I'm going to start by describing what these policies look like and then talk about two things. Firstly, what this leads to: a lot more money for governments and why that money is good. In Sacramento, this is, it's the process of diversification. What do these policies currently look like? We're talking about windfall tactics that currently exist in countries like the UK, where a portion of the profits that companies are making, which occur during periods of high energy taxes, are being taxed for handsomely. And we support the continuation of this process. Note the policies and how they exist are also combined with tax incentives for investment in green energy as well.
+ 
+We support the continuation of that trend. First claim: why is more money a force for good? I want to characterize why there's just a lot more money going to governments rather than just a small piece of cake. The first reason for this is that we have to acknowledge the mass amounts of profits that were made during the initial stages of the war in Ukraine. Oil was literally selling for over 120 dollars a barrel, which is really double what it was selling a few years before. What this means is that profits were so excessive that the net budgets of these companies are extremely large. Secondly, in countries that have energy sectors and are producing industries, these companies are massively profitable. Oil is often a large portion of GDP, but even aside from that, we're talking about some of the richest companies in the world. Literally, Exxon bio, by some estimates, has made over 300 billion dollars a year. These are larger than entire sectors and entire industries that these states literally have.
+ 
+Maybe that only a minor increase in taxation results in a cumulatively large amount of money given the sheer power of these companies. Why are these policies good? Firstly, on a humanitarian level, it is very important to recognize the context which the currency of taxation is existing under. Governments are incredibly fiscally stressed. Even before the invasion of Ukraine, the COVID pandemic meant that businesses shut down, and a lot of state money had to be spent on measures supporting small businesses and had to be spent on supporting households. The invasion worsened all of these trends by increasing the price of energy, which also created streams but also formed export and supply chains that ultimately existed as a consequence of this. 
+
+There are two observations: the first that governments need more cash in order to support their social safety nets, spending more money on the welfare state, the fact that small businesses still have lingering harms from the pandemic, and they're going to need increased degrees of support. But secondly, about lowering the harms of austerity policies as well and decreasing the necessity for them in the first place. Governments currently apply your debt to GDP ratios that they did before, so having an increase in funding is inherently stabilizing in terms of their ability to tap into international credit markets by lowering the perceived risk of investing with these states. Overall, they only do like Nissan money but got things like lower interest rates and they can just spend more money. I think policies can offset from the Department mandated austerity policies that are ultimately existing under.
+  
+I want to note here that the redistributions are only utilitarianly practical, but it's also a moral necessity as well. I want to note that we don't think energy companies have any more claim to wealth that was that was accrued during arbitrary circumstances than more than the average citizen does within these contexts, given that there is no way to morally distinguish the worth between citizen and therefore we all redistribute this money in a way that maximizes the quality of life for the average person rather than rewarding those who are arbitrarily placed in a position of privilege. The second reason why more money is something that's so crucial is that it would get better energy policy specifically. Yes, some money is going to other things like supporting the social safety net, but a lot of money that's generated for women is explicitly used to maintain both positive energy for the average citizen within these states, specifically being combined with price caps. 
+ 
+So governments are basically having price caps and having lower degrees of energy that are funded by these schemes, and the unique ability to sustain these schemes comes from energy taxes. This is for two reasons: firstly, all of the framing about fiscal stress that I explained to you earlier means governments don't have a myriad of alternative revenue sources that they're able to tap into. There is a really essential revenue source for them to sustain things like price caps and energy. Secondly, though, the high interest rate environment that we currently exist under is the also the cost of inflation means that it is part of the governments to take loans to otherwise give this kind of policy because we have to spend more money from those loans on interest payments. What this means is that we are necessary in sustaining policies for cheaper energy. This is important for a few reasons: firstly, it is beneficial for individual citizens' quality of life. You can literally afford to access heating in the winter rather than getting pulled. 
+  
+Secondly, it's essential for businesses as well to use energy within their own production, paying therefore it can produce cheaper goods. But thirdly, most importantly, this is about sustained political will for sanctions and harsh measures against Russia. The world is currently standing behind Ukraine, but eventually, people are going to get tired when they're becoming warm and when they're struggling to heat their homes. Having the ability to have sustained measures for cheap energy is a vital political tool in order to make it politically viable to get the same tough measures against Russia. This is crucial because as a war reaches more of an equilibrium period where they're going to begin their spring offensives, this gives a blast of changing more leverage over Russia, and things like sanctions and policies are remaining in place, putting that a negotiated settlement is likely to be more favorable towards Ukraine.  
+For a given, per second argument about diversification, i will take that 
+
+<poi>
+look, we're obviously not going to argue that it's great to produce companies to profit as much as they can. What we are going to argue is that this is not the best way to stop the profits, which by the way push inflation even higher. The more you legitimize them raising their product,
+</poi>
+
+like how else do you stop profits? By taxing them. And if you're going to argue that there are other ways to stop profits, that literally looks like you were debating for proposition motion. This is direct, it is targeted, and it harms companies who are profiting the most. How do we get diversification? The first everything that I want to do here is why companies still have the money to diversify regardless. As an odd cannot make claims that these companies are not going to be financially stressed. 
+ 
+The first trivial observation here is only a windfall tax on companies that are already profiting. We are taxing their profits; we are not taxing their revenues. Energy companies are financially strength, are not going to be subject toward a policy. But more than that, energy companies have large capital reserves. The first reason for this is that they just made a lot of money, just given that oil is basically an inelastic thing. People need energy in order to survive whenever demand code has been very high historically. But secondly, the kind of companies that we are discussing are going to be subjected to the windfall tax are the kind of companies who have the cheapest production. First, they occupy first-generation oil fields, which had the easiest extraction processes. But secondly, the production process has been equipped to benefit the most from economies of scale that exist under the status quo. So these properties are mathematical; you're just like reducing two of the megas in the mega. They're going to have the capacity to diversify regardless financially.
+ 
+A lot of people higher incentive 200 or something of a house. This is for two structural reasons: firstly, we are shifting the relative profitability of different types of energy that companies are existing in. We can see that companies probably have a long run incentive to move into green energy regardless. This is nothing incentive for all energy companies on the other side as well. Why is it often seen as being riskier? It requires initial investment; they already have their oil fields. Remember, their marginal incentive is to tap into that. But given the fact that we're only taxing windfall profits from oil in particular, we are not taxing from renewables. The marginal incentive now becomes to shift into more sustainable forms of production to avoid being subjected to windfall taxes that are going to exist into the future, and therefore we get more diversification within that capacity.
+ 
+Our second mechanism is, well, they get more diversification is that state regulation of companies becomes easier. No other has to be effectively create more competitive energy sectors to get larger companies who are the ones generating windfall profits, and they're going to be asymmetrically subjected to increased levels of taxation. Therefore, you're likely to reduce your bargaining power that ExxonMobil has relative to other companies. What this means is that it's more or less like that you're going to get political capture. You have the broadest energy companies effectively paying off state regulators to resist pushes in order to get more moves to bring energy. Overall, for all these reasons, I'm extremely proud to be opening government.
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+I want to quickly note that these oil companies and gas companies aren't just money widgets, right? They don't sit on their money. I think probably what you do with this money, like any other corporation, they probably redistribute in some form. That's to say dividends, payouts through stocks, all these sort of things that I think are good. And I think to some degree mitigate this principle of like these companies don't deserve arbitrary wealth. So I'm going to engage with that anyways. Okay, first argument on why this is just an acceptable range of volatility and one of them practically important. But let's just say that I think natural markets, especially oil markets, tend to go up and tend to go down, right? That is to say that you don't know which way is which. You, as a company, who've chosen to enter this industry have chosen to take on a significant level of risk, right? You could get screwed over by lower prices at some point, like has happened when it went negative, and you also get the benefit when it goes up.
+  
+What do I think that's important? Because I think when you have made a significant choice to invest your own capital when there are massive amounts of risk at the outlet, right? I think you deserve to have a privileged level of wealth at the end of it. What do I mean by this? Let's say you're an average individual, right? You study really, really hard, like go to a good university, and at the end, they say, "Ah, no university deserves that diploma because that's a special level of wealth, a special level of selection." I don't think that's how the principle works, right? Because these companies have made unique contributions and unique investments. I think you want to reward them for that risk. If they added—no thank you—if you haven't experienced the downfall, then I think they also deserve to experience the other ball, right?
+
+Broadly, I think you have to accept from a certain level of person. I think in this way we can't distinguish between different levels, like different people, not just because they have different worths, but rather because they take on different levels of risk, different levels of investment. I think basically, like if you invest in something, you're going to pay out. That's pretty intuitive. But on the practical, right, why do I think it's really helpful here, basically on the competitions? Because I think currently there are very few emergent oil and gas companies for obvious reasons, right? High startup costs, all those sort of things. They're not really that much potential for new exploration in this field, but I do think that's it. No thank you. I think it's really quite useful for people who have more of these companies, right? For a reason, I'll explain in a moment.
+ 
+The thing is, I think that in order to explore a new oil field or a new gas field, you need massive levels of potential return in order to make that worth your while, right? I think Naomi themselves say that it's a really, really high risk for companies to do this, and therefore you need to incentivize them with large payouts, right? You need access returns essentially, both to make it worth it. Here's a risk and secondly, just to finance the startup costs because it is not cheap to build a new oil rig; it costs a lot of money, so you need a lot of excess profits in order to do this. Why is it so important that we allow new companies and new merchants in this space for three reasons? Right? I think one, if you have more new companies and smaller companies entering the space because they no longer fear a windfall tax and have the like I'll call proper capacity to build new oil wells and things, that just increases competition, right? I think competition is a very good thing, and the goal of government is to lower prices and increase the accessibility of energy, but I think competition is a great way to do that, having more competitors.
+ 
+No thank you. All over the price. But secondly, though, right? Also note that like you have people just like really need energy right now. I think it's a good thing to be able to offer them more of a good that, like when people cannot heat their homes in the UK or in certain parts of the US, I think it's a really, really bad thing. I think we do have some sort of obligation—I’ll give them more money—no thank you. And thirdly, by exploring new oil and gas fields, you just create more energy. You can be like, as in you increase the supply curve of energy, which is like innately going to lower the price. I think that makes it more accessible for all these reasons. I think that's a good thing. 
+We're moving on. I'll take closing of the house. 
+
+<poi>
+The vast majority of these rainfall taxes do not apply to renewables. In the long run, people get cheaper energy that also doesn't kill the planet. 
+</poi>
+
+Okay, so I'm not—I’ll talk about renewables, my third argument, but basically, actually, I'll talk about my third argument. I'll plug that when I get to it. Awesome. Second argument on why I think governments are probably going to be pretty bad at spending this money and why if that's the counter fact that OG wants to argue on, don't think they lose this fit, right? Several reasons here. One, just because of like politically important constituencies. Obviously, I think we all know that governments don't make perfect spending decisions because USA government are politicians. You, as a politician, have one incentive—that's to win an election. How do you win an election? There are only three groups in any election, right? Those who are definitely going to vote for you, those who are definitely not going to vote for you, and those in the middle—the swing states, so to say.
+ 
+I think that you, as a politician, are that intelligent, intelligently want to use off the money that you prove through this windfall tax on spending on these, like, arbitrary popular houses. Like, if you want to use all these analyses here, I think people deserve equal work, right? I think they deserve equal loss of money. So I don't see why it's fair in this case. To like arbitrarily give this group who just happens to have more diverse political beliefs arbitrary levels of money, but I also think it's really, really just bad, right? I don't think it's going to help solve a lot of the economic problems if a lot of the money that you're shoveling in isn't necessarily to solve economic problems or if you help them as needy, but rather just to help those who are arbitrarily in state populations, like in these sort of things.
+
+Also note that because this is a particularly too much experience, I don't think there's a lot of government oversight right now, right? Especially because these are like quite opaque measures, like where you like do individual levels of government spending doesn't have a lot of oversight tracks. No one's looking where exactly the final budget is going. That's why I think there's also going to be—like sometimes we need people to have money; they don't do it. But secondly, I think governments are probably short-terminals for pretty intuitive reasons, right? Political incentives are unique to win the next election, which means that you're going to focus on trying to win the next election by spending accordingly, right? Let me say you're not going to invest more on my projects; rather, you're just going to invest in the short run, which makes it look good for your political populists who are then going to vote for you. No thank you.
+
+What that means is, um, like on the comparative basically, right? Because obviously they can say, "Ah, but we don't turn the money in any good ways." Look, worldly, as I said earlier, this profit isn't just sitting in some bank account, right? It goes to people through dividends; it goes to people who stockholding; it goes to people through all these sort of things. One other thing that's better because I think regular people tend to make better spending decisions, right? Let's just say if you have a problem the government wants to solve. I failed to see what someone who is more approximating the problem and who has a greater knowledge of the problem cannot make you a better spending decision when they receive the money through their pensions, through their dividends, on how to resolve that problem if what they want to do is spread money to the populations. I think we do in a far more beneficial manner.
+
+Moving on to my third argument, What profits are broadly helpful to people. I think this broadly like cautions exactly with what Naomi was saying. First argument here on like stabilizing portfolios. Because I think oil and gas is obviously like a really, really major resource that people tend to think is stable, tend to have like major investments from a lot of like a variety of funds, things like pensions, right? It's the fundamental basis of the economy. That's what I think, especially if you haven't ever find a portfolio, obviously you're going to use some of that investment to go into the energy space. What does that look like? It looks like, you know, holding these sort of stocks and mutual funds; it looks like pension funds investing in them; it looks like regular people, regular elderly people who are relying on it for their retirement to ensure that they get their dividend. Why is it so important then we don't impose a windfall tax? That's out of order because I think at this point you need to make sure these people who are relying on You too, like, have their livelihood basically made, don't have their problems really taken away from them, right? 
+ 
+Also note that big clothing market is so volatile at this point. If you impose a windfall tax and if you continue building with both houses, I think that has like an outsized arm on like stock prices, right? Because people are panicking. That's going to cause like an overly sensitive decrease in like the price of stocks, which is probably a bad thing because these people are relying on it for their own well-being. I think it's a really bad thing to do. Finally, on green innovation, while we get better on our side, right? Broadly, I think these companies are probably going to invest in green innovation for a lot of the obvious reasons, right? Research and development is common. I think they know this is a dying industry. They eventually need to, like, transition to green if they want to survive. Secondly, there's this personal advantage, so each company wants to be doing this. And thirdly, like, we're increasingly incentivized by things like tax breaks, which are not inclusive, but I think happen on our side as well. They have a unique capacity to do this on our side because, one, you need larger levels of profit to get over the sort of levels of profit you need to pay out dividends. So we need them to expand into new massive levels of innovation. 
+ 
+They're quite significant startup costs and require significant returns on risk, right? So, and then on our side, we get better levels of innovation by the companies who are uniquely qualified to do so. For all these reasons, so proud to oppose. 
+</lo>
+
+<dpm>
+If this—why is this policy justified—which seems to be part of the pack we get from opening opposition? I would note several things. This thing would have claimed this acceptable volatility in prices. I just don't think this is true because it doesn't understand how energy companies actually operate. What would you do as an oil company when prices were very low? You don't simply provide energy or oil at that price; you instead store it. You store it in your barrels, you store it in your warehouses, and as a result, you put your prices further up. That is why these companies still make reasonable profits at all times, and they make supernormal profits at other times. 
+ 
+In other words, what they are doing is that even in periods of low profitability or low prices, they are manipulating the market in order to ensure that they maintain the restore balance of profit and Just use the tuition club. That is exactly what OPEC or OPEC plus does. That isn't an energy company they say, but the same kind of thinking that you change the supply conditions and what you offer to the market during periods when prices are low. Secondly, why is this justified? We gave you three reasons which they never responded to this. We made a utilitarian claim, so there is no reason why these companies need that much anymore. No, there's no response to that. But secondly, it is unclear to me why they deserve higher profits just because of the random fact that the oil company with a license, which is granted their value to stay in a period of unprecedented crises, particularly these are the Russia and Ukraine. What is their moral right to be able to gain supernormal profits during those periods?
+  
+Thirdly, these are the companies which particularly don't deserve it because of the externalities of their behavior—someone to talk about later, some of the highlights, for instance, the pollution caused by the kinds of actions which are at places right now. If this is a reciprocal obligation, man, and we allowed to tax them more than other companies and ask those costs rights and the environmental cost lines, I don't think it's unreasonable, but it's going to limit their profitability. And if they really think companies have a god-given right to level profitability, they would have to believe you can't change corporation tax rates. Do they believe you can't have tax incentives? The same kinds of companies? Do they even do they even oppose, for instance, increasing the rate or taxing people to pay at the petrol pump, which would factor into reducing the profitability these companies make? 
+ 
+Secondly, where does the money go? Now, we told you the money could be used in lots of areas, but what specific area? Well, lots of this money was used for—and I sort of gave you a little bit of a memory jog about a year ago—what was happening? Why did we introduce these caps? Why do we introduce these new taxes? It's because governments realize the number one issue voters were facing, whether you're on boat, is voters in the middle, was the price of energy. Only got thousands perfectly; it's about whether you can heat your home. That is the alternative issue for almost every single individual. But the word are the easy ways of being able to fund it, particularly them so obvious reasons, the fact of mass fiscal overhang, it's spent to go back from the COVID prices, the difficulty in actually getting affordable debt as interest rates continuously go up. That is why the energy price cap was one of the most important issues which you're going to focus on. 
+
+The analysis the other side gives us convinces beyond just look, both a vote, you want to support your constituency. I think you probably also will get support from everyone, and those people in the middle and your constituency will care that energy price caps—and they say governments are short-term. Okay, if that is true, they spend money on edge of these price caps and reduce austerity. That's probably good. I don't think governments even are actual terrorist here, but they're fights. One of the reasons, if you think about a government, yes, you have a prime minister, a few people at the top; they want to ensure terms, but how about everyone else in that government? The person who wants to be still in politics 20, 10 years from now? There are other people in government who go, "I want to be prime minister." If my current—if the current conservative government said it's to totally ruin the economy as they were, that harms everyone else at the party and other important decision-makers in cabinet, and you probably can't even get it past a legislature. That's why governments aren't even as short-termist as they suggest. 
+ 
+And let me just express the importance of this stuff that they didn't even decide to mention or engage with, which is it wasn't just beneficial because that helps consumers, but the impact of that was literally support for Ukraine and swore against Russia. It significantly impacts the ability and willingness of Europeans to continue, particularly Europeans, to continue to support that. But they otherwise could get cheaper energy, or they don't feel that they are having austerity imposed on them, and therefore they are less likely to demand very significant changes to policy. Now, I don't mean that they can change their support or lift all sanctions immediately—there's obviously a spectrum here. What that could easily mean is support for very rapid negotiations for reducing some of these sanctions, for not having other kinds of measures which would otherwise be advised—that is significant impact of this argument.
+
+The final claim I would define the Political Banks, what happens in the law cap and there is two claims from the opposition here But this claim is we need these companies to make a huge amount of money so that they can get more oil or have more uh drill for more oil or gas. I don't think we actually want that, but there's a couple of obvious reasons. One is environmental, and we definitely don't want people to be putting more and more money into oil and gas—that's green tech. But secondly, let's just look at the analysis they give you, which is it is really useful that people have cheap sources of energy. That is not an argument for the oil rates, but you have to discover it. But the oilers start drilling and then market that—that's like a 10 to 50 year process, which probably doesn't lead to cheap oil right now. 
+
+The stronger claim on this, which we've already talked about, is the impact of green tech and the changing incentives which companies actually face. There are a couple of things which we noted on this. Why once the logical change in incentives here? We know that you now have a greater risk of taxes; the money you're getting from oil, but a reduced set of taxes, at least comparatively, for money you get for green tech. That is because the way these policies were designed—just a common-sense reason—when these policies were implemented due to the economic conservatives, whether you're a barge the same department, you hey from the CDU of Germany, or even newspapers like the active Wall Street Journal looked at this problem, that if you just tax them, you don't have tax breaks, there will otherwise be a potential decrease. 
+
+So as a result, you have tax incentives or reduced tax rates for real gains. Why does that matter? One, because these companies already have money that can invest more. But secondly, marginal change in the potential profitability of oil investment or gas investment versus green tech investment is significantly different different. I agree with opening; they're already incentives for you to do it; we would increase those incentives, so you end up doing it instantly sooner than you otherwise would. Why is that before that We'll tell you about the regulatory environment, and also it makes it easy to pass these kinds of measures on the companies going forward as they do become weaker, but they're no longer the hundreds of millions of dollars with the most valuable companies in the world. That is what it is easier for you to be able to regulate these companies.
+  
+It is—that is a huge benefit. It makes it easier to put these kinds of policies in place without the barriers which will otherwise exist. At the end of this debate, this is a justified policy. The money helps individuals and in particular can help improve continuous support for Russia. And the long term this is beneficial for green tech, but very happy to propose. 
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo>
+To be clear, with the comparison of this debate, opposition believes that if you put the money in the coffers of the government, it may be used to help a cost of living crisis. Indeed, Drew and I will say some of that money will go to solving that cost of living crisis. The critical distinction on comparative is how much of that money goes there. 
+
+We noted that there are politically affluent constituencies that when you satisfy enough people with this money, then afterwards you're going to allocate that funding to politically affluent groups. On our side of the house, the difference is very simple: the money comes through the term and dividends and also in terms of green energy reimbursement. The dividends come and help everybody and notably not just people located in a country where there's a lot of oil, but everyone in the world who has invested in them, which is pretty much everyone who has a pension. This is a far fairer distribution of money, and their side completely ignores the fact that we get a more certain and fair distribution as a whole. 
+
+Three issues to talk about: first, was it reasonable for companies to make these profits? Second, who distributes this money better? Lastly, on Russia: first, it wasn't reasonable. The first thing I want to begin with is just explaining why this case is not profit-hungry. In case closing, government stands up and tries to claim it was, and to preempt any closing opposition material that might come out about how you can shift prices now because the reason why is this is a competitive market. It is pegged to a barrel of oil, and everybody knows that price of oil because it's in a global financial market. There are dozens of players—perhaps not enough, and we could have more competitors, but there's still a competitive aspect. Even if it could be more competitive, this means that prices stay relatively stable because there's clear transparency about what those prices are. They're closable markers, and there's competition to not form in a cartel. 
+
+Now, in terms of this observation, what this then means is that these companies have done nothing malicious in making these profits. It is just incidental that they made more profits because of these circumstances. We told you about the enterprise risk, and crucially, what is more arbitrary: living in a country that has oil companies that can make millions of dollars or the fact that you might be a citizen who lives in a state who now gets dividends from that profit? More importantly here, as a crucial observation, this means that various thought the house doesn't actually fix the arbitrariness problem. In fact, it is actually making it worse because we think many of these companies have actually gone upon a risk in order to invest in this company and deserve a reward as a consequence.
+
+But Research has two different responses. First of all, is this a reason to not increase corporate tax? The difference is this U.S. specifically being targeted when tech companies during COVID did well that had supernormal profits—they weren't targeted. The problem is the inconsistency on how you treat the property rate and how you derive the right of the individual company. Then they say you just store the oil, and that means you're able to make profits later on. I think that this is sometimes true, but not always true. Think about circumstances in which, for instance, energy is high demand in the winter, or other kinds of scenarios in which you're rapidly going to go through your supplies and your stores. Notably here, if this is true that you've stored all this oil, I actually think most of their environmental benefits or long-term benefits are going to be mitigated because that means a large amount of it has been extracted, Barnabas regardless.
+
+No thanks. What did we tell you here as a secondary implication? We told you about monopolies; we told you about decreasing prices in the long run. We can see maybe prices will be slightly shorter in the short or higher in the short run. We think the long term of 15 to 20 years matters more. We told you about energy security and having more sources of energy so you no longer are dependent on Russia. None of that explicitly engaged with at the bottom. This argument—there is a property rate that these companies deserve. We think it is unfair to tax them, and doing so deters more companies from entering it. 
+
+On the second argument about whether or not money gets distributed better, as I've already noted, yes, some of the money is going towards a cost of living crisis. The question here is the relative distribution and whether or not this is an optimal distribution given the comparative that I've already outlined. What we told you was twofold: first of all, the powerful constituencies are going to take up an excessive amount of that profit, and second of all, that short-termism means that without most of these governments, they are not going to care about green energy or reinvesting into these problems. The responses from Harish know that some of the money will go to the cost of living crisis; it does not make a difference.
+
+No thanks. The next thing that comes from this, given that the money gets distributed better, is how this affects green energy because I think part of this question of distribution is the long-term benefit here on green energy. Yes, these companies are mega-rich, but Naomi herself tells you how risky it is to enter into this field—that your technology may not pan out, that your technology may be less optimal than other competitors, the other competitors get to the market first. All of those are reasons why it is immensely risky to go into the green energy field. This means that you need a significant amount of profit in order to be able to finance and invest in that. Naomi says mega, mega-rich isn't what you need. I counter-assert you do need to be mega, mega-rich, and you can't just say those phrases in order to disprove the analysis. 
+  
+What they say is that they more crucially alter the incentive because windfall taxes will not apply to green energy. First of all, think about the justification of this policy. Do you know what politicians are going to say? There's a cost of living crisis; they've been profiteering off the citizens. The almost explicit purpose of this policy is going to be one in which you're trying to redistribute money. Has nothing to do with whether or not it's renewable or gas, which means that because of the specific context of this policy, it doesn't indeed make companies feel that going into green energy may be less attractive, given the fact that you still have a windfall tax and the profits are taxed, meaning that the efficiency gains you come from, you get from technological innovation are diminished because those profit deficiencies that you have is explicitly taken away. Harish
+
+<poi> 
+They don't need to believe all the money is used for good rather than going to, at the very best, the middle class or rich investors are going to domestically a good amount of the reasons we told you about the salience of energy prices will be spent on these positive gains, which still win you political support, it is initially what you should does. 
+</poi>
+
+Yes, I agree, the problem is the comparative. We say better, money, or more of the money is spent well on our side of the house, so it's directly redistributed to citizens through dividends and through green energy investments by the companies. I don't contest your claim; I outwit. 
+
+So the crucial reason why this green energy argument matters so much is that the harms of oil are not just on oil prices but those who have been displaced from the extraction of oil, and their policy only disproportionately benefits a small subsection of people—most of them could actually benefit from oils being so high—while completely disregarding those who have been hurt in foreign countries. While we rectify that better because we solve for green energy and we also redistribute these dividends more globally. The last thing on Russia. And here I just want to note that bonds are easy to access for most countries because they are government bonds. It is very unlikely that most governments are going to default. This might be a reason why there's a high debt-to-GDP ratio, but this is also going to prove that you don't need to be reliant on Russia because you can just borrow more money, right? The fact that you have guilt fatigued by sanctions means most politicians will believe fighting against Ukraine matters more than taking out some debt. 
+
+In contrast, on our side of the house, we get more energy independence, and of course, there might be an environmental harm in the short run. More oil fields really investigated, but green energy needs to be developed and ready first so we can stop that dependency. But in the short to medium term, before that happens, we have more independence from Russia. And yes, maybe this is in 10 to 15 years; that is still a benefit because we don't know what sort of risk they will pose in the long run. Unveiling the question is simple: do you prefer the search and benefits of redistributing these dividends to regular people and getting investment, or do you care about the uncertain benefits that come from government incentives? Very proud to oppose. 
+</dlo>
+
+<mg>  
+I'll discuss three things in this speech. One, I'm going to talk about why governments are going to be great at spending this money, which I think sort of breaks the clash between OG and OO about where this money is going, where this will be well spent. The second thing I want to talk about is instead of renewable investments made by oil and gas companies, I'm going to talk about institutional investors and the signaling impact of this tax. And the last thing I'm going to talk about is potentially maybe some stuff around the principle and why this is justified. Before all of that, I think there's a—there's two key pieces of framing that you need to do to take sort of OO out of this debate. I think the first thing you need to understand is that governments need the money. That's just there. There are two potential options here: either, as OG suggests, you have to go into slashing spending and austerity—I would posit governments will probably not want to go down this route because that is, well, that's a quick one-way ticket to getting out of power. 
+
+Or there is the second alternative, which is either you raise taxes on other industries or you raise direct taxes on consumers, which I would suggest either makes the lives of the consumers much worse. But I would also posit that we are in a period of recession, so it probably is the debt of lots of industries or lower profitability in other industries. And, in general, the point there then is that there is vast economic suffering on the other side of the house. So any distribution that these guys do through, I don't know, like pension funds probably gets fucked to the point of which other industries are going out of business now. So if we move on to why governments are going to be good at spending this money and why there's a degree of accountability or extension material, I would posit that the first thing that happens once this tax is raised is that there is a lot of talk about this because this is an immensely political issue. 
+
+Our leader suggests that oil and gas companies have massive lobbies, and they also have things like, you know, right-wing think tanks who publish papers, who show up on news shows or talk shows. They have politicians who lay back, who oftentimes come out against these taxes. There is going to be a lot of pushback at the point at which you increase the stacks for a longer period of time. You will have the same right propaganda that, you know, "Oh, this is going to lead to so many jobs being lost," or "Oh, this is sort of the loss that's going to happen." I would suggest that there is crucial scrutiny on how the government is spending this money that wasn't present before because the government did agree we did not have that fucking money. The second thing I would note is, as Naomi suggested, there's a large pool of money that you have now because the profits of oil and gas companies are considerable. 
+ 
+I would suggest that this raises levels of, you know, just expectations about what standards of life are going to look like once this money does come in. So it raises expectations of the citizenry as well. But I would also note, in terms of framing this point, that the money that we are talking about, you know, money that's going to welfare schemes or money that's going to housing or heating or education or all of those issues, these are primary voter issues. These are not issues that are ancillary to you; these are issues that you vote on at the point of which these are directly related to your standard of life and your standard of living. I would posit a lot of people care now. I would also posit that governments have what is called a re-election incentive, which is why governments have an incentive to spend this money better than they have in the past. 
+ 
+This is not the same situation. Governments are on the brink of recession, and if they want to keep their power, they have additional incentives to keep this going on. Now, I would also just add in, like, stuff that comes up with and OG responses here. Now, oh says governments are going to be really sure to spend this money because they're only going to send it to politically affluent constituencies. I just want to do a very basic wake-up way up here. Politically affluent constituencies or well politically powerful constituencies have poor people. Poor people do not have pension funds. So if their mechanism of distribution is literally pension funds or dividends, I would say the vast majority of your citizenry does not have access to those. As opposed to even if this money goes first to politically powerful constituencies, at the very least, it reaches vulnerable people that this money would not have gone to otherwise. 
+
+In terms of impact, we, at the very least, impact very vulnerable stakeholders that their policy can never, ever impact and probably make things worse, as I point out at the top of my speech. Other industries probably die out; they slash jobs, and so on and so forth. This is extremely important in that scenario. But the second thing I would note is that governments don't only want to retain constituencies, and the point at which you're in recession, winning over other constituencies is also easier at the point in which you say, "Ah, we are the Tories, and we know that this is Liverpool, but at this point, we are the ones providing you with heating, and we are the ones that are providing you welfare." You know why? Because we're taxing all companies. I would suggest that you get a lot more political sway in historic constituencies where you were historically a lot weaker, so governments have a very, very strong incentive of actually using this money for basic good just because of the reduction uh incentive. 
+
+But the third thing I would point out is that it just gives you room for policy experimentation. This is not—I know this is a one-time policy, but at the point at which another recession is about to hit, and I don't know, the tech industry is booming or other industries are booming, this allows you to, at the very least, create a precedent to start taxing those companies, those industries for waiting for taxes in the future as well, which I would suggest is a good thing because it gives something for poor people to fall back on in those instances. You do not have to deal with the same kind of rhetoric coming from the right-wing, which is, you raise taxes, you slash jobs, because we all know that these companies have enough profit to keep those jobs there. Nobody is slashing that that because Shell just made the highest profits they ever did in their 115-year history last year, so I don't reckon that they're going to lose jobs. If anything, this is a very profitable market; they're going to expand their stuff. I'm moving on to the next one but yes.
+
+<poi>
+If it's true reason is more spending, and that one false tax disproportionately hurt some companies, public detriments. Why don't you just take out, bonds, and accept that slightly higher debt-to-GDP ratio?
+</poi>
+ 
+But because, because you could go into recession—like, why would you want to—why would you want to accept something that is going to lead you to, if they're taking, like, lead you to losing voters at some stage? I just don't know why that's something that governments want to do. But the second thing I want to talk about is institutional investments into new companies. The context over here is it is a tough market, and it is volatile right now. In terms of investors, private equity funds and hedge funds aren't going out really nearly and dishing out cash; they're streaming it in. McKinsey is finally losing jobs. In terms of this, there are things that happen in the renewable sort of space in OO and OG. 
+ 
+OG says, "Well, all companies will diversify," but I think OO is sort of fair in saying, "Well, they have a long-term incentive and diversification anyways; they get tax tax incentives right now, even apart from the windfall tax anyway." So they're probably already going into that, so it's unclear what the bigger marginal impact is; even if the impact is there, it's sort of marginal. They're already doing it. I will point out in the short term right now, this is great for institutional investors like private equity funds, which are again losing money or don't have very profitable industries to go into right now. I would suggest that this benefits a lot of ancillary industries, so I'm talking about lithium-ion battery manufacturers or potentially new companies coming in who want to, I don't know, create an electric car or something like that because you know that there is a higher return on profit. 
+
+And I know that both OO and OG have sort of said that this is sort of a risky space to invest in. I don't know, like, I did use it; it's not risky. You get a lot of money if you come back into renewables anyway, so I would posit that this leaves you there. But why is the short-term investment crucially important? Because I would suggest that private equity funds have a lot of money, and secondly, their money in the short run would not have gone there had the signaling effect not been there because private equity funds are probably thinking, "Ah, they’ve extended this tax; will they extend it again?" The rate of profitability has fallen down, so the lack of certainty around this means that they're unlikely to do that, which they will in our world. 
+For all those reasons, very proud to oppose. 
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+I'm starting in three, two, one. Let's be very clear: all government benches, including OG, actually brings the case, and CG who most repeats the mechanization, regardless of Hamza backloads, and web speech is dependent on this tax outweighing the harm of the rising prices. We agree with the government better that the government needs money. The question is whether the money will be spent well, but we will personally extend an opening opposition. We will show why this policy is shit, even if there are no rivers government incentives, no short-term government incentives, the government wants the best for us. It's still going to be absolutely harmful for three reasons. 
+
+Firstly, the very reason closing government gives us is that there are politicians being lobbied by corporations. There are ideological differences between parliament people who want to advocate, like opening opposition does, for market freedom and letting the market solve. This proves to us it's a long and protracted bureaucratic process. It took part in Croatia seven months to impose policies like this. The reason being that we have a pro-market government in an anti-governmental position. The problem with that being it happens significantly at the risk of rising energy prices, which opening government says is so urgent. Secondly, and more importantly, energy prices are the main driver of inflation within the entire economy. 
+
+So it's not just the price of heating that rises because energy is an intermediary good in any form of production because all forms of consumer goods and durable goods also rise, ranging from food to everyday appliances for anything you can buy in a supermarket. Which means that even if the average distribution opening government talks about happens, it only mirrors one part of the inflation. The majority is still there, and people have rising prices at the end of the day. What is the context of this, and why this is out by opening government? Because their policy is the one that causes the problem; you're sending a signal to get back to corporations that they can raise their prices as much as they want. Yes, you're going to tax them, but you're not going to cap their profit, which is to say you enter into an infinite spiral where companies continue to raise their prices over and over again, which is to say that you increase prices for consumers overall, which not only directly outweighs the harm to citizens for opening government, but it also makes the governments need more money, which is one of the primary problems that opening government wants to solve. 
+
+Because there is nothing preventing these corporations from utilizing the current market situation to try the market price, because the market price is nothing else than an implicit consensus between corporations on the market. It's not externally set. But thirdly, windfall taxes are limited on the corporation, not in its financial activities, which means there's a huge amount of loopholes the corporations can use to simply avoid this tax—stuff like subsidiaries, stuff like shell companies. That's famous. If anything else, it's a very good incentive to shape your headquarters out of the country, which means that a lot of the things that opening government wants to happen, even if we have good incentives for the government and opening opposition, it's simply not going to happen. 
+
+I have proven, firstly, that even in the best government scenario, the harm will exist and the policy is bad. But I've also proven that the policy directly makes the harms worse, going a step further than opening opposition.Now Secondly, let me make very clear what our path to victory is in this debate. We are going to take the government ground, assume both of the government teams win the clash on whether it's principally justified. Even within that context, on a strategically beneficial scenario for government, we're going to show that the realistic counterfactual is better than the one that the government has set up, therefore achieving victory on the government's own metric. 
+  
+What is the most likely reasonable alternative? Simply empirically based on the facts, that's going to happen if we don't have a windfall tax. It seems like price caps and profit caps have been empirically set up all over the European Union by countries like Germany. Why is this the case? Well, for reasons that both government teams give us: because people don't want to be cold, and there's bipartisan political capital because the government said it's very proximate to you, which is something that everybody votes on because people want to have lower prices. Therefore, there is capital for some kind of regulation. The question of this debate empirically, actually, outside of the paid world, the world manual or whatever, is what happens absent this policy. If this is the alternative that happens absent this policy, we will prove it's better. 
+
+We win this debate. Why is it a better alternative? Firstly, because it provides benefits directly to citizens, i.e., I directly pay less for energy, regardless of how good the government isn't redistributing money. Secondly, in April, it stops the inflation spiral because it caps the price at a certain level, which means that the government does not need more money in the long term to make up for the higher prices that are happening and the higher inflation that is happening. But thirdly, because it is targeted at sales and not the legal person, which means it targets everything sold to you at any point, because the policy is far more far-reaching, which is to say the authority we have in the counterfactual is one that's far more direct but is far more implementable and does not cause the problem in the way that the opening government and closing government case does. 
+Before moving to a bunch more of responsive work of the Harish.
+
+<poi>
+Opening opposition, tell us, the market is sufficiently competitive, then prices will not rise as everyone knows the cost of a barrel of oil. You tell us prices will rise significantly. Who's wrong and why? 
+</poi>
+
+No, I'm telling you opening government runs a very opening opposition runs a very good case. This should probably win over both government teams. I'm also telling you that assuming that you win the battling opposition I can run that ground as well. I'm perfectly allowed to do that. I'm sure you, Harish, know that. Cool. A couple of other pieces of responsiveness. Firstly, all the weird Russia-Ukraine. There are four reasons why we still have support for war against Russia. Firstly, because there is above Europe nuclear war all across Europe ever since World War II, apart from the Balkans. 
+
+And nobody cares about the Balkans. There has not been a war on the European Union's borders. Countries like the Baltic states, Poland, Moldova, etc. have a history of being occupied by Russia. The alternative is potentially dying if Ukraine has a frontier fall, and if people are willing to accept that cost. But secondly, as the government themselves concedes, there is urgency to push for renewables because we have to diversify our sources because Russia won't sell anymore. There are subsidies being offered by the European Union to do that, which is to say the cost is probably going to shift in the long term. But thirdly, there's spot dependency at the point where you do implement sanctions, where you don't put the costs from the people. You have to show something to make good for it. 
+
+At the end of the day, you have to be able to say we were able to bankrupt Russia's war machine; we were able to attrition them into losing. At the point where we impose those thoughts, that's when you're not going to go back on them, even if the people don't support it. So I'm not sure why you lose support for the war in Ukraine or why you lose those sanctions. I also want to respond to the green energy point, right? And this is where we build the scales and where we, you know, break the demo because is it risk? Is it not risky? Blah, blah, blah, blah. Here's the thing: there is a particular political juncture in this situation where there is a push for green energy, not necessarily because people like it, but because they're being forced into it. 
+
+I.e., you can either diversify your sources by buying gas from Iran or Azerbaijan or Qatar or any other actor who has the intended to ramp up the price because they know you have no alternative, or you have the incentive to become self-sustainable by shifting to renewables through things like subsidies for green energy. In support that incentive exists. I'm not sure why the government wants to slow down the process by allowing companies to have unrealistically high profit margins despite the realistic need to shift towards renewable energy at the point where we have a situation where we can justify shifting to renewables through the length of securitization, to the length that we might not like it, but we have no alternative. 
+
+To the length that it's a geopolitical tool against Russia, we have all the political capital we need, and  government wants to impose a policy that's going to accomplish artificially high profit margins on the other side of the debate, and we're not going to use this particular junction we have now. Note how slow the shift has been despite Paris and Kyoto. If we don't use this opportunity to justify to other means, we don't know when we get that opportunity again, and that's why they lose out on the debate on renewable energy. For all of these reasons, closing opposition.
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+Is a great auditor, Tin was able to kiss Harish's ass and test Taha in the same sentence, so I'm going to show you the legitimate things that Taha did say because this happens quite a lot. Number one, Taha is the first person to break the clash on this money being used responsibly. Because of the opening government pushes, we get lots of money in opening opposition exposures that they are more legitimate and effective forms of redistribution. Then logically, if the team which wins the debate is a team that shows that this money is much more likely to be effectively used, Taha gives two broad structural reasons for this, which are broadly conceded for the means of opposition's extension. 
+
+Number one, you have lots of Astro turf organizations set up by these oil companies—Americans against oil taxes, all of that stuff you have—right-wing politicians, you have right-wing op-eds, you have right-wing think tanks which are going after this government as silly and ineffective, but most of all pointing out that if cost of living is the name of the game, this is the worst way to do it. If that is true, there are heightened levels of scrutiny upon this government to use this money in immediate and effective ways to swing a voting public, which is both sides have discussed are reasonably polarized within this discussion. I think this is an incredibly important point in terms of impacting opening government's analysis and also being invulnerable to opening opposition's response on this money not being used effectively. 
+
+Secondly, I think it does a great job of also responding implicitly to Tin's point about this idea of you could have regulated them instead or you could have done something else. One fairly World School's understanding of how political capital works, right? Like, you know there's a box of political capital—it's 100 political capitals, and we can use 100 little capitals to Policy X, which is us, or 100 to do yours, which is policy Y. One, that's never how policy works because what often happens is you take an inch, and then you take a mile. This is exactly what happened in the Wall Street crisis; this is exactly what happened with crypto four months ago at my detriment, and this is exactly what's going to happen right now, which is the point at which you say, "Fuck Off, we're going to impose the windfall tax." 
+
+Lots of people start saying, "Why are these people making 40 billion dollars a year? Why is ExxonMobil nearly 300 billion dollars of revenue?" More and more and more people start coming out against it. This is why historically legislation gets more and more intense once you start going after a target because it becomes more and more unpopular. If anything, our government would be accused of hypocrisy by subsidizing an industry that they're not taxing. We say go after the subsidies, which is exactly what people are saying in the pages of the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, which is that if you have a windfall tax, then logically you shouldn't be subsidizing this industry to tax breaks of a trillion dollars. We think we get much more change in our world at the point in which people accuse this government of this hypocrisy and of this incompetence, and helps get much more regulation in our world. 
+
+Second, I think it's important to understand that diversification incentives exist on both sides. I think the opposition bench has done a great job of being like, "Here are the ten reasons why diversification would happen opening government side," but there's a couple more, and I'm like, fair enough. I think the way that Taha breaks the clash is by talking about signaling and policy expectations, which is realistically how companies make decisions. What will the government do next? Is it exactly what an investor is thinking at any given time, just like with inflation expectations? For instance, in this case, if the government continues this increase, as Rishi Sunak is debating this in Parliament for the last two weeks, then it signals to institutional investors that this is something that the government might do for a long amount of time. 
+
+What this means then is that the signaling to the market shifts capital away from things like this the lithium-ion and iron batteries and different things, which helps the renewable push. Again, a very crucial mechanism in terms of proving the product push renewable energy. I think that's super, super important. The third, Jason comes up and says, "You know what? Like, why didn't we tax those tech companies when they made all that money in 2020?" Thank you. Because we want to set a precedent. We want to set a precedent for windfall taxes. The point at which if companies are making arbitrary gains out of circumstances that were no longer in their control, I think it sets up a real political discussion about when you should have windfall taxes in the future. 
+
+In fact, we compound the benefits on opening government. We say the next time debt arbitrarily makes money because you're sitting at home because of a pandemic, again, we should windfall tax them, and we should take that gain and distribute it equitably and fairly. And finally, just on this Ukraine point, I think it's important to understand, like, you know, there's a hundred reasons to be in Ukraine. I really don't think it's a debate word argument to say this will be the reason that people don't do it. I agree with both OG and OO; I have nothing to say on that. Quickly on closing opposition then, first, I showed you that this political capital argument is vulnerable to two responses. One, political capital is not mutually exclusive in this case, but two, governments are further accused of hypocrisy. 
+
+It's a second claim that it makes, which is the claim about rising energy prices, and the hidden claim within that is, but on whom will the incidence of the tax fall? Two reasons why it will fall on the company and not the consumer: number one, governments have, and in many cases are instating price caps. It's specifically to ensure that the incidence of the tax won't fall on the consumer. But secondly, and structurally, I say there's an overall rise of negative public sentiment against these companies to begin with, right? Like, imagine that the government taxes them, and then the next day you're like, "Wow, oil was 350 in Arizona last night, and now it's 450." People aren't fucking stupid, and they're watching that change happen. And the more Shell is taxed, the more they take you for their money. Before I engage with opening opposition, I'm going to take Jason. Go ahead. 
+
+<poi> 
+Where polarization crucially occurs, the very most opponents will always invent a problem with your budget and critique the government regardless. Why does this mean that you always want to create the best possible budget when you'll always be critiqued and always be attacked in a polarized context like you suggest? 
+</poi>
+
+They want to get elected. Yeah, that's the one, because what happens is when you're running these close races, and when you know you're taking a big risky move like a fucking windfall tax, this policy might be the reason you win or lose an election, which means that you have to ensure that the next state is something happening in Liverpool or Manchester, which shows the gains from this risky policy.
+
+Opening opposition: a couple of claims. One, the argument from legitimate wealth: they said you worked for it. You've worked to do lots of bad things in society, but if there's a third-party harm on someone, you do not deserve that wealth. Secondly, it's important to understand that this wealth was not directly gained. If I work and get a PhD from Harvard and then I win the lottery the next day, one does not have to do with the other. That's why this wealth is not legitimate. Second, taking out all of their fancy economic analysis, boiling down their argument on redistribution to a sentence: "Rise in oil company profits are a more effective form of distribution than the government." I think that's insane. I'm going to the bucket, I'm going to the bucket, but I think that's categorically insane, and I don't think they should be allowed to get away with that for a couple of reasons. 
+
+One, the government has electoral incentives to ensure that the taxes that they use are distributed fairly. Second, they have an underpinning welfare state that these people don't have. Poor people don't have pensions across the world. For a lot of people who do have pensions, invest in these specific oil companies might not be the people who are most suffering while the government can be much more active in its redistribution. I cannot believe that they ran that. But finally, on this renewable stuff, you know what? It goes either way, panel. We've shown to you that the tax incidence falls on these companies that disrespected for institutional investing and also that the side is a better precedent. I'm very, very proud to oppose.
+</gw>
+
+<ow>
+Yes, I do realize too that I seem to go against this debate dog thing of you see stuff that's been thrown at you by the government, and you buy it because you have to disagree with everything they're saying, which is why I read the motion like five different times to be sure I'm not the one who isn't paying attention. There are huge profits that are being made by these companies because if there aren't, this motion does not apply, and it doesn't matter, and we can all go home, right? Given that those huge profits exist, and given that I've signaled in a POI to Naomi that this is what we will do, right? We will point out we also probably think it's good to protect consumers. We just think that's not a good way to do it.
+
+There are better ways to do it. Naomi's response was, "Oh no, but the windfall tax is direct, targeted, and it harms us properly." What Tin and I are telling you is that if that's what you want, there are other ways in which you can also apply policies that are direct, targeted, and harm those profiting that achieve their goals better, which is why I think closing opposition should win this debate. Now, here's the thing. I don't think we are connecting a world simply because, again, if OO was trying to say that these companies aren't going to make huge profits, this motion wouldn't exist because this is not about taxing revenues; this is about taxing profits. So what that means is that simply the fact that the price of crude oil has gone up worldwide doesn't mean that the companies that provide energy, because they're taking that oil and they're turning it into energy, sending it to consumers, they still want to make large profits because their costs also increase, and they would simply be passing on those costs onto consumers. 
+
+That's not profit; that's revenue, right? So what that means is that if we are talking about huge profits, it means that those companies, additionally to the increases that already happen anyway because the raw materials increase, they are able to massively profit off it, right? So like OG and CG give you all kinds of various arguments on why there's tons of political capital to hit all companies to ease pressure on consumers. If that is true, great. Just use it better. CG says, "You know, governments can institute price caps." And they've kind of tried to do that—like they haven't really tried to do that. I think that's that's a thing they can do. What I'm telling you is take all of the political capital that you want to spend on windfall taxes. I'm telling you windfall taxes aren't going to work as great as you think they will, and instead, put it on price caps. 
+
+What's the difference? Because I do feel dumb when Harish laughs at me, right? But I genuinely think I'm getting this right. Here's the thing: windfall taxes mean you allow the company to profit, meaning you allow them to put a huge markup on the things you are passing on to consumers, meaning the consumers need to pay those huge prices for the profit to be there in the first place. Then you take a small part of that pie of the profit and you say you go give it back. It's kind of like looking at a hole in the Titanic. Instead of trying to block the hole in the Titanic, you take a bucket and throw water out of it. Yes, you will throw water out of it with a windfall tax, like you're taking some of those profits, and you can give it back to the people, but it's much smaller than the damage that is being done. Unless you tax those profits at literally 100%, which I just don't think is likely. 
+
+And if you wanted to run that, you should have made it clear in P.O.I. So, here's the thing: we are telling you instead of allowing those profits to keep rising and saying, "You know they're not that great; we want a share of that," we're saying don't allow them to make those profits in the first place. Why? Because they're the incentives of the companies. I have to minimize their tax bills; they're to maximize whatever is left after the tax. If I have the choice between earning a million dollars and paying a hundred thousand dollars in tax because you tax me more because I'm rich, I would much prefer that over only earning a hundred thousand dollars in total, and then, you know, I still maybe only pay a thousand dollars in tax, and like that's a much lower tax rate. It's a much lower overall tax bill, but also the size of the pie that I'm left with after those lower taxes is smaller, meaning that if you have windfall taxes, companies are still going to choose to maximize profit as much as they can because what taps them currently is the price they're able to get on the market and the fact that there's very low elasticity of price for things like heating because people need to heat, like OG gives you all of that, right? 
+
+So what that means is that when you need to intervene those companies making those profits rather than just saying, "Well, you know, we want the tiny size of that pie and maybe give it back to people." So, yeah, actually, I'll take OG. 
+
+<poi>
+Okay, companies can't increase prices a huge amount, obviously, because they're already trying to maximize, as you were noted, and they will not just keep increasing profits. They'll put the prices to the point where you have reduced demand. That is why you don't have the effect you are talking about.
+</poi>
+
+But the problem is that the kind of profits that we are seeing, they are generally going to be the kinds of things that are see realized in the moment. That is the first answer. 
+
+And the second thing that I think is important here is you need to distinguish between the energy companies that are uh are simply buying raw material and—okay, no. The the other answer to Harish is basically that there's only so many reserves you can have; they're usually at pretty much 100% anyway, and like when you feel them, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that when the price is high and you increase your profit margins, you're able to make profit, because note that if you buy that energy cheaper, that is reflected in your profit margins because the profit is, again, the difference between what you buy and what you sell. So that doesn't even make sense, Rich, but because that would be then reflected. And then if we stop you from having those profits, then that is great. 
+
+But then what we also need to pay attention to is that probably what makes a difference is also where those profits are being made because if you are trying to target extractors, like good luck targeting, like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, or Russia would windfall tax is not going to happen, right? So that probably means that if you want to target those companies making a ton of profits because they're extracting their own resources and storing it and selling it on the global market when the global market price is high, you don't—I genuinely don't think you can prove that Russia is going to implement the windfall tax for their companies or that Saudi Arabia will do that, right? So then the only way you can target them is you target them at the moment where they introduce that thing on the global market, which is what we've seen you trying to do. 
+
+Like, it pushed a shit ton of money to Russia even though, you know, trying to threaten they will no longer buy gas from Russia. But the only moment in which Russia's profits actually started to hold and Russia's economy actually started to take a hit is when you put a price cap on how much they are willing to pay on Russian oil. We are telling you that that is something that we have seen work, and it is something that we should continue to have. But second, the main data here—and because that's where you realistically have some sort of influence—are the local energy companies that are profiting. They're literally making billions—like, it's—I don't know the names in the UK, right? But there's like the Vienna Energy Company that had literally billions in profit last year, and it's not because they didn't always have like a 100 reserves that they fail whenever the price is low; it's simply because they were able to push the prices higher. 
+
+And if if if you tax that—sorry, if you prevent those profits from being made, that is when you get everything that is telling you of—you get lower inflationary pressures because you get lower spikes in consumer goods prices. You also get, because you get lower inflation, then you also get lower hikes in tax rate, which means debt doesn't become that much more expensive, which means that you just make the problem smaller instead of finding the inefficient way to solve it. It's very proud to oppose.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/LSE Open 2023 Round 3 Room 2_edited.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,386 @@
+<pm> 
+Pretty straight forward case from opening government, we came to see that oh there is principle of legatee, that will lead to better outcomes for the poor and ultimately let better long-term outcomes for investment and infrastructure for the energy sector. 
+ 
+Whatever, we will have substantial taxes on additional profit. Notice profit, not revenue. So, the bottom line for companies for the additional money that they make in terms of increased prices, not the core business. So, in the same way that tax and like toxic rockets are based on incomes, your additional income or your additional net profit is going to be taxed. 
+  
+We will use these tasks, we need to subsidize energy for these four minutes. I'm going to characterize this debate, why we think energy prices are currently high and why generally they're high in the status quo. The reason why energy prices are so high is primarily because of the conflict in Ukraine. 
+
+That is that have been embargoes and often taken against Russia to not buy their oil, and therefore the supply of oil and the supply of energy has gone down. And that has led to increased prices because companies in the West know that they can charge higher prices. Lining up of principle, do we think that this arbitrary scarcity should be taxed? 
+
+We think, one, how can you don't deserve this money insofar as we think that people occupied when you're fighting better or superior service and you provide service for more individuals. The fact that you arbitrarily had scarcity and there was a global situation and actually a tragedy that led to you having an arbitrary advantage shouldn't mean that you get additional benefit from that. 
+
+So, enterprise companies don't deserve that money. We think they deserve to be taxed. But secondly, when do we tax? I think that we tax, especially an additional marginal tax on those who unfairly benefit from society, and we take that tax and give it to those who are exploitative. That is why we have additional taxes on the rich who are able to exploit and take advantage of society and we give them back to the poor because those are the individuals who were exploited to support those who are rich. 
+
+Insofar it's not the case, I think we justify only two-prong level of principle: why one completely deserves this money and two why those were exploited by these increased prices due. enterprise is not the case. I think we need a justification from opposition why these companies deserve this money. I think any team that tries to explain why this profit is more than justified is going to lose. Yeah, 
+
+<poi>
+these companies necessarily are making extraordinary profit when you tax them. One is this health supports version and two it's just the subset of companies who made profits in that specific period.
+</poi>
+
+I'm just confused with POIs. I think like the motion presumes that companies have made an additional profit. If they haven't in the status quo, we're happy to support a general principle of taxing companies. 
+
+And to be clear, I think in the vast majority of instances, the reason why energy prices are high isn't because companies have decided to revolutionize energy and provide a better service. Maybe vast majority instances prices of energy go up because of arbitrary scarcity. And so we generally support the principle of taxing businesses when they make a large amount of profit based on that arbitrary scarcity, and we think this goes beyond energy. 
+
+We're highly supported in other instances as well. Second argument: why do you think subsidizing the poor is good? I think this is obviously a huge intuitive impact as far as it's massively increasing the affordability of the poor and makes sure that people are able to afford basic necessities. I think the price of energy is probably currently one of the biggest factors that is limiting household income and often means that families can't put food on the table because the price of gas is so high for them to be able to, no thank you, to go to work and for their children for them to be able to heat their homes when the temperature is cold. 
+
+I think at the point in which we're able to subsidize energy for those who are most vulnerable, that's a huge impact for our side of the house. To be clear on mutual accessibility, we think that it's quite obvious that justifying as a politician why money taken from exploitative energy companies given to the poor for the purpose of energy is probably one of the easiest qualities to justify to the public. To say using this tax money for this purpose is probably the right way to go. 
+  
+It's not the case any kind of opposition counterpart needs to argue why should my people to get a policy that's not this quick just as effective economically and just as politically at our policy, given it's probably very, very easy for politicians to justify why this money should be spent on the poor, given that they're the ones who are most exploited and most vulnerable to these price spikes and given that these price spikes are arbitrarily benefiting companies on the basis of scarcity. Go
+
+<poi>
+yeah, so the extension of your principle is that you set the swimming pool tax at 100 because all of it's arbitrary. Do you support that? 
+</poi>
+
+We don't support 100% tax enterprise. We think on the important there is some additional service that big companies are having to provide, but we support like substantial like 60 to 70 taxes perhaps. But I think this is, you know, but the general principle I don't, I, you know, I'm not that good at maths and finance, so pick whatever number you think is reasonable and we'll go with that. 
+ 
+Um, third argument: why do you think this will lead to more investment in infrastructure and lower prices in the long term? The reason for this is because at the point of which your bottom line profit is being taxed, it's in your incentive to not have as much of a profit. Do you want the way that you do that effectively as a company is often to invest in capital expenditures that doesn't show up in here? 
+ 
+It's not the case it is in the incentive of energy companies to rather than letting money go to like run, rather than letting that money trickle down to the bottom line and then getting most of it taxed, which is a waste, to actually use that money for something that will benefit their business in the long term. What that means is investing in capital in infrastructure and investing in things that will increase the value of energy in the long term. 
+  
+Secondly, I think often, and as we've characterized, the reason why energy prices are high is because of artificial scarcity. What this looks like in the real world is companies often colluding to meet sole providers in certain geographical regions such that they can charge whatever price they want in that region because there's incentive for these companies to collude together and just, you know, kind of taper off different regions and just split them up between themselves such that one company can benefit from the monopoly that they have in that area. 
+ 
+The reason why that's important is because what that means is that it's in your incentive to decrease supply because you can charge a higher price for that as an entry supply company, and insofar as demand for energy is inelastic, increasing prices will increase your profit on average as far as the amount that your demand would decrease by is offset by the amount of your price increase. 
+  
+Insofar as that the case, I think we are able to tip that incentive enterprise. The marginal benefit that you get from raising the prices is now hugely, hugely counteractive by the massive taxes imposed upon you. At that point, the superior strategy to generate more profit in the long term is actually increase supply and be willing to take the hit on price. And so far as when prices are low, the windfall tax no longer applies. 
+ 
+Insofar the case, we dramatically change the incentive for companies to create more difficult scarcity and to, for example, shut down supply plans, which they've done in the past in order to decrease supply and increase prices at the point. It was not the case I think you're likely to increase the supply of energy around the world and reduce prices for those who are most vulnerable. 
+
+The third point here is that we think specifically kind of capital investment take place is going to be in renewables. The reason for that is because if you're going to allocate your money towards a certain kind of expenditure, you might as well do it towards something that you're going to get additional tax benefits from. Governments are currently offering massive benefits to companies for investing in renewables. 
+  
+The reason why they don't do it in the status quo is because the marginal benefit for renewables doesn't make up for the additional benefit that you can just get from price gouging customers on your core business. The way we switch that is, again, by reducing the marginal benefit of price gouging and by increasing prices and rather increasing the increasingly beneficial companies when they actually invest in in in ... 
+ 
+What are the impacts of this argument? One, I think across the line we get reduced costs and increased supply for the vast majority of individuals as far as we increase the incentive of companies to, instead of increasing prices as a way of maximizing revenue, to rather decrease costs and increase supply. They're likely to have increased renewables. 
+And tax on all those grounds. 
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+A few observations about that speech. One, Nikki cannot model that they're going to use the excess revenues that come from this tax and funnel it into subsidizing energy for poor people. Important reason that CO correctly points out in a POI: this is a simple explosion, therefore they do not get yacht to say where this money will go. 
+
+Secondly, and as much as subsidization is likely to happen on either side of the debate, which is the largest margin is in instances where it is politically unpopular. If you justified subsidies in this instance, Mighty, there are strong degrees of political opposition to such subsidies in certain instances. 
+ 
+And therefore it is unlikely that in the most severe cases this excess tax money that is sort of like being taxed on these companies is then going to be funneled into subsidies for certain individuals. So, the relative mileage that they get out of that model, even if you think that they can do it, needs to be weighed against our more direct argument about why prices increase on aggregate on their side of the house. 
+
+Three claims: one, windfall taxes increase aggregate energy prices. two, we hasten the pace of renewable energy development and three, why this is principally unjustified. Two broad mechanisms under this argument about why they increase aggregate energy prices. The first is that this is likely going to have a highly regressive impact because under the status quo, energies are expecting a certain degree of profit. 
+
+This shifts the expectation that they have in terms of how much profit they will make and forces energy companies to adjust importantly in four ways. One, and as much as they're being aggressively taxed, they need to find a way to make up for that money, and therefore they need to raise taxes elsewhere, i.e., in normal times. 
+ 
+Two, there's an expectation, and when energy prices rise again, they will be further aggressively taxed due to the aggressive nature of this tax and the political justifications that they themselves talk about. But thirdly, do not let them get away with the soft stance. No, this is a continued increase, i.e., the windfall tax increases overcome to a significant extent. 
+
+And what that then means is that God needs to defend this tax from going on increasingly into the future, and therefore this tax is like going to be disproportionately, I honestly, why is this likely to be bad? Because what this then means is that that creates a huge incentive to raise aggregate energy prices in order to compensate for the profit hit that you are taking under this model. 
+ 
+I need the very, very high tax that their model engenders. One system that has a regressive impact. Why? Because given that individuals' demand for energy is inelastic, i.e., on both sides of this debate, you need to pay for energy. You need to do that so that like your home can function properly. People still have to pay for it. 
+
+But what that then means is that when you pay for that energy on a higher price, you have less disposable and low-income individuals in order to spend money on things like bread that you need to feed yourself and your family. By contrast, why will prices be fair and reasonable under our side of the house? Because under our side, we enable higher degrees of stability. 
+
+Why? Because absent a windfall tax, you know that there are going to be booms and busts in terms of the sort of like energy demand but also different exogenous effects that are happening around the globe—geopolitical conflicts or natural disasters. There are going to be some instances in which energy prices will be naturally high, other instances in which energy prices will be naturally low. 
+  
+And what that then means is that you can shape your profit model in a way where you can make the prices stable over time, i.e., cross-subsidize so that when they are higher, you can still keep the energy prices relatively low versus under their side of the house where they become significantly higher. And the reason that price stability matters is because it has less of a regressive impact on low-income individuals. 
+
+It's easier for poor families to plan and they're not suddenly hit by sudden prices and their energy bill in the middle of the winter when a conflict is ongoing. But the second broad mechanism under this argument is that they actually ossify market power under their set of cups, i.e., the windfall tax is also likely to have a regressive impact on companies for the reason that larger companies are disproportionately likely to be able to weather this tax in the first place. 
+ 
+Especially given the framing that it gave you about why this tax is likely to be very large. And what this then means is that smaller energy companies are going to struggle taking the hit from this tax. And what this then means is that they risk going out of business, especially if you're a relatively small energy company in a rural area. 
+ 
+What this then means is that in as much as larger companies now have more market power, they get to price fix, i.e., make prices increasingly high. And the reason that this is likely is because larger companies know that they can gain from a significant extent versus under our side of the house when you have a higher degree of sectoral companies. 
+
+And that is when all the benefits that we point out, i.e., not only price stability but also competition between these different companies, take in when smaller companies aren't crowded out to an unnecessary extent under the status quo. Right? And this matters for the reason that this is the most intense impact on this debate. 
+
+Maybe teams can give you really like nebulous economic jargon about what's going to happen in this round, but the clearest impact is always going to be, will you be able to put bread on the table? Will you be able to survive the winter when your government can't do anything for you? Otherwise, and that is why we will take this today. Before I move on, CG, 
+
+<poi>
+Given the tax is on profit, not income, regardless of if the oil is cheap for the company or expensive for the company, we're taxing their profit. So if they can inflate the prices all they want, they'll just get more tax taken off. 
+</poi>
+
+Look, that doesn't apply to our case because still you are likely going to increase energy prices under your side of the house.  
+Like, I don't see how that meaningfully engages. Secondly, windfall taxes slow the transition to renewable energy. There are existing incentives that make a green energy transition likely. The first is that mine are able to make more money under our side of the house i.e., your profit is higher. You're also able to cross-subsidize into clean energy. 
+ 
+And that's where the reason that shareholder activists are able to make specific arguments on corporate boards, i.e., shareholder activists at PP making the persuasive argument that even if you take the short term out right now, in the long term you can invest into renewable or cleaner forms of energy or anyone and engine one going green or similar reasons. 
+ 
+But a windfall tax obviously obviates this goal. Why? Because firstly, windfall taxes cut down energy profits even in primary prices relatively low. Two, you use the spare money you make during the times where you are have relative—you use the spare money that you make under our side of the house in order to reinvest into green energy, but that is much more difficult to do under their side of the house. 
+
+But they're the—it's just harder to make the persuasive argument to adopt things like green energy to the same extent because you know that we will be continuously and continuously taxed. Even if you make more profits, you won't be able to remove the fruits of those profits, and therefore internally on corporate voice to be part of their owners to make the argument that we should invest elsewhere. 
+ 
+And it's more likely that you're just going to have status quo bias and keep the existing green energy models that you have. There was an implicit response that we hear from that speaker is that you can make capital investments on renewable energy to decrease your profits so less of your money is taxed. Number one, lots of investments aren't made instantly. You need to negotiate great plans and convince other shareholders, and this isn't a decision that companies are just going to hastily make. 
+ 
+But two, we explained how we better support renewable energy under our side of the house in as much as now you get direct investment; we're here based upon a speculation about what might happen. And the reason this matters is because this is able to prevent future energy price crises which preclude the debate, i.e., you're able to diversify your supply chains, step in need to raise prices isn't as high in the first place. 
+ 
+But also, it means that long term, we've got a better help for the environment and reduce reliance on corn oil and natural gas supplies. Yeah, thank you. 
+</lo>
+
+<dpm>
+Opening up we know this is a bit off the court's motion, our case doesn't depend on this OPA in upward motion. Rather, I want to explain to you why subsidization for the core and reduced price of the course will only happen on our side for two reasons. 
+ 
+First of all, this policy is likely going to actually, in the real world, end up paying for subsidies for the poor because it is uniquely easy to justify. That is to say, this additional tax is taken directly from companies—companies which the public perceives and blames for having caused the harm of high prices and profiteering during a period of scarcity at the expense of everyone else. 
+
+It is thus very, very logical that politicians have incentives to help people who are struggling by punishing those who are contributing to harm. So, therefore, it's very likely that this money will go towards subsidizing. What I also want to point out, I know it is uniquely likely going to go towards helping the poor. 
+  
+It's a very simple reason. On their side of the house, if they want to have subsidies for the poor, that is when they have to take it from the overall budget. That's when they have to tax everyone more. That's when you have to take money away from other things that the government spends on. You take money away from them to thank you from defense. You have to take the money directly away from healthcare. 
+ 
+The consequence is, it is far, far easier to justify substance for the poor and far more likely that you subsidize the poor at the point when we have this tax compared to when you are cutting healthcare, when you are borrowing more and putting your children's financial future at risk, so on and so forth. The second reason why these subsidies are uniquely effective and likely on our side of the house is the idea of time. 
+ 
+I have characterized these situations for you. They are unique situations, like, for example, geopolitical situations, like, for example, natural disasters which might happen. The fact that they are unique means they require ad public policy to occur to be passed by governments in that time. And on what's on their side of the house, this occurs automatically at the point where, let's say the Department of Energy determines that decision threshold has been reached. 
+ 
+On their side of the house, the government actually has to pass that policy enacting this one-time subsidy. And the point when ultimately Congress and other members are dealing with so, so many dozens of different issues, like, for example, the prices itself, that is why you have gridlock. That's what it is. What it takes weeks and maybe even months to get that subsidy passed. 
+  
+To the end of the day, they are substance uniquely likely and effective because on their side, the poor will be left without energy for weeks. First of all about, oh, I talk about this idea of reducing costs, then I want to talk about the principle, which we don't think they even addressed at all. First of all, on the idea of price, they believe that, first of all, that this will have a regressive impact on price. 
+ 
+I think there are a couple of responses to this, but first of all, I want to point out that as we pointed out in the model, there is a base level of profit that companies can make even if the windfall tax exists. The point is, like, there's a guaranteed level of profit that they are able to generate. The question with this is, until why they feel these companies feel the necessity to increase prices even more, because they are, like, at the very least guaranteed enough to be financially stable. 
+ 
+Second of all, I want to point out that if prices, if companies jack up prices, this means that generally companies' prices are likely to remain higher in the market for a longer period of time. And if prices remain higher, we think that is itself a situation where companies will have to be paying the windfall tax for a longer period of time. Generally, what the windfall taxes go away, they want prices to return to their normal level as soon as possible, far more on our side of the house than on their side of the house. 
+
+And therefore, that is far more likely to look like investments to ensure that people can get more as possible. This is not right. That's responsiveness. The idea here is, what is the best profit-maximizing strategy for you as a company under the windfall tax? On their side of the house, it is to increase prices because that is when you, every additional dollar you increase price, you get that additional dollar of profit. 
+
+But on our side, because energy demand is quite elastic, but on our side of the house, you don't want to increase the price necessarily. That's not the best strategy. By contrast, a much better strategy is to increase demand, that is, to increase capacity to have people consuming more energy instead of the same amount of energy at a higher price. 
+
+In that sense, we massively improve the incentives of companies. On the next point, on the idea of cross-subsidization, so I think broadly what I understood from their argument is that because of this windfall tax, firms lose the ability, especially upon small burns, they lose the ability to cross-subsidize and invest in the long run in terms of things like, for example, green energy. 
+
+I want to point out that we think firms can access the kind of money to spend on both sides of the house. Most energy companies tend to be relatively large and mature companies. They also tend to have a relatively stable revenue because everyone needs energy. This means they tend to have very, very good credit ratings. They're very, very good at borrowing. They can borrow money whenever they need it. 
+
+The idea is what is their incentive to do? And on our side of the house, even though they probably can invest on both sides, they are far more likely to invest on our side of the house in a sense because they do not need to make as much profit during these times. They might engage in things like capital expenditure, which they can deduct against those taxes. 
+
+Finally, on the idea of price checks, look, I want to point out that this is probably a symmetric part. And the very simple reason is that I don't think the energy situation right now is the situation where we have small companies competing against larger ones to provide you with electricity. In most cases, the energy companies have a captive market. Because you need to, like, have a huge appointment of scale to make energy work. 
+ 
+Like, so generally, you only have regions with like one sole provider, maybe even two sole providers, two providers. So, in that sense, I don't think they're gonna have much competition on their side anyway. So, why do we massively reduce costs? We want in three areas. One, we have uniquely effective and likely subsidies for the poor, which substantiate the Starbucks speech. 
+
+Second of all, we incentivize investment in terms of capital, in terms of capital expenditure being more better. And third of all, we increase the incentive for companies to focus on profit by increasing demand, not price. So, at the end of the day, we have more money going to infrastructure and again we have more about a slightly going to be going towards renewables. 
+
+So, finally, on the principle, look, we have to explain to you that companies in nowhere form deserve this money or they don't deserve all of this money. It's too far and we explain. I'm going to explain to you why that is so crucial in my opinion, in our opinion of opening government. The government is only given so much power over the economy because it has the obligation to ensure fair outcomes in terms of who gets who. 
+
+That is why they've never had too much power. It also has a responsibility to ensure fairness. The problem is the government could most certainly boost economic growth and overall outcomes. It could increase, for example, infrastructure and investment by policies which also increase inequality, but governments choose not to do so because they prioritize justice and fairness over maximizing outcomes and output. 
+
+This is why, for example, inheritance tax is so high. It may be the case that having a low inheritance tax means rich people work harder, but overall, it's believed that it's unfair that people get this money that they don't deserve. We've proven that these companies do not deserve all of this additional profit because it wasn't provided by success in the market. Rather, it was either blind luck, but more importantly, profiting and exploiting the vulnerability of others. 
+
+Energy is a necessity, and we believe that makes it unique in the sense that you can't—you simply—it's wrong for you to exploit individuals' need for energy during tough times and make so much money off their backs. So, on that basis, we're very proud to have oppose.
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo>
+I'll talk about three things from the speech: virtually on the principle, secondly on the prices, thirdly on investments and community energies. 
+Firstly, that principle—the gut principle is that lots of these energy companies did not deserve the increase in proxy received due to exogenous factors such as faculty disasters, report and different nation attacks on it. So, there's three responses. This principle doesn't necessarily follow. Why is this true? Because what they're claiming is just that companies did not deserve this amount of profit. 
+ 
+But the extension of this principle is no one deserves anything. Lots of arbitrary talents beyond what is like operating costs. So, obviously, this doesn't make sense in a huge amount of cases. It's more morally wrong how much companies for something that's relatively arbitrary. So, on the flip, it is actually worse that you are actually doing harm to companies to get a dessert like that for you to be like taking away things that they do not deserve. 
+
+So, I'm not on the balance of which side is causing more, like, or more is more likely causing moral injustice. It is their side of the house, but also it is relatively hard to quantify how much a company deserves and does not deserve, and often that classification of their side is highly likely going to be miscalculated. So, we would rather prefer utilitarian outcomes as to whether or not individuals on ground chemistry better prices. 
+
+Whether or not response—yes, fine, yes. It's true that companies should be taxed for things they did not serve. The answer is the solution to this is we already tax companies that make more profits in greater amounts. Not the perfect approximation, but we don't think it's completely—doesn't exist right now. Thirdly, realistically, you even if we can see that this principle that companies did not deserve all the profits they make is true, our argument proof so you—the worst impacts that overrides the principle. 
+ 
+And you should know UID's personal matter. See, first of that depressed fight caused by windfall taxes is worse on their side when companies don't have cross-oxidization abilities due to a greater increase the greater decreasing high stability on their side. Yes, even if the money gets redistributed through taxes in the future, that is a lengthy and an inefficient process compared to just individuals holding on to that disposable income right now when they know what they need to spend that money on right now. 
+
+It's unclear whether governments can properly approximate what the individual needs versus the individual who probably knows what they need better, and therefore within that time gap they actually lose lives when that money doesn't get into the pockets of people, especially when some of these governments are not being clean as standards, relatively corrupt, or in some cases just really bureaucratically full of nonsense. So, that's the issue of the end of the deal on their side. 
+
+No, thank you. Exactly. Then let's talk about increase in prices that explains to you very clearly how energy companies offer when it comes to profit expectation and why they have to adjust on their side of the house. But the issue is often these companies are just for me. Often they've either mis project or they can overcompensate early on in order for them future forms of windfall taxes being implemented. 
+ 
+The biggest department is from CG, which is, no, no, but when you price high, more of that money goes into tax money, so the company will price like in the first place. Otherwise, all that money will get taxed in the future anyway. One, this is like sound logic, but the issue with this claim is that there's an elective action problem among oil packs and companies. 
+
+So, even if it is true that companies like the money, the extra profit they make will get taxed, here's why they still have the cheap prices relatively high because it is unpopular and difficult to massively lower your prices because OPEC probably realizes that it is really hard and difficult to justify in the future while you are going to increase more cheap prices high. 
+ 
+It is also extremely politically unpopular in the future to raise prices than for, you know, set the expectation because the price is relatively high already to deal with it. It’s supposed to be governments are likely to subsidize things like energy buying. Why? Because often people need energy to survive. It’s a major voting issue—CFEU energy crisis. 
+
+So, regardless of what the price is, governments are likely going to be providing this for people, providing subsidies to ensure that people can afford it because people really care about it. But two, even if you buy this claim at its highest, our argument will be that people can better control the use of their disposable income than the government can make decisions and make this a redistribution process over this month. 
+  
+Why? Because you know your needs are probably much better than the government can. Whether you have to put that money into things like food, education, or to save your sick mother. And therefore, it's better if more of that money is kept in your pockets that relied on the government to determine what policy they want to implement and how in what ways and conclude which groups they want to addition to the money. 
+
+Two, but three, if you are booked tax will also can't price hike. So, for example, smaller companies, this feeds into our argument about monopolization. The small companies eventually go out of business because they are both aggressive but also are unable to make these compensations for the companies that remain are often going to be large companies that monopolize and are able to afford it on their side. 
+
+And that's really bad because in a lot of cases some of these small companies are these sole providers in relatively more rural regions where individuals need the energy the most and the individuals are relying on these companies. So that's the issue. Stop that. Stop badgering. And so this is the problem they have to deal with. 
+ 
+But also, by the way, we have received no response from OG. The last thing they say is that this tax also passes the end, but also note this tax taxes the additional demand that people have for the energy. So, we're not sure what the issue is on their assessments. We'll take over it 
+
+<poi>
+if it is the case, and others says that this tax rate is very high. Companies don't benefit at all by raising prices but rather increase revenue by keeping costs low so they can keep more of their profit.
+</poi>
+
+I literally explained to you that there's a need for companies to somehow level keep the prices high because there's a collective action problem amongst my only pets and companies. But also I would think while we get better, we have better investment production 2017.
+
+Moving on to the OG response. The OG response is the tax goes to subsidizing the poor because it is really easy to justify. So, this is the shift from their like fun like finding ass model where like, yeah, this claim first thing due to the history of communism, people generally view things as subsidies. It's overly socialists and therefore it's relatively hard to justify it. 
+ 
+But two, you don't believe it is fine if you're a reason why subsidies for these poor is probably symmetric. Why? Often being able to afford fuel and be able to cook and be warm in the winter is a relatively important voting issue. That’s me. I feel like most individuals probably care about whether or not they're able to live. 
+
+Therefore, it’s highly likely on both sides the governments that do care are going to be putting money to subsidize their energy issues. Becomes that don't care on their side of the house are going to leave these individuals who die. Versus on our side, individuals at least have to be disposable income on their own. Moving on to energy very quickly. All claims that do not have profit you need to make green investments and invest in capital infrastructure so that's what that money gets passed. 
+
+What there's a time issue, you often need a long time to get investments into green energy approved even under a speedy and efficient negotiation process. Why? Companies need to know when you’re putting certain things—what your long-term plans are, development, all of that needs time. But now that this policy is time sensitive, it actually further increases companies' incentives who just price gouge on their existing energy and oil supplies, which actually worsens energy transition on their side. 
+
+Also, it doesn't make sense part of your problems during crisis is also profits you make from people using your renewable energy. So you said it's so hard to make the argument, and you should just follow this money onto their side. Costs compared to our model, your cross-section ID is less uncertainty, it’s less than depending on things like political winds. It's also very personalized, significantly more predictable, which leads to more sustainable developers. 
+</dlo>
+
+<mg>
+problem for opening opposition is there was a world before the government where companies were able to cross subsidize with the problems that they previously had. were able to exist under the same financial strictures that we want to send them back to the strictures of three years ago. and we think that they can do that perfectly fine, and it is unclear why the situation as currently is, which is not one that is characterized by top 500 regards, that in a minute is not one that enables us to move back to a place where look, you can make profits on what you previously were charging with you as you were making profits perfectly fine. 
+
+And that firstly they say that is key things to remind, firstly they said if you charge super high rates—so, we say even if we charge super high rates, and even in the place of opposition model 100, there's literally no incentives to charge more, more mental rates. Opening opposition—opening up, I'm sorry, a sadness. Here’s why. 
+ 
+Look, if I'm selling a unit of things for a hundred and I can make profit on the first thirty dollars of that, or I can sell that unit if they prefer to build and make profit on the thirty dollars of that, I want to sell more of the thing up to that thirty dollars and being able to sell it to the consumer who is the person who is going to be making that website’s a person in there, right? 
+ 
+Whether that is a business is the thing that is going to be determining that and thriving, like the usage rates. And at that point, there’s a business. It literally doesn't matter to me what the additional sort of price I am charging is if that profit isn't something that I can then go on and use if it is something like it. I have to sort of reinvest back into my business. 
+
+We’re going to give you reasons as to why you’re likely to invest that into greener technologies while that is beneficial in a minute. Second thing they talk about cross-subsidizing, like I think, I think, I think that this has literally been fine forever, and energy companies have already been able to do this. 
+
+We are taxing the windfall. We are not technically—we're not increasing this to 100% tax on all profits. It's on the windfall. Previously, these companies have been able to sufficiently cross-subsidize. Shell CEOs have been able to have as many private jets as they like. They've been able to make as many billions of pounds in profit and still exist. 
+
+It is unclear why it is 2023 they need these windfall profits in order to cross-subsidize coming out of opening months of years as opposed to their standard profits that we might otherwise have expected. They don't say governments are going to subsidize in the long run. Firstly, we think this is literally not true. They didn't before. It's also just unclear why this has to be true in the long run. 
+
+Secondly, that is not what we're signing for a proposition. You can say this might subsidize it in the long run. We would rather they didn't. I mean, they won't. On the side opposition, they lastly say that there's a collective action action issue, which means that you need to keep practice fire of your business. 
+
+I think the way to solve that collective action issue is to collectively tackle themselves. Cool, the situation at the minute, panel, is where government support is starting to wind down to people and into businesses because it's costing tens of billions of pounds. It has literally tanked one UK prime minister and is continuing to tank economies more broadly because it's costing too much to support people through the current situation. 
+
+But wholesale oil prices have returned to pre-conflict levels. The point here is that whilst this support is still coming from government, it is effectively subsidizing these large companies, large oil companies, and these large energy companies. Currently, they are selling, or they are buying the oil for a certain price and then selling it on for the price we would like them to sell it on for plus the massive government subsidy that they're already getting. 
+ 
+This comes on specifically to the principal that clash with this debate. So Opening government says it's unexpected and therefore it's not really legitimate. I think the DLA responsiveness is particularly strong. The actual principle we say in closing government is this: throughout the onset of the conflict states massively bailed out energy companies have essentially bankrolled them indirectly through the energy price guarantee both to consumers and to companies who are in order to manage their unit prices. 
+
+The government now has a duty to recoup from this industry what has previously been doled out. The question of the CO is how they want to go about recouping these previously doled out billions and billions of pounds. The assumption so far is getting promoting competition as they actually don't care about routine at all, given the maintenance of high prices forces people into needing public services more because they have to spend more money on energy and therefore needs like that don't have that many expenses on other things. 
+
+That was the multiple quality of institution in London, and that further increases reliance on government services. We think that makes it harder for government to provide these services because we're needing to provide lawn. This is a—we think that we solve it by making energy cheaper, not forcing people towards that, but also by taking literally tens of billions of pounds back across the sector, even just within the UK, more broadly. 
+  
+Environmental side—opening governments say that there’s a marginal price gouging mechanism. We think there are a couple instruments. Firstly, we get new capacitors into the market. Opening government currently say that they're a big oil company. A lot, here’s the comparative on proposition. We think it is easier to be a smaller competitor relatively as a company in the green energy market for three reasons. 
+ 
+One, firstly, we think there's a less mature market. There's less large, for example, already. Secondly, we think there are lots of government incentives for people to enter that market. Thirdly, we think that there's less infrastructure needed to build a windmill than there is to become a massive loan producer. 
+
+Second thing, we also think this incentivizes these companies to create subsidiary companies that they can then invest money into instead where that infrastructure already exists. We think that this is more likely to happen because you're more likely to get this investment into green energy because long green energy is much more finite. 
+  
+But we also think there exists energy transmission and infrastructure, so it's fairly straightforward to literally work in some windmills into the naughty. In opening opposition, they say that this takes time. We say that that we accelerate this status quo for businesses who are currently already in that market—not this particularly good. I'll come on to why this is a good mechanism. 
+
+<poi>
+even if Shell was doing just fine before the crisis. Our point is that the way you get through to conservative shareholders is by saying, "Let's use the windfall now and in the future to invest into renewables versus standard profits would go into energy... 
+</poi>
+
+in the future." I mean, do it right now, and for all companies, I'm really quite unclear why it is that given these two people currently applying energy at a free pre-conflict level, confident, right, they need to be making this particular moment. 
+
+But I think that was particularly proven for the incentive analysis. Why is the mechanism going to shift to green? We think it is easier to bring to bring uh um we think that the reason why shifting degree is particularly impactful is that it massively increases energy securities and energy security. 
+
+You get more companies and more investment within your own national domestic industries. We think at the point where the conflict is over, this means that you do not have to regress back to either pre-conflict energy usage of Russia or other countries where there could be foreseeable energy security issues. But you're able to foster a domestic and green energy market. 
+
+We also think this means that you have a greater ability in the long run to maintain a level of market regulation in case of exactly the kinds of shocks that opening opposition wants to talk about. So if you do then have the energy price—energy prices, you're able to be in a position...
+</mg> 
+
+<mo>
+So, I'm  going to hear about what the motion says because I think that particularly top half of kind of missed what the debate is or should be about. And I'm glad that closing government brought in the current context for what's actually going on in the world. 
+
+But we're just going to flip that and explain why it needs to essentially a bunch of good companies failing. We're gonna actually fill in the links on renewable energy as well to talk about, you know, inequality of investment in various countries. The motion says that we are taxing the windfall of companies that made excess profits in the previous, like, two periods of time. 
+ 
+And we're taxing them now and increasing that. That is the continued, you know, to increase at the taxation of companies that have previously made this profit—not important in the debate, right? So, that's what this debate is about. And secondly, we agree with closing government that, yes, this price are going down now, but you're increasing taxation on these companies and taking more and more of their revenue. 
+
+And the justification is that they made a huge windfall in the previous two periods. So, I want to be very clear about why companies therefore are probably going to be unable to place taxation. There are a few different reasons I want to note here. So first is that oftentimes with this excess taxation, the way it works is that oil companies and energy companies have long-term contracts for oil. 
+
+So what they do is they buy oil two years because it's a resource that doesn't go away, and you want to hedge into the long term. But what that means is that now this is when companies are going to have to renegotiate those contracts because it's one or two years down the line from what it was previously, which means that they're now going to have to pay far higher prices on this world. 
+ 
+So they're going to face extreme high costs at the moment. But secondly, the windfalls that companies had previously have now been invested into things like green energy and renewable technology, which I'll go into my secondary section. So that means they have far less money with which to pay. 
+  
+But thirdly, we would say that in many markets, governments regulate energy prices to link them to global prices, which are falling because, you know, there's a supply chain shift from Russia whereby Europe gets lower energy from the USA, for example. And also, Russia now floods energy to countries that aren't sanctioning it, like, for example, South Africa, India. 
+
+And what that means is that the energy price now has gone down, so again, companies don't have the capacity to pay this. And what that means is that profit is unlikely to be crazy high or abnormal during the period where there's continued windfall tax is implemented. And I'll say, "Oh, we won't tax it because it's a windfall," but it's a support motion. 
+
+The question is how does this likely happen? The light of justification is that, as I'll get into, fortitude and stand up and are like, "Oh, these companies, they've just taken all the money away from people. They're terrible. They have the huge amount of capacity to now pay in the current period," which is wrong for all the reasons I've said. 
+
+I don't want that banging moved. Robots in the whole case, right? So how is this taxation level set? Then governments demonize energy companies as profiteering of the public to push through these taxes. They use things like the populist rhetoric that we heard essentially of opening government, which is that everyone is struggling in these high inpatient periods. 
+
+And so it's easy to demonize all companies resolved. And it's true that companies did make high profits, but as you've explained, those profits have massively reduced and that money has already been reinvested, and so it's therefore impossible for these people to pay. But also, there's a kind of competition that exists here where, as a state, that nationalized energy, it's far easier to justify. 
+
+So essentially what happens is that this gets normalized to a large extent as well over time because governments use it as a tool. It's essentially very easy for them to justify taxing these companies. You say we're going to eat the rich or whatever, we're going to use, you know, close tax loopholes or whatever. And what that means is that these taxes are necessarily, in the light scenario, so at an extremely unsympathetic level unfairly. 
+  
+And they probably will eat into normal profit because the point is they're happening now when companies are making relatively normal profit rather than previously, and this continues beyond the current market conditions in the period it’s, you know, that exists right now and happens in the long term. The impacts, I think, are very clear. 
+ 
+A lot of good companies who are just decent energy providers are obviously like out of business because they have to pay this huge increase cost of the taxes. But I want to link in a second. I want to link this directly to renewable energy and eternalness far more because opening opposition has correct headlines, but I think the reason they give is slightly flawed. 
+
+Which essentially the ESG implies the money goes there. We're going to put out a few burglars. Firstly, why companies do this instead of things like shareholder buybacks. Secondly, why, you know, we're going to deal with the writing off response coming out of opening government. Thirdly, we're going to explain why governments don't invest in renewable technology, which interacts directly with closing government. 
+ 
+And lastly, we're going to explain why you need this level of access profit in order to get this. The opening opposition reason is ESG, essentially, and that's definitely true. It's about ethical investing, and that's definitely true to some extent. But for that case to work, that requires proving that the majority of people within this company on the board are ESG investors. They do care about this. 
+
+We think something different, which is that it is just rational for companies to do this because the way that their share price is determined is by long-term pricing, right? The cumulative present value of the company which exists indefinitely into the future and also the average shareholder has some people like pension funds, for example, who are very long-term incentives because they need to ensure that the people who they're managing money for get a pension like 40 to 50 years. 
+  
+They are extremely long term. They get massively about that long term, regardless of who they're, you know, if they have ethical direct things as well. But also, these like egos of individual CEOs who want to engage in green technology, and I think that's a far stronger set of reasons than just that some of these investors are quite ethical. Before I go on, yeah, yeah, okay, 
+
+<poi>
+if these companies invested older profits into Capex, that's tax deductible, why would these companies make tax for money they don't have?
+</poi?
+
+It's not taxed. But this is like another nuance, right? Taxes action and so on. We actually show this happens in an extremely populous way. And so the way this tax is implemented is super problematic. 
+You can't just say that we get 1,000 like best multiple versions back. You need to engage in the lighting scenario, which we've shown is bad. But responses like tax deductibility, but we say again the tax by the perfect section is going to be certified with which it engaging this. Now, the next thing I want to do is talk about why governments can't do this because that's a closing government push is that governments will invest in green technology instead. 
+
+We think that governments don't this for a few different reasons. The first, they're far more willing to engage in actual dirty energy, right? Because the main thing that Master of Government is, like, a long-term success of that thing in 20 to 30 years is ensuring that energy prices are low at the minute you have an election that's right around the corner. 
+
+And so you don't really care about where that energy is necessarily coming from. Just ensure that it exists at some extent so you can embrace things like LNG if you're Germany because, you know, even though the Green Party is in government at that period of time, because you need that energy to make up a threat. So that's why you embrace that kind of dirty energy as well. 
+
+But also we say that governments are foreign. So what that means is that governments don't invest in real energy, in green energy, but these companies do. And I think they need an excess degree of profit because very obviously that means enables them to engage in far more bets about real energy that are all kind of effective. So you're able to invest in a far greater variety of green tech overall. 
+
+But the last thing is even in that best case reading, this is still problematic because it leads to more inequality because the taxes implemented in countries where these energy companies are based rather than their global subsidiaries. So, this country now gets far more of the revenue whereas companies previously had invest incentive to invest globally because that is where how they're best able to maximize profits. 
+So for all these reasons, very proud to have you, 
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+Okay, dealing with to dealing our principle of Harvard and OG's principle and then taking LOL two things on this. CO, yes. Okay, and theory maybe oil companies buy two years in advance, one year advance. Don't really care, and I understand the case, which is ultimately they might fail or they might struggle. 
+
+Three things on this. First of all, given most pension funds, banks, and things like that are tied up in oil prices and oil stocks because most pension funds are tied up in what are considered stable monetary income companies or projects, oil and energy traditionally being something that a lot of banks and a lot of pensions have sold their money into, it seems highly unlikely that the government would do what Annika says. 
+
+Like, it is correct that in this moment we have to talk about likelihood of how this policy is going to be implemented. CO's contention is that it will be done in a populist way. I think most governments at the moment who are under a cost of living crisis, who are in a situation that Jack said where we don't have enough money to back into our welfare systems, are highly unlikely to ever push this policy to the point of breaking claims. 
+ 
+Why? So, because at the point where they push these companies to either fail, this books over the pensions, this books over the vines, and it means the next recession or the current recession we're in goes on even longer, even worse hurts all the people that Jack and I don't want to hurt and the government still want to hurt. I'll talk about that a little more. 
+ 
+Or it means that they're even unlikely to push these companies to the point where they're struggling, where it is a realistic risk. So, what I mean there is it's not that they won't push them until they're to breaking point. They won't push them until they don't have sufficient people profits. So, this government is still likely to keep oil companies having a level of profits, i.e., likelihood analysis and justification as to why Jack's perception of the world where we allow these companies to have the amount of profit they used to make, we just don't allow them to absolutely take the piss in the time of a at anything crisis. 
+
+Yes, you said the top sentence which didn't give the analysis. Stop finding the tables. A few things on this, I think. Secondly, another reason it is unlikely to live in the world of CO that these companies are ultimately too big to boss. I really enjoy that I get the perception of these really nice struggling small mom-and-pop shop energy companies. I don't know who the they are. 
+ 
+Like, I don't think it is likely that Xiao is ever likely to get to the point where they are that desperate and that in need of support, right? People that we put up with oil companies, the energy company doing kind of crappy things to the oceans, to their customers and things like that. And ultimately, it is something that the world needs, and they're unlikely—this government policy is unlikely to ever be implemented in a way that completely populist implementation happens. 
+
+Yes, it is a crossover issue, but so too are pensions being able to heat your house, being able to run their car, being able to run your tractor that gets the food to the people, the trucks to get the food to the people. So, in a cost of living crisis, in a world in which a recession is likely to last forever, and I just don't see the likeness analysis that, oh, closing opposition and standing up to the real world. 
+ 
+Okay, let's talk about our principle, right? Black interacting so far as the state has bankrolled ultimately in Industry throughout both to an extent covered but mainly Ukraine crisis and various environmental crises that are flocked over both the supply chain and indeed just where we can, I don't get our oil and energy from. 
+  
+What does this mean? It means that the principle we signed over a proposition and definitely in closing government is that there's a duty to recoup as much of those funds without crippling these companies. What does that mean? It means that the government now is able to use that money regardless of whether it's OG's version of the world where it's 100% of that analysis goes into the poorest people's pockets. It definitely goes into the state's coffers. 
+
+What does that mean? It means that they are able to fight to recoup the deficit they have brought into this industry. Well, I have this industry some sort of a safety net through a heart through a hard time. It is therefore a legitimate opening opposition for us to do this. It is legitimate insofar as they've received a safety net from the government. Their duty is to now allow that safety net to be passed on to someone else. 
+
+What does that mean and why is that likely? It means that either it is passed, it ensures that states are able to tackle the money they lost, and then deficit is not as hard, or it means they're able to support other sectors that have been impacted throughout both the pandemic and just people's inability to travel and things like that, like the hospitality service or just insert any industry that has been massively over in the last three years. 
+ 
+Finally, it means that if everyone in opposition cares so much about, like, your granny's ability to pay her heating bill, and what is more important to your granny is not necessarily whether the oil company is doing all these economic safeguarding's that opening opposition talks about. So, what's more important is that the state is stable enough and able to either, as Jack tells you, fund your welfare and ensure that you're not as reliant, or sorry, ensure that you're not as reliant on state services as you will be if you can't afford the future to feed yourself, feed your home, etc. 
+ 
+I will take you at the end of this point. It is more important to her that the state functions and citizen to recoup in this way. Therefore, I think taxes overall. But I'll do a little bit more. 
+
+<poi>
+So, to be clear, the only country that really engaged in these Southeast—they suddenly you're talking about is the UK because we have trust in competent countries. Europe, for example, engage in a price cap system where they didn't directly fund these companies.
+</poi>
+
+The Irish government did it as part of an EU policy, like I'm sorry, and supported across so many EU countries. It was also done in a lot of Latin American countries. Yes, not to the ridiculous extent your parable government did it, but it still was a level of support. 
+  
+There was equally a level of support. They didn't pay, even if they weren't given direct money from the state's office. They were given essentially money by not having to pay certain forms of taxes or certain points. It's exactly maybe it enhances them as much money as your government did for a like fast claim. I just don't think it would connect. 
+ 
+Okay, next thing. I think that this becomes, when it comes to green energy in the green energy debate, I think this is the way in which we can justify having companies actually invest in green energy themselves rather than forcing the government to have to do it long term. Why is this the case? At the point where you are likely to have to recoup these costs, it becomes that you need to invest in either new forms of energy that become less expensive long term because they are less likely to be taxed high, or you're likely to get benefits. 
+ 
+But technology is that their customers are more willing to engage with them, are more capable of engaging with them in a world where there isn't a massive recession and people are not able to maybe spend a little bit more on implementing solar panels, etc., themselves and engaging with you as a company in that way. Finally, on how this microphone is really annoying—sorry. 
+  
+Finally, on how companies are able to ensure that they get profit on turn, Jack is correct me just to say that if you can only get, say, 30 quid worth of profit, your duty now instead of increasing your profit becomes having a good service and making sure you've got as many customers as possible. Because where we see things like energy companies actually engaging and looking after their customers, maybe not turning off the lights so much, maybe looking after people to keep their custom, I beg you to oppose. 
+</gw>
+
+<ow> 
+What continued is a funny thing because you only need to believe two things. First off, on this debate, number one, that looking at the market as it is now, companies, when you continue to apply a model of windfall taxes, are unlikely to be making the types of profits which would have historically been a basis in justification for those taxes but don't warrant those taxes right now. 
+ 
+You see government accessible continually. But number two, the way that these taxes are likely to be applied—let's either get through in five reasons, which I will repeat because I've responded to—means that you are likely to get an unfair level of taxation which will actually erode into companies' normal profits. And by normal profits, I don't mean the money that they used to make. I mean the money that they need to sustain their businesses in the future. 
+ 
+Given that with the windfall taxes, they did things, as Aniket said, like investment green and the investment supply chain, which means that they now have increased costs because they scaled as a result. Important because, as Anakin proved, there was an incentive invested pressure to do something. If those two things, we win the district that made the two weeks. 
+  
+The first opposition says, whether it's about consolidation or whether it's about green energy tipping point, based on the assumption that these companies are harmed by these taxes, but the natural God responses to say they made profits they didn't expect in the first place. So, what is the tipping point for this investment? We are able to explain why, firstly, the likely comparative is that they would have invested in these good things that we all care about. 
+
+But secondly, the culture which comes as a result of the way that this tax is likely to work means that they are going to be screwed over and lack the capacity to do the things that opening opposition a bit more confusing with Virgin career. So, let's just move into that in terms of how our case works. 
+
+The first thing I'll note is the reason that windfall taxes are likely to harm companies for free fall. The first reason, of course, was that the contracts that companies use, which would allow them to make record profits where they negotiated prices two years before the war in Ukraine and then sold prices relative to current market rates, have expired and therefore they are unlikely to make that spread into the future. 
+ 
+The second reason that they invested in various good things would come with the increased operating costs. And the final thing that these companies—no, thank you—and the final thing that the market rate going down means that there is less scoping countries where the prices are decided by the market rate for them to make that profit. 
+ 
+The reasons that we gave as to why this is likely to be done badly then was separable. The first reason is the demonization which has come from the fact that people are struggling due to higher inflation. The fact that the perception is that these companies did make high profits, and this is objectively true or well-reported. The fact that some states, like what nationalize their energy industries, and therefore mitigate the price increase. 
+ 
+So governments themselves have a pressure to prove that they are increasingly—the fact that governments have high interest rates, increasing tax burdens, and need cash for things like their pensions obligations. The fact that this just becomes normalized as a political tool to promise to fund stuff in the same way that closing tax loopholes was invoked and led to bad tax loopholes being implemented because it's in vogue. 
+ 
+I want to weigh this against the councils that we bought in the government speech. The first thing we hear is that pension funds are invested in, and they've impairedly invest in the world, so governments are unlikely to set the price and the tax in a high way. The problem is this ignores several things. The first is the volume of recognization that we gave you as to widely likely comparative is one where they set things about ways and be president for that. 
+ 
+But the second and more important thing that this ignores is the fact that just that is it—the fact that the investment that these companies have or that these potential funds have does not is not the predominant thing which affects government decision-making. It is how easy it is to sell the narrative. It is how angry people would be if their policy that they have in their head, the obvious easy policy of windfall taxes, are not implemented. 
+ 
+It is the harm of losing the election if you don't implement it. It is the comparisons which constantly occur. Wait, what is the most likely conception of this policy? It is the one that we explain because it is not disruptable consideration, but predominantly thinking  of these politicians and the short term incentives that Aniket tells About are the reasons why they are likely to trend towards this, and the actual impacts can become the next government's problem, and you could demonize them, before I explain what the implication of this is for the round I'll take closing, 
+
+<poi>
+If you list the reasons as to why you think they made a lot of profit and the government's invested, and it is true, and the wording of the motion is true as they made high profit. Do you think your other point is true that somebody's invested so much in green profit, green energy, that they are now at risk at defaulting only half of your case can...
+</poi>
+
+Okay, stop. The same thing about this idea of defaulting so with this debate we don't need to prove that mom and pop shop default. We don't need to prove that that like oil companies go fast. This is about the profit in and of itself, being a good thing, because we demonstrated that structurally, they invested it in good things, and we would like them to continue to use their more normalized to invest in good things. 
+
+So the impact that we're proving in this debate is not that these companies are going bust. It's not as reliant on consolidation as open opposition mechanisms work. It is that they use their fuck off record profits to do good things. We support that they have higher costs into the future as a result of that. That is unfortunate, but we also support that trade off, and it is bad that the culture which is likely to occur on their side of the house will prohibit them from using their future normal profits to be able to invest further in the things that we treat us they are structurally likely to do which are good. 
+
+I think that weighing all of this up is easy to see when doing this debate for a number of reasons. Firstly, competitive, prison. Government's duty to recoup. One thing to say is that most companies didn't just grow money and energy companies. Lisa said, No, this isn't true. One Lisa trust did this. She wasn't a member of the oil lobby too. The USA did nothing because they have other streams of oil revenue and income, so they don't bother to, like, try and fix market prices. Two, Many countries just implemented price caps free, many customers just gave cash directly to individuals, right? Because other costs were going up as well. I just don't get where the duty to recoup exists in every situation, even if they're able to free work in the context that they want to talk about they do. 
+
+But secondly, this seems that you get exactly the same amount back as you tax, but if you believe operant on the culture of taxation and how this is likely to be used in the future. This is not true. So they're not fulfilling the tax obligation that these companies were given via subsidies by taxing them by this wireless mechanism. But finally, as a group, if companies money on objectively good things like investment into green energy, we think that matters more than the duties do, because that's for me, why governments can even shift prove that they do good things versus opening government People need their friends for them we should just have these people 100% I think we proven that this is far more realistic that we be an open opposition...
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/LSE Open 2024 Round 1A.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+<pm>
+Western liberal democracies, we don't have separate legal systems for different religious groups, we don't have different public services for different religious groups, we think it is absurd that we still have faith-based education where people can simply opt out of the education. We think that all people in a Western liberal democracy deserve to have access to. Firstly, I just want to quickly preempt something the opposition might say. Obviously, it's like the government. We're not trying to destroy religion or religious communities. I think that in the context of Western liberal democracies, there are likely to be things like anti-discrimination protections in place for religious minorities if you're concerned about those groups in mainstream schools. So, for example, with pisces in the United Kingdom, even in public secular education, there are protections in place and measures in place to stop discrimination from happening against those groups. So we don't think that is likely to be a big harm. Two arguments then from the Prime Minister, firstly, why this increases agency for those religious communities and secondly, why this decreases bigotry. Firstly, on why this increases agency, the thesis of this argument is essentially that secular education increases the amount of options available to children, whereas religious education constraints those options. The comparative here is on the curriculum that is taught. Of course, in religious education, there is some secular education, there is some stuff that is being taught in line with national education standards. But obviously, the comparative is that in secular education, 100% of it is stuff that's being taught in line with state standards. Firstly, I'm going to prove why religious education has incentives to be particularly restrictive in terms of things that teachers teach. That is to say, there's an incentive to close off other ideas that might come into conflict with those religious norms. Firstly, because religious education and the churches and religious bodies that typically fund and give power to these educational bodies want to retain followers and perpetuate control over their community. That is to say, they want to instill fear in the children that if they go against the teachings of the community, they will go to hell. They want to instill in that community the ideas that mainstream science and things like evolution are wrong and that people are out to get them in order to keep them loyal to that community. But secondly, because there are just a lot of ideas that are inherent to many religious doctrines that are antithetical to an opening up of options. That is to say, if you go to a particularly religious school that is anti-science, that has a religious doctrine that is inherently opposed to certain scientific ideas, it is impossible to reconcile those two unless you're Spinoza or something and you do some mental gymnastics to try and make those things reconcilable. So what is the delta here? Obviously, you are still part of a religious family, oftentimes you will still go to church, and you will still go to Sunday school. But firstly, this is a matter of extent. If it is the case that you're no longer spending 24 hours in a religious context but only some of or maybe a weekend in a religious context, but five of those days in a week you are being exposed to new ideas, you are being challenged, and having your ideas critiqued, then on the comparative you're more likely to be exposed to new ideas on the outside. But secondly, it is just important that there is a unique availability of countervailing information. That is to say, you think it is valuable in itself to be able to be exposed, at least in some areas of your life, to ideas that might come into conflict with your pre-existing ideas that chip away at your theoretical assumptions and things like that. That ability of countervailing information that otherwise would not exist is extraordinarily important. What is the impact of this? Firstly, choice maximizes utility. That is to say, when you have more autonomy and are more exposed to information, you are able to maximize utility. And this isn't just the option of leaving or challenging the community, although that is extraordinarily important. That is to say, if you are from a religious community but you come into contact with ideas that challenge those ideas, it means you're more likely to actually have the autonomy to leave that religion. But it's also just exposure to other things in general. It means that you are more likely to pursue a career that you're genuinely interested in, you're more likely to join new societies and new communities that you might not have had exposure to before. But secondly, on a principal level, we believe that in a Western liberal democracy, we should try to minimize the amount of inequalities that are generated by luck. That is to say, the quality of education you get, your ability to be exposed to information, should not be predetermined by the community in which you are born or the geographical region or the town in which you happen to be born. You should have the same quality of education and the same exposure to new ideas as everyone else living in that society, as is your right as a citizen. The weighing of this on the government bench is essentially that many other bad things about religious education can be remedied to a certain extent, and that's totally what the opposition is going to talk about. But the stuff that I talked about, that is to say the inherent ideas and religious curricula that are antithetical to other ideas and particularly restrictive, but because they have incentives to be so, are things that you cannot fix. 
+But secondly, this impacts everything about the lives of students. It impacts the ways in which they see the world, it impacts their ability to break out of their communities and meet people from different walks of life and actually be the masters of their own destiny. That is extraordinarily important. 
+This debate, uh, closing, you have anything? Yeah, opening,
+<poi>
+If you go home and tell your parents they're gods that actually created the world, will they just say, "Yes, son, you're correct. Your teacher is actually correct"? 
+</poi>
+Uh, firstly, I think that if you are talking about religious nutjobs, that is probably symmetric under both sides of the house. There is a large section of people in the middle who are typically kind of moderate and will be in like, you know, have this kind of discourse. Secondly, it is unclear why you even need to, like, why you can't just bypass your parents. That is to say, if you go to a new secular school and you learn about new ideas that you otherwise wouldn't have, you don't necessarily report everything back to your parents. You just use that information yourself to join your societies or to pursue a career going into the future without the constraint of your parents. But yeah, anyway, um, also, if their impact is going to be like your parents like, take you out of school, in most Western liberal democracies, you can't leave school before your age 16. So anyway, second argument, why bigotry decreases. This essentially is a contact theory argument, but I'm going to run it properly. The contact of this argument is extraordinarily important. These are the most formative years in your life, where your brain is malleable, where you're most likely to have your views on other people shifted. That is to say that maybe once you're older, your bigotry is going to be cemented, but when you're younger, you're far more likely to converse with other people, to try and empathize with other people, and make friends with new people. That is extraordinarily important in the instances where religions tend to be fairly insular and where you tend to have fairly bigoted views about other people, firstly, you are unlikely to have significant amounts of contact with people from other religions. That is to say that if you're into a Catholic community and you go to a Catholic school, you are unlikely to meet students from other backgrounds. This breaks down those barriers insofar as you're more likely to meet people from other religious backgrounds in your new secular school. But secondly, you're more likely to come into contact with people from disadvantaged groups. You're more likely to talk to gay people, you're more likely to talk to trans people if you have been broken out of that, like, insulant Catholic community. You are actually likely to try and empathize with people who are different from you, people who are, in the comparative, your religious leaders and your religious teachers have been sent to tell you that you should be afraid of and shun as people that are different from you. I think that is extraordinarily harmful, and actually breaking you out of the restrictive context is extraordinarily important. 
+</pm>
+<lo>
+I need to be particularly clear. What this motion does is that it states tell somebody the god to which you have dedicated your life, the god in whose name you have baptized your child into. You are not allowed to teach them about that, you're not allowed to take your child to an institution that serves and teaches them something of, something that is given by a god that you trust, that you have trusted your whole life, that have built your whole life around. I think it's a principal break of somebody's agency which we would not do for other kinds of beliefs. I think it is unjust to do it for religious people. I also think that the alternatives for the actual people who follow these religious institutions would be worse. So I want to do some framing here because there's none from OG. When do the schools actually exist? I want to do a reality check. They usually don't exist in New York City or where there are a massive amount of, like, religious people who wouldn't get their children into religious schools anyway, right? Or there are, but in very ethnically religious neighborhoods such as Muslim neighborhoods, or I know Catholic neighborhoods, a lot of these schools actually exist and are heavily religious communities such as Alabama, Texas or Catholic-heavy areas in Italy or Protestant areas in Edinburgh. That is to say, these are areas where these children would be 90% surrounded by religious communities and by religious teachings anyway when they go to church with the children that are playing with their neighborhood. So I don't see what the data of OG is because 90% of those communities are already people who are extremely religious. Second point of OG, what of people actually access these schools? Even if you don't buy my first. One, it is religious people who’d otherwise pull their children out of school or ensure that they are heavily taught into their religious teachings in church on Sunday or at school or at home. Why is that true? I want to do some characterization of these facts. One, they follow the rules of this religion, they have followed them throughout their lives. So the fact that their child follows them as well, the fact that their child prayed at the correct time in the day, the fact that their child obeyed by the laws of God, is very important. Secondly, they want their children to be taught these rules because otherwise, there’s a threat of eternal damnation of your child seeing before marriage or of you not fulfilling your duty as a parent to instill these values into your child. This means that you have a personal incentive as well as an emotional incentive because you're not your child and you wholeheartedly believe this is the best way for him or her to live her life to teach them these things, which means that if you ban these schools, they will heavily push for these values at home. They will heavily allow for the imams to take them to religious camp during the summer or to take them to religious camps on Sunday because there is a direct threat to the way of life to consider you should have been instilling in your child. So you not just let him be exposed to other things. But the second point, non-religious people who live in the Catholic communities, for example, but are very poor and who wouldn't afford good education otherwise, see, for example, an immigrant family in Alabama or in Texas. Why is this true? Because a lot of these schools have scholarships which none of the other schools do. Why is that true? Because they're trying to do good by the word of God because they want to do outreach to the community. They also have a lot of hot meals, for example, because they're connected to religious figures. They're also aware of the realities of that. What does this tell you? This is exclusive access that poor people would get, which is the net benefit. I am happy to understand the fact that there may be abstinence until marriage if they get a good education, get into a better university that they have gotten otherwise. And two, the alternative for the religious people is actually being homeschooled or exposed to just as much religious teachings anyway. This is the first party which heavily mitigates og. But the second argument is that they're better than alternatives and that we can and we do have a lot of regulation on this. But I think it is incredibly uncharitable to this right. What are the actual fundamental differences? Yes, maybe the morality they teach is slightly different. Do abstain until you get married, they teach creationism instead of evolutionism sometimes. Sometimes they have universe, but crucially, they still have to pass the same exams at the end of their years. They still abide by the broad curriculum that the state has to follow. It's not like Protestant schools could just take out biology or chemistry from their curricula, right? So they're reasonably regulated. But I'm going to give you five systemic reasons why that is true. One, they have educational boards and inspections that are obviously well done because they're heavily watched by non-religious people and also because they are the center of our cultural worlds currently. So they know that journalists have an incentive to look for irregularities, so they have all the more effective measures to make teachers not be abusive, not be highly ideologicalized, because they know they're watched out, which means that the boards and educational boards want to make teachers behave okay and abide by good educational standards. Second, they are supervised by religious leaders who want to make their investment not be canceled by the government because they're indoctrinating the children, which means that there's also an incentive from the religious leaders to make teachers behave correctly. The third reason is that people who are alumni, obviously want to legitimize their educational background, which means that they will make sure they don't go wrong and don't radicalize children and get a bad name as Islamic schools. Yes.
+<poi>
+Okay so, your difference is that in religious communities that are very religious, they get more religious and try to impose more religion. Our difference is more unique in so far as at least now you have some countervailing information and some countervailing education.
+</poi>
+It doesn't matter if you have some principle because your parents will go tell you at home, "No, no, no, God created the world." You will trust your parents more than you will trust your teacher anyway, because they take care of you, because they love you, because they're the ones that have been there since the beginning of your life. So I don't care if your teacher tells you evolutionism you will trust your parent anyway. Fourth mechanism, why are they well regulated? Given the info slide, they have some public funding, which means that the states are directly responsible and they don't want to appear like they lost control over the religious schools. So they will also supervise and ensure that broad strokes of education are done correctly. 
+What are the impacts? The worst successes that the government will try to claim do not happen and are heavily mitigated by the fact that they are in educational institutions. Secondly, there's more checks and balances than if they were at home because there are more teachers there, more students, which means that there's an increased chance of irregularities coming out. And fourthly, I think this means that we have increased accessibility for poor people in those communities. I do not care if they have sex later on in their lives. 
+</lo>
+<dpm>
+First, pushing back on the characterization, then on new beliefs to encounter, and then on regulation. Firstly, on framing, I think Anna just tells you an extremely a factual picture of the world by telling you that religious communities only really exist in cities like Alabama or states that are really religious anyway because if you just lived in any major city in your life, you know that there are often large religious enclaves in them anyway. For example, in cities like Sydney, which have large Arab and Jewish migrating populations, often entire suburbs have a lot of these people in them which then have religious schools built around these communities. So I just don't think it is true because people migrate to various areas anyway. But secondly, even if what Anna tells you is largely true to an extent, there's obviously a scale of how religious people are. People in Alabama, like there's a subsect of them that are obviously going to be far more religious than most, but there are also probably people in Alabama who just like culturally Christian. If you are someone who's getting sent to a religious school in Alabama, you are far more likely to be just with people who are also at the same amount of religiousness as you rather than people who are like maybe just like, you know, their parents are Catholic and they're kind of not religious people. So I just don't think that her claiming that we don't get much change in meeting new people is actually true. Secondly, then on religious people teaching their children religious beliefs anyway. The first thing I tell you is that people are likely to feel very threatened by this, so it means they're more likely to pull their child out of school or be more controlling. Firstly, I think people are religious communities and religious parents who are at this level of controlling are likely to want to pull their child out of school anyway because if you're so concerned about the fact that your child is not getting taught things in your proper religion, things like homeschooling are probably something that you're going to try to do anyway. But secondly, I actually think that the lack of religious schools provides an impetus for governments to be far more strict about regulating things like homeschooling and being more proper about the things people are teaching in these schools because it likely shows that these people are people who are from religious schools. So I actually think that the amount of people and thirdly also in most countries this is often like really hard to be illegal. A lot of people just don't have the time and money to homeschool their children at all. Like some countries don't even have like a level of like great homeschool regulation. So I actually think the amount of change on this is very small, but I don't think that many people are actually going to get pulled out of school. The second thing Anna then tells you is that even if you are in a school, which is really secular and you're meeting a lot of people and they're teaching you new ideas, it means that your parents are likely to send you to more things like summer camps for your religion or at home are going to tell you that the things you have taught are true. Firstly, I think honestly this is fine if they want to send you to Sunday school. Like if your parents are super religious and they want you to have a religious upbringing, that's totally okay for them to do in their spare time. What we tell you at Aiden is that the difference that we are able to get is you are not exposed to religion 24/7. This is not the only idea that you are actually exposed to. It is totally fine on our world if on Sunday you are taught religious teachings, but you at least are given the option of being able to be exposed to other ideas at your school. So we think this is a totally fine thing. But secondly, of all, with trusting your parents and just believing them, I think it's ridiculous to act like you can't bypass your parents' beliefs. People lie to their parents all the time or hide things from them. If someone is necessarily struggling with their religion and feels like they can't tell their parents about it, I think it is unlikely these children are going to feel any less unsafe. But thirdly, even if these children do not believe what their school is telling them and come home and tell their parents, and their parents are able to reconvince them about God, I don't know, like evolution not being real, we still think it is still important and still a benefit that we give you that this option exists in the first place because in the open opposition's world, this option doesn't exist at all. This is the only view that they are ever exposed to, and there is absolutely no change. The third thing they tell you is like rich religious schools will give out scholarships. I just do not understand this. Like state schools exist. The government can set up selective schools and provide more scholarships to other schools. There's a huge intent for other private schools who are also similarly rich to do this, so I don't think there is any benefit. So at the end of this, it is totally unclear to me how many people are getting pulled out of school. I don't think people are becoming any less religious even if you believe we're only able to get a slight change; it's far better than the world that the opening opposition gives, where there is totally no option. 
+<poi>
+But I think it's like I said, they are taught common curriculum as well. They're not taught religion 24/7. They have everything else, but also religion. 
+</poi>
+Okay, on to regulation and the curriculum. The first thing I told you is that the curriculum is largely to be the same. Firstly, I think and it's still going to be checked. The first thing I think the mechanism she gives you about these people having a large incentive to check these world is wrong because oftentimes, governments have a huge interest in making sure these religious groups are actually going to vote for them. Like in America, Christian evangelicals are a huge voting block of the Republican Party. Even in countries like Australia, in religious schools in Australia you are allowed to fire teachers if they're gay, and the liberal government that was in power for 10 years had a massive incentive in keeping those anti-discrimination laws going because religious people in Australia are such a large voting block. These are really important for governments. Secondly, on national curriculums being the same, firstly, national curriculums are often set at a really low level because it has to set a baseline for what everyone is being taught. So yes, these people are probably still learning things like how to do maths and how to analyze text, but the things they probably are not learning are things like a religion that are just conveniently left out, like evolution. But even if you believe that they are taught like exactly the same things, there's still options that are often not allowed. Firstly, because things like school counselors, etc., because of the norms religions often set up for things like women in their communities, often don't just like allow or like teach you about other options. Like for example, a woman in Catholic school maybe isn't taught about how to get into a very prestigious university or apply to law school because this is just not a norm for women in her community to do so. This is just not an idea that she is exposed to while she's in school there is something that she could achieve. Secondly, the sort of teachers, that  these religious schools hire, are often just like kind of weird religious nutjobs half of the time, or the principal, because like the people who want to work at these schools have an incentive to keep their religion going. So oftentimes these schools are maximally conservative as possible. So oftentimes these options are just not even shown. So even if everything has been told the same, and we've shown you already, there are options that are often not taught to you or thrown to you that you can achieve when you graduate school that these people are likely to get a secular school focus on education. Further on, things like people who are alumni want to legitimize like as I've already explained often time like, I don't know, you could go to prove them actually if your school is legitimized. But like secondly of all, often times like the people who are like interested in legitimizing the school often like prestigious like select school private, anyway. I think regulation gets much worse and life gets much worse.
+</dpm>
+<dlo>
+This might have its stop for the opening government of this around but there are religious people that are gay that are queer, there are religious people that are tolerant, there are religious people that are welcoming and there are religious people that are not. We do not understand this very very narrow portrayal in which they they're depicting these people as being evil and being an outcast of the society. We think this completely unfair and most of the important part, I think religious people religious people have agency and have capacity to choose, right? There are many things that are influencing us. Religion is just one of them, but is part of the identity of the people do not portray let them get away with this portrayal. Let's engage with what they have told us to say. I think it's this this whole part about how you increasing the agency by basically offering a lot of alternative information. I think we live in an era where we are exposed to a lot of information and it didn't actually change a lot of opinion if you look at any internet any Tik Tok it actually uh works the other way around, it actually creates more sedimented ideas in your mark. But on this on this motion specifically I think this exposure to more multiple information, exactly as Anna told you, will be served precisely will be seen as an attack to those for these religious people to actually push back the narrative. The DPM just explained you how there are a lot of Christian people in so many areas and there are a lot of Voters how they will react by taking the schools away from them. I think the backlash will actually be significant if you look at any if reality check if you look at Western  democracies, whatever, right now, you are actually increase see an increasing trend of conservatism, you're actually seeing a lot of people that are more like leaning and are actually going further to actually expose those beliefs, right? And they're going and pushing for those Christian values look at the changing overall in waiting in the US. Look at increasing voting for Lepenance and so on and so forth. This is a major block that you are alienating and these people will take it very personally because the government, no thank you, it's actually going against them. There will be repercussions even if you're because now. Let's take this on the case, right, if you remove this, if you remove the chance of them being homeschooled because they they're not as wealthy, which we think that's not necessarily true, but there will still be an enough block that that if it goes to the public school those parents will put pressure on the actual School Board to push for the religious value that they already have, right? Because these kids that were put in the religious schools now they have to go and fill those places. That means that there are the same parents that were so indoctrinating that we have to take the kids away from them, right? We are creating a situation in which we put a lot of pressure on the news schools to do the same thing. I think when it comes to if we're weighing this on certainty that there is less evidence to uphold this idea that these kids will change their opinion, right? Because this is the whole point on the government's side. We're exposing them to new ideas that means that you will have new kids that are not indoctrinated. I don't think it necessarily works like that. People are can be convinced of things in various moments in their life or we have already explained how the communities are very strong. But what do I actually certain on our side, is the fact that there is a net benefit for some communities that are poor and do not have other access to education that now are able to access it specifically because of the religious schools. This something that they haven't tackled with and that is something that is unchangeable regardless because schools are expensive because there are less opportunity when it comes to, I don't know school supplies, which are quite expensive, right, and food and so on and so forth. Those are that the category of people is a vulnerable category that they are not accounting for and it is quite crucial. I'm going to take a POI from closing if they have any. Opening then.
+<poi>
+So obviously not all religious people are bigoted maybe there will be some backlash, etc. We can believe all of this mitigation is true our very simple claim was just, that on the comparative you are more likely to be taught in school a book about a queer couple or exposed to new scientific ideas. That is the marginal change on opening government. 
+</poi>
+But on this, in the best case scenario if you have this possible marginal change it's still very uncertain, right? You the and you have certain controls for which you can actually account for those to actually be taught good lessons, right? You have exams you have Board control you have all of these that are actually contributing to make sure that you're going to be taught well and when it comes to specific exposure to queer couples in books, I think that also it's as unlikely to happen in a normal in a public school as well because there is we do not want to go against the wave precisely, because there will be backlash outside and parents will come back afterwards. On this principial thing about what parents should be doing with their kids I think it's important to realize that we leave a lot of room for parents to decide what to do with their kids. We leave them to we give them the possibility to have Beauty pensions for their kids, we leave them the possibility to have them higher child actors, which are both questionable things to do with your kids, you give them the options to monetize their kids on Tik Tok because it's fun nowadays and but they also think this is in the best child or in the best interest of their child. I think it's quite it comes down to the parents think they have the best interest, the government tell them to do so and along the lines they're doing regulation in order to make sure that they're not messing things up. At the end of the day, what the government is suggesting is going against everything just for a marginal possibility that you have two kids that are changing their opinion at the cost of poor people that are no longer having the same access to the quality of Education, are the cost of anchoring parent and alienating communities, minority religions or just like the entire increasing wave of Christian people that are in the West. 
+</dlo>
+<mg>
+Okay so I think we've heard a lot about like people might change their minds, people might, like we've had a lot of impacts that are great. But I think the corrupts of this issue isn't about whether like minority religions are like going to not allow their like not be allowed to like celebrate their religion or like whether people will change their minds. I think it brought of the issue with the culture in schools, mainly because I think we can probably agree that on both sides it's likely that we have similar impact, because people can go to Sunday school or religious school, or like people can people have the ability to change their mind either way. So I think the main issue is going to be the culture of the schools. So I think I'm going to characterize who goes to religious schools and like generally people that go to religious schools are likely to be either people who are religious or people that live in the area and agree that these schools are generally like have good funding on as seen as good schools, so then therefore other people also go to these school. Now this leads like two very distinct demographics of people that go to schools, which are people that are religious and people that aren't religious, and I think in a religious setting like when you have the emphasis on religion in a school, it's likely that like there's going to be more of a division between people that are religious and people that are non-religious within religious settings, rather than like people that are religious and people that are non-religious in non-religious settings. Mainly because you have like access to like different beliefs in a non-religious setting and, not right now, but in a non-religious like secular setting you have access to like multitudes of different beliefs and religions, which means that people will generally accept that other people have different beliefs and allow this to occur. Whereas when you're in a religious setting, like at school, like I went to a religious school, and I think generally like often non-religious like people are likely to get like treated differently by teachers mainly because the teachers are likely to be from that religion, and therefore people that don't subscribe to those values are like although they will be treated like similarly. It's likely that teachers may have implicit biases against them even if it's not like explicit, it could be like a minor bias that occurs, whereas like um also like characterizing children. Children generally see differences in people and are likely to like jump on that because like, generally children are likely to like dislike other people for differences mainly because they've heard stuff that their parents say or like stuff that other people say and they're just likely to repeat it, and therefore I think in religious schools it's likely like children are going to like have issues of bullying on regards of like differences in religion, mainly like so non-religious students who like, if you're in a religious school and there's a lot of non-religious students in this school and you've brought a massive highlighted like issue of like religion in this school, it means that there's likely to be like clicks, which means that you're less likely to like integrate people that are religious and non-religious in society. Whereas in like a normal school where there's like less likelihood of like being impact like there's less likelihood of the religion being like a major issue, it's more like people can practice their religion, not right now thank you, but people can practice their religion within like the school and it's likely that like people still have the ability to like actualize and have religion. So I think the main impact of this is that like children will have a better culture in schools, because I think it's still likely that people are taught ethics and morals like in any school there's a curriculum in any school. So I think the main thing is that, given there would be a less of a highlight to religion, it means that like generally anyone can like access their own religion and anyone can like do whatever they want with regards to religion and people will still like have that access because like people will still go to Sunday school and stuff like that. So I think it's likely that generally there will be a better culture and it will be like less clicks and less like issues within the school.
+<poi>
+As Western liberal democracy, would you also ban French School in the UK or Japanese school in the US?
+</poi>
+I don't think it's particularly to do with like nationality, it's just to do with religion. Like it's not about where you come from, it's about what religious belief you are and it's about like inflicting like those specific values to like everyone in the school. Like I think the values can generally be seen as good, but I think like generally when you like enforce it like some people are like nice and yeah.
+<poi> 
+So if they chose the Dynamics then most religious children to usual schools who mean the religious people are a minority and thus discriminated, you just reverse the balance I'm unclear.
+</poi>
+Thank you, so I think it's likely that when you like put religious like children. Because obviously some religious children are going to go to non-religious schools anyway. So I think it would improve life for them firstly, because like they would have more religious school like children in those schools and they would be more integrated into the Society. And also when you like shift it, it just means there's more of a balance of people that are religious and non-religious in all schools which generally means that there's going to be lack diversion in society, religion or advert to like secularism. I think it just basically means that it's more likely that people are going to work together despite their differences in religion, and therefore it's going to be up like inherent benefit because everyone can work together, with like with less discrimination on religion and less emphasis on it. Because although religion is your personal beliefs and that's great, I think it's more important that people focus on like society as a whole and how we interact with each other and general models, rather than specifically this is like my religion and everyone needs to follow this, which I think in a lot of religious settings can be like this case that's imposed on people. so I think like generally um it's better for like the children, especially as like. So I understand that there can be like gay people who are religious, but I think like there is an inherent like stakeholder of people that are religious from Minority like sexualities and other like groups and I think it benefits like people who are a part of these groups mainly, because when you are exposed to like other things, you can self-actualize and you're not inherently being told by literally everyone that like it is inherently bad for you to be yourself. And when you're told this in like some religious settings not all but some religious schools like explicitly state that it's not okay to like be gay or something like that. And so I think when you don't inherently like only have access to like this beliefs, it's likely that like people don't then have to deal with like internalized homophobia and internalized trauma, because they have like inherently being told and are telling themselves due to their own beliefs that they can't be themselves. And this means that it's going to likely benefit people because they're likely to then um be exposed to these other views and say "okay well I believe this and I can have access to these religious beliefs without having a crisis of identity because I can access both and that's okay." And I think generally this should means that there's an inherent benefit for like minority like sexualities within religion and like religious people in general being interacted in society. Thank you.
+</mg>
+<mo>
+We believe that School provide for much better integration and opalization of people who come from of people who come from religious families and we also believe that these schools provide like much greater choice and Agency for people to decide what they want to do in life, rather than if you don't allow people to let kids to exercise their religion in religious schools. Like let me do some characterization of the debate because I think this is important. We are talking about Western liberal democracy which is like very likely those parents of those kids who we are talking about, they are not some like zealous or radicals they already live in a western country, they already like probably themselves have a conflict between values which they find themselves in and those religious like Origins they come from. That is why like it's probably not very like will take kids out of school but we need to ask a question here, in which scenario those kids and those families as a whole are more likely to integrate into that society, and become members of that society, and like take jobs get well jobs become successful in the society. And you say that it's when you allow kids to socialize and become members of the society and not expel this. I think the point which closing government raised about culture is very important here, exactly we create such a culture in school that those kids feel comfortable to study and they don't feel oppressed in school on an everyday basis. So let's talk about first OG. They told us basically we provide more Choice when kids are exposed to other information. No, we provide no choice because as we said we still teach General curriculum in the lesson of biology you will not say this is like this is everything Evolution like don't believe anything of that, you will have to take an exam and if you write your exam like everything happen because of like God, you will fail that exam. Leaders of those schools teachers of those schools, teachers of those schools, they will be interested to teach you the best information because they will be interested to promote their religion. If people of your religion become members of your Society like doctors like lawyers, this will make the school more popular and that's why like if all everyone fails the exams after like 10 years of school, then no one will go to the school anymore and popularity of religion will decrease. That's why we say that those leaders still want to teach all those subjects. What is the difference here? The difference here you have like additional classes like when you talk talk about culture of religion, when you talk about history, probably yes some religious like counts as well, but the thing is like curriculum stays the same like but you are given additional choice to study in more comfort environment, when you have access both to religion, but also you can study what's already like in the curriculum. What also like we can see one point here, probably those schools will be less diverse in terms of like you probably not have minorities. People like teachers probably won't talk about LGBT rights or like everything like that, but we think that this is probably a clash here, but we win this clash why? Because the alternative here is that those like religious kids go to like another school and then like in that in that other school they become minorities themselves and they become oppressed because they look different, they speak different, like they think differently and that is the crash here. Even if they are not exposed to all those like LGBT ideas that you can be like a minority and everything like within that school, we believe that they have other part of their life as I said because this is there is a conflict here, like some they live in a western liberal democracy, they are exposed to the those ideas through the internet, they are exposed those ideas through like Society in general when they go somewhere with friends, etc. But here we say that like within school they must have a more comfortable and environment to feel like they belong there so that they can study and then they and don't be oppressed on the basis of the religion. We also say that, like in general LGBT like if you if you think about our West liberal democracies, they much more exception of LGBT rights at this point so like you have LGBT pride parades and everything. This probably as a group, yes, still a minority on many aspects but like Society uh generally is very favorable towards those views, but everyone like you never see like Muslim parades, when people can just Express their religion or like Pakistani parades because people many people are still hostile towards them. We have accepted we are inclusive enough to accept LGBT but we are not inclusive enough to accept religion. That's why this discrimination in schools is much more perverse and much more strong, that's why we want to defend those kids by allowing them to study in a comfortable environment. Please.
+<poi>
+So you're right eventually these kids will grow up and have to work, live and love alongside people from different backgrounds. That's why it's so important for them to meet a diverse range of people face to face while they are young and still impressionable.
+</poi>
+Why can't they make them outside school like somewhere else, yes, because uh you have two environments like we create for them two realities which they can compare, you create them one reality they have to conform to, they don't have a choice. Because like I think the closing governance said they can exercise religion outside school, but the thing is for kids school is like 100% of their lives this is why a social life like you go to school, you do your homework, you go to school like you don't do anything else. That's why it's very important that those kids are like can exercise their identity like in those schools because this is an important part of like of their like personal identity. Like when those kids go to school they already have some religion like teachings like they already know something about religion and everything that they haven't analyzed certain values, which parents gave them. When they go to school they feel this they feel this conflict of Realties and then they may become hostile either to their parents, because their parents aren't fever enough, or hostile to school because they think the school betrays their parents and it teaches them something parents didn't tell them. So you create this hostility and you exacerbate this conflict between Western liberal democracy they live in and religious identity which they have had. That's why they don't feel comfortable in the school, for instance, a Muslim boy in Birmingham and I go to like secular school I need to, for instance, pray five times a day, but then if I do this, other kids will ridicule me because I'm of a different religion and I'm a minority and I'm oppressed, I will not be like respected the same like the same way as everyone else, what does it mean? It means that I don't I feel much more inferior, it means my great is likely to suffer because now I feel that I don't belong here, like I will not become a doctor because I'm probably my like I study less hard and this leads to radicalization and in general. When people are bullied they become more excluded and this that second generation of immigrants are very hard to integrate exactly for this reason. They feel they don't belong here but they also don't have any vision. That's why they lose their identity, they don't know where they belong and that's why it's very hard for them to integrate in Society, become doctors and that's why we are very proud of all, thank you.
+</mo>
+<gw>
+Okay so first let's look at who the most important stakeholders in this debate are and why we care about them. Check in this debate the most important stakeholders are religious kids in religious schools and non-religious kids in religious schools as well the two biggest demographics and demographics in religious schools and why do we care about them. Because it's a kid, they're going to take all their learning in high school or in Primary School into society later on and that have real life implications on how our society is run in the future. Now the our alternate both sides they tend to make very very bold claims that this contingent on extremities, contingent of like oh schools will absolutely lie about scientific beliefs if it goes against the religion it could be true. And then they also say that "no schools won't lie, they will they will stick to whatever National curriculum is out there," again could be true, but what has my partner done here. My partner has taken a very very strip down approach. What my partner has done is give you substantives that stand irrespective of how extreme the uh characters the actors uh in this motion and are incent contingent on the very very simple nature of kids, the school itself and uh the parents of these kids. Now before I go on to analyze why my partners points uh are the best in this debate, I would like to rebutt some points about uh the integration. Closing opposition brings talk a lot about how uh the government side very negatively hampered integration and their side somehow promoted, but afraid of this I strongly believe that integration is much much worse on their side because by their own Point by their own characterization people who value religion, people who are very religious are much more likely to spend their kids to religious schools, right? So what are they essentially doing by that, taking these kids, taking these these religious thoughts away from public forums like public schools or public high schools and instead moving them into schools that are religious, right, school that prioritize religion. So what is it doing? This is taking this is secluding this is secluding religion into a very religion only space, right? How is that integration, my partner on the other hand, clearly talks about how if you're banning religious schools all these liberal democracy it is most more often than not it is legal that kids go to school and they're not it is considered illegal that to not send your kids to school, right? So uh all these kids that are in religious school now move to public schools. What is that doing? It is bringing this religion into these public forums, public schools, these public schools in the best Liberal democracy they're not anti-religious, right, these schools they just don't prioritize religion in their academic life. Extracurricular rights unlike religious schools. And this major divide, this major characterization of what these two different types of school prioritize, actually brings us to the major clash uh major difference on this debate, the exclusivity of our points, right? So again already in uh integration is much much better on our side because now religion is only public forum, in public schools kids who are secular have more religious friends, right. They can talk about it, they're free to talk about it. Religion now is in a much more explicitly public space. Now um let's talk about these religious schools, right. Okay I agree these schools could have facilities all kind of facilities that are there, right. And but the real question is are these schools encouraging kids to use these and if they do, are these kids even supported to do that? Because like I said, religion it goes beyond just education, right. Religion it also includes very heavily on how someone conducts themselves. So a religious school, a school that prioritizes religion is much more likely to reward these types of behavior, right, and encourage those kinds of behavior. So even if these facilities say sports or horse riding or whatever exists, if a religion uh is traditional, right, traditionally if a certain gender doesn't engagement sports, uh doesn't grow like grow their hair or doesn't have very short hair or something, right, this could be okay there, which would allow them to buy part regulation that are opening would be talk about. But as my partner talked about, the implicit advices that these uh that these schools could have, that the teachers and the people in power, the people of authority in these could have, could uh will create like a reward system, whereas children who explicitly sort of have these characteristics are uh rewarded uh even though they have these all kinds of facilities there, right. So what this does is that, it creates intense divide among students religious kids who are like explicit or who confined with traditional religious values are more likely to be favored by their teachers, they are more likely to gain help from their teachers, right. Because again that is what the school does, the school prioritize the religion, right, so they're going to hire people who also prioritize these values. So these kids are more likely to gain the favor of their teachers, what does that do? Nonreligious kids or religious who don't confined to these traditional external religious values are more likely to alienate. We see that in everywhere, right? We can see that because when a students gain extra favor from their teacher, they their fellow peers are more likely to know they are suck up or something like that and to alienate them. This negatively happens the religion here as well. They think that because of they because they are confined to traditional religious value they are being discriminated against. This simply would not exist on our side because in public schools that is not the priority, it doesn't matter in what way you conduct yourself as far as religion goes, right. So uh let's talk about non-religious uh kids or kids who don't externally are confined to the uh traditional religious values, right, they're less likely to be favored by the teachers, so in that case these kids are less likely to gain uh favors or extra help from their teachers, simply because they do not confined to this. So uh uh so basically these points that my partner put forward, read some very very basic nature of power dynamics in school and because of these power imbalances how uh it can create a lot of enmity, animosity between kids, right. So uh to close up my uh uh partner points, that we a very version something that's very likely to happen while every demographic create there an animosity against and why our side has better integration and that is exclusive to our side. Thank you.
+</gw>
+<ow>
+Ladies and gentlemen to today's classes I want to give us several rebuttal I think composition never engaged in the worst case scenario on what happens if parents choose to homeschool their kids. OG told you that the government can just regulate homeschooling. No, you cannot. Western liberal democracy cannot helicopter over what you're doing at home in private space. Under our Paradigm though schools can be directly regulated by government if there's abuse on certain kids because of their identity, because of their like certain practice in public schools. Overall it's easier to check and regulate in public space than in private. For instance, if the state thinks sex education must Intel this score on Career they can make it mandatory in those schools but under their Paradigm it's impossible. And then secondly proposition did not engage in the points on academic excellence, on who gets better education. They only tell you that okay kids will have more choices that's why they'll be better. No like more often than not kids with less choices do better at school, than other kids but jokes aside, I think that religious kids definitely get better schooling under our Paradigm. OO told you that faith-based schools get more funding but Daniel tell you that religious communities is more often than not the largest funnel for charity/donation. So fact the biggest nation in the United States is Charity based and it's donate billion every year. More importantly, Daniel told you that kids will have better schooling on Paradigm because the reason why this uh religious people donate, the reason why these religious people set up the school because they have a huge incentive to empower their Community, to make their Community look great in a society because they want to get integrate to it. That's why like kids are more often than not um getting better like fundings and resources for schooling and become like you know better adults or whatever uh in future life. And thirdly, principally they did not engage to my POI on why it is legitimate for Western Liberal democracy to ban schooling for certain identity. They're not like engaging on like why we don't ban French school in in the UK even though like they spend a lot of time on studying French which is not necessarily like you know um necessarily like better for better use of time like if you just take like a level standard. But they're banning religious schools just because they think that it's not good um but principally they did not even substantiate why uh religion in and ourself should be banned, right. So that's why I think like they lack a simple argument there. Clash is today, sorry later, um so CG the first Clash is I think which is most important, CG talks about integration of the kids into the society later in life on which side uh gives like kids better integration. I think, firstly, it's a western liberal democracy where more often than not people are later on judged based on their merits, i.e their academic excellence because like they practice capitalism. And that's why like we have argued to you that kids tend to get better education in religious school because of more access to funding and so on and so forth. And for instance, like we don't like marginalize as adults a good doctor just because they're a Muslim, we don't like marginalize a scientist just because they practice certain like religion, and but we do judge people based on their you know academic excellence, their you know like uh their knowledge so on and so forth. So that's why we think that we actually integrate the kids better and make them. And even more importantly, our team has told you that kids can grow up in a more supportive and comfortable culture in a faith-based schools because they have more confidence in their identity is more it's more downplayed, they are surrounded by people who are like so under their Paradigm kids are surrounded by people who are different from them, more often than not they feel marginalized when they have to pray, when they have to like dress or Diet in a certain Manner and in mixed school your brain would just be occupied by such unnecessary stress, uh by feeling like different. I think it's very important to highlight uh the difference between kids and adults and why it's very important for kids to um you know like study in a comfortable environment. As an adults uh we tend to be like more like people tend to be like more emotional mature, responsible or just occupied by other stuffs like work and mortgage and they tend not to like pay too much attentions to things like how you dress, etc. And more importantly, they're more bonded by laws, you cannot commit hate crimes or you know judge people on the street because otherwise be fired, you will be like imprisoned um hence marginalization will unlikely happen at in at of life, because like for us you're just colleague regardless of your you know religion. However kids in school are not bound by these laws or conduct because they have uh and also they have like more time and less emotional um like maturity so that they tend to be like uh insulted or marginalized their you know like classmates. And conceptually it's very important that kids grow up in these like destroyed environment, they tend to have less confidence, they tend to feel have more childhood trauma. On their own Paradigm kids feel like they're a normal human being they don't have to worry about like how they dress, how they diet and they just focus on academic Excellence. I'll take OG.
+<poi> 
+So you say that kids will now become oppressed minorities, however we provide the analysis that children aren't born bigoted, they become bigoted through a lack of exposure and so under our side, other children in the same school are more likely to become accepted religious minority. 
+</poi>
+In our school have the incentive to be less bigoted and more integrated to society because it's in their best interest to prepare their kids to be more successful in the society, right. So and then also um I think like the kids grew up in a mixed School tend to have less confidence when they have all these like insult or mental stress uh on their on themselves. And that's why it's less likely for them to get integrated into the society because all these people who don't practice religion would just feed their childhood trauma. And how can you know work in an environment and feeling self-conscious about your you know how you dress and how you diet. And I think that's it's just like not good for their mental health, it's not good for their mental health for the rest of their lives. And I do think that the proposition should take the burden of proof uh to tell. I think it's important to highlight is in a western liberal democracy and hence, that is why like that is why like after these kids join the society they are less likely to be you know attacked or marginalized whatever. I think like kids on our Paradigm will have like better academic excellence, they will have like better mental health and they will have more confidence and hence, I think the schools, which is very important in this debate, it's about schooling, the schools on our Paradigm are much better than their Paradigm. Very proud.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/LSE Open 2024 Round 3 A.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+<pm>
+After years of complex, two years of sound and fury, meaningless and pointless slaughter, all Putin has to show for it is going from controlling most of the Donbass to all of the Donbass, and I think what that shows clearly is something that is obviously not in interest, it's not something that's going to help him. He would have been better off without going into war. I think to be very clear, they're about retaining power and centralized control within Russia and they're about pursuing Russian interests in foreign policy of Wars. I want to be very, very clear about what the counterside is likely to be, that's pretty important in this debate. You know, by 2022, well, Russia already controlled Crimea and parts of the Donbass and had it captured. What that means is obviously that Ukraine is unable to join the EU and NATO on our side of the house because those organizations only admit people who have settled borders within them. And If that wasn't the case, they were never going to join, even though that was a commitment. Crucially, Putin, despite controlling Crimea, actually had relatively good relations with the West. Things like Nord Stream 2 were going to be developed, he was not facing high levels of individual sanctions, so that relationship would continue, you get economic benefits from that, and you really gain some foreign advantage in the Middle East, but you don't upset the upper part to success.
+Now, I want to start explaining why Putin is weakened on a number of different levels as a result of this conflict. First of all, I think that the conflict has made Putin more reliant on individual warlords, people like Kadyrov in Chechen, for example, who are a crucial source of troops for Putin. The reason is, obviously, he's unwilling to engage in mass expression without a very unpopular outcome, and that's terrible because you are now empowering a bunch of people within Russia with their own private militaries, and you always give them the capacity to act against you. Putin obviously did that, and you can have that continue with all of these future wars as well in a takeover. It also makes you more reliant on individual oligarchs and so on within Russia for the reason that you need those people to get around the sanctions that exist. So you can continue maintaining your alliance on that group, you're more reliant on countries like China, who can dictate your policy and crucially, Putin's self-image is crumbling because, remember, in 2022, Putin was at the peak of his power. He had successfully secured Assad's retention of power, he successfully annexed Crimea. That image of himself as a defender of the Russian people, or so on, and this genius foreign policy is now gone because the guy thought he could take over Kyiv in ten days, and he clearly has failed.
+
+
+The next thing I want to note is that increasingly, more and more over time, as the conflict continues, the cost of food gets higher and higher. He has to engage in more and more repression as people protest after the killing of civilians. More and more body bags all regarding people that come home, and more and more as this continually happens, as Russian tactics continually remain sending men to the front to die, there will be far more support that crystallized against him. They will say, "Aha! Western support for Ukraine is extraordinarily contingent," and so maybe you will actually succeed in taking over Ukraine. I don't think that's actually false because even though Putin has managed to find some workarounds to sanctions and so on that have been implemented, those workarounds are closing. The West is increasingly substituting Russian energy; the loopholes are being closed more and more over time. Even if Putin does take over Ukraine as a result of the conflict, there has still been the flight of citizens, of actual wealthy people in Russia, who have tried to leave and pull out of the country and the pulling out of expertise, and so he is massively weakened for an extraordinarily unclear benefit.
+Even that the likely comparative anyway is Putin retaining some control over Ukraine. Now, I'm not even sure the West is the likely alternative on their side of the house. Yes, maybe if Trump gets into power, then he'll try and get Ukraine to see a negotiation, but that's not really bad for Putin, right? Because obviously then, as a result of the two or three years of conflict, he would have achieved essentially more or less than nothing. I want to be very clear about the fast changes that we get on our side of the house. There are a number of different ways in which Putin might lose power. There might be a popular revolution as more and more people are galvanized against ordinary Russian people dying on the streets, and as repression that Putin enacts necessarily gets stronger and stronger. You only need one spark to start a fire in Moscow, that is sufficient to depose him. But secondly, he might lose the support of elites over time as it becomes clearer and clearer that Putin is not going to win this conflict or that it is going to end in some kind of stalemate. And so, those people become more dependent upon him, which is sufficient for him to remain in power.
+Even if you view this as a marginal thing, it's still really sufficient to win in the debate because the risk of the paranoia that you probably feel as an individual level is much higher, when you realize the possibility of genuine actions against you. Before I continue, I want a poi.
+<poi>
+Putin decided to invade ukraine in 2014, west pulled out.[inaudible]
+</poi>
+Why was one of the most strange arguments I've ever had? It's like, yes, the West pulled out in 2014; that is now recognized as a mistake by the West. That is why support for Ukraine has been much higher. The current position is literally that Americans send $80 billion in aid, and crucially, even if America cuts off aid tomorrow, it's still genuinely not clear, this is about the problem itself, it's still genuinely not clear that Putin would be able to actually take over Ukraine, right? Because yes, America might send aid tomorrow, but that still means Ukraine has the most advanced weapon systems in America and crucially, this is exactly what the war in Ukraine has shown, engaging in offensive conflict is extraordinarily difficult because the Ukrainians have dug in entrenched successful military positions. They've got an extraordinary army that is battle-hardened.
+So yes, Western support for Ukraine is extraordinarily contingent, but even then, it's not entirely clear that Putin can successfully take over Ukraine, that is unlikely. Which means the most likely endpoints are having to fight this. Maybe cg can try and prove Ukraine all territory, but even if not, even if it remains a stalemate, that's still a massive harm for Putin because essentially he is now forced to recognize Ukraine as a state. This is where the counter becomes incredibly crucial. Putin's foreign interests are about maintaining a sphere of influence around Russia, that is gone now because the Ukraine that survives this conflict will join NATO instantly. There is a huge desire from both Ukrainians and the West to have this happen because the defense of Russia and the heritage of Ukrainians has occurred. Which means the counter on our side of the house is far better for Ukraine's foreign interests, Putin's foreign interests, sorry, because he can continually destabilize Ukraine from afar, he can continually meddle in elections, and he can install puppet presidents in Crimea and the Donbass. That is sufficient in order to ensure that Ukraine is unable to join the organizations that Putin has invaded. Which means Putin's foreign interests are protected on our side of the house or also, on their side of the house as par to be replaced which obviously is the most important interest.
+</pm>
+<lo>
+OO is trying to have a false statement. They say Putin can only be successful so long as [inaudible], we don’t know. To be fair, having all of us is a success. We're going to probably play what is actually what. But before that, some other points. What are the most likely in favor of this? Even if they present. Three reasons. One, they already have relationships internally; they control most of production in Russia, and they mostly export them to countries like China. Secondly, they can take them to the EU and US through hiding their corporations, as they do, like using ships, flags, etc. Therefore, it has not hit them. The average Russian citizen, they are nationalistic. This is because they grew up in a US side environment with propaganda and anti-US sentiment. This is above the material wealth because they already have it. You can have one restaurant, but your nationalistic tendency towards like, one in Ukraine is way, way higher than the one you're going to. For me, the long term, the point is that you’re more like, they have more capability of production. Note, these all are the ones that have power over putin and putin has power over them, then theming it is good. The government does not have to prove that this only uses money, they need to prove that they still have so much money to care about, they have all the production, I don't think that's possible; that's why two points, one, why Putin is able to consolidate more power, and two, why Putin fulfills his basic ideology. And therefore, even... Okay, going back, why the crisis is going good for Russia right now? Three reasons, one, long-term play. Note, this new play is relying mostly on US funding, which is slowly being diminished. This is because, one, people in the West have many concerns about their own countries and their own crises of inflation. This means that the majority of things Ukraine is seeing right now is not the future; this means not only can they take back but most likely Putin will also take more back. Secondly, they have already taken Crimea; this has a high realization. They say, "Oh no, there's only two of us," but then they have seized other stuff like connections and sea ports. This can never go away, most likely because there is not a massive increase in Ukraine. Now, the situation is going well, even if it's losing a lot of money. 
+The two reasons, one, propaganda, Putin has the ability to whatever out of the way. I got most of the current. Notice, that the amount of power that they say, is very limited. This is actually going well, so there is no reason to actually[inaudible], It is very hard for you to posit. You cannot do; Most likely the US has way closer connections to Ukraine, and maybe Ukraine is actually getting closer. Even if that's not the case, it's still impossible for putin, even then, if it's not successful, he still... Why? One,he is able to hold more power. This means he can do more because the focus is more on Ukraine. But secondly, he's able to consolidate power among the missionaries all this time. I think at this point,this power is at already because of the outside of Ukraine. This means that he is massively decapitated, and he can do that. But putin faced massive backloss towards potentially losing economy, the crisis is a positive story, not putin only can say and maintain power,not that even or like other things,but like, I don't know, pushing for.
+<poi>
+This entire speech. Why maybe is the case this has gone well, what you need to explain is why the things that he would have done on the comparative Consolidated power are worse.
+</poi>
+
+
+No, no, because, okay, second, because of the prevention of US expansion. Why do the US have more power over this region? Two reasons, one, Ukraine has an active incentive to NATO. This is to prevent what happened right now. But secondly, the US is also expanding its influence in Ukraine. This is because of projects like NATO, which has a closer threat point to Russia. Therefore, they can minimize their sovereignty; they can get better deals for them when it comes to petrol. Why? I think in the first place you have very tendencies, but secondly, the US probably... Probably. Why then this is a beneficial for thing for putin, even if he fails? That he successfully, meaning in his ideology. Three reasons, one, he attempted it in the first place, this of not do, which would be much more because possibly ukraine, therefore this ideology is false. Secondly, he can gaslight and I think he is doing that. This means that putin has spread his notation to expand elsewhere, like more power. 
+</lo>
+<dpm>
+Let me be very clear about what the counterfactual is in this debate, because it's important that even if opening opposition have some concerns about why it may be the case that it is unclear. Why, we think that the alternative world is better? There are a couple of things, there are five things. Firstly, you massively minimize sanctions risk on you and your cronies as Putin if you have stuck to the status quo. Be very clear; status quo were before the war in Ukraine, was that Putin aggressively fighting in EU, that had control of at least 40% of Bakhmut in addition to Crimea. It was that, as a result of the sanction. Thirdly, because of the Eastern conflict, because it happened in 2014, it initially became considered a conflict in 2016 and 2017, and even in 2018, Trump was even suing for Eu because there would be common perception that they were not going to be informed, that they were sturdy and therefore, the ukrainians would have their table and negotiate putin, all of that has gone because people are alarmed at how these things have gotten worse and they don't believe that putin will engage in agreement. He has already invaded the whole of Ukraine. But thirdly, the national army invasion massively increased the the sanction including number of people you can sanction. For example, more oligarchs, more have been sanctioned as a result of Ukraine. If you consider certain individuals responsible, that is why you were able to sanction to a great extent in the first place, because there is still space to sanction. The fact that a marginal increase in sanctions is actually huge would have been lost on their side. 
+Why does this matter in the debate? Because despite what opening opposition said, these individuals do care about being sanctioned. Why do we know they care about being sanctioned? We're talking about the same oligarchs who literally robbed their country in the 1990s amidst the chaos of the Soviet Union. We're talking about the same individuals who are primarily concerned with their own wealth and their own accumulation, and who like to express that by going to New York, London, and so on. So on the comparative, who make up for the fact that they’ve lost their, so many benefits that they have, and the crutaly there is a breaking point; that we might not believe that it happens now, but given the opening opportunity, the most important reason why Russia is going to win the debate is that it's going to be a war of endurance. They will come when you push the people too hard, because opening opposition are correct that in order for this to work, they need a stockpile of economic resources, whichis now decreasing. That came from the people living in Russia. They also need to compensate for that only so long understandable model, and also it breaks. It doesn't mean necessarily, that putin be expected, but it means that the longer the war goes on, the longer that endurance exists, the more likely it is that the first. We need to think about all they've been able to achieve, given that we're talking about a flat plane of warfare., given that we're talking about Russia having more artillery and more men, but equally Ukraine with better weapons, I think that it's obvious that there is going to come a point where it is unsustainable. 
+And they're not going to be able to sustain this little bit more. Secondly, because they say the point, because Russia would have been able to more strategically, if they still continued in their current mindset because russia would have been able, for example, win certain mind strategy  around the region solidify, build an actual functioning government in these regions, so that it becomes harder in negotiations to be able to say that you should give these regions back to Ukraine. 
+That's the stimulus to actually get in the real world, when it comes to all of that, they're doing. Thirdly, the environment around Russia is, they have more terrorists, for the same anxiety of the Soviet Union, and that is true. But we all hear that Sweden and Finland are joining NATO. I do not see alarm; it's obviously a degree of work and a degree of influence that makes it hard for any future finlandization to occur. Fourthly, I think that motion buying is actually badly computed. It had to be done in the context of the Ukraine war because, became so angry or challenging for Putin. However, he lost on the capacity to have a non-state actor who engages in Russia, whether that is the likelihood of their mining operations in Africa, which actually allowed them to build a lot of resources to use for future war efforts in Syria, or would it be dedicated for who they can push around while trying to avoid these sanctions. 
+Finally, I think we need to recognize that Russia has also invaded, and they are also related to the United states. What does all this mean? The first thing I want to point out is that regardless of whether or not Russia is able to sustain this. We give you comprehensive reasons why Russia's economy is on a trend of being flushed. The luke of being closed, the Hungarian Russian gas negotiated expire  points, and they were just transitionary. People are moving from gas from Guana and moving towards oil from Qatar. This is going to further produce Russia's oil and state finances because it's so dependent on oil, and the other aspect of their economy, because they are manufacturing[inaudible], means that the Russian economy is on a trend of more and more desparate situation. 
+So in all of this, the Russian economy is going to have more extreme decisions, they are going to need more weapons, and they need to watch out for potential challenges. They have their own incentive to gain all the power that they have. None of this would happen if they could get away with it.
+</dpm>
+
+
+<dlo>
+Eleanor, stated when maduro was about to miss from Venezuela, he had huge temptation. there's a pattern, there's a clear pattern when oligarchs are about use power, where they stage huge crisis to be able to maintain power to be able to control what is happen but but most importantly, keep saying kind of, to show how this will play out if someone display. we have major control actually have this kind of getting out of control I think for open government they have to Wi economic to the extent that this kind of I don't think they do this in why is more important and I think actually why the house M was so three things in my spe one assuming they have power2 but secondly why the economic is not
+important it's quite nor F but the thing why actually this kind of atrocities and people actually speaking out getting was the only way to actually maintain Ukraine under control first at on the they say look in 2022 we had power because was in control and because annexation I think these two
+illustrations are not structural enough to explain why2 you had mous power why they they said in the you were in your power this is not proven right I think2 like pu was choking and he was suffocating for four structural reasons one NATO already proposed UK you you
+have to add in remember that Ukraine was compaining that complic for not speak anything like the process of uking NATO also like laia and all the other like Lithuania all the other like B countries that are surrounding Russia in in thehere of inflence right so this
+means from the perspective of Russia pu was signicantly sof the moment that NATO was proposing Ukraine to spe the process to join is the moment that Putin was suffocating he was under the influence of fear of losing Capital two internally he was under huge critic right he was
+What does this mean? El will turn away. We're going to explain why actually the most important thing is to know what opening government say about this. There are a couple of things firstly; they say that now we'll be more reliant on all the oligarchs, and secondly, that elites might oppose Putin because one, they don't think he's going to win, and two, sanctions, without any explanation of why that reached a tipping point. 
+
+
+Firstly, I want to explain why oligarchs are the most crucial thing for Putin holding power. That is to say, why are they in a position where they are able to resist Putin? The reason why oligarchs have such a powerful position in Russia is because they have a monopoly on state capacity. What does that mean? It means that oligarchs control the arms of state propaganda; they own the state-run television stations, they own the state-run newspapers. They control what information gets out to the people of Russia. They are, for example, the heads of the police and important people stationed within the military that have significant control over the kinds of decisions that the police and military make. They have the heads of the most important and most lucrative state corporations. That is to say, they are the ones that own the oil and gas companies; they are the ones that own the construction business, and they are the ones that order all these things. This means that they have significant amounts of political and economic leverage over Putin and over Russia as a whole.
+
+
+There are three important implications of this fact. Firstly, their cooperation is crucial in keeping the population complacent. That is to say, you need oligarchs that are going to spit out the propaganda; you need oligarchs that want to cooperate to the fullest extent. Secondly, the support of these oligarchs is necessary for the fulfillment of other ideological things that Putin wants to do. It's not just about open positions. You need to reach the tipping point where they do not see Putin as a sufficient leader. 
+
+
+But that's not true. All you need to do is believe they're less likely to cooperate. That's less likely, for example, to loan billions of rubles to Putin in order to expand military operations to Africa. They're less likely to do all of these things and mobilize the capital that they have. So if people believe that Putin is an ideological man and cares about things like geopolitical influence, it means that he is not able to do that into the future as much, really. 
+
+
+But thirdly, they do have the capacity to act against him. If you believe the analysis, they have billions and billions of dollars, and they have control of important stations, military, and police and security. I think they have the capacity to act against him. 
+
+
+The second important gap is why is it the case that the oligarchs are less likely to cooperate with Putin? Opening government talks about why is it that they are less likely to cooperate. They say they are pissed off because of sanctions with generic material, and it doesn't reach the burden that opening set. There are three reasons why this does reach that. Firstly, because the West seems to be implementing targeted sanctions. It seizes the assets of oligarchs and does things like freeze the bank accounts they have in Switzerland, the US, and in London. This doesn't just reach a tipping point because this is where the vast majority of the assets of these oligarchs are, because if you want to have cool access to like cool banks in Switzerland and stuff, you need to go to Switzerland. If you want luxury consumer goods and jets, you can't just find them in all of Russia. 
+
+
+Secondly, it means that your corporations that you own are less likely to do well. Opening government says that now, for example, the EU is more likely to keep away from Russian oil and gas. The impact that they attach to that is bad for the economy in general. So people get upset. The actual impact you should reach is that there is an oligarch that owns that company. It is a state-owned oil operation and gas operation, which means that when the EU tries to pivot away from it in the long term, they want to hedge against the risk of Russia. When, for example, the West has political interests now not to give you state contracts to do things like construction and infrastructure development in your country because they are afraid of the political associations with that, you lose out on billions of dollars personally. The fact that these oligarchs' economic interests are being hurt, not just the fact that this is hurting the economy in general, but thirdly, it means that global finance is far, far harder because these oligarchs are locked out of the US dollar system.
+
+
+That's extraordinarily important because the ruble is weak, and so if you, as a rich oligarch, want to participate in the global financial system to a large degree, you necessarily need to trade in US dollars or other currencies. But at the point where you're locked out of that financial system, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to, for example, loan and make investments. 
+
+
+Furthermore, the deterrence mechanism fails because they don't necessarily enjoy full-scale sanctions. My analysis shows that secondly, if all of them decide to oppose Putin, I already explained why they have the capacity to do that. Secondly, you say they don't care about finance and such, but they are oligarchs. They like to trample over other people; they care about money. They are willing to screw each other over to protect their wealth. 
+
+
+Finally, nationalism is also contingent on this being a success. 
+
+
+Firstly, we believe that the West will remain opposed. Therefore, leading to opening opposition by long-term consolidation and nationalist success. Firstly, the West needs to retain an image of strength in order for them to maintain the support of their allies, but also as a deterrence mechanism against future rogue states. Secondly, even if the US and Trump get elected, the US, like, supported the entirety of Europe. They are just worried about a war on their doorstep, so they are politically motivated to act against Russia going on into the indefinite future. But thirdly, it's the military-industrial complex that has lobbying incentives to push for further and further military aid to Ukraine, which means that they stay committed.
+</dlo>
+<mg>
+We're going to explain why actually the most important things know what opening government say about this. Firstly, he says that now we'll be more reliant on all dos and secondly, that Elites might suppose Putin because one, they don't think he's going to win and two, sanctions without any explanation of like why that reached Tipping Point by a in a couple of really crew gaps in that. The first Gap, I want to explain is, why is the case of oligarchs are the most crucial things Putin holding power, that is to say why are they in a position but they are able to, you know, resist democracy and that open government. the reason why oligarchs have such a powerful position in Russia is because they have a monopoly of State capacity. What does that mean? it means that oligarchs control the arms of State propaganda, they own the state run television stations, they own the state run newspapers and so they control what information gets help people of Russia. They are, for example, the heads of the police and important people stationed within the military that have important amounts of control over the like, you know, the kinds of things, decisions that the police and military made. they have the heads of the most important and most lucrative State Corporations. That is to say that they are the ones that own the oil and gas companies, they are the ones that own the construction business and they are the ones that order all these things. which mean that they have significant amounts of political and economic Leverage over Putin and over Russia as a whole. There are three important implications of this fact, firstly, their cooperation is crucial in keeping the population complacent. that is the say you need oligarchs that are going to spit out the propaganda you want, you need oligarchs that want to cooperate to the Po's extend program. Secondly, the support of these oligarchs is necessary for the Fulfillment of other ideological things that Putin wants to do, it's not just about like, open positions like, you need to reach the Tipping Point where they do, but that's not true all you need do is believe they're less likely to cooperate, that's less likely for example, to loan billions of rubles to Putin, in order to expand military operations to Africa, they're less likely to do all of these things and mobilize the capital that they have. so, if people believe that Putin is an ideological man and cares about things like geopolitical influence, making sure mean that he is not able to do that into the future as much really be can, but thirdly, they do got to have a capacity to, if you believe the analysis they have, billions and billions dollars and they have control of important station military and the police and security. I think they have the capacity to. Second, important, important Gap government talk about why is it the case this People of oligarchs to the extent that they are less likely to cooperate, with that challenges opening government, right. they are, they say you need to prove why the oligarchs are going to lose so much they are less likely cooperating with putin. open governments say they are only pissed because of sanctions with generic material and doesn't reach the burden that opening opposition set there. three reasons why this does reach that, firstly, because the West seem like targeted sanctions it seizes assets of oligarchs and does things like, freeze the bank account, they have in Switzerland, they have in the US and they have in London and note, just reaches a Tipping Point because this is where the vast majority of the assets of these oligarchs are. because if you want to have cool like, access to like, cool banks in Switzerland and like, you need to go to Switzerland if you want cars and like cool consumer goods and jets and stuff, you just kind of like you can't just find them in all them in Russia, you necessarily need to go to the West with the coolest most expensive shit that you want at oligarchs. secondly, because it means that your corporation that you yourself own, is less likely to do well. opening government says that now for example the EU is more likely to like, keep it away from run oil and gas and the impact that they attach that is bad for the economy in general, so people get upset, the actual impact you should reach that is that there is an oligarchy that owns that company, it is practically Elite, owns that state, owned oil operation and gas operation. which means that when the EU tried to Pivot away from it into long term because they want to hedge against the risk of Russia, when for example, the West has political interests now not to give you state contracts to do things like construction and infrastructure development in your country because they are afraid the political associations with that you lose out on billions of dollars, personally, is the fact that these Good's economic interests are being hurt, not just fact this hurting the economy General but thirdly, because it means that Global doing Global Finance is far, far harder because these oligarchs are locked out of the US dollar system and that's extraordinarily important because the ruble is fucking shit and so if you as a rich oligarchs want to participate in the Global Financial system to a large degree, you necessarily need to trade in US dollars or other countries but at the point which you're locked out of that Financial system and you find it extraordinarily difficult to, for example, loan and make investments.
+<poi>
+oligarchs have active incentives such as mass solutions but more important, who keep out.[inaudible]
+</poi>
+one, the deterrence mechanism fails because one, they don't necessarily enjoy full scale as my analysis shows.
+secondly, if all of them decides to could,I already explain why they have the capacity to do that, secondly, you say they don't care about finance and such but they're fucking oligarchs, they like trample over other people to like, they're screw to duck right, they're like, sing in their little like gold buo because that's all they care about in the world and they Jo a soul like this like they clearly care about money like is their the only Point like of doing anything but thirdly, nationalism is also contingent on this being a success robot. okay, finally, what say ons first they want to control anybody i'll explain as why need to point they set up, secondly, they can hide and find and stuff but obviously, the west and financial institutions in the west have both the incentive capacity to punish them when they try and find those loot because if you and the US government have enormous amounts of control over the GO Financial system, you have both political incentive but also reach the capacity to lock them out of that, to freeze all of their assets, they literally just have direct control over the things, I'm not sure what loopholes they're talking about. finally, okay, why the West will remain opposed therefore deleting opening opposition by long term consolidation and nationalist success? firstly, the West need to retain an image of strength in order for them to maintain the support of their allies but also a deterrence mechanism against future Road States. secondly, because the, even if the US and Trump get elected in the US like, supported the entirety of Europe is just worried about a war their doorstep so they are politically motivated to act against Russia, going on to the indefinite future but thirdly, it's the military industrial comp in have lobbying incentive to push for further and further military aid military infrastructure in Ukraine. which means that the stay committal number of government.
+</mg>
+<mo>
+The Russian government announced that if they lose these territories in Ukraine, they will move to Berlin. I think it's really important for this to happen because it shows that the consensus within Russia is that the loss of these territories is the most important thing in the world. It matters, economics matter, Politics matter, Security is envisioned by Putin. We are giving you predominantly a way extension. We'll do some extending on the bottom half and some fun things like that. But primarily, we're going to tell you what people care about most in Russia. 
+
+
+We've heard loads of different things. He does care about retaining power, but let's talk about control a little bit. I want to flesh out what opening government talks about, what it actually means in reality. Because in reality, this looks like a slower approach; you're still trying to get assets in Ukraine. Some kind of thing, probably looking to the China-Taiwan infiltration strategy, because that is the thing you do attempt. Regional government in the Donbass region in elections or something like that, and that might not be explicitly Putin; they can say, "Oh, Putin would do it himself," but I think oligarchs would be doing this anyway because we've just shown you they care about it, the obvious, and therefore, they would do it. 
+But without the consent, they would seek to stay by them. In this way, it's worse for Russia. 
+
+
+There are three reasons, it's less control about the approach, which is bad anyway. Secondly, you have the slowest approach, which generates great opposition from those oligarchs who don't view you as doing the thing you are paid to do because if the oligarchs care about all this money, you are not doing the thing of giving them back Russian nationals they say. This means you are not doing your job. 
+
+
+Thirdly, the West is very aware of these things now and has the capacity to control social media and deal with these things as well. The problem with this is that the Deputy Prime Minister made three ideas for why it's likely these things work. What is sanctions? I would say sanctions have actually favored Putin for the exact opposite of posing government sanctions, Sanctions have disempowered all of these people who would otherwise be significant threats to Putin's regime. 
+
+
+Prior to 2014, viewed him as not getting enough done and was started to passest models between 2004 2008,we've seen there's a strong push from these people to bring in a somebody who was younger him as not getting enough done, and we have seen a strong push from these people to bring in someone who is younger. You didn't say this and secondly, also to bring in somebody who represents the oligarch class because as the debate has noticed, hugens was a former member of KGB. There are  two things I’d like to bring out about that are, how they have his incentives specifically deepening the alition KGB here, but also very specifically, why he doesn't represent the two things that matter are, firstly, the soldier mentality of Putin. He has maintained his final orders ever since leaving the KGB, the defense of the USSR and its success above all other things. Secondarily, he embodies the idea of the defender of the Republic and views this fight as such. First, why we saw that news story from last week that Russia is saying it build even if it needs the eradication of Russia to defend its boundaries by any means necessary, including the use of nuclear weapons. That is the level to which he is committed to defending these territories or dying trying.
+
+
+That mentality is what told you in a meaningful way and it also weighs the debate because it explains to you why protecting these territories matters more than the economic factors or the ability to expand. Unless, as the Prime Minister says, the oligarchs were not people through Russia; they were forced into alliance with them. The state of people were stripping out assets; people want to be dealing with until he can bring them back. That is exactly what has happened as a result of the invasion of Ukraine. 
+<poi>
+At the start of the war, he said he would take over Kyiv.
+</poi>
+Secondarily, that government did that, he wouldn’t be happy with some of it; he would only be happy to get the whole thing. The truth is that he is a rational person; he is a soldier. He makes battlefield adjustments in order to maximize strategic objectives. The consensus is, he can’t get everything now like he thought he could originally, but he can still defend what he has now, and this is the great part and this is the great part because only government can see if this impacts they can see you know, we may not be able to uh punch him back permanently before we reach a stale nature that is neutral and that's what the result of motion is that's really because he can defend the territory now, he views himself in that Defender role and will continue to do so to the death that is the point what responds to point information, he knows he can't get everything now but he will defend what he has and he is in that defensive position always moving forward he will not regret it, because he prioritizes the ability to retain those delies you otherwise not hold. So let's talk about sanctions, which should be somewhere here. I have no idea support, Putin regime should state, that these people of State capacity. note, it is now primarily devoted to the war effort for example police and military ass B supp Supply chains leading to military comp this means that that cannot be against the way CG says, secondly ownership of businesses been lost in many cases for reasons, one, sanctions, two, Russia in many instances, they can't deal that they broken their rations and they' a financial system they can no longer use the retribution, that massive retribution has been dealt with. this is the flip of their case, they people pissed off now but note, unless they can explain to you why not just being pissed off but having the capacity to use that pissing offness to do bad things, which is what it is so at the top it matters less if they lost their capacity to use they best reason to one the fear and secondly, reframing of the reason to support first point. secondly, because the blame has shifted from Putin to the west and in trench their West mentality. Which means they blame someone who get things done a lot less and are more likely to they are enemy this, necessity and that be more willing him to Noble off and assassinate the less confined oligarchs and therefore, that happens. all of this is you say, it leads us to A.1 efficacy because achieving nothing is still Victory but sailing to the win for Putin CL government is that Ukraine must be recognized unclear, why claim NATO is easier now actually harder because want to avoid escalation to a nuclear bomb news last week because that alone is a reason why they won't off they will continue fight by back door like they've been doing now. all of this is to state, we have a consensus in this debate that Putin as a result of this can defend territories that he currently controls which matter to him a lot as a result of the invasion of Ukraine this is unique imposing opposition and there is a reason why he is most in the debate that need on our side and therefore we win the debate.
+</mo>
+<gw>
+The first thing I want to deal with this explanation to gifts that basically these, all blow off everything because I think the reasons that christians are extremely dubious. the first thing they say is that these oligarchs have nothing because the ownership of these businesses has been lost. the reason that they give to this is sanctions, sanctions don't just even lead to your ownership of a business obviously sanctions can handle your capacity to the of money that these oligarchs had access to previously but it's still own the things have, it's not like the US government has capacity to take that like, businesses away from align the project. the second thing they then say is that these were used in the war, so these, as they not able to use these assets against Putin. we think it's true to some extent however, I think this is actually detrimental to these people sorry firstly it means a lot of the time these oligarchs get far angry about the fact oligarchs asked used for war which have to do with. but I think the the thing that opposition said about now like having deleted everybody who can possibly rise up against him, it's totally ludicrous because Aidan explains to you in his extension, you basically unable to, any interest have as these people, what if opposition vision of the world. Prove about these through oligarchs who the CO of every single Media company now and every single company that these oligarchs own and owns absolutely all the wealth that these have is like totally unfair how worldly bases of people that are Putin can support that he's unable to run everything these people own but secondly, all if Putin like do turn around and is like, I'm going to like, you know, take all your wealth now to be able to do this like it is pretty likely that all the oligarchs are not going to do things like produce propaganda for him or like provide him money and Loans to be able to fulfill his other foreign interested uh, like foreign interest in places like Africa. so I think it is like totally ridiculous for closing up for the opposition, that the are going to have like absolutely nothing. I think last, they say is that Putin used himself as a Defender, so this is going to be like his way of taking a stand against. firstly, I think like this like is very Oddity, greater ways like just wants to expand Russia's interest as a soldier of Russia but secondly, of all like, if you are Astin if you able to expand like, Russia's power abroad in the same way that like, we, he is able to as we' shown through aidan, because you do not have the money that these oligarchs being able to grow from you from the money that is now stuck in Banks because these oligarchs are far less likely to have produce propaganda for you, which is able to keep the pass the bay. it is far less likely that you are able to pursue Russian interests or construct a narrative of great Russian imperial power the way this all what what me to is that it is incredibly unclear how sanctions triple these oligarchs capacity, to such an extent that Putin is now able to take over everything. what is far more likely instead is that now these oligarchs do not have access to a lot of the assets that are able to help putin in pursuing his interest, in being able to build these narratives and actually like pursue foreign relations. Opening.
+<poi>
+to most likely going get that over therefore, the incentive of nationalist is a point, is more important this outweighs most of the closing gov.
+</poi>
+oh my God, like, do you not care that much about nationalism like these are people who have like or business the90s which have like ruined Russia like, i’m sorry, like, obviously they care about nationalism to some extent but also like these are people who own massive amounts of businesses they care explain to you, you really can't nationalistic projects on the same extent with your money in a that you can't really access, rebuttal to opening opposition, sorry against opening I think aniket like says some nice things about the fact that Putin is obviously going to be retaken by the fact like the and the but I think A's extension is more important in two ways. firstly, it explains specifically why the oligarchs have so much power over, why this is importantly the group that you need to care most about and like why this group by but secondly, all it explains why you not able to build comparative, in way comp by explaining that these oligarchs are the reason that putin is able to control the masses to such an extent because they have such control of the media company. secondly, this is how has been able to successfully explain imperative to do this the first thing they say is that people in Russia. 
+First thing they say is that people in russia were criticizing him for being soft on us, I think being reality like able to take over country he Inc that he currently in oring which was brother I just don't think something that that the second thing they is that Ukraine something Happening wasn't prior people us and now supporting Ukraine and inating Europe other, very powerful issue, about I don't think that really and the last they say is that like, even if you say people anyway. I think that is why our is so important explain you not able to the propaganda to the same extent as opening opposition set that magally do explain to on support of power people around at the Ukraine of their increasing Ang and the second thing they say is that like the back out and people are going to people explain that is not going to ask. I am able to bring to of what you follow, what mechanisms, we already explained you.
+</gw>
+<ow>
+response to the push back to the government with. Explain how reception. All response to the sanctions and response to the government with. [inaudible] Push their away been away from them they're able to the they lose money fusing comparative point you have less. Second of all, being in the comparative end you are less able to do what you want to do. They have less power they are pushing it to the matric into the bad light. [inaudible] You want to is better able to deal with them if they try don't she can see said yeah when you take they can deal with you she lit that they have less power pushing their in the also the extent on the common to support fun on our side. I'm go through and explain that's such a thing. Important comparison in this debate the fourth thing is that if they literally consider that they assets can be be SE some power when they say they're going to get angry about it. No explanation what this angle will materialize to when the outcome of this angle actually like you cannot reverse. Sanctions right because you oh they are now angry. Let's reverse all our sanctions on them that's not what's going to happen with. Do anything about the is Beiz all we oppose have all the mental toward one people in to the lad techonology, gain power, gain resources. Everything about you be brought out power meaning ideology entering be engagement why the challenge about because when you have something, when you have people mentally ovary, this means more private military being formed up and less of them being Russia. Overall control spread of bad and blame you all the but 15 seconds I'll get why important what just who just say well where they just say like oh 40% rather than like 50% okay, right. Well not really a reason why ideology their own claim care about controlling the entire area. But second of all, we have a stronger incentive claim we explain engaging with govern while he never accept tradeoffs. You always be happy with the fact he has 40 or 50 percent into as well fin greater magnitude to the actor. What I mean by this we have more aim to this help control the ion we. Pro the power he would be able to get from the USA would not be as high Victory and he would have less power in the bright. The conjunction territory and power get territory. Okay moving on government the reason I want explain the defense of the police and military not necessarily pushed against it ideological consistency and the internal aims of this of the police and the military aligned with him. They older because they been more like old PL in the sun they know about these care about more pushing him over on these grounds second of all they out from perceptual inability so they wouldn't do it. They also knew that they would be economic, they would revert faction gain nothing from doing this who would be deposed from the head be deposed from of their Glory, right. They don't to control a group of military in the first because he would just buy them the first place. And they would get any whatsoever but also I just think there's no response by CL the government as why they can prove on their side to be less powerful. On the level we think we prove why they have more power if they if the war didn't happen and therefore if they can prove at any point from their mechanics. Monopoly violence like that have that on comparison as well so you could do anything on their side. More power as well therefore that why we're more open. I very simply one we positive in rather negative in they are control and Country for example the US and China. Pro act more but also why specifically everyone for a great.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/LSE Open 2024 Round 3 B.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+<pm>
+First, why is this debate not about it's not okay for opposition to come up and talk to us about Russians needing to somehow invade Ukraine at some point in time because it geo politically makes sense for them to do it. What they have to do is defend the specific manner in which the invasion in 2022 happened, the specific timing of that invasion and that war and all the specifics attached to this case.  It's not okay to say, oh, NATO was playing in your backyard, you have to do something about it they have to do it in a specific way that it happened, they have to defend this. What this debate is about, it's specifically about defining Putin's interest. I think fundamentally, we do that analogy by being very simple. Putin's interest most of the time, is the consolidation of power within the russian, within russian politics this is, by definition the only thing that matters to him because everything else extrapolates from that. It has to do with for example, flexing the muscles of russia requires him to keep the power within russia towards him, it requires for example, the opposition to be weak, it requires the oligarchs who he's very reliant on to be on his side. What we are going to claim from opening government today is, that this is significantly less likely in the light of the 2022 invasion in Ukraine the specific way in which it happened. We're going to do this in two ways from opening government. First, we're going to talk to you about the impact and consolidation of power we're going to have a b c d e f, six mechanisms on how this specifically happens and why it meant that the consolidation of power became significantly more difficult and the impacts of that in regards to desperation and scepticism and then secondly, we're going to talk to you about the future, i.e. perhaps, maybe i don't know, this is maybe too bad about the present right now for us, when it comes to putin campaign and the impact it had on his agenda. Before that, let's be very clear about what the comparative in this round is. We now have to attach ourselves to a very, very specific one, we can just simply say that number one, we would be significantly more okay with things such as leveraging the new oil channels which gave significant reliance of the eu and generally europe on russia further exports and their imports of oil, it also meant that perhaps you could spend the resources that you spent on the war on things, such as protecting yourself a bit more meaningfully against NATO, in case ukraine ended up becoming a member of it. Which is, by definition something which means that part of the comparison can also be things such as leveraging international law post 1945 about the sphere of influence of different countries and power in general, in a way that benefited russia, in a way that protected them against the potential membership of ukraine within nato, are there any clarifications? Yes, impact and consolidation of power. The first thing to note, is that when it comes to oligarchs the way that the, what's it called, the place where they all go together starts with k maybe, north crimea, the other one germany, yeah, the way the kremlin functions in general, is that we have largely reliance when it comes to oligarchs. It happens in a variety of ways, it happens we're just having the financial support of these individuals because you guarantee the value of the assets because we're talking about mad billionaires over there, we're talking about people such as I don't know, Abramovich right, that's the one example that comes to mind and the one i'll be using when it comes to saying how smart sanctions screwed over these individuals the point at which for example, their assets were frozen. The point at which, they have no ability to use their money, the point at which they have no ability to function or to operate businesses in other countries in europe, much like in the case of a problem which you had to sell for example, chelsea and he shares in chelsea in order to basically, be able to function in order to basically, abide by the sanctions and not get screwed over. What that means then is that when you have a lot of problems which is around the world and russian people are very rich and the point at which you have your assets frozen, is the point at which you're less likely to support building, the point at which you're unable to function and do the business that you would normally do. What that means is that you generally draw support back from the specific individual and perhaps you look at alternatives, these alternatives exist and i'm using past tense because as of last week they did, but now they don't, because they died because opposition did exist. Navalny was a very legitimate opposition, where effectively oligarchs started jumping ships perhaps by not explicitly but at the same time being okay, with the opposition because for example they looked at them as an alternative that perhaps is not as vilified. By the way, to the extent that Putin was, which is by the way mechanism number three, which is the fact that you have vilification a far more explicit fight between the west and putin, the point at which the west feels the obligation and has the perhaps, the legal capacity to join the war and basically try and fund for example, ukraine or to fight back against russia because they thought this was an illegitimate invasion. The point at which that happens, that's when you have a significantly more tension between the west and russia. What that means then and that's comparative right., it probably exists under either side of the house but the way that it happened, very explicitly meant that there's no way that you're going to have as much of trading as much of a corporation between the two in a way that benefits either one. Which has to do also with things such as oil and the fact that yeah okay the retaliation of putin was to take back oil and basically say we're not trading with you guys but that meant that you number one, fucked up the entire oil market but number two, it meant that perhaps you would have harms to the economy and the rule as it did happen, yes, okay now, it's turned back to normal but at the time the instability that was attached to the russian economy the fact that we had such spikes between the ruble and for example, euro or the dollar meant that you had issues. I'll say this way, in regards to people and their access to capital within russia, which then meant that you have all those trickle down harms to the russian people themselves right, which you may or may not care about and may or may not care about as putin but at the same time when you have a bunch of them, who are suddenly feeling this instability because note, you did have corruption and all of these things do exist but the model still remains one of performative legitimacy i.e. as long as you provide with stability i'll probably not go on and have an uprising against you or i won't go out on the streets or i won't for example use every opportunity i ever get in order to get in an opposition because strangely an opposition does exist. As a result you get domestic instability in politics as well, so from all those sources we see that putin is weakened. What does that mean practically? Before i go into that, closing, do you have a poi?
+<poi>
+Do you think Putin liked every single one of his oligarchs and why were there so many windows near them? 
+</poi>
+I don't know you'll have to ask Putin, I'm not going to tell you about his relationships with all of your girls but i will say that whether or not you like all of your oligarchs or some of them, this affected all of them the mechanism i gave you is universal, it doesn't apply to specific people whether or not they were near windows and others thought they were killed or for example, whether or not they were in a airplane that perhaps went down. All that opposition at the time existed including the individual whose name I can't remember. All the conflict with the mercenaries are all things that created skepticism and the reason why is because the point at which you start killing people is when the desperation sows and when you're desperate you can't flex muscles anymore, because I don't have seen anyone being particularly intimidating the point at which they flex their muscles and at the same time they're crying because it's a cry out for help. The point of which you go through a process of trying to kill your opposition, where if for example, you have increased scepticism about whether or not you're going to be scared of russia anymore because they thought that this was an open and chat case where they intervene and then suddenly for example, they get rid of ukraine as a problem this is no longer the case, because now you have all this scepticism about whether or not the russian army is even effective in the first place and whether or not all those resources that they spend were even worth it and whether or not now they could be used in other ways. For all those reasons, proud to propose.
+</pm>
+<lo>
+Panel, three main points for me to take, why, about why Putin does not regret this, Putin does not regret Russia's invasion. Firstly, how it's, How making still making impact like territorially in Ukraine. Secondly, how benefiting his national interests and thirdly are benefiting his domestic interest, but first some rebuttal and some characterisation of what we do in the senate. We agree in some aspects with the proposition, we think that consolidating his power is one of putin main benefits. We think he can go about this the ways he's gone about this through an invasion of ukraine in particular. Number one, so the draining of western resources influence exception. Russia looks like putin and russia look like a stronger actor when the wests influence and the wests perception internationally is diminished. Secondly, when like west is just pouring money and losing money, that's good for putin because it means that like, one, they can't provide effective opposition against him. Two, it means there's like domestic turbulence and chaos, etc. I'm going to go on to expand on this. Second one is expanding the history of immigrants we already had from the open government ideas about like you know, fears that they had like growing and joining etc, we're also saying like territorially more land means more areas desert influence etc. We don't like political groups like, in the Ukraine. Like, all of this kind of stuff was important, not in Europe. We got some stuff from og about like, opposition in russia and how like this built up lots of opposition and what it was like, i'll show you a bit and two things on that, number one, whilst there was some protests happening after like, soon after war. A, it's mostly gone down, B,  it was requests quite firmly, the protest once existed never really resulted in like, no galvanized in mass collective action or anything, it just kind of stayed to their level of opposition, C, yes there only was very much like a critic and a vocal opponent but he's been imprisoned for years. Everytime someone has taken active measures they have been requested but when you don't think that or has been a significant threat against what he's doing. Also, from the idea of the West joining, which I'm going to actually move on to my next point on, but his territorial interests in Ukraine, right? Putin is still making ground; just like in recent weeks, he's gained major cities. They're still making an impact there. He's taking, this is like one of his major interests, as we kind of spelled out. One, he's gaining more land. Two, he's continuing to diminish and chip away at Ukraine's authority on the stage. Like, the land, the house, the power continue to like innating this land, along with the horrible loss of life that comes with it. He's reducing spirits in Ukraine. The war has now been going on for like two years. Like, there are many in Washington, there are still some who continue to fight the cause. There's like high levels of discontent locally. It's like the death toll is extremely high and proportionately the death toll has a much greater impact on Ukraine than it does on Russia.
+<poi>
+How much of a success would you consider that entirety gaining some ground two years after he started this conflict?
+</poi>
+Yeah, sure, so I'm going to kind of move on to that. But, like, it means he’s continuing to gain land. Like, he's not being defeated. I'm going to kind of move on to undermine the rest, but also, like, he's not losing because, like, the loss of life is so disproportionate in Ukraine for the Russian army or at least considering his interests. He's not particularly concerned about the loss of life or the way it's affecting the people. So number two, kind of leads on to my rebuttal to you and my points, which is the way that it kind of impacts the West and affects the West. One of the best things for Putin is the fact that the West has poured money and resources and time into this war. One, it means that the West is not able to defeat him and that they haven't really like despite the fact that multiple countries have put troops and efforts into Ukraine, they haven't really been able to beat him, and he's still managing to gain ground despite that. The West is not as powerful as, like, it may think it is, or at least, like, he wants people to think it's not that powerful. It's not able to win and often raises questions about, like, to what extent the West's military at the moment is fit for purpose and whether it's functioning as it should, makes them look weak internationally. Two, like, it's a financial drain on the West. Not only are they spending this money, but because, you know, we currently have a cost of living crisis in this country and many others, inflation is high, and because of the oil prices that were impacted by his actions, following this domestically in the West, there's a lot of economic turbulence, frustration, anger, and constant questions about the spending in Ukraine, as well as the additional burden of taking on Ukrainian refugees. Because all about taking in people, etc. What he's achieved through this is he managed to essentially, A, undermine Western influence, but, B, also just increase, like, Western turbulence whilst also managing to damage the economy to quite a significant extent because it's not sustainable for the West to keep pouring money into this while he continues to gain ground. Also, at the moment, with the crisis in Gaza, global attention is away from him. He's not even getting that much criticism from the West anymore because people have really have diverted their attention greatly. The money that was like being funneled into Ukraine while money is kind of being split causes attention hence why it's being split. He's essentially getting away with what he's doing without the kind of global pressure and the protests in the same way that followed the immediate aftermath of the invasion, and all sorts of action from the West is being undermined because, like, you know, conferences like the UN are failing because despite attempted negotiations or attempts at stopping the Russians or damaging the Russian troops to such an extent that they leave or so is impossible. Third, I already spoke about in my rebuttal. Firstly, whilst there has been some backlash, it has not resulted in significant protests, so it hasn't really destabilized his control sufficiently. Some of the backlash is dealt with; most of it it's not like, he's still in power. He's managed to consolidate his power and essentially got rid of a lot of opposition. Two, it also means that the money can be spent on the way he wants to. He can spend money like divert money away from welfare, send budget on the army, and buy up military resources. It makes the country look strong. It does make the country strong; they have a strong military. Three also means, like, it also at least for a while was like much harder to—government, government, kind of became linked together and became anti-patriotic. There was conflict going on; it was disrupted. Anti-patriotic to take part in protest. All of these reasons I urge you to consider this.
+</lo>
+<dpm>
+Putin regrets the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 because the war didn't really go out as he planned it or as he predicted it. Firstly, their plans and the results from Ukraine were very different. Putin didn't expect the Ukrainians to last so long because, like, generally the politicians in Eastern Europe have, at times, Putin didn't have a lot of influence over them, but this didn't happen in Ukraine. So this was very different and unpredictable for Putin himself, right? This was something that because the invasion of Ukraine was rushed. One day we woke up, and we found out that there had been shots fired across the border, right? That's how the war started. It was very quick and unpredictable. We think that Putin didn't really have the time to think it through and see how Zelensky and Ukraine would respond to it. It was very different than what we have all been used to since, as Mor told you, the 1945 post-war world order. Secondly, what we tell you was very different for Putin was the response from the West. Yes, you can have opposition telling you that there has been a lot of political, like, people not agreeing with the support going to Ukraine for the money spent, for the refugees taken into the country. That is like very normal, right? Not] one, although, no one has backed out from the support in Ukraine. What people are saying, what analysts are saying, is that the support that the West has had for Ukraine is the rebirthing of NATO. It has been something extremely well organized and the cooperation between the members of NATO was so great that it was never seen before. It was the first time that we have seen NATO in action in such a united way, where all countries from the West upheld the sanctions, right? Where even Hungary, for example, had some sanctions which generally do not agree with the countries of the West, right? It was a time where the West came on Russia extremely united. And yes, obviously, you can have opposition talk to us about maybe some political opposition, maybe people disliking these parts, but comparing the actual support that the West sent out to Ukraine and has been sending for two years not retrieving that support it's extremely important. And Putin could not have predicted that because that had never happened before for NATO and for the West as a whole, right? So these are two things that were unpredicted for Putin. And thirdly, it's how long Ukraine lasted. So this was a war that wasn't really that much prepared, right? The way that Russia advanced into Ukraine, it wasn't like a classic war happening as we could have potentially thought, and it wasn't an attack as if an attack was made to Ukraine from Russia as what happened with, for example, Hamas and Israel, right? It wasn't like he prepared the attack himself and it wasn't really well executed. The way that they went into Ukraine. Ukrainian intelligence, with the help from the West, were able at a critical point during the war to turn over the war for Russia, right? What happened with the satellites and the intelligence that Ukraine was getting about the war efforts from Russia could really have tipped the war. Although the West didn't want to get involved, but you know what? That's not a point for opposition to make because that's completely reliant on a third party who didn't want to get involved himself, right? What we show you is that the war could have turned over for Russia not in the way that it was expecting, but the way that it invaded Ukraine in 2022. Now, they have this case about Putin caring a lot about the West being weaker.
+<poi>
+Do you really think that Putin didn't know that he only had four functional Su-57 fighters and that the rest of his fighter fleet really wasn't up to stuff?
+</poi>
+Yeah, maybe he knew, but I don't think that he knew that Ukraine would have been able to last so long. That's what I'm saying. Even if he knew, the reason why he rushed into that war was exactly that he thought that he could win this easily, and he didn't. That's what I'm saying. That's why it’s so important that Russia and Putin rushed into the war because they thought that it would be an easy war to win, because that was that's what precedent told for him. It was unprecedented for Russia to not win over an Eastern European country over which they have influence, right? So what I'm telling you is that Putin did not expect, and that's why he's now regretting it two years after. Now, about the West being weaker. Yes, we agree. Putin does care about the West being weaker, but that doesn't mean that he cares that much about that to happen at the expense of his own strength. What this means is that if the West being weaker means that Russia is also weaker and much weaker because, as Mor told you in his speech, Russia is now very reliant on China, for example, which obviously for a leader like Putin, he doesn't really like being under the influence of someone like China even if they're allies because their interests are not completely aligned. He would have preferred for him to stay strong as he was before the war. He has lost his influence exactly because, as Mor told you uniquely, he lost the support of the West by doing a war, while the alternative that people would have had at hand would have given him a much better advantage and not forced him to go under the influence of China completely. He could have been more independent, and that's what we tell you that autocratic leaders want the most. Autocratic leaders like Putin like their independence and like making their own decisions for their country. So yes, Putin wants the West weaker, but not at the expense of his own country, of his own economy, of support from the people. Right? You have now and the West is weakened, but also, as I told you before, the West is really united, and the West is not backing up. The West is continuing with the sanctions, and the West is finding alternatives to oil, which they wouldn't have done otherwise probably if it wasn't for the war that made them know that they had no other option but to stop having cooperation, any sort of economic cooperation with Russia because it is a war. That is what he regrets now. Thirdly, they tell us that people are dying, and Putin doesn't care. We tell you that he does care. Why? Because even if the war ends or it continues, and he's advancing and it's good for him, the people of the people of Ukraine and the people of Russia do not support him at this point because he has killed families, because he has invaded homes, right? Because he has gone wrong because the war does not go as he expected. We don't think that Putin wanted to go into the murders of Ukrainians, invade their homes, and start murdering them. The rash action which Putin did not want to do and therefore he's regretting it because he's losing the support of his own people, some people in Ukraine who would have been okay with having cooperation with Russia, and his own people. And what that will lead to is that after the war has ended or even during the war, he might lose the support of his own voters, of the people in his country, of the oligarchs, and he might be overturned. Not due to the fact that what they're also saying about after the war is over. He's probably going to turn to people that don't want him.
+</dpm>
+<dlo>
+Panel, Putin doesn't care about voters, Putin doesn't care about elections, Putin doesn't care about oligarchs since they end up there. Therefore, weakening the West of consolidating power and spreading his influence. Obviously, he does not regrets. For two things in this speech. First, look at domestic interest, engaging with the proposition case. And secondly, look at international interest. The first, strange case by his opposition that basically oligarchs are being really unhappy, they lost money for their sanction. And therefore, going to support Navalny if he was alive, but maybe someone else. Five responses here. Firstly, their support of Navalny is never going to happen, given an anti-corruption campaign and exactly against the oligarchs. They pretend to be in a better comparison with them, or operation currently because of Putin; neither option happened. Secondly, we think there’s very much a perception among Russian oligarch that Russia is likely to win, right? They probably do not care about the short-term losses, puts them two years further, a session, and something really important to measure, just a few from day one. But say we're looking at this as two months into the conflict, and economically, they’re really struggling. Two years into the conflict, when is making this decision? Every case here, unless has just happened, and this is the decision we are making. Fourthly, we think oligarchs have supported Russia, but quite specifically Putin when he campaigned on an anti-Western sentiment. I'm very surprised all oligarchs are going to be like[inaudible]. Preferably, they do want to move away from; they have no option, right? We do follow the window and get poisoned. They do have to like, we just happen to, we just don't have the option; that's never going to happen, right. Next consolidation, on is very back; he controls the media, controls the perception in Russia. But also because there's much more going on in the world right now, it’s not just the Ukraine war. Also, wars in Palestine and Israel, right? We have a lot more consuming media. There is very little domestic backlash apparently, but also, also, he needs more money towards the military. From the beginning, he wanted to cooperate, money for more military. What we got told in competition and response there that people don't like it, fundamentally, even if they don't, he is democratically elected, right? Navalny is being held, I don't think it's a priority, and being irrelevant before.Before I go to Second, yeah, first.
+<poi>
+Okay, you've told us that Putin doesn't care about oligarchs. You've told us that Putin doesn't care about dead families. You've told us he doesn't care about support domestically. What the fuck does he care about?
+</poi>
+Well, he does care basically, not only oligarchs but on his perception in terms of international, it has been international protection right, it has been the west weakened, either stronger in terms of territorial gains. But that we brought to you, on our side. Let's take international interest, what do we have here, first tell massive gains in the the other week and territory had to flee from because they were doing so badly having quite they reducing considerably. Got POI saying what do look strong a few years into it, I think fundamentally, having people neglect to what going on. Second thing, it has huge impact in terms of the massive costs of living prices in terms of oil prices. About the west-wasted resources between in the West. Which means, I feel huge sums of money put into Ukraine, when Ukraine has actually made very little progress for having increased oil prices to an unreasonable extent and caused costs of living crisis for many millions of people around the world. Thirdly, World Political chaos in the US or the Senate debating whether or not to give money to Ukraine or not, literally disrupting the political processes in the West. Exactly what the west wanted to, from the very beginning. Fourth, we said because of gas to protect those of disruption, made into the idea against progress forward, and the reputation of the West looks so weak. They can't do anything except send some money. They can't agree on anything on the conference, they're coming together, just agree even on how much money to send. They look incredibly weak. But they can't against one country here. 
+What do we get from saying proposition? They say, “Yes, we care internationally,” but we don't really care that much. We really have problems here. The DPM says, I'm going to tell you here, Putin ran on a campaign anti west, therefore going against the West, Weaken the West and have, and fundamentally says, “Look how we look at where we are. They don't have our oil; they don't have our support.” This will entrench his campaign. Make it unlikely to challenge them, right? We should know that does, right, that Russia and China are coming together an anti West block right. This always buys more into a campaign and like, look at the support we have for idea, look at I have I can create Mass opportunities, look at the Economic Opportunity he can get, military opportunity he can get with directly via entry. The last thing, that the West are united, I think this is fundamentally true, see the Trump recently happened the NATO country had spent almost inviting Russia into the West. Are disagreeing with each other all the time. The second thing, fundamentally realizes that there have been huge media reports recently about the fact that actually, they don't have military. So many people opt of the military, the money in the way and the resources they fail testing, they look weak. They may be united in your best case, but they are weak. Lastly, the West must regret it. He regrets it because the war had gone wrong. I think this is just not true. We can announce what has likely to happen, but our side of the house thinks fundamentally, objective here was to claim more territory, to project his interest in terms of the government interest, and to weaken the West and West perception. He has fundamentally been able to do this under this debate so far and clearly this is something he wanted interest to do. We quite clearly prove to you, among all the main aspects of his possession. Why you hear about Western perception and have been massively and consolidation of, for all these reasons.
+</dlo>
+<mg>
+Everything is perfectly fine. Everything they say they're it back to's personal about domestic what debate is the international actually. Firstly, they explain to an extent about NATO and the European Union, I'm going to go for. So the one thing that we want to avoid altogether like since he came is to states be more Western, like expansion of anything towards towards ukraine absolutely why is they explain that don't explain how I'm explain to you how,
+also like what big invasion is basically, create stronger and possibly bigger European, why? Firstly, he created he managed to do something amazing, which is to convince historically neutral Finland and Sweden to join NATO, unprecedented fate, it's actually quite amazing how Many. Secondly, countries like Kosovo, Northern Macedonia, Albania countries that already were potential futuristic members of the European Union. Now there is a double incentive, first, from those countries to go toward the EU because they protection and because they want, um, integration and through the EU, towards those countries, so that nothing like that happens. It’s specifically important because western bartons, specifically, already have some pro russian sentiment like,  but okay with an with an exception of already for Russian like Albania, that already had in to be so because of anti Nato anti sentiment. Now, they don't have that because they see the alternative is the better. So why does Putin care about Nato so much? because like that was his main goal to stop Nato was Putin versus Nato and what he did single-handedly but that Invasion two years ago was to basically, say hi NATO, you now have a massive incentive to basically go into those countries and basically contradict what I've been trying to do since 2004. Second case, he massively strengthened Ukraine. So the thing is, as of the essay that he wrote and the motivation behind. he never believed Ukraine should been an independent country by what what you did is insanely strengthened it, like first thing, as other dimensions, it receives amazing International help and this once again even though there are some tensions in the west about Ukraine. still it receive near unilateral help like, ukrainians are like, welcome in most of European count although, there are some protest and we not considering 100 people in the European like them. There is still more support than it was before but what's more important and the most important thing this the fact that they don't touch. Putin basically destroyed his entire political time because what was Putin's political time? to basically influence politics of neighboring countries through soft power non official ways. So since 2014, the orange revolution in Ukraine the war in Georgia crimea belarus like pro Russia within the European Union, that was his that was always his goal, right. He failed because like nothing of happen after 2004, nothing happened after his invasion of Georgia, nothing happened but now he made it, he just went too far, he just went too far to the extent that now every single person is going to look, oh, that company is from Russia, I'm not going to work with them even though that company may be completely fine. That party is rightwing and kinda says that we shouldn't take sides in Russia anymore now we're going to look at them those parties already have influence. The biggest Pro Russian party in Poland went from 18% to 6% in just four years, they lost triple of their NPS just single handedly because now considered like, something considered to be for Russian is an embarrassment and nobody wants to do anything with Russia. So, what he lost is his soft power, why is that specifically important? because there are three scenarios as to why how this war may end up. Firstly Ukraine wins, it's an embarrassment for him, it's an absolute embarrassment and I think there's no excuse like, I don't think there is coming back from politically socially economic, right. second one, there is a peace treaty that I know bilateral agreement whatever or also an embarrassment for him because everybody of everybody was expecting Putin to win and on the point he doesn't achieve that specific goal of winning, he already lost like the single biggest army in the world the great, the great country of Russia that's so organized and you know, Putin is like a very strong, it collapses immediately and third thing what if he wins because that's most he may get his short term goal he, may get his short term go of yes, taking half of Ukraine, let's take half of Ukraine, right. His short goal of like, scratching Ukraine and half worked however, that's about it because at the point where he won the war, NATO and the EU are going to be like okay we're going to send 70 million troops to the eastern border of the European Union and make sure that that never happens again. We're going to send even more troops to Georgia, we're going to send even more troops to Kazakhstan we're going to send, we're going to make sure that countries like baltics like, Finland European Union, Hungary that's not like, we're going to make sure that Pro Russian parties, do not have any more influence, we're going to make sure that not a single Russian influence in the west is ever going to be of any matter ever again and before that opening.
+<poi>
+NATO physically refused to go to war with Russia. Hence, why they don't send troops, why is this going to happen?
+</poi>
+Yes, NATO refuse, of course that's important because, A, NATO invaded Russia would have the right to invade Poland, Russia would have the right to invade any NATO member specifically, it's important because Ukraine isn't a NATO member yet. I know this kind of but if you like, if let's say, putin was in Poland, who is a NATO member, all of NATO would all invade Russia Ukraine isn't, like, NATO cannot invade because NATO is specifically, you have to be a NATO member or not a NATO member to invade or be invaded, that's specifically important. So actually how it works, he made look Russia like a fucking dog and I know this kind of goes towards what was saying but I think it goes a bit further because firstly, Russian military looks like a joke right now. At the point, where we have People go and basically going against him and basically saying hi, yeah, so we're soldiers, we're fighting right now, we have no ammo, we have no tanks, we have no guns, Putin basically duked us, we’ll be left alone this entire image of strong Russia, provided that they already win in the best case scenario, is still embarrassing because like everybody expects you to win in a absolutely crushing manner at the point where you win you as I explain you don't get any of the benefits you wanted, you still look embarrassing. So yeah, to conclude we take it over or take it over Alternative, they don't explain the international which we think matters much more because at the point where putin cares about the domestic stuff, then the consequences of the international explain to you are much much bigger. So what we explain this, how we actually strengthen nato in the European Union to the extent that it's actually unprecedented, how Ukraine specifically and he doesn't even believe country. He made Russia look like a joke so in conclusion the only thing that Putin did with invading Ukraine is to make sure that his political plan of entering other countries and his Persona will never be respected and again the government.
+</mg>
+<mo>
+We have that all sides seem to agree on is, that Putin's ultimate interest is not whether Russia is good or not, is not whether the West thinks Russia is good or not but is rather how long and how hard he can control the Russian people and the Russian country until his death and this is why it's very easy for side CO to take this debate. Let's understand why Putin stays in power today and this is one simple argument coming from us today, his social contract, Putin took over in the early 2000s from Boris yeltsin the drunk right what Boris yeltsin did, was introduce democracy and change from the soviet union to this sort of more modern Russian Federation. He fucked it up, and what could he do? Because post-Soviet Russia was an area ruled by the mafia, whose economy was thrown to shit because of 10 years of war in Afghanistan, and he really couldn't do much. What Putin then promised to do was, by coming into power after Yeltsin, he specifically promised the people that voted him in that we were going back to these old Soviet ideals, and two of them were the most important, the first one was a strong and stable economy to ensure that nobody had to go hungry again, and the second one was the concept of a greater Russia and the Russification and the uniting of the Russian people, right. Putin cares about these people's support because people in Russia today aren't like what our side government believes, some sort of mindless drones just being oppressed by Putin, they genuinely actually care about him and actually support him. Sure, the elections themselves are farcical, but the actual fact that there exists a lot of jingoism and nationalism in Russia is extremely true. Why? because of how post-Soviet Russia was, right? Because Putin couldn't really do anything to make it worse, so even his small changes made something better, right? So people believed in his Putin plan. Moreover, Putin cares less about the international part of this, right? Because international posturing was already fucked up after the 2014 Crimea invasion, right? Russia was already a social pariah. They had even banned stuff like fresh food imports into Russia, right? But more than that, the West can't actively dethrone him, right? The people in his own country, with whom he owes this social contract obligation, they can actively do that. So he cares about them more than the US simply saying, “Hey, screw you, Russia, man, you're such a.” What we then say is he placed a greater emphasis on controlling the traditional Soviet people, right? His rise to power was on the back of Chechen separatists attacking Moscow, continuous interference with domestic policies, just as side government says of ex-Soviet states such as Georgia and in the Orange Revolution, continues to show public support for Putin interfering with that Russification, right? Because what it did was give him legitimacy when the economy failed, for example, in 2014, when there were huge sanctions levied on the Russian economy and for which, like, the people literally couldn't even find fresh fruit to eat, right? He then decided to invade Crimea, and even though they made the sanctions worse and even though it fucked up the economy even more, people still came out in droves to support Putin, and the people had a new nationalistic fervor, right? Why? Because they saw him fulfilling his goal of reuniting the Russian people and making the old Soviet Union as great as it once was. So see how when he failed on this economic front, which he was able to do somewhat successfully after normalizing ties with the rest of the world since 2008, he then turned to this other front of Russification and the Russian people to distract from economic objectives. Because ultimately, he does care about what people think, and this is what the OO gets fundamentally wrong because he does care about the internal oppression. He cares about it more than international oppression. Before I move on to how the economy works, let's take poi.
+<poi> 
+It's unfair to compare Crimea to this specific scenario simply because there's a majority Russian population and their economic significance. But at the same time, it's less likely when taking over Ukraine, Prove, so difficult for you to actually get the great Russia you guys talk about. 
+</poi>
+Yeah, I understand what you mean. I understand why it's unfair for you because it really kills your case. But if you, if closing government relies on the fact that interference in the Orange Revolution and Georgia is part of this greater idea of Russification, then I can't see why specifically Crimea shouldn't be included because it's more Russian than Georgia or more Russian than Ukraine. And see how even if I'm going to deal with this later, but I have a good flow. The economy, right? So the reason 2022 is so important is because in 2020 fucked the Russian economy, right, specifically COVID fucked everybody, but what made it worse is more competitive sources for Russian raw materials became available elsewhere. In 2020, Large lithium deposits were found in South America, and specifically in 2021, more uranium deposits were found in Canada. Uranium is of specific significance because even the CIA in the Cold War had to smuggle uranium out of Russia and titanium out of Russia because they were the only places you could get these raw materials, and they were such great economic significance. So even the CIA in the Cold War was willing to fund an enemy to get these materials. But suddenly, you get cheaper and better available sources of these materials elsewhere, right? So the Russian economy is fundamentally fucked over-relying on commodities. Moreover, there's a negative view of Russia after the 2016 election fiasco, which further worsened this and relit the tensions between Russia and the US, right? So the economy was unlikely to be fixed, no matter what Putin did because of the simple fact that he relied on these raw materials and that these raw materials are now uncompetitive in Russia means that he can't fix this. So note, now when he decides to, therefore, invade Ukraine as a result of this economic failing, it does not mean he has to even take fucking over Ukraine. Putin did not think he was going to take over Ukraine. Why would he posture for years like this? This is not something new, he's been doing this for like six years. Why did he choose 2022 specifically? Right? It's because people needed to see him fulfill his mandate. The Russian army was never good, and Putin was not under any circumstances, under any illusions. The reason he did it was because they needed people to get stirred up in favor of supporting him. There was rising unrest because of economic tension and economic distress, and in order to fulfill that social contract that he originally came to power because of, he needed to ensure that there was some reason the Russian people could be given back. So even if, in the long run, the Russian people turned against him, he needed to try and distract them try and distract them from the shit economy because the choice for Putin was not one of hey, will I win this war. The choice for Putin was a certain death from starved mobs coming and invading the criminal or him trying to fight this fiscal war for another five years. Because note, uniquely, that it's the time scale that's the problem because Putin wants to die a hero, how long do you really think this is going to last right? Putin knows the end is here and he wants to ensure that his power is Consolidated and the people love him until his last. We win because we prove that we had no other option to other than face certain death at the hands of a star, a fight award that may or may not win.
+</mo>
+<gw>
+I'm gonna be explaining more, be telling you what my partner said and reminding you why this is the most important case. And lastly, proving that our case trips down both opposition teams so clashes and why that's important. There are two main clashes. Everybody has been ignoring the debate that makes both sides symmetrical to the point where the impacts internationally are much larger. Putin controls the media, controls the narrative and spreads misinformation like any other authoritarian legal. What we have here is that we have, the fact, there much less impact in this kind of clash because it's more difficult for the Nato to achieve a unilateral response from the people. therefore, whether that Invasion happened or not, he will still and forever control the lead as an authoritarian leader. What the impacts we getting from both on the domestic impacts. I'm not sure about the actual impacts that come from the outside, not to undermine OO about how he does look bad especially, in the eyes of investors and investors that have actual power with Russia but we believe our case on International impact is much more important. now I'm going to remind you what that what my part like gonna look like, basically she talked about nato and how the book goes, became much more strong and are now unified against Russia. Mind you, everyone has agreed in this room that everyone that NATO and you did not like Russia beforehand. We have to go that happen not way too informed on every kind of different Clash that canes have between them but that's that's known, okay. Therefore, now, we have the country that take part in there, that are in the Tipping Point of, hey, Russia is a strong tower, we should go against them that much. Now the Tipping has shifted against them and and having to break the confusion of side even the mutual countries very well explained by my partner, that even mutual countries have have agreed to take part in potentially joining the EU. Therefore just this front Russia, it's fucking Enough by is losing the potential ally or mutual power that could go against them because those countries have money like economy and whatever. Second which I believe is extremely important was ignored by opposition side because made claims that the not the soft power that he has within the countries that are around him. Let's not forget, make USSR great again is what Putin wants the most and has wanted since the start. it has been known since 2004, has been known since the time he started talking about going into politics. that's why, he looks like an embarrassment on one side, I'm talk about and at the same time he lost the he the countries over on the other side the continent like, “hey, what we we keep them on our side, on religious because we have the same religion, we have history because they have money can help us” etc. but at the same time the embarrassment he looks like um, what he look like is making up, he explained very well how gray ukraine was when the treaty who might can still be for him with potential sanctions that come from the EU or the US and at the same time, if he wins he still can get shitty repercussions, the fact that NATO going to be even more unified potentially adding more members in, to feel more protected bordering Poland with a lot more guns and ammo and being ready for potential next. Yes, before I go.
+<poi>
+Ukrainian War and what has subsequently occurred has made NATO and Western countries look useless and this not exactly what.
+</poi>
+No, they haven't. The reason is because trust me, we do not want to get, to go immediately okay? this is not what we want to happen right now. we do not have as a NATO country, I'm to speak from a NATO perspective. the NATO does not have the jurisdiction to fight over Ukraine it would be shitty. that's one thing they would look like shit because there's no treaty to, there's no to accept the fact that Ukraine is in there okay. therefore, they don't know that's bad, that they do they're doing exactly what they're supposed to and when a went into Poland they actually responded accordingly, by putting more ammunition in borders of Thailand before they're doing exactly what they're supposed to do. but okay as I said, make does not work because said Look by because country like ukraine which because they don't have as many resources don't have as many alliances like Russian has or as much territory as wish should have the still look like shit in the rest of the world. Second, was influence on your Case OO, apart from, you ignore completely of the money that constantly going into Ukraine, the US has have sent money like twice since the start of 2024, you ignore that, it has Strarted with the unification of NATO and EU like my partner said very well, which is still important. The West having Financial struggle we need to the impact okay, yes, there impacts, I strongly believe that putin is not a bitch like you're trying to explain, the whole goal isn't to actually, okay, I'm want to me the West stubborn. when in fact the impact of he's getting here are substantially so sad, when all of his enemies are unifying with death, trust me even if the struggle a little bit, being a bitch way is not his main goal is to actually win something. Yes, last but not least, on outside support his most important potential allies are fucked, they are flipped on our side of the house. Very well, now, on CO, CO let's talk about your economy and about how his economy and domestic impacts have, domestic economy, it has been very well by Og that was bad strategy, I'm sorry, but your most like point about maken by you said motivations honestly have been, oh, that will OG due to the fact that yes, it's a domestic fact. Yeah, your case is there so I kind of both, we win against OG because um, we believe that International impact that has had, is a lot more important in it's a lot more important that potential domestic impact because without the would have a huge influence within the people of the country and the people that have money within the country. Therefore, sorry guys. 
+</gw>
+<ow>
+Crazy to call our case derided, when they ran the exact same opening. The main push was International stuff, mainly on NATO strengthening itself, which we got all from the Deputy Prime Minister. I'm sorry their case is completely derivative, it's ridiculous to be throwing cells in, you're in a glass house. but secondly, why is our case not derivative? because opening opposition's entire case is about incentives about the war, right. He is making ground so we doesn't regret it because he can make more ground, right. We actually give you the underlying incentives for why all of this occurring but also why he reached a flash point, where he had to make one decision or the other, the other decision, I’m telling you was probably certain death or Exile which is probably not very good to him. The case is completely different from opening. cool let's go down their case and explain why we are winning. Okay, what does opening government give us? opening government there a bunch of stuff going to focus on the international realm without actually justifying to us why the international realm is important to begin with, right, they tell us like, you have vilifications and like a far more specific between the or fight between the west and Putin, there's significantly more tension between the west and Russia and there's no way to have as much trading, as much cooperation way the benefits everyone. I reckon this is the case, it is really important that provided the reason that this doesn't apply is because the economy already got fucked, the economy was fucked, right. there is no scope for economic recovery on a high level in Putin's lifetime. why? because 2014 happened, why? because since I was a kid, Putin has been a villain on the world stage, in terms of his characterization in the west right. I grew up in Toronto, I grew up in London, I grew up in New York, in all three of those cities, Putin is seen as a villain, he's consistently be seen as such there was no chance of him regaining his reputation with the West, regaining his reputation internationally but they also don't play out the scenario. Sure, maybe NATO is United now, maybe they're a threat, I kind of agree with OO that they're wasting their money and they look weak but regardless, maybe they've Consolidated power, maybe Finland and Sweden have joined. So, what they're never going to engage in a direct war with Russia, it means nothing for Putin but also by the time you get to any stage that, that's severe Putin's probably already dead. I mean what's the guy like late 60s 70s something like, that the guy's getting old, right. Right now, his decision is to maintain and consolidate power domestically for as long as he can but also maintain the love and the support of the Russian people, right, and that is what he's doing, he's delivering on a social contract, ‘cause he can no longer deliver effectively on the economy. They have to proved likelihoods of that, when they tell us that all these economic harms happen, they have to tell us likely. there's no engagement with the comparative from go bench, I'm just incredibly confused, sure. 
+
+
+<poi>
+Speaking of comparatives, the reason why this whole thing started was because Ukraine was speaking with NATO. If the metric is the creation of great Russia, how does the example of this long war not give hope to the countries he wishes to take over in the future, thus, leading to Putin's failure on your very own metric or glass house.
+</poi>
+Sure, okay, so the reason that our case still works even given that you know, maybe Poland or Georgia. Whatever these countries may be, whatever he may want in terms of full unification. Of course that's not accessible, he can't invade every country and restart the Soviet Union now, you know what he can do, he can die as the man who took back Ukraine and put Russia on the front foot when it comes to consolidating the USSR. That is what his reputation will be historically grounded in, right. That's what the guy wants, he's not only an egomaniac that wants to deliver on his promises so he can be great, he also wants to deliver on his promises to be Russian people and this is how he does it, right. it's one foot forward, of course the complete Invasion to reunite the entire block is completely improvable in his lifeline, even if he started from day one but this is the most likely option, in terms of getting any kind of front foot and delivering on any of his promises in the little time he may have left. but also if he continues and didn't do any military action, didn't consolidate power, didn't enact martial law, what you probably see coming up is again, dissatisfaction amongst the Russian people who were economically starving and dying, right. They were going to comfort him eventually, the only way to prevent that is to distract them with a war but also this war delivers on the promises this is an actor in motion. It's about his incentives. These are the initial incentives he set out for himself. These are the only incentives he is able to deliver on now. The only incentives can actually recollect and actually grab, right? That is why we're winning this debate, because we actually tell you how you can still fulfill any of his last-minute incentives. The OG gave us this weird stuff about how, they don't have to engage with the comparative. They don't have to talk about the other side of things because there are other options that could have been good. But insofar as you're describing his incentives, you have to describe his incentives through the current status, but also through the counterfactual and how they compare and how they achieve none of the teams do this. Closing.
+<poi>
+Okay. She's losing, though. You have not proven how he's actually going to achieve what he wants, and the people in Russia still, the soldiers are still dying. There’s still an amount of money. There’s still economic instability.
+</poi>
+If you listen to Max, two things, right? First, he doesn't have to win. He just has to be the guy that stepped up and fucking tried. But secondly, all he has to do is maintain this war for a period of time to the point where he consolidated enough soft power domestically again that he can sit tight until he dies, right? That is all he has to do, and that is something that is very achievable. But also, in the status quo, insofar as NATO is not going to engage in the war and they're not going to essentially invade Russia or fight Russia directly, he has the power to do this insofar as OG already tells us he's slowly making ground. He's probably going to win. They show us no case. They give us three scenarios, but two of those scenarios are just so unlikely. Of course, he's not going to sit down at the table and form a bilateral agreement, and of course, he's not going to lose, right? These are completely ridiculous. There’s no actual characterization of any likelihood but illustration of how scenarios play out on the government bench. Cool, no. Okay, cool. Against our opening, if my timer will turn back on, never mind, someone hold up for me. Okay, cool. So here's what we have, right. From, let me deal with a member of government. Sorry, a member of government. Internal perception matters more than who and he managed to convince historically countries to join again. Then derivative of OG who’ve already done this right? They’ve already talked about NATO  consolidating power international inputs, but we tell you, international realm no longer matters in this debate. 
+Putin failed on any incentives  in the international realm, many, many years ago. You have to engage with who putin in 2022, who he is now and whether or not he regrets that decision, insofar as that is not leading to his death, insofar as he is still in power and he's consolidating it. Putin is delivering on the only incentives, he can possibly have left. This is the best outcome for him but also the only outcome for him where he doesn't die, doesn't get exiled. Mak proves this to you, for those reasons, this is the only decision he would have made. Putin cannot regret this decision, it's the best thing for his power, it's the best thing domestically, he's delivering on his promises, right. The opening government bench doesn't engage with the comparative, in the comparative in our world, he dies. It's not good. For all those reasons, proud to oppose.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Pakistan Pre ABP 2024 - Round 5.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,305 @@
+<pm> 
+Firstly, I think it's important for us to picturize how big the shaming would be or how the shaming would be at the very first place so that there's not really much content been later to the end of the debate. Firstly, how it's going to look like: first, we're going to call out people, for example, in social media, etc., even on the streets, for example, pointing fingers at them, calling them names if they do not follow all of the protocols, for example, during lockdown or something. Or, like, on a big scale, will happen on social media where you comment on their post, for example, when they do not follow sustainable environmental protocols. 
+
+And it's going to be much amplified by all of this uproar that's happening, and also a lot of grassroots movements is also going to call out these behaviors from a lot of, uh, bodies. For example, not only individually but also towards the government, for example, towards all of the celebrities, like what's been happening with Taylor Swift, for example, with her carbon emissions. Those are the picturizations of how the shaming is going to happen. 
+
+What is the urgency of this then? Because, firstly, we think that people have limited knowledge, right? Even, um, in the current status quo, knowledge is available everywhere. Not everyone is really interested in actually knowing the causes and what it implicates to them, and they do not really have the feeling to actually want to change or the motivation to actually want to do something about the causes, for example, where it's environmental problems, where there are public health protocols, for example, etc., right? 
+
+But secondly, people would just not listen because it doesn't really implicate that any, uh, it doesn't implicate that there's any immediate behavioral impact towards them, right? People may gain knowledge from educational campaigns, for example, but this doesn't really result in immediate action. For example, many individuals understand the importance of, like, reducing carbon emissions because it's getting harder to breathe in this world, etc., but they lack those urgency. 
+
+Or, um, but shaming, on the other hand, can compel these immediate changes through societal pressure and a lot of uh responses, like guilt, for example, or fear of judgment from other people. But also, secondly, there's also a lot of, um, cognitive dissonance in a sense, right? Where people have their own beliefs in a sense, but they have their own lifestyle that they have been doing for tens of years, but they, uh, don't think that this education is, uh, that this education is actually implicating on their lifestyle, which means it's something that is, um, contradicting towards the things that they have done their whole life. 
+
+And thus, individuals reject this educational message. But with this with this shaming, in a sense, it gives people that urgency of at least it hurts their pride for them to change, for example, right? Which means this has to come uniquely from shaming because for four reasons. Firstly, because it hurts their pride, right? People, uh, feel embarrassment or guilt when they get called out, for example. Unlike softer tactics like education, for example, shaming directly confronts people with the problems that they currently do, for example, and as the fear for being publicly judged. 
+
+Or, like, um, because, uh, people constantly correct their behavior to, uh, further avoid embarrassment from other people. For instance, people who are ashamed for, like, not adhering to eco-friendly practices might quickly, for example, adopt more sustainable habits to restore their image in their social circle. For example, when they've been called out by their friends or they've been called out by the people around them, their neighbors, etc. 
+
+Right? But then secondly, there's so many things like peer pressure; this is also amplifies through social media, right? With trends, for example, a lot of people are following more eco-friendly approaches, like instead of using plastic bags, they start using eco-friendly bags, like tote bags, for example, for them to go to the store. And this is more compelling, and it's, like, much closer in proximity because, like, people around you are starting to do those as well. 
+
+Which means this amplification turns into a trend that is going to, uh, actually make people listen. But also, uh, people also fear public backlash, like what I've said before. Do people would listen? What is the conclusion of the second point? This has to come uniquely from shaming because it is directly and is more proximate towards the people, and it gives them immediate backlash from their actions, for example, right? 
+
+But then I'm going to, uh, preempt this by saying that, oh, maybe, uh, yeah, opposition is going to say that this is going to tamper on the social movement's reputation, for example. But two responses to this, if this is going to happen, right? Firstly, you need to make sure that you actually fulfill the purpose of your causes at the very first place, right? If you were to uphold your reputation, you need to make sure that you actually uphold your causes. 
+
+But we have told you the urgency of education does not work, which means people will think that, oh, they're only doing campaigns for education, for example, etc. They're not doing anything about their causes anyway. You need to raise this awareness and actually mobilize those actions to actually happen in the very first place for the social movements to actually uphold their, uh, values, etc. 
+
+Right? And also, secondly, you are the ones that actually fulfill the purpose and values. You are the ones that actively fulfill the promise. You shame people that do not uphold your causes. You, uh, actively shame people that do not, uh, align with your principles of the movement, for example, right? The social movement also relies on creating a strong sense of identity and reinforcing those values by taking active actions. 
+
+With shaming also shows that their reputation and their identity is something that is to be upheld. But yes, I'm going to take one from CO. 
+
+<poi>
+Uh, given that most individuals aren't responsible for huge social changes, how are you actually going to change the people at the top's feelings just by shaming them?
+</poi> 
+
+Oh, yeah, I'm going to talk about that after this. Yeah, nice segue. But for, but I'm going now, I'm going to explain how this shaming not only shames the individuals but also trickles down to the forces of government to also listen to these social causes. Firstly, because it creates this public pressure towards the leader, right? When social movements engage in these public shaming, especially like what I said, it's been amplified with social media, etc., it will happen on a really large scale, right? 
+
+Which means they generate significant public pressure that the government leaders cannot easily ignore. Right? For example, a lot of people are violating environmental standards, which means, like, for example, it also highlights the gap in the government, right? For example, when these individuals cannot do eco-friendly practices, this means that the government is not actually providing these people with those, uh, that enables them to actually do these eco-friendly practices as well. 
+
+Right? Which means these individuals would not want to be shamed. Uh, for example, like you tell me, oh, why are you not recycling your stuff, for example? But I could just say, oh, the government doesn't really provide me with the practices that I need to adhere to towards all of this stuff because it's just so inherently very expensive, right? Which means also it highlights the gaps in the government, etc. 
+
+Which means this shaming is also a catalyst for the policy change to happen at the very first place, not only individually but also towards the higher ups. Proud to propose.
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+What will social movements do on our side? First, we'll still employ positive education, teaching people for why recycling link is good, why environmentally sustainable actions are both useful to yourself and the rest of society. Number two, we'll allocate resources to fixing the underlying reasons for why it is that people cannot take the most amount of positive change. 
+
+In the instance of, for example, not enough vegan food, many people are having to go to more, um, like meat-based products instead. We would rather allocate resources of the social movement to instead trying to fix those problems by highlighting or subsidizing these types of vegan products instead. Note that this is mutually exclusive to our side for two reasons. 
+
+So, the government bench cannot co-opt this. One, social movements have limited political capital, so having to convince your members that shaming others is a strategy innately takes away from the time that you could use for other things, which is why the priority of doing our policy is less on their side. Number two, and this is critical, shaming inherently contradicts this because our strategy pins the blame on society. 
+
+Society has failed to educate for why recycling is important. Society has failed to give you enough recycling bins when it comes to major metropolitan cities. Instead, on their side, you are trying to pin the blame on the individual for failing. So, these two narratives contradict each other, right? Because if you're trying to pin the blame on a person who fails to recycle, then you can't also subsidize, like, recycling centers because then you're saying that recycling centers are unavailable. 
+
+So, you have to pick one strategy or the other. This means that on their side, it actively takes away from better strategies. Why is it that our counterfactual is better? Immediately building our positive comparative that places us even above closing. 
+
+First, we're relatively more likely to get buy-in because the movement is perceived to be more educational rather than being more intolerant of other people, which is a prerequisite to everything else in the debate because you need to get the buy-in for any strategy to be effective. Because this mass amount of people opting in is what creates the legitimacy for people to view this movement as something that's good rather than just a select few groups of people trying to have propaganda to convince others of their own beliefs. 
+
+So, this explains why on our side we will still get change, and our change is more effective. With that, I talk about two arguments. First, shaming itself is an inherently ineffective strategy, and number two, shaming leads to less buy-in for these movements. First, shaming is an inherently ineffective strategy, and there are three layers to why this argument is true. 
+
+Number one, shaming itself will always be unnuanced, and there's two reasons why the shaming isn't precisely targeted and the most effective things. Because note all of Gov. bench material presumes that you shame the right people, that you're able to shame them enough in order to get this amount of change. 
+
+Two reasons why that's not true: one, OG don't have the fiat to mechanize precisely how the shaming will be carried out by the social movements as a support motion. So, look intuitively at how this is done. Most of the time, it's individual members of social movements seeing things that they view as negative and then making a moral disposition as to whether that's good or bad, assigning some form of value to it and then trying to shame that person with very limited background of what the person might actually be going through. 
+
+But number two, all the blatantly bad behavior they talk about, such as going clubbing during COVID or large-scale littering, are already illegal. There are already government regulations against this, which is what social movements are doing. They are less of those things, but rather smaller things that may be more like not explicitly illegal or more like debatable; they're more contentious stuff, which is why exactly it is true that shaming might not actually be the best case.
+
+Because you're making a moral judgment on those people all the time. So what does this look like? It looks like you filming videos of people going out during COVID lockdowns without considering the fact that many poor people needed to work because they were unemployed or didn't have enough government welfare. This ignores the structural conditions that led to them violating those laws and instead shifts the blame onto those people. This is principally unjustified because you, as a movement, are supposed to be advocating for their rights, but on your side, you say that the person is at fault. You're double punishing them. Someone who's already poor, someone who cannot afford vegan food, someone who cannot stay at home during the lockdown, is now being double punished by the very movement that's supposed to protect them by shaming them even more. 
+
+Number two: Shame is least effective for the people in power because they have the most power to insulate themselves from the shame. OG example, used Taylor Swift. My question to OG is: How effective has this been? Taylor Swift can still use her private jet even with all the public backlash because all this shame is just cast out. It is seen as an echo chamber of anti-Taylor Swift hate. Taylor Swift fans are still going to her concerts. Rich conservative politicians can still say racist remarks because even if they are shamed by progressives, their own voter base is still voting for them. So shaming has very limited effectiveness, even for the most powerful people. If you don't believe that it actually shames the poor, 
+
+Number three: Shame is short-term. If OG is right and people immediately want to reduce visceral public shame, their focus is on doing what immediately takes away the shame rather than what is actually important. So here's the issue: If their case is right that it's actually quite difficult for many people to change their decision-making calculus, it's very hard for people to take the harder option. This means that the easier option in response to that shame is just to do those things in private. 
+
+So in contrast, on our side, instead of people just doing these types of things where they can maybe be seen by fewer people, with lesser chances of being filmed and uploaded on YouTube, what instead people are doing is understanding the underlying reasons for why what they're doing is bad. This means people on our side don't indulge in such negative behaviors in private spaces. They are more likely to engage with the truth of how this works. CG, 
+
+<poi>
+We have already educated people that throwing rubbish around is something that is bad, but people still do it. So why then is your model on people educating people still likely, "work?" 
+</poi>
+
+Uh, that's cool. We get more resources into educating people in more effective ways because we spend less of that capital on trying to do shaming. As I've explained in the setup, there is a trade-off. 
+
+So it actually gets better on our side. But second, I'm going to do the weighing here. Actually, maybe in our absolute worst case, we don't get change because we are less harsh. Maybe we don't get Taylor Swift to change on either side, but at the very least, this is a trade-off we are willing to take because on your side, you do more harm than good to the movement. You get less buy-in, you get more hate from the rest of society, and this means you put the movement in a worse position than it was previously. So yes, maybe we don't get huge amounts of change, but at least your side is doing more harm than good to the movement. You have to credit this as a harm that happens on your side. 
+
+Second argument on buy-in. In the previous argument, I've explained why this is ineffective and why the movement is also already likely to get buy-in because people feel that the movement has failed them. But now I'm going to give you three additional independent reasons for why you get less buy-in on their side. 
+
+Number one: Social movements will be viewed as elitist by internal members of the movement. For instance, feminism in developing countries will be viewed as not by the people and for the people, but out of touch because they're actively willing to shame local women instead of being for the community. Yes, we understand that progressive movements might be seen as Western-centric. On either side, I'm pointing out that it compounds and gets worse on their side. 
+
+Number two: Social movements will be viewed as hostile and judgmental by the rest of society. Again, many people might not be progressive. If you're trying to convince someone on the sidelines, the worst thing you can possibly do is try to shame them and get them to be against you, oppositional against you, which means they're less likely to support you. 
+
+Number three: This creates the narrative that you, as a member of a movement, ought to prioritize the movement over everything else. Maybe you feel like you can be inclusionary on our side because you can prioritize both your job and being a member of the movement. On their side, everything that's done in self-interest is actively shamed. So this means people are just way more likely to view this movement as aggressive and buy-in less. For these reasons, this is terrible. Oppose.
+</lo>
+
+<dpm>
+Shaming is what uniquely creates change towards the people. Exactly like what my PM has already told you, there is a psychological effect. It is psychologically affecting the people. For example, for them to start creating change, education is not something that is effective anyway in the status quo. Knowing how there's already a lot of access to education and so on, but people still do not change anyway, all to talk about there's going to be allocation of resources and it's unique to them because social movements have limited political capital. 
+
+For instance, they also have limited economic capital as well. But here's the problem, right? If people still do not have the awareness to actually start creating change, I don't think it's effective for them to actually invest in all these causes. At the end of the day, it's not going to create change on their side. Therefore, the buy-in towards the people and towards this entire social movement is not going to be as effective as what O tries to assert to you. 
+
+But moving on then, what are we going to tell you on our side of the house? Right? We want to talk about how shaming uniquely generates more social movement buy-in towards people and for them to actually trust inside these social movements when there are actual changes and tangible benefits that people can actually receive. The promise is pretty simple, right? Because social movements will only progress if there is support that comes from the people, and support inherently only comes when society realizes that the agenda is something that is effective and there are actual changes that can benefit the people as well. 
+
+Under O, you need to assume that people will understand the issue, and you need to expect them to change behavior and expect them to actually care about economically friendly causes on their side to actually have changes in their house, which is a huge prerequisite for them to actually get the buy-in in the first place. Why is this ineffective? Right? Because I think my PM has already uniquely characterized to you clearly on why education and socialization is something that is highly ineffective. 
+
+Because the process of internalizing the harms of violation is something that's very difficult for people to actually receive. Why is this true then? I think there's three main reasons. First thing, because everyone has access to education and is already aware that polluting the environment, for instance, is something that is bad, but there are no active incentives for them to change. Exactly because people do not even feel the urgency to begin with. That is a reason why regardless of how much allocation of resources that you have under OO, it is never going to be effective. 
+
+Exactly because you do not start changing people's mindset as to why they have to tap into all of these activism efforts that these social movements are trying to advocate for. That is the reason why even if they have a lot of recycling centers to see out the house, it's not going to be effective if people do not actually want to engage in all of those activities in the first place. But secondly then, because people in general do not have the capacity to calculate the probability of climate change effects themselves. They lack the epidemic access, for instance, to whether or not they will be infected with COVID if they violate the lockdown policy. That is the main reason why even if people are aware of the initial harms of climate change, for instance, they will still do it anyway. 
+
+Exactly because they do not think they are going to be affected that harmfully under their house. But thirdly, because people have pre-existing biases or beliefs, therefore, it's very difficult for you to expect them to actually internally change. That is the main reason why people will still breach quarantine policies because they don't believe in the pandemic, for instance, or they ignore these economically sustainable efforts because they prioritize short-term economic gains. These three points are already enough to prove to you why education or even other methods is something that is highly ineffective in creating change for the social movement to begin with. 
+
+So in part, if the social movement is not tackling down the issue, it is extremely difficult for them to fulfill their purpose of activism or creating change that actually is in line with their entire agenda or their entire value as a social movement. We think shaming tactics are something that is inherently justified because none of the other strategies have proven to work in the past or have proven to be effective historically. Right? It is the last method that has to be used by social movements to start creating change, and shaming is something that is unique exactly because it pushes people. It points out what is the problem that comes from these individuals for them to actually start realizing they're concerned about moral punishment under OO. 
+
+But the problem is moral judgment can be something that is collectively agreed upon by society because the harm of climate change or the harms of violating the quarantine policies, for example, impacts every single individual underground, regardless of whether or not you are privileged or regardless of whatever background that you come from. That is the reason why everyone should inherently agree that this is something that is good. 
+
+But how does shaming uniquely create a change that is beneficial for the social movement? Right? Firstly, because we think on a micro scale, shaming affects people psychologically. They start changing their entire behavior, i.e., starting to use more eco-friendly products, for instance, exactly because you make them realize that they are the problem inside society. For example, you hurt their pride. You make sure that they are the ones who need to comply with the entire policies that you have. 
+
+See, the question is: How does this affect the rich? Right? There are three things. First, it will happen; it will affect the rich because most likely if public figures' reputations are contingent on the people's voices, there will be considerations to start changing their behavior. That is the exact reason why so many influencers are starting to promote eco-friendly products or tap into environmentally friendly trends, for instance. 
+
+But secondly then, at worst-case scenario, if the rich do not change their behavior anyway, they stay like that symmetrically. Therefore, the movement also fails to tackle the issue. But it's worse under your side of the house exactly because you do not promote the people. The social movement is doing something to prove that these people are the ones who need to be held accountable for all the causes that happen towards the environment or all the causes that happen during quarantine. 
+
+Thirdly, on a comparative basis, why is it better than OG? Because we show the people. The social movement is trying to create a change. They're calling out the privilege for their irresponsible actions just because they are rich enough to fly a private jet, for example. Right? Especially because activism is always something that is collective. So, at the very least, it creates more trust from existing followers because the social movement acknowledges their effort to create a change and is pointing out why other people are the cause of all the harm of environmental issues or health issues as well.
+Secondly, on a micro-level scale, before that, CO. 
+
+<poi>
+You said that the reason why people don't follow social justice movements is that they gain something, i.e., utility. So why exactly would they trade that off for some people on the internet saying that they're bad? 
+</poi>
+
+Here's the thing, right? If you abide by quarantine policies, you do not get infected by the virus. That is already a tangible benefit that people can feel. So, I don't see why that is a problem; such is debate.
+
+Second, on a micro-macro level scale, the bottom-up approach that my PM explains to you is also something that is very important because only when people on the ground understand why it's important for them to abide by all the policies that exist within society, for example, or the agenda that the social movement is trying to provide to them, does this directly create a realization for them to actually understand what the problem is that we have within society. We told you that there are already a lot of systemic issues, i.e., how the government has a lot of limitations. For example, they don't provide you enough resources for you to be economically friendly or for you to have a lot of safety. 
+
+Now, in instances during quarantine policies, for example, only when you have the realization, there comes more demand from society to want to create a change. Here's where uniquely clashes the entire mechanism about allocating capital. Also, this seals the entire argument. We want to talk about utility as well. I think resources and capital are something that's limited under OO because social movement is very limited as well in capacity. The value that you uphold is limited when you cannot even prove to the people why they should engage in the movement; therefore, tap-in is something that is limited.
+
+Secondly, there's more incentive from society to lobby towards the government as well on our side to hold them accountable for all the systemic issues that exist within the state. That's the reason why the government starts giving up more subsidies for people during COVID. That's the reason why they start creating more campaigns and more centers for economically friendly causes. Politicians are more likely to listen because they have the capacity and they have the interest because they acknowledge that societal approval is important to maintain their power. Propose
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo>
+I'll start in three, two, one. I think opening government already lost the debate the moment they directly jumped into saying that shame leads to societal buy-in without really any explanation of why societal buy-in can eventually occur. Because their mechanism really depends on the majority of society already buying into the cause that is being pushed by social movements, which is particularly untrue most of the time since they claim education is failing and basically every single individual does not care with this urgency within the status quo. That means the majority of individuals in this particular case do not care about your movement from the very first place. 
+
+So the question here is that then if their mechanism about calling out the rich leads into the society to see them as doing something, is then something that is inherently wrong or something that is unlikely to occur from the very first place? On top of that, I don't think they ever engage in Omar's tree explanation of why shame is ineffective. I think by that regard alone, I think opening government already lost the debate. But let's engage with them one by one. 
+
+Let's take a look at the first thing that they said about, you know, shaming people's lifestyles leading to embarrassment, and this eventually leads to people changing. The first thing I just want to say is that if their characterization of education is ineffective, that means the individuals most likely are in denial. If they are in denial, that means the problem is no longer on the access or no longer on education, and probably calling out will not be effective for two additional reasons. 
+
+The first one is that the circle and the bubble that these individuals live in is probably very sarcastic, probably very in denial as well. That means proximity toward them is not something that is visible. The second thing that I just want to say is that it leads to just performative action being done by this type of individual. Probably they avoid the places that are much more feasible to the public, for example, and those things that change are unlikely to occur as well because what the nuance that you give to this individual is not rearranged or restructured education, but rather this individual feels that they just need to avoid social movements at all costs. 
+
+But the second thing I just want to engage is their claim about education being inaccessible within the status quo. The first thing, in reality speaking, this is not correct. In developing nations, environmental education is not solid yet. Feminism education is not solid yet as well. But the second thing is that if it is true that there are people who feel that these things are not urgent, probably then the problem is on education. 
+
+What we argue here in opening opposition is that the restructuring or the allocation of budget can go into lobbying the government, lobbying companies, for example, in order to give access to green technology or green products, for example, or restructuring the form of education that we give to society—not like what we have within the status quo that is just full of jargon, for example, but rather restructuring until the point of creating habits, for example, creating a policy, or creating an activity inside of a camp or village, for example, that you need to eventually take care of the environment. 
+
+Something along that line has proven to be effective in Japan, for example, because of the habituation of these types of individuals. And that is the problem: when you shame individuals, you are shaming them out of their ha	bi ts—habits that are unchangeable, habits that have been nurtured in them since childhood, for example. The problem here is how their reception looks like. In so far, if the opening government explains the process of it, I think opening opposition already wins in terms of how we change individuals through the process of changing the curriculum, changing the habituation, and so on.
+
+The third thing I just want to say is that the burden for opening opposition is not to prove that the status quo will suddenly be good. Probably we also approve that, but the main burden is just to prove that opening government is probably wrong and that the status quo will be better. I just want to highlight several things. The first one is that the reason why shaming is ineffective is also because of the level of shame that happens throughout. 
+
+What I mean by this is they never have the feel that the shaming will be conducted well. In this particular case, social activism leadership usually is centralized in one specific region while the smaller part of the movement is spread among small components. I must say this means that the leader in the regional part usually appointed and the sense of trust and closeness with the constituents comes from the kind of small region from the first place. 
+
+What's the problem with this? The extent of shame is unclear. The aim, however, is clear. I agree with the opening government that the aim is to change the behavior of society. What does it mean to happen? Shame is highly connected with the perpetuation of conflict. When you shame individuals, you tell them that they are dogs, for example, for not abiding by certain laws or for not abiding by environmentally good behavior, for example, or even worse, something may be correlated with feminism, maybe not calling out, quote unquote, sexual assault that they experience, for example—something along that line. 
+
+What's then the problem with this? Number one, the nuance in Omar's argument about unnamed shame is then something that is much easier to comprehend as something that is negative to a general perception of individuals because when you shame a certain individual, you are not learning about their background. This is not a conversation where you ask them how they feel or why they don't do this, something like that. But you call them like an animal, for example, and something along that line. 
+
+Since this is unblenched, then most likely what occurs is that one person that is closely related to your constituents feels that they are also being shamed, feels that the movement is not actually defending them because it is not something that is relatable for them or somethin g that is proximate for them to eventually do. This is why the impact is on three faults. The first one is that the worst type of shame will eventually lead to something that is likely to occur and perpetuate conflict within the region, and this region sees you as somewhat disruptive to the general stability of society. 
+
+But the second thing is also about not protecting the stability internally inside of your own movement because the different perceptions—let's say feminism; feminism has different perceptions internally within their own constituents. Because of that different perception, and because of the continuous shame that you do even toward sexual assault victims, for example, because your aim is what they look for and shame is a legitimate means, they are being seen as your movement being elitist and not defending sexual assault victims, for example, in the process and something along that line. 
+
+But thirdly, why is this important? Because this is directly connected with buy-in from lower-class individuals that are highly connected to developing nations. This is why the nuance of elitism is something that is very easy to eventually buy into this kind of social movement when they continuously shame because they don't care about what people experience on the ground. And those things—before I continue, yes, CG, 
+
+<poi>
+Why would companies care about what environmental movements have to say?
+</poi>
+
+Okay, so this nicely ties into my third point. The prerequisite of, quote unquote, companies willing to change is that you are able to create buy-in first. Companies don't care; I totally agree. When you call them out, like calling out Taylor, for example, when the majority of Taylor's fans do not care, they will defend Taylor at all costs. When the supporters of Starbucks do not care about the genocide that they committed, Starbucks still prevails. 
+
+But the prerequisite of changing and the prerequisite of going to create the stock going down is that the majority of people agree with the cause. This suggests that it depends on the analysis of why shame can be effective, and what they prove here is that shaming is ineffective, not only with what Omar says but also because it leads to the nuance of elitism that leads the majority of society, which is middle to lower class, to see social movements as a cause that is only disruptive for their lives. 
+
+They see the movement as somewhat insensitive enough to think that they do need to go out and work, for example, inside of— in terms of COVID, for example, that i do need to eventually buy plastic because green bags are fucking too expensive and take too much of my paycheck daily, for example. Why not this crucial? Because donor companies that want to invest in your social cause really depend on public relations, and in so far as the PR will not get any benefit toward them, they will not also give donations as well. So, in the long term, you'll get no benefits of funding as well. Hence, the conclusion of all of that is that you are not only insensitive principally but you're also harming your own movement and cons in the future. Proud to oppose. 
+</dlo>
+
+<mg>
+Three response off of my speech. The first is that opening opposition claims social movement has limited forms of capital. I have two responses to this. One, the counterfactual under their model isn't education alone because they, right, you also need to debate how this debate would likely manifest. You need to engage in things that pre-Riot, like protest, in order to actively challenge this kind of individuals at this point of time. The weighing is very simple: shaming is the lowest usage of capital because everyone has access to things like the internet, everyone has access to things like media. It takes much less time for you to organize and do this kind of stuff at a point, which you're able to maximize the preservation of capital. It is good because we still have more money to do other things that you want to talk about rather than spending it all over big types of movement.
+
+The second problem I have with opening opposition: first, you need to acknowledge, judge, that don't let them screw away by telling all these people who are shaming are all people from the same community, neighbor to each other and whatnot. You must have a clear line drawn between these two groups. One, these are groups of individuals who don't breach certain set of rules, one because of their own wellbeing or two because of the communal wellbeing. The second set of individuals is when they breach this law and they infringe the rights of individuals who are particularly part of a movement who choose not to do the same kinds of mistakes. That's why on the left side, where most people adhere to a certain set of laws, have a collective form of resentment towards the other party. So the other part is already small in number; whether they buy in or whether they don't buy in, it really doesn't make a difference because the largest proponent of the social movement are already sanitized and are already assisting within this movement.
+
+The second thing: there won't be buying because you don't understand the circumstance of a person who is against the movement. Why is the owner's of feminist movement to understand patriarchy doing this? Why should Black Lives Matter care about the reason and justifications to why privileged white males do this kind of stuff? This is particularly harmful because you're always backpedaling the efforts of social movement. You force them to take a step back and then you have to care about things about why other people do this, why justify to do so. The burden of closing government is very simple: motion uses the word "catalyze" to change. We don't need to show you immediate change; we don't have to show you definitive change, but in so far we can show you the trajectory of people trying to attain change. You have to give this debate to closing government.
+
+The first thing: what are the myriads of ways that shaming would look like to a person? When a person throws rubbish on the street, you take a photo and put it on social media. Feminist movement calling out men who are narcissists, painting them as beneficiaries of patriarchy. BLM movement calling out white males; all these students are calling out university management for frivolous financial policies, taking photos of people who smoke in public hospitals or restaurant areas and putting them in media. Grab drivers harassing women in cars; you screenshot their profile and attach details to people. All this shows that the purpose of this movement is to bring embarrassment, and the threat of embarrassment is what is going to inhibit someone who's going to do or not going to do something, judge. This characterization is particularly important. At the end of the day, the goal isn't mainly to punish someone; it is the creation of a threat that you would likely be shamed if you do something wrong. That's why you're able to inhibit and deter people before they are able to do so.
+
+This dilutes a large chunk of opening opposition harm given the under-mechanized education mechanism, because when POI just says, "We will do different and other forms of education," in so far there's no clear pathway to victory. You can't just let them say, "Oh, there's more harm than good, so we're good about this." You need to at least have a remedy to the problem. First piece of extension: why is status quo failing? Notice the selfish and preservation nature of individuals who oftentimes prioritize their own interests is the largest chunk of the problem because it's easier for you to throw rubbish on the floor and street when no one is watching. You don't suffer any forms of repercussion. But number two, there's no communal level supervision. Obviously, the government and police that Umar talks about cannot be everywhere at all points of time, but the communal members can act as eyes and ears everywhere. These are better forms of coverage that allow you to treat and look over people shoulder-to-shoulder much better.
+
+Secondly, the burden for us to show that this mechanism is catalyzed: why is this likely successful? And here's the debate-winning extension, judge. I'm going to talk to you about the precedent: why law has been a successful form of deterrent. Notice the Austin and Bantam's ideology of sociology that discusses the jurisprudence of threat. This comes in two forms: the internal forms of policing that people have and the external forms of policing that alters the way people behave. This acts as a primary form of deterrence as to how people certainly make decisions or calculus. This analysis is important because the threat of being embarrassed is what makes people change in a bad way. If I throw rubbish today, someone might be watching, but in a world where there's no threat of shaming and it's normalized, nobody's likely willing to hold themselves accountable or hold other people accountable, which is particularly harmful.
+
+But the second action that this person takes affects the public as a whole. When one person moves during COVID, they are vectors who can spread the disease. These are resentments that other people likely want to deter from happening; that is why we have a better form of buying. When you throw rubbish in a drain, it clogs and causes floods in my fucking house. There's a common accumulated resentment; that's why people likely want to collectivize and stand up against them. Lastly, then, shame is a personalized form of how individuals feel about themselves. This is a missing linkage from opening government because dignity is something people ought to care about for two reasons: one, once you lose your dignity, it is hard for you to repair the name back in the public; but number two, when your dignity is infringed, you feel inferior, culpable, guilty, and demonized by society. Because you want to avoid all these forms of feeling, that's why you don't want to do the negative act in the very first place. Opening opposition.
+
+<poi>
+If shaming is so accessible that you want it to be a deterrent, which already, by the way, in OG, that everyone can just take a video of you anytime, won't this garner more backlash? Because people think social media are policing them like a mob rather than what we have on our side, which is more buy-in, because people don't understand the cause on your side.
+</poi>
+
+One, you're not going to simply record people when they do something bad. Obviously, if a grab driver is harassing you, you can show conversation as proof. You see someone throwing rubbish into the sea, you can show someone as proof. There's no incentive for people to waste their time, waste their storage, just to go and record another person. But secondly, Umar, you still haven't proved why you get buy-in under your world. You are a failing movement because nobody is holding accountable against one another. You need to give us the analysis why people are likely able to collectivize because the accumulation of resentment uniquely comes from police government. 
+
+The last piece of extension: just why we allow the most for most minority social movements to experience catharsis: public shaming is the only way we're able to give them retribution and reparation. My rights were denied; I wasn't able to do anything. The state failed me, law failed me, but at least I can take action in my own hands. This ability that empowers people and gives them agency allows people to experience catharsis. This is uniquely important because you give people a chance to at least fight against oppressive structures. You give people a chance to at least make changes when they can't do so, and the load of changes ultimately multiplies when you allow them to collectivize and move together. So proud to propose,
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+Um, three, two, one, go. CG is correct. I'm sick and tired of two things in debating. The first is just the assumption that social movements are good just because we say so and are good in and of themselves. And the second is that people buy in just because we all in this debate think they might be right. Just as points out, OG doesn't have fiat. Obviously, it doesn't have counter-fiat over what the counter model thinks. They need to prove the likelihood of it. We're going to more sufficiently explain where political capital actually gets redistributed to do by proving a more likely counterfactual. The first extension we're going to have, explaining specifically why shaming individuals is less effective than the comparative of specifically shaming government and organizational structures.
+
+The first thing I want to explain is how and why do people shame to eliminate closing government's extension. Obviously, there's a wide variety of examples that could easily get picked up because oppression is a continuum in a vast majority of society, but the vast majority of this tends to be particularly outrageous incidents. There tend to be a few flashpoint examples: Trayvon Martin's, George Floyd, that cause huge amounts of storms that kick up. After this, it is important for the reason these tend to become the most popular. What this means in this brief period of time is that people tend to generally buy into this movement because they tend to be so horrific that most people hint the immoral. But secondly, they're problem-oriented. People are angry; people are upset; people feel their own personal empathetics with this because it’s a feeling the mainstream may hold. 
+
+And what it therefore means is that—and this is going to be important—my second extension. So it therefore means that the vast majority of people do turn out to some degree. The question is how do government respond? Their response to this is because like the issue with the opening government mac. Is The opening government mac is just like "OO," but like through a more complicated route. Opening government goes, "Ah, so like you shame the person, and then the person goes, 'Oh no, it was the government,' and the government goes around." The first and obvious issue with this is that this structurally relies on the fact that you are forced to do this. Often it's people in positions of power who get the capacity to do this. The second issue with this is obvious; it's just "a," but with extra steps. The issue is that if you start shaming someone, you're unlikely to believe the things they say. This becomes specifically important in the way in which government interacts with large and modular protests.
+
+Because I think opening opposition is a little bit uncharitable here. Like obviously, if we're shaming Harvey Weinstein, like everyone is like, "Ah, like how dare they?" Do you see? Shame is ineffective. And obviously, if we're shaming Timmy who's like gone to do CO for like a job, then like maybe we lose buy-in. I think there's a lack of analysis as to why people are more or less likely to buy in beyond vague assertions. I think realistically what happens, though, is that when you eventually come to some degree of formal things, the issue you face is an issue of deflection. What happens is government organizations say things like the rotten apple narrative: "It was a rotten apple in the force that we needed to take care of." And they structurally ignore making change is for three reasons. The first is the use of deflection to use things like making performative scapegoats in examples where they take individual people and they punish them harshly or excessively as an excuse for not making structural reform. The second is that notably social movements can't persecute everyone all the time in these kinds of high-profile cases, which necessarily always means there will be a fixation on individuals. The vast majority will get away anyway. But the third is there's actually counterintuitively a reduction in deterrence. The fact that you know you can get away with it for the reason social movements are unlikely to come out to every single individual makes it easier to get away with.
+
+What is the comparative in this debate? Governments understand they want to reduce pressure because shockingly you still need to win swing voters, and things that are broadly horrible tend to be opposed fairly broadly across the voter base. Like, I just don't believe that conservatives are like cool with the abuse of women in sexual assault cases. I think that often what this structurally means is that, generally speaking, governments force some large degree of change. The reason they don't like to do this is because it does affect some degree of powerful people; they have some moderate level of insulation. The top half agrees on. However, if the counterfactual to some degree is losing this, they are more than happy to do this. 
+
+We're going to admit we won't have 100% efficacy, but we're now going to write in the weighing as to why a marginal change in these structures is more important than a harsh change on an individual. The first is that, to some degree, harm is irreversible. It is difficult to get redress for harms that are already committed, and therefore there is just a diminishing margin of redress compared to victims who have yet to be hurt. These are obviously significantly more vulnerable people because they tend to be people who couldn't report in the first place. But secondarily, in just so far as they have yet to be hurt, like we can't reach out to the past and solve issues; we are able to stop issues in the future. 
+
+The final piece of weighing here is again incredibly simple: social movements have large swings in popularity, and there may not be an ability to continually shame into the future. That is to say, for example, Black Lives Matter was incredibly popular between 2020 and 2022. It made large degrees of shaming decisions, but the issue is that regressive leaders still came back for the reason that larger organizational structures still either allowed them—that is to say, allowed people to get into power—or secondly, actively supported them because of the way in which patriarchy ingrains itself into large cultural norms, such as social factors, the people you hang out with, and cultural norms inside institutions like the police. I'll take the POI from opening government. 
+
+<poi>
+Be more upset their efforts are discredited and being called out. So how do you create comp? 
+</poi>
+
+I'm really sorry, I really genuinely couldn't hear you. Opening, could you repeat that again but like shout, like scream at me? 
+
+<poi>
+Okay, people will be more upset if their efforts are discredited and if the privileged are not being called out. How do you create...?
+</poi>
+
+I just don't think this is true. Like, that's just objectively not how social movements work. Like, I was listening to the vast majority of the government case, and they were saying things like, "Ah, you know, like, because oppression still exists, people like give up on you." Like, we are all aware that racism still exists post-Black Lives Matter. I don't think people are going around like, "Ah, I guess we can't support it anymore." I think the realistic manifestation of this actually is the other way around. When structures refuse to change, you actually get accelerations as more mainstream people realize how fuck it up it is. 
+
+The reason for this is that people in the mainstream tend to not realize how structurally racist organizations are because it's more convenient to believe them to be more empathetic if you are actively benefiting from them. A really simple example of this is the Arab Spring, where the vast majority of people who were moderately clerical and moderately Muslim didn't really care about the authoritarian government up until the government started cracking down and refusing to cooperate, which made protests grow more because people realized how much worse it was. So actually, that mechanism works the other way around. 
+
+The second extension is incredibly simple: sometimes social movements are bad, and this is true. And they like these tend to be significantly worse. What are we talking about there? You know, like the Why you Gay interview? Do you know the guy, Past December? The guy they interviewed ran huge degrees of massively homophobic social movements and structurally stripped the rights of LGBT people across Central Africa. The massive import of Wahhabis Islam and other forms of Islam through Northern Africa has massively regressed the rights of women. The current processes in the Middle East are stripping away what little protections there are and the increasing reduction of individuals' rights in countries like Myanmar.
+
+Why do these tend to be the areas where this kind of shame happens the most? The first is the reason that the cases there is not a structure in the counterfactual to shame. They tend to be cases where people are innocent. There are two reasons: the first, oppression comes from relations of power; people are able to oppress other people. And secondarily, this historic nature often means the world used to be significantly less powerfully democratic, so the powerful intersected very heavily with those who were doing the oppression. 
+
+Obviously, what that means is that most structures tend to be ingrained with either cultures or literal policies that promote these ideologies. However, obviously, if there isn't a structure to do so, the vast majority of people are not be in relations of power and therefore don't have the capacity or the incentive to engage in oppression to begin with. But the second thing to explain here is why this mechanism happens the most. The first is moral authority; you need to claim a moral right. So structures like religion that go after women, saying that they don't have the right to work or that Western behavior is immoral and they should not engage in, are more effective. 
+
+Second, they have an easier ability to gain mainstream buy-in. It is harder to fight structures of oppression, and so shame is a more effective method when backlash is less likely. Thirdly, generic popular bind: the intersection of different power structures makes it easier to oppress people. The weighing is simple: these are the most vulnerable people who are hurt the most. Even if we don't get a benefit, we definitely avoid a harm. 
+Very happy to win proposing opposition.
+</mo> 
+
+<gw>
+I don't think this debate can be won on a negative case in the instance that you don't prove any forms of change within this matter. When you have two government teams clearly telling you why change happens, it is a debate that has to clearly go to the government bench. But the first thing that I want to do is differentiate ourselves from OG in terms of the mechanism on how we create this change in the first place. OG falters in this very instance because they simply tell you that people feel shame and this is a psychological impact. 
+
+I'm going to go more at the point of which you don't overcome a shame threshold of individual things like Pride are things that you can insulate yourself with, which is what CG's extension then is still damaging to OG. The point at which we tell you that this mechanism happens in terms of emotions, at the point of which people want to be seen as good and righteous, is when shaming that affects their emotions and shakes their very perception of their current individual morality is when you tend to have that ability to want to shape or want to make some form of changes within your life. 
+
+I'm going to explain why this is very important when it comes to these particular actors of people at the top who just have the capacity to do so. The second thing then is how do we affect people on the top? I think this is where OG loses because they're not able to answer why the instance of how they can isolate or impact these people when CG tells you that they have CO tells you they have the ability to ice. The first thing we tell you is social movements have the ability to leverage things like collective identity. This is when you create a collective identity in order for you to strengthen and have a singular form of ability to have the resources. I think this is the point at which people always want to feel included because at the point of which they are isolated is something that individuals hate. These are things capitalized over by people like influencers, your Taylor Swift, and your everyday people who post vlogs—people who want to be included within this movement. 
+
+This is a leverage that is purely unique. We tell you that this group cohesion that you push and pushing on a singular identity is able to get these forms of people to buy in the first place. But secondly, then, just the ability to have your strategic polarization when you do the shame in the first place. At the point of which you draw a clear boundary between us and them is when you actually want people to join you in the first place. I think at the point of which you have a binary framing is when you want to have more people on your side because people's ability is just to want to feel inclusive within groups; they want to feel included, right? 
+
+I think at this point is when you shift the identity of the movement of being much more hip and cool. So sure, maybe your perception is elitist and is buying into and taking out Umar, but joining in makes you look cool. The prerequisite to join this cliché land is extremely low, and the ability to want to buy into something that is able to overcome the threshold is because the prerequisite then is to have the ability to do sustainable environmental practices. 
+
+The prerequisite is to support other females to join your feminist movement. I think especially for people on the top who have the capacity to do all of these things, joining into these specific pleasures are things that they, one, automatically want, but two, are things that they feel inclusive in joining because this is something that caters towards the majority of the population. So if you join, your current moral calculus or what people perceive you to be is someone who is good and righteous. This is automatically a factor that attracts people to buy into you. 
+
+This is where we knock out LO as well because his framing and assertion is these elitist movements are people who invalidate feelings. So if a female comes to you and has been abused, the feminist movement is going to reject you. We tell you this is probably going to be untrue; there is still going to be a fundamental basis of humanity that all of the social movements operate on. I don't think you're going to be acting in benevolence and telling them to fuck you write off.
+
+I'll take you in a bit, man. I'll take you after five. The second question that I want to answer in my speech is why is moral judgment impactful and not as harmful as the other teams posit. The first question is it unlikely that you're going to be reported or depressed? I think the point at which you shame is you cut, but you're not cutting deep enough for you to affect other people's lives. This, as well, knocks out a huge amount of the speech because it tells you the mental detriment is going to be bad. 
+
+I think this is when you it's easy to isolate yourself from change because most people have the ability to make this change in first place therefore You can isolate and cut yourself off from shame completely at the point at which you just overcome this low threshold of joining into these perceived elite pleasures. But how do we OO's counterfactual Then is they make more money, and they can educate people on more ways than one. We tell you that this is extremely problematic. I'll respond to this in four ways. 
+
+Firstly, education already does not work. I have a lot of speakers within this house already positive to you that, but secondly, people just do things that are approximate towards them. Meaning, if littering is something that is easy for them to do, these are probably things that they are going to do. Secondly, it’s the immediate thought process of people; therefore, if the unsustainable development goals are things that they are likely going to indulge in, this is the immediate thought process of the way that they were brought up. These are going to be things that they're going to do as well. 
+
+But thirdly, it is simply that they lack the epistemic access to the outcome. I think you can probably know the outcome from education, but you are still likely going to be increasingly lacking towards the full extent of the outcome. Even if it is true that they want education and you redirect funding to education, I don't see where the state incentive to help is on their side as well because their OO's idea is a negative case in which you rechannel funding towards education—a sector that is already not working—and expect to have some level of change. The point at which they fail to make their case is the point they lose. 
+
+But thirdly, I also want to flag out what the movement looks like on the opposition as a whole because CO run an extremely negative case, and the structures and institutions are very, very hard to change. At the point at which you do this, you greenlight behaviors that are against the movement. You sit complacent and watch individuals get oppressed. You sit complacent and watch your environment be destroyed. The very principles of your movement are things that you’re willing to sub out on because you want to do something that is negative. I really don't know what they want to do because they didn't tell us in the speech. Before I move on, OO.
+
+<poi>
+This is support motion based on the world manual. Opposition just needs to prove the attempt to make it worse than the status quo instead of proving change suddenly happens. Hence CG is wrong, but our CO is also wrong because bad social movement extension. Regardless of the movement, the motion forces us to show where shame is a catalyst for change or not. Please engage. 
+</poi>
+
+Okay, even if you do want to say that the movement on your side is still something that is bad because you still greenlight behaviors that are against the movement, this is the point at which you should pivot or probably change some principles within your movement at the point where you want to have a better perception of your movement. This is uniquely the point where you lose on buy-in as well because people think your movement is useless. People think your movement is probably not going to be a support for them as well because you're really not doing anything other than telling, "Hey guys, don’t litter." 
+
+But fourthly then, why is it hostile and judgmental, and why is rash extension debate-winning? Because they tell you that as precedents of loss and success, shame is a personalized perception as to how you should feel and change as an individual. Therefore, weighing on the certainty that we have past precedents of success, this is something that is likely definitely going to happen because this is one that is extremely individualized. This is one that is extremely easy for you to overcome because it's just changing certain small actions within your day. 
+
+How does your case lose out? Their case loses out as well. Their negative case is extremely simple to take out. They tell you that oppression is extremely hard to change. They tell you that the structures at the top are very hard because of capacity. I think this is very simple at the point at which we make out to you why people want to join these groups. Inclusivity is something that is big. All of those reasons, CG, 
+</gw>
+
+<ow>
+Beginning my speech in three, two, one. One point of clarification: we're not a negative case; we're a harms case. We're showing you that at the point where social justice movements are allowed to actually create and use shaming as a mechanism, they'll use it for bad things because we take a much more nuanced approach. Not all social justice movements are good; some are bad. 
+
+Think of how for every Black Lives Matter movement, which is a social justice movement, there is a counter-movement that is to say a right-wing answer. For example, think of Black Lives Matter: you have All Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter. These are all social justice movements. Why? The reason why there are infinitely more harmful is because they have a lot more power.
+
+I'll get into that in a minute. One free-floating rebuttal: they tell us on CG that you need to get some level of buy-in; you need to make it as accessible as possible so people feel like they're part of the social justice movement. This is good because then you get momentum or something. This is bad because, one, you create a smokescreen effect. A lot of the time, if CG wants to say that, oh, you get some level of buy-in, I don't really see why this buy-in is actually important. I think it's just going to look like activism, like someone posting on their Instagram story, "Oh my God, please boycott Starbucks," or like shame R. Weinstein. They feel good about it, and they don't actually ever do anything more. 
+
+Further, they just take the small wins, like Rohan told you, where we just care about one rotten apple that’s being pushed out by the narrative by the state as a scapegoat, and then we forget all about it. Or thirdly, you just don’t actually donate; you don’t actually throw up a protest. You just feel like you’re part of the social justice movement, and you never actually do anything about it. 
+
+Three things that we gave you from the CEO: Why are these winning? First, we explain to you that shame doesn’t work on a fundamental level. Rohan gave you three strong structural reasons. One, it's incredibly hard to monitor these people; it's hard for the social justice movement to have eyes everywhere, right? Second, it's hard to police this. You need to mobilize every social justice person to be there, and you have to actually shame each individual. 
+
+What if a million people are going to drink Starbucks? Are you going to go have a long post that says "Ah XYZ bye"? It's just not going to be as effective as they really want to say. Third, likely, they’re just going to push out rotten apples, have a scapegoat, call it a day, and say that they won—not going to be really effective. 
+
+Second, we explained to you that buy-in is relatively symmetric. We told you that it's probably going to be likely that people are still going to go in or out based on swings of popularity rather than everything else that both opening houses talk about. But we’ll give you another mechanism here later when we talk about moral high ground. 
+
+Third, bad social justice movement. This is the most important and game-winning extension because we tell you that social justice movements are a double-edged sword. That is to say, if you want to say that these social justice movements are effective in shaming, we think that this can be used in a bad way by shaming individuals who want to be part of social justice movements and calling them subversives. 
+
+We think that this is going to look like the state or churches or whatever other strong political powers that want to ensure that they're stronger for structural reasons. Why is it actually worse off? They have stronger incentives to do this. First, they're more persuasive. People think that the state is an authority; therefore, they have the moral high ground. Whatever they say is probably going to be true rather than a small niche social justice movement, which is relatively newer and hasn't given them benefits like the state has given them benefits of welfare or benefits of infrastructure. 
+
+All these things are unclear; why do they believe one over the other? Second, it’s easier to buy in because it’s something that’s bought in by the collective, i.e., people consensus voted in the president, consensus believe in the church; therefore, they’re willing to buy into something that’s more bought into than a social justice movement that might be more niche and only has a minority of people. 
+
+Third, it’s easy to say that these guys are subversive to the state. You can create, if CG wants to say something about binaries or whatever, I think that the state can easily do this by saying that these people are against the state; they are against you; we need to shame them; they are horrible individuals. 
+
+Fourth, this is an incredibly high-impact thing in so far as this actually creates on-the-ground discrimination. It allows for things; it justifies programs that lead to job hiring discrimination that actually harms people on the ground. Even if the government is correct and you're going to be able to—like, we’re not really sure why Taylor Swift or all these influential actors that they want to say on their side are going to change; we think on our side of the world we can more guarantee that these people are going to be out of a job. 
+
+You might have another question, which is to say, why are these movements going to have a lot more strength? Why are social justice movements going to be stronger for structural reasons? First, they’re able to access more capital. That is to say, these things are usually things like churches, schools, or politicians. That means they’ve been in power longer; they needed to have some level of capital in order to actually gain that position. We think that it is incredibly useful. 
+
+Think of like scoops; think of troll farms. You’re able to change and shift the narrative because you’re able to control things like the media. That��s a second structural reason to make sure that these things seem more normalized. You’re able to flood social media with troll accounts that say that XYZ should be shamed. We’re able to do things like shut down networks in case this is actually bad. 
+
+Third, you can divide and conquer. You can say that these social justice warriors are crazy. Think of all the feminists that are being lambasted as incredibly unreasonable or as Karens or whatever. These are methods that these bad social justice movements can use to actually weaponize it and divide and conquer. OG, okay, yeah, go ahead. 
+
+<poi>
+One, all your harms suggest criticism that it's not perfect, but there's still positive utility. But number two, even if you're right that all these opponents against this movement have higher moral ground and higher political capital, then public shaming is the best way for smaller movements to counteract against them. 
+</poi>
+
+Okay, I get you. I get you. First, we’re not saying that it’s ineffective; we’re saying that bad actors are going to use and weaponize social justice movement methods in a bad way. Second, I’m going to go explain moral high ground right now.
+
+That earlier I said by, oh, the third or fourth thing I want to go out before I finish is that, uh, they said that, oh, they use COVID a lot again. I'm not really sure if this is really true. First off, I think a lot of the times these people don't use this as a facility because it's imperceptible. They don't know that COVID is real or not. That's why there's a whole backlash against it, or like they don't understand why you need to protect women in the workplace to a great degree. So it's not really clear why you're going to actually get, like, smart buy-in. As for their mechanism, for the last thing I want to do is use moral high ground in a more weaponized manner than what we did, right? We tell you that at the point where you actually shame people, like Timmy on the ground, is the point where you look hysterical. At the point you look bloodthirsty, it's the point where you look like you're turning families against each other. You're making your daughter, like, shame your father and, like, creating incredibly large gaps within them. You make it seem like you don't want to be part of this, and we actually mechanize how this hostility manifests and how it actually looks like and why people wouldn't want to buy into it because you lose that moral high ground at the point where you're dividing and conquering all these individuals. For all these reasons, CG; CO. 
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Panama WUDC 2025 Round 1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,290 @@
+<pm>
+Probably worked like this for most of the time. I think people are fine; they go to university, they have jobs, they learn quite well in the traditional sense, OO need to support radical alternatives. Cool. Three things in my speech: first, why teachers on our side of the house have the capacity to do this well; second, why 14 to 18-year-olds make poor choices or should make that choice later; and thirdly, why progressive education doesn't work well. Cool.
+
+So, on teachers and their capacity to teach well, note that probably incentives exist on our side of the house to share materials and tactics and to share what works with their students. This happens because probably there are teacher assessments, right? There are school assessments—things like, "Okay, how many of your students have passed the final exams? What's the rate of success?" and whatnot. But also—no, thank you—probably there is pressure from parents, because if the kids come back and they're really unsatisfied with the teacher, probably they will go to the principal and complain about this, right? Incentives to perform well exist.
+
+Note, fourthly, that even if you have textbooks and you teach from textbooks, you can still teach in a fun way. Why is that? Because you want the kids to be receptive; you want your grades to go well. But also, secondly, because probably you're passionate about your field, right? Note that most teachers work in public schools; only a few of them work in private schools, right? This means that probably the public sector cannot afford to pay you as well as a job in the private sector, right? Meaning that there has to be some other reason why you choose to be a teacher—because you like teaching. Think of you panel teaching debaters and giving them feedback when you get bad IA funding, right? You do this because you care about what you're teaching and you care about learning; you like spending time with kids, right? So they have all of the incentives to go bad, to go good. Of course, there will be some instances where we have bad teachers, but those are probably symmetric. We think on our side of the house you have more incentives to do this.
+
+Now, secondly, on the kids themselves and why they're likely to make better choices on our side of the house. Note that when you're 14, you don't really know how life goes, kind of, right? You're not sure what choices you have. On their side of the house, you have to choose a thematic theme, right? So, if you want to learn about space, right, but if you later decide to, like, I don't know, learn about i don't know political science, that's going to be a lot worse on their side of the house. Why? Because you have spent some years getting educated in one field, and then you have to switch, right? Why do they do this? A, because they are kids; their neo frontal cortex is not developed enough just simply by biology. But second, also because they might be lazy; they might have distractions around them. They might have, like, I don't know, there's this girl in class that I really like, and I want to go in her class and whatnot because I have a crush on her. But also, because they want to, I don't know, spend time outside, they can be lazy and whatnot. But, like, they're also influenceable by other people, specifically by parents.
+
+And I think this is worse on their side of the house. Why, or in what ways are they influenceable by parents? I think, A, there are certain norms in societies about certain professions that are more successful than others because they are paid more. So, for example, you're told, "Oh, be a doctor, be a lawyer, do this," so you can end up in school. This might lead a kid to choose a subject at 14 that they don't really like, right? That's bad. On the comparative, on our side of the house, what happens is that if you really like, you study other subjects, right? You study math, chemistry, physics, but you also study literature, and if you decide at 18—you have more autonomy to actually go against that parent pressure. This is crucial, panel, because the kid who actually wants to go to art school is more likely to go to art school on our side of the house and be happier in the long term, even if they don't receive, like, a lawyer salary, right?
+
+But also, secondly, there's also a lot of pressure from parents to, like, you know, be self-sufficient, right? To leave the house, to earn your salary, to not depend on them anymore financially because they will grow old or whatnot. And in some countries, even to support them financially later on, right? This is bad because probably this will lead them to make decisions influenced by their parents on their side of the house. On our side of the house, sure, maybe they will have math and chemistry too, but they can still take that literature course, and even if they don't ultimately pursue that literature study, at least their time in high school is better off because they get one hour to talk about Shakespeare, whereas on their side of the house there's no such time, meaning that their educational experience overall is of greater quality. Cool.
+
+Then, why does progressive education work worse? First, because of the choice you make in the student psychology, as I said. Secondly, I think the lack of supervision— I think the quality of your education gets worse the moment that the teacher only facilitates, right? So you do peer learning if you're—somebody does a PowerPoint with things they Googled about Iraq versus somebody who does a—no, thank you—who does a teacher who does a presentation about Iraq that has actually studied that. Obviously, you're better off because they have deeper knowledge. Closing, you can engage. 
+
+<poi>
+So if I don't want to do that. 
+</poi>
+
+Lastly, I think you have more quality education because the teacher now has the ability to give you lectures and to have studied that subject in detail versus your peers probably are not well educated in that topic.
+
+Okay, why is this the most important thing in the debate? First, it's about how you learn, right? So if you get more information and if you get clearer information the earlier in your life, it's good because it's at the age where you can orient yourself, right? So it's easier to make choices once you have more information, right? That's the time where you have the ability to explore all of these options on our side of the house. Secondly, note that this is a secure impact. Why? Because it's about other things in life later on, like Uni admissions. Probably, if you don't study math, it's very difficult to take a Uni exam in math if you did experimental learning for four years in something like literature, for instance, right? So you have more capacity to go to Uni. This impacts you passing your exam, but also access to careers later on, social mobility, and the things that I explained are important to you.
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+Clarification at the top of my speech: the choice is not going to be absolute for the kids. Still, there are going to be topics that are going to be decided by the school curriculum, be at the general school assembly or whatever. This is true for a couple of reasons. One, you still need to cover basic topics in order for students to understand a more holistic approach, and this probably means that they're still going to learn some form of math; they're just not going to learn it in any specific type of one-course math, etc. The second reason why this is so is because you need—ex still exists on our side of the house likely because people still need to have some form of connection. Therefore, probably people still want to cater to that to some degree, and also parents want their kids to be generally educated. That being said, I'll have a bit of engagement to OG. They say that they have teachers that are unable to do these things. Three reasons why this isn't true: first is the point about being more expensive and things like that. I'm not exactly sure this is true because every single thing is quite expensive. The textbooks that you have are always going to adapt, and things like that are also true when you have traditional learning. But also, on the point about how kids' teachers are capable and things like that, I think that 
+
+They are capable, but also these specific topics, if they decide on a symmetric level, they're still able to learn about them and be more engaged. Also, in our side of the house, I'll have that more in the future. Lastly, if you have a radical change, as looks likely, there's going to be pedagogical faculties that also account for that and teach the teachers how to teach in this specific way. So, the ability for teachers to actually do this is likely the same.
+
+On the point about kids, I don't think that kids have absolute choice in the topics that they have because of the exact announcement they had previously. But also, let's say they do; the comparison is the school curriculum. I still, as a kid, choose not to listen to the school curriculum if I don't find it interesting. The exact same analysis coming from OG about how I'm unable to decide what is interesting to me applies. The difference here is that the system on our side of the house supports my choice and enables me to actually listen to it in a more engaging way.
+
+We talk about how parents are able to choose and pressure kids in a specific way. One, this is probably symmetric to some degree, but also I prefer parents do that over the traditional school curriculum that is centralized and things like that because the parents probably know more nuanced about what the kid specifically wants comparatively to a one-size-fits-all. So, even if the parents themselves have a big choice of what happens in a specific school, I think it's better.
+
+That being said, our case is firstly about why this is a better way of learning, and secondly, why kids are more engaged and interested. Why is this a better way of learning? The problem that we currently have is that we have a lot of lack of connections between different topics, and on our side of the house, this happens. This is going to be also building a world and painting a picture of how this likely happens. 
+
+I understand what ions are from chemistry, but I don't connect them to the synaptic connections in the way that our brain works because I don't see that from the perspective of chemistry; I see that in biology. Three years later, I learn about geography, but I don't connect it to why it's important that I know why, specifically, Syria is there and how connected it is to specific areas. On our side of the house, this isn't true because if you cover specific topics in a holistic sense, you are able to connect them. You're also able to understand it in a better sense. 
+
+Why is this important? This is important because this is generally going to facilitate a better ability for individuals to understand different topics, as in topics are not nuanced and are not new in the sense. Well, on a comparison, topics should be a more holistically approachable thing because that's just how it is—chemistry interacts, biology interacts, physics, and things like that. 
+
+Why is it not likely that on a comparison people are, on the next side of the house, they're not going to be doing it in a holistic way? One is the impulse life, but two is the resources and the way that the education system is targeted towards the general education. I say the faculties, teachers teach to do it in a very specific way. There's a math teacher, there's a chemistry teacher, there's a biology teacher, and they don't have to interact with each other. They don't need to do these specific things. 
+
+This also directly engages with the potential cases that come from classism and things like that, in so far as you only have resources for a specific math, which you're only going to buy. We're going to get that specific teacher. But if you have just general holistic teachers about sciences, general holistic teachers about social sciences, and things like that, you're able to have multiple teachers that have a more holistic way on a comparison. 
+
+But also, the time is quite important, right? Because if I am a student and I have a lot of time that I already have to do my homework, I need to do so many things outside of things. This specifically targets poor kids, right? If I have that amount of time that I already need to put into school, I see no necessity for me, myself, to be educated in that in a more holistic way outside of school, right? This is exclusive and also present on our side of the house. I don't find the energy; I don't find the time.
+
+The impact of this is quite simple: people just get in better education because they have a better understanding of the holistic world that we are currently living in. Things do interact with each other, and you're able to remember them better. This is the second thing, right? Because it's not only the fact that things just are more holistic; the question is also my ability to remember things in the future. In so far as I forget things because the only pressure for me is to just ace that specific test, I'm probably not going to remember it in the long term. 
+
+But if I connect them to different topics, if I connect them to how these things interact with each other, I'm much more likely to actually understand it. I'll take closing if you have anything. 
+
+<poi>
+So we give you mechanisms like teachers are likely going to do this well, and it's not going to be boring for students. Can you please engage with those?
+</poi>         
+
+Um, yes, sure. One, some teachers are good, some teachers are bad, quoting OG. But also, I think in so far as the students themselves are better at learning and learn things more, the teachers themselves that are passionate are going to recognize this to be more passionate as well. They're going to see this as more fun to them. 
+
+Second argument about interesting things: school is quite demanding, and this is the characterization, right? I need to put a lot of time into it. I need to do a lot of these specific things. But very important—when you're later on, you're likely going to be very critical of school because of the fact that it's demanding. You have the ability to just go out with your friends, but you're forced to stay in school and things like that. 
+
+When your teacher is explaining to you the Pythagorean theorem and never explains to you why it's useful in physics and things like that, why it doesn't connect to specific things and doesn't connect to your general identification, it probably means that the average individual is not going to be interested in the exact topics. The comparison is that on our side of the house, you are given the ability to connect to different things and are able to also understand it. 
+
+The comparison on our side of the house is very simple: one, you feel more in control because you do the research; you think about specific things that actually happen. But two, you see why things are important. You see why things should be focused on, and this is also true for teachers, right? Because if you're passionate, if you buy the analysis coming from OG, by individual teachers, are willing to spend so much time to teach the next generation, there's likely going to feel disillusioned seeing kids day after day being disinterested in the very topics that they teach, the very topics that they feel passionate about. 
+
+But this means that on our side of the house, if they're able to be more maneuverable and more inclined towards specific kids, it probably means that not only are they going to have the tools to be more engaging but also are going to be engaged in a very passionate way by themselves. This means that they themselves are going to turn into better teachers on our side of the house and therefore offer a better education. 
+
+Lastly, as far as you feel a responsibility towards your own education, because you have the control to help you develop specific soft skills that otherwise you would not, as a researcher, even. This is very good because even if you research things in a very non-linear way, you still learn how to do the research itself, and anyone critical and learns the wrong things, you're still able to be yeah. OO 
+</lo>
+
+<dpm>
+I want you to think of the first time you had to explain to your teammate in a debate about an IR case you didn't know about, about some random country you've first heard about, and how's the economy over there is going or how the people over there are doing. You're going to quickly see that that's probably how people are going to go in these classes and try to explain to their peers how things are going about.
+
+Subjects they don't know about in a way that they don't necessarily care about, because it might be within their area of specialization, but they don't care about each case study, especially if it's assigned to them by the teacher, rather than they be able to choose some things, right? Particularly, they be able to choose in physics, "I want to focus on how a spaceship works," or "I want to focus on how the rainbow works." If their teacher says, "You only have these two choices," and you're not that passionate about either of them, then you choose one, and you have to figure out how it works, and you have to explain it. That's kind of how this works, right? 
+
+The problem is a couple of things with this, so I'm going to give you four clear reasons as to why the way I explain to you is better for these kids to learn than I'm going to weigh it off, and then I'm going to clarify whenever I've got things cool. 
+
+One, I think because it's less confusing, it's better. I think the idea of compartmentalizing things by coping rather than having a holistic approach is better for you to be able to understand particular things about that. 
+
+Right? So when I say this thing, like, "Me being in this room works like this because my body physically works like this," and then there's the emotional side of my psychology and how it affects me, and then there's the part about finances and how I was able to get here and everything. That's a lot of information, especially for a kid to process, right? 
+
+And they say holistic is good because then they learn to have engaging stuff and so on, but what they don't engage with is that then they need to be able to understand general rules that take from all of these things and apply them to different cases as well. When they learn the human body works like this, and they say, "This is the biology part because this is the component in the body from there," and then, "This is the chemistry reaction that happens in your brain because that's the part," and then, "This is the physics of it because your brain is, I don't know, heavy or something," right? 
+
+All of these things they need to be able to then compartmentalize that they have general rules. I think this is difficult for a kid to do, even if it may be desirable that they do it, right? Because they need to have example A, example B, example C, and they go on with all the letters of the alphabet until they understand that that's not just an isolated case, but that's an area of expertise that is a general rule that applies. 
+
+And yes, the teacher might say it is, but note there's less time for the teachers to be able to themselves be able to explain these things, to be able to themselves be able to make the kids understand how these rules work and that they apply in multiple cases. So I think over time they might get their impact, but it's about how short-term and closer when you first explain these things the kids are able to get it. 
+
+Why is this important? One, because of how they are able to understand the things and be interested in them. If I don't understand something from the get-go, especially kids with a shorter attention span and their one, a characteristic that might have different interests as well, they are likely to disengage with that topic and not want to learn further on, right? It has compounding interest impacts in the longer term if you don't understand from the get-go. 
+
+Two, because you might be able to disengage with the topic as a whole. So you might say, "I don't like math because of the way that math was explained to me in this particular example of the spaceship because it was a too complicated equation for me to get." And instead of being open to the idea of learning general, simpler rules of math, you are closed to the idea just because that particular topic didn't interest you. 
+
+I think this is more likely in kids because, again, as one characterized, they are impulsive; they don't compartmentalize things as well because they don't have abstract thinking, etc. Not on the comparative, you're likely to still be able to engage with simple, basic things first, right? When you start a general thing, you don't have to engage with the level of complexity of the weird example of the rainbows. If the law of physics in there is too complicated, you can start with the basic, "Here is how gravity works if "m * g." It's one simple, small equation, and that might be easier for kids to process. 
+
+Second thing, I think depth and clarity are important, and this is all of one's mechanization on why teachers do this. Well, they say, "Oh, but there are good teachers and bad teachers," that's a strawman response. One, as case points to you, it's about how much the teachers are able to explain and how less reliance you have on the students explaining these things when they don't have the same capacity comparatively to be able to explain it well or they don't have the same passion comparatively to explain it to their peers. 
+
+That creates a lot of trickle-down impacts. One, it's about how your exams are going to go, right? Because if you understand things somewhat comparatively less, you might have a worse PR, and margins matter in university choices. Margins matter a lot, particularly in high school choices, and how you rank fusions against each other, right? It’s so standardized; we should be able to see globally how the averages are and figure out if you are better off in a university in this country or if you are just below the threshold and you won't get there. If you don't have the good margins, you're not there. 
+
+Two, I think it's about the stress levels of the kids. All that one that talks to you about social norms is not just symmetric, but it's about how the kids are able to then deal with that, right? It's not just about the influence of children's choices themselves, but it's about the kids knowing, "I feel certain enough that the way I'm handling the subject is good, that I understand what's going on, and that I will pass my exam." 
+
+So it's a continuous impact throughout their school journey, but it's also a continuous impact in the long term when they are facing the exam. Do they feel like they have just isolated examples, or do they actually understand the equation? Because that is what will be asked of them, and they say, "Sure, they will teach it on their side as well." The comparative is how much time do you spend on teaching the standardized things that will be asked of you in the exam, and how certain are you that the way it was explained to you was clear because it was a teacher and not your colleague who didn't give a shit about it when they explained it to you? 
+And so you are confused about whether or not it works this way or that way, and they had a muddy explanation. Closing, opening.
+
+<poi>
+Okay. Um, yes, sure, you can just start from the basic stuff, as you obviously don't give children the theory of relativity to learn about. You start with basic math concepts; you apply them to complex. 
+</poi>
+
+Okay, cool, but maybe you don't—that's not competitive. 
+
+First, four thing, no, fourth thing, why you should care about this more: I think standardized education makes it relatable, and I think this is important. Instead of having isolated cases of physics that you talk about with a student from another school that has a different teacher or with your parent as well, who went through the same education system, I think it's easier for you to be able to help each other with homework or to just understand that you're going through the same thing. Like, the tests are somewhat similar because you use similar textbooks that go through the same things, right? 
+
+These things are comparatively more relatable, and that brings enjoyment and maybe capacity to build more friendships and also just have better connected learning outside of school as well, which tends to happen plenty when you have to in high school because there's pressure from your parents to be able to do well and to go to university. 
+
+Why is all that we've told you most important in the debate? I think, one, because it's prior to any happiness in your life later on. This ties to your career choices and you feeling like you are sure of yourself. This ties to the margins of you getting into university. This ties into the margins of you being able to win stuff later. 
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo>
+So Arina brilliantly explains to you exactly the way that this is going to work. You first explain to the student the biology component, then you explain the chemistry component, then you explain the physics component, and you do it in an interconnected subject that does not need to differentiate between the different things but explain the application of these different subjects and the sub-subjects that you're talking about to the central issue of how Arina was able to stand here and deliver a good, although fairly dismissive, opening opposition speech. I do not understand why this is something that teachers are incapable of doing for the very reasons that opening government wants to give to you.
+
+Let's deal with the quality of education. Number one, the passion argument from applies. Anyways, that is to say teachers are probably anyways passionate and therefore able to explain these sort of things. They say, "Ah, but you have less time to do it because you're relying on students making Iraq presentations." Like, guys, this is just empirically untrue. A) There are external and societal reasons to not have children teaching other children about the way geopolitics works. Even if you make a child do a presentation, you presumably correct the errors that the child makes. You presumably intervene and tell the things that are done wrong, and it's unclear to me why this takes substantially less time than asking your children a question about what the quadratic formula is, getting a wrong answer, and then giving a response to that.
+
+B) I think children aren't stupid. I think they have the capacity to understand stuff, especially in later classes, especially when you're around 16, 17, 18. You have the capacity to understand these sort of things, and your presentation on Iraq won't say that it's in America. It's probably going to give generally correct facts that other people are able to learn. 
+
+Three, if it is true that you're primarily learning from your peers, then I would argue it is easier for you to comprehend these sort of things. Like, if the argument they make is, "Ah, you start with two basic and two stupid things because it's other stupid children that are teaching you," it's also probably true that it's easier to comprehend these sort of things because there are more basic levels of grasping. Because it's your child peer that is explaining to you in language that they find useful, in colloquial language, they're going to use with them in interaction.
+
+They're going to flip their point on difficulty. I think as far as interactions between the children go and also the 20-second impact extension from Reid, that one, H, but you make more friends because you interact better. Because your textbook is the same, yeah, you're in the same class, you learn the same things. I would argue more so you learn them from your peers; you learn them from these kinds of interactions that you make. I'm going to impact this on the amount of interest, which is on the amount of quality. I think it's either symmetric or likely to be better.
+
+Number three, they say, "Ah, this knowledge is incredibly difficult and incomprehensible." Cool. Number one, school is a long-term process. I think when you have four years of high school in the vast majority of countries, it's unclear to me why first-year students at 14 are going to learn about the theory of relativity. I think you'd start with very basic concepts. My argument tells you this; there are external incentives, and there's a need to start with basic understandings of the subject in order to go into things that are applicable and more advanced.
+
+I think this happens on either side of the house where teachers have the capacity and incentive to do these sort of things. The question is whether these things are tangibly tied to something. What then is the debate about? I think, number one, it is going to be the quality of education that you're going to get from these sort of things. Why is this better on our house? Number one, the ability to have a holistic overview. Why is this crucially important? I want to impact the stuff that my say. 
+
+I think number one, it's just the reason you want to know stuff is the capacity to apply stuff. Knowing stuff for the sake of knowing stuff is not particularly important for a couple of reasons. One, it's difficult to apply to exams that you're going to have in the future because the vast majority of university exams do not ask you what the quadratic formula is but ask you for specific application to these sort of things and the specific skills that you develop. 
+
+The reasons for this are, you know, external societal reasons where on your job you don't write down formulas but you solve tasks and you do these kind of things. But it's also because a lot of university exams would otherwise be very easy to stupidly memorize. There's incentives to make you learn and go into the higher levels of learning, and this is something that you want to develop at a young age. This is a prerequisite to be able to do the sort of future stuff and connection to be. 
+
+I think education is only important in so far as education tangibly contributes something to society. Right? There's no point in knowing a bunch of stuff if the stuff isn't something you're capable of applying. And I think that students cannot make these connections on their own. Why? It gives you a multitude of reasons, very little response. That's why there is no time, as why there's no incentive to do these sort of connections outside of the way that your teachers teach. 
+
+And if you don't know these sort of things, even if you do get more knowledge of the open government, like I probably do know a greater amount of things in terms of the dumb memorization, they have the capacity to do these things that are harmful to myself because I'm incapable of applying them either in terms of my job, university exams, etc., or being in terms of pragmatic contribution to society. I'll take closing
+
+<poi>
+If you're not a journalist and you're constantly trying to learn things by experimenting with them, but then they change care because I don't know what I want to do when I'm 15. How do you achieve people? 
+</poi> 
+
+Okay, okay, this is opening government. Let's deal with this. Let's talk about pressure and let's talk about the capacity to choose, engaging directly with these sort of things. 
+
+Number one, "Ah, my parents force me to do a specific discipline I don't want to do this anymore." How do the two sides compare? I think priorities, either stupid choice or parent pressure, exist either way. Right? Like, presumably, I still have a priority on medicine or a priority on other things that my parents are pushing me into, or I made a stupid choice because I'm a hot girl in my class or something like this. 
+
+What is the comparative here? Number one, I have the agency of interpreting these sort of things. So, if I'm anyways pushed into doing more chemistry classes, more advanced math classes, if I'm naturally more artistic, I'm going to interpret these things in an artistic way. I'm going to look for the things that are nice, look for the things that are creative, and the stuff that I'm learning in terms of chemistry or biology. 
+
+I can go into stuff like biological art or the way that biology, chemistry, and physics interact with the artistic world and other things. These are cross-connected in actual life. There's a lot of scientists that also do talk about stuff like the importance of art and the way that it reflects itself into science, and I'm able to change the angle from which I explore these sort of things. So, if I'm pushed into this anyways, I have far more individual agency. 
+
+But B) and more importantly, because the subjects are generalized and because the subjects transcend a greater amount of stuff, if I'm pushed into a class that talks about environmentalism or the way the human body works, there's a greater amount of avenues. Right? I'm able to learn about the biological, physical, and chemical composition of this instead of only learning about it as a doctor or a mathematician. 
+
+So I have, in the single subject that I'm doing that I'm probably pressured into, the agency to do these sort of things anyways, and I think this is far more important. Thirdly, let's talk about interest. They say, "Ah, students aren't interested, are going to make choices based on stupid stuff, and are going to do stupid things." Number one, I think this is symmetric, as I explained previously, and the applicability of this matters more. But they say, "Ah, teachers are going to make this fun, and therefore you're going to be interested in it anyways." 
+
+Teachers cannot make this fun for a couple of reasons. Number one, because the fun doesn't come from the teacher explaining to you in a fun way if you do not fundamentally...
+Mentally care about the things that are explaining why does this change in NS of the house a couple of more reasons than you heard previously. Number one, you gain agency over the stuff you do. I am able to control the interpretation of my curriculum. I am able to control the way in which I'm going to interact. This one means that I'm likely to do it in a way that is just more applicable to my future life and my personal interest, if anything subconsciously, if not consciously, you know, because I'm just inclined to do these sort of things. But being more important, more interested in it, because I feel like I have agency. Most children at the ages want agency. I want control over my life. I don't want to be dictated to about the stuff that I want to do. So I'm inherently more interested in this applicability. I see the applicability of my things. No teacher can make the binomial theorem interesting because it's just not, because I don't see where this helps me in my real life in absence of the application that we give to you on the rest of the house. 
+
+Thirdly, just a lot more work because it's a lot more spread out in terms of the amount. The reason you read this is because it's a prerequisite for other stuff. A prerequisite you to be able to be interested in the sort of things to want to apply them further. But more importantly, because when I do apply them, it's a better and more important application. This is why we care.
+</dlo>
+ 
+<mg>
+I think conveniently, opposition just tries to ignore that this is a motion of refer W. We're talking about secondary education systems that are going to change, but their size stills with the status quo of universities. My opening government quite clearly tells you how they're going to impact better the students and how it's likely for the system to make them better just because of being a generalist. If they're going to tell me that's going to be interesting for them, they're going to take the lack of, If you have a world in which they have agency, they have to accept this is going to take a long time. If their case is well understanding the topics, it's going to be in the matter of taking more time to explain it, having more resources in which you're trying to get them to understand it. And furthermore, we have a lack of opportunities to generalize some of the topics they likely are going to be tested on in the future.
+
+Secondly, I want to be really clear on my structure here for my extension. I think inherently in this debate, there's a clear principle. We're talking about dedication; it's a mandatory thing. The system must ensure for every one of their citizens. We believe government doesn't actively tackle why this is important and how a system that actually changes this for an experimental system firstly clearly ignores the inequality that exists around the world for educational systems. But secondly, how do we believe they have to ensure basic needs for all their necessities? I'll take a POI for closing whenever you want to take it for engagement. 
+
+Let's start with the learning structure. CRS, I think education fails the potential of every kid that passes through it. Do we have an obligation with its users to not rock that in quality back? Firstly, what's your learning structure like and what do we think is important? Really, first, there's a progressive overload of content. I'm giving you every single thing along the way that you're able to get the tools to do whatever you want with this content and this knowledge. Specifically, this looks like I'm giving you algebra in the first grade of secondary school, and then I'm giving you calculus at last because I know you need to build in steps to do it. What happens on the other side is this progressive overload of content looks extremely different because we're focusing on them learning, not memorizing. We believe when we don't tackle while memorizing inherently, even though we think it may be bad, it's what gets you a job. It's what gets you into university. Every type of impact that we can claim on government or opposition about the kid comes from where they get after secondary school. If I ensure that better, I think we win on that competitive.
+
+But then secondly, I think they need to accept specialized schools. You're a generalist, so basically characterizations. I'm going to give the kid everything that they don't want to give, like geography, history, even though you know that you want to go into pure MS. So why does progressive fault in structure? Three main points. I think firstly, this is a sidelining of the teacher. This is an extension to the mechanism. My OG says we believe sidelining a teacher is not like taking them out of the classroom. We believe inherently from the motion when you give them a facilitator goal, they lack the academic empowerment they get when they're the ones giving knowledge to the kids, to the students. When there's a professor that teaches me something I don't know, in my brain, I'm recognizing them as someone powerful or someone that I can get as a role model. 
+
+Specifically, this makes it less easy or accessible the way that this structure works to get more learning in the person. But then secondly, I think there's more diversifying in the curriculum. Inherently, when you give students the possibility or agency to change the style of what they're learning, there's more variety in which classes they can take. This is exactly what I mean by not allowing them to get all the basic needs. For example, the basic requirements for university. give me poi 
+
+<poi>
+So if there's more variety, there's also just a greater chance that they're going to cover the stuff that they're going to get tested on in university directly.
+</poi>
+
+It is pretty square from the opposition to try and claim that they're going to have all the experience in the field and also the knowledge from my side. If that's the case, there's no agency in opposition. We have to understand that there's a possibility of them actually learning something the way they want it to. They're lacking certain spaces, like my OG said quite clearly, in which they're going to give this other asset. If we are specific in the way that we give classes to the kids, we lack the agency to teach them the other things they don't need but are quite not only obligatory as they try to mitigate but also important if they want to change careers.
+
+But then thirdly, I think the connection of topics that directly relates to this. I think the lack of agency for the kid is extremely bad. It is quite important to have, firstly, for specialized education. Secondly, because I well understood the topic as memorized. I think that's important. I would explain it. Let's go with the idea of a principle. We think education is a mandatory obligation. We think here in society we value that the government pays for education for their citizens because it's the only mechanism in which they can scale not only economically but socially. I think fairly one, there has to be available to everyone. That's why we have public and free education. But then secondly, it has to meet the basic needs of every one of its citizens that passes through it. This is a mechanism that unless someone only goes to obligatory education, every single one of us has gone to school. We need a system that works and does not impair people by the opportunities we have. 
+
+There's a clear piece of characterization that none of the opening cameras have touched, specifically what do you believe education is unequal and how does your side make it more unequal? So we think firstly we're not going to tell you that education in my side is available completely at the same level for everyone, but we believe in the worst-case scenario when we have public education and it's just a base curriculum that the government allows or gives the professors to follow, it's meeting the basic needs of something I may need in the future, like math, like science, and being a generalist like social sciences, geography, and history. If I decide to change careers, if I decide to not be the thing I wanted when I was 15, like for example, I'm an engineer, and I want to be a medic. This system allows me and gives me the tools to do so. In their side, when I'm being a specialist, I'm going to have to learn better. I'm going to be way better at understanding certain mathematical concepts,
+
+But I'm going to be lacking the agency to switch from that when we don't allow people to actually move and decipher themselves in an academic setting. But more so in the future, we're failing them as a government. We think it's way better on our side of the house. Firstly, because we don't have the problem of accessibility. We think even in the worst-case scenario, where resources are lacking and we don't have the opportunity to give every single student a great textbook, we're allowing them still the opportunity to learn from a teacher that has experience, a curriculum that has worked for 35 plus years. Specifically, the clear-cut case that makes government win against opposition for now is that we allow them to fit into university because that's not the system that they're likely going to change. In both, sides university still sucks and I still get an exam to decide my future. 
+Closing, I'll take you if you have anything. I'll take you. 
+
+<poi>
+So the way that university works in the States, we explain it to you, is oftentimes testing your ability to the prior knowledge that you get. It's better if you already know how to apply knowledge, if you know the way the university is going for it, rather than it's a shock when you don't know how to.
+</poi> 
+
+Okay, Let's put this into comparative. This is not a concession, just an exercise..., let's assume the exercise of them being more capable of understanding deep scientific textbooks or knowledge because they spend more time doing so. I still believe my side is better when I'm allowing more quantity of people to have more abilities to have just the basic needs met and not having them go to a different opportunity or a different system or having to learn by myself all the things that I need in the system just because of the quantity of people health. 
+
+And just because of my side, the education needs an obligatory mandatory, let's say, things that the government has to do are being met. Really proud to propose,
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+Firstly dealing with OG's cases about why this is notable, why people cannot change their major when they're really young. Their main argument or main reason, they first say they're too young, they're too naive, they don't know what it's like. But we believe our side of the house, it's not that. We give you tons of knowledge that probably you can apply for work or something. We give you the instability for thinking, for creativity, for working, or sociability, for working in cooperation. 
+
+Whether the things that progress on buildings can also be transferable when they're transferring to the other major. And also notice we believe the way they work on their side of the house, side of education, will also work in our side of the house. For example, we also give you a period of thinking, we also give you time for internships, we also give you visits, chances for going to workshops or factories for seeing how those things are actually working or how different kinds of jobs are done. 
+
+So we believe the things that you're talking about is almost magic, not that really important. But However, we believe the really important capability over the ability gained on our side of the house is how the student deals with themselves, how they have the incentive for learning, how they try to equip themselves with a better knowledge of thinking or different exploration of research, etc. 
+
+So in their side of the house, all students only know how to do tests, how to do math, how to have better scores on testing. However, in their house, students have no chance of changing what they really like. I think the majority of students now in their side of the world is that they have to fake things. It's like I have to do good, like probably get an A or B, but however they don't know why they should get an A or why they don't really like this kind of subject. 
+
+Why I really have to do math? Because the government forced them to go into the tracks that the government designed for them, there are no personal choices for them in their world. And we believe the personal choices for individualization in our side also really matters. 
+
+Well, okay, firstly dealing with the gap that our side of the house is missing, the burden why our side of house students or teachers also have the capability of good quality of education. Firstly, we believe there are a few reasons why the goal of education is likely to be. First, we want to equip the skills in society. Like we want corporations because you have to have a good relationship with your students or your coworkers in the future or exactly how you have a good student in the future. 
+
+So what the text will give you is that first, they give you simple knowledge without those pictures or long sentences. Somebody just really feels really boring or feels really sleepy when going to the classroom in etc.. We believe this is so worn out and so traditional. What the world looks like now, there are tons of interesting platforms, for example, TikTok or YouTube, for equipping you with so much information that you're probably more likely to learn in the future. 
+
+So that means that the ways for education in schools are too old and without reform. Three reasons why it's really hard to reform as a traditional way. First, it takes a super long time. For example, as a teacher, you have to get the government censorship. You have to get tons of government decisions for what kind of knowledge you're talking about, what kind of topics or things that are better for future education or future generations' capability. 
+
+However, those things have never been performed in their side in a really super fast time. However, why is it faster in our side? Because on our side of the house, we have better teachers for knowing. We're also immersed in the super informative world that we know how we can get access to information. 
+
+However, in their side, some teachers are too stressed out by the standardized testing or they've been informed by the government that they should teach the things in the textbook, so they are free to do so. However, in our side of the house, the teachers know that they have to do progressive learning. They know they have some authority for teaching my students in a way that we really like. 
+
+So we believe the teachers have more rights to choose the way that individualization students want. Second of all, we believe the second reason why teachers are also good is they also will experience a time of certification, internship to become a teacher. They also got the teachers' certificates or whatever, so it means that they have the basic sense for choosing what kind of knowledge is really good or capable for the students in the future or what kind of things they should really adopt for helping them out in the future. 
+
+So, second of all, we believe they also have the basic observation for basic education. Thirdly, we believe they are also stressed that they don't want to fake things up. Notice this is the worst case now because we believe there are also a majority of the super big problems. Sorry later, there are a lot of teachers who are just faking things because they have the textbook, they have the tests, they have so many papers for teaching you how to do things well. 
+
+However, they just ignore what the students really like. You know, like they don't know what the children really love or what their biggest questions are about this. But however, in our side of health, there is progressive teaching, so the teacher has to answer their questions. They have to answer what kind of things they're thinking about. So we believe they have more engagement; they have better progress in our side of house because they have stress to not fake things. 
+
+Thirdly, also the teachers' incentive. They want to make the students love them, so they also want to make the things so they want to try to perform well to make them understand what they're talking about. We also have accessibility to engage with the students in ourselves. Why is the government investing in our side of the house? Because we believe even though their side of the house has a lot of majority who don't really engage with this scenario, however, in our half, we will need, because of this progressive learning, some majority also will have the voting spring for the government to continue to provide better educational resources in order to continue through their votes in like future or whatever. So we also likely to have our data for Progressive designing also will be more super effective. Our set, so lastly about students, uh, reaction. Yes, 
+
+<poi>
+Your maths prove that teachers have capacity to use material as well. This is symmetric. on our side, teachers have more time to spend with their students. So this is on our side of house. 
+</poi>
+
+I think time or energy spent on both sides is actually symmetrical. more the passions of the teachers, whatever is that just, but the prominent incentive of a teacher is to try to know more about what the students are thinking. Your house is too long or traditional with that teacher just thinking they're too like there are so many experiences or whatever. However, only in our side of house students don't make their step out to contact with the teachers for trying to know more about their progress. We're trying to know about their program. That is a thing that we believe is a key point in the students, uh, interest. 
+
+So last argument about why we believe, uh, there will be more students' interest in this kind of like qu. First, firstly, we believe we will have more special, uh, more incentive like for the students. They will become more happier and more centralize. first reason is that because our work cation is that we have more programs to cooperate with our, uh, classmates. We know we want to build a bridge together instead of we're just looking on the bridge in your Texas, right? So we have to go from more real places, from visiting more museums to, uh, research about how we can build a better like program, how appears on the world, like how appears on the or outcome. So it means that we're trying to think more ourselves, our more like ability when we're working together. And also the parents are also more likely to, um, keep their like, uh, more by because they see their children are more happy with the outcome. They're more confident seeing their results. 
+But everything your side of house only has Force without me, okay proud to oppose.
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+I know was just brought an extension, but I really want to be clear about how swiftly opposition has completely ignored the section. Even though it's kind of dirty, I still believe it's not not new material and I do believe they have to engage in this education. It is inherently not accessible for everyone. This is a statement that I did, I had opportunities from them to give me a POI and they're able to do so now. And I'm going to explain how this is the angular stone in which my case lands. And even the worst case scenario where my principal is depending on the Practical and you by on my vote extension, I think I land second. 
+
+Let's explain firstly the accessibility principle and how do we believe that inherently when we have this all amazing experimental learning, you're not allowing everyone to get the same. I think firstly there's a clear understanding that when people don't have the economic resources, they're dependent on the system. So specifically lower class families and kids in which they have less opportunities to complement their kids' education as taking them through an amazing travel to the CERN to learn about, I don't know, nuclear fission on how maybe another person in the same society could be able to. Is there an opp. to an obstacle that not able to get across that already exists on my side? What happens in the comparative is that on my side, I'm able to give them a basic system that at least is going to give them the basic tools to get up front society. 
+
+In my worst case scenario in which families don't have the resources, they're still able to get better than when we ensure the basic needs. Is that we actually allowing the principle to happen? We believe the principle, as I said in my session, is a mandatory obligation of the system. When we allow it is that we believe it's inherently good. I'll take it out, 
+
+<poi>
+all the resources are also dependent on whether or not I'm able to be interested in them. If I am overworked because I have to do two jobs because I'm lower class, this probably means that I'm not to be able to memorize all these things or be interesting access...
+</poi>
+
+Okay, I'll same exercise fall. Let's assume that people are better at learning and let's say they're better at understanding complex solving's and they have the amazing teachers as well, is trying to get that. That first is expensive, not everyone is accessible to that. That's the main point of my class of my cage understanding that has the same opportunities. But then secondly, that in this case scenario when we're allowing them to be specific, we're not allowing them to be better on the future. Their case specifically dependent on how are we going to get better education completely oversized what the next step is going to be as well as closing. Closing opposition in which the university, even if reform is available, the university is still not going to change. If we're going to allow people to be better and be smart, it's not going to be a system up for everyone. We're going to have people better prepared getting into all these universities and not allowing for other people to get these kind of opportunities. We're hindering people on their side of the case. 
+
+Now let's take a quick look at the comparative and how I maybe able to do indicate this. I think with closing opposition, closing opposition tries to lay about how a reform may be possible and how inherently we're going to get a better education thanks to this. I believe firstly a better education is dependent on how it's going to affect what's the value of this education. If we explain that this education likely is not going to help the person get a better job or it's get a better development in society, it's inherently not doing anything for us. But in my side, if I'm sitting a kid in the geography class, but at least he's there and he's following a system, it's following something better in their future. Even if the future sucks, notice that in my worst case scenario, which my education sucks, I'm still beating the closing opposition idea of getting better education within getting better resources, better teachers, better opportunities. 
+
+Let's take my opening. I'll take your POI after. I think first with my opening it's the same principle again. They try to say that things are still changing, things are still obligatory as a m as a mitigation to the opportunities that people may have and that inherently there's still going to be things that they're going to be doing. I believe that the that thatness is a specific mechanism that differentiates these two models. In my side, I'm going to be able to sit down the students and give them two classes a week for a year about geography. In their side, I'm not going to be able to or if I do, it's going to be twice or triple the amount of time. The compromise of time and the deadness of the topics is the difference in both educational systems. In my side, I'm able to at least have an understanding in the basic levels. Even in my worst case, memorizing, but at least the content is there and they're able to recall it if necessary. But on their side, even when they're better, they're not able to do all the other things that I still believe are necessary as a government to give their kids an education system. I'll take your POI. Sorry, 
+
+<poi>
+why students love memorizing?
+</poi>
+
+They don't love memorizing. Your charge is to explain to me why even if I'm memorizing, even if it's worse, I'm telling you it's going to be better for the future. I don't care if the student gets better development if it does not directly mean that everyone is getting more opportunity at university. If my side allows even for a system that's archaic, it's a system after secondary school. It's the same for your side. You're not explaining how the reform is also going to affect university. Understanding that with my opening, I think in my opening it clearly characterizes the main things of learning structure. I feel in the voids that I feel are important as specifically like the interconnecting of topics and how inherently do not allow for a better understanding of it. 
+
+But I believe the principal sense if the principle is somehow failed by analysis, I believe that we may explain their case a little bit better for all the reasons I'm sorry proud to, uh, propose.
+</gw>
+
+<ow>
+Like old houses actually lessees their School problem. Now the School problem is that the teachers' call has actually decreased in like a larger skill, which means that there are a lot of young teachers who actually don't have any manners and they actually have no deep understanding of the textbook. So, like in their houses, the students in their houses in the future can only rely on the textbook. This is what the whole never-proves to us why Textbook is good enough, then, like, than the lot of other resources in our houses, and proves to you why the half of this is actually not building up with your houses. 
+
+And then hold your cases because it's actually the premise of their whole cases. So, actually think about school; actually control the school. This is actually all this conversation with this kind of thing. This means that the courses in their times rich and majoritarian, and like they are over-controlled by the state. Maybe they get some external money from the parents. 
+
+So, what it means is that the first is that the people who have the power, the people who are in position, they actually have no sense to change. Why? Because there are actually no benefits for them. There might be some backlashes they face, but if there’s no chance that no one actually will blame you. The second is that because demographically it’s old, which means that there’s like the compactful calling that actually traditionals or how this connects with the youth, with like the young people. This is actually very important and there’s this kind of time lagging change. Even if you have someone propose that you have to change, there’s a long procedure to pass the policy, and there’s a little procedure to prepare the textbook. 
+
+The first L is that even if there’s a chance, there might be like LS of backlashes. So this is also related to my first point to tell you why poli actually have no incentive to change textbooks. I will also prove to you why the textbook is old traditional, that kind of like, it’s not related to the new generation; it’s actually harming the people in their side of  houses. 
+
+This kind of analysis and also because I discuss things existing there, my lack of minority knowledge, all these things in context of, and this actually also like like like  diminishes exposure to minority knowledge. So all the fears exactly tell you why the textbook would be bad in their houses and actually like take the premise of like in their houses. 
+
+And certain is that, I want to point out that like students actually have no agency in any education systems because, like, at least in our side of houses, students have an agency to explore themselves. They actually have to like more information. You, like, even leave, like, he says that, yeah, like this is also engagement to the up bench. Like POI says that like the students cannot change subjects or this kind of thing. So, at least like maybe like the worst case is the students still cannot like find a good job. But at least the students in our houses spend like a significant time, like several years time, to explore what they really love because this is the time they choose at that moment. It’s the things they love at that moment, and they spend their time to actually study for it. 
+
+And this is the most agency that your house can give, but their house they reach and have been coerced to learn something that they don’t like or they may go, like, sorry, no time, and then move on to my point. 
+
+And this is like, so this and this is kind of like the engagement with the OG. OG talks about like the features that should have last time to explain, or this kind of thing, but this is not true. The first thing is that we believe that students, like teachers, actually have more time. Like in our houses, they actually can have a different interaction with the students because you ask theory; you have to focus up. You have to monitor their discussion. So, which means that you actually have time to discuss or to interact with the students. We can even observe their discussion, and this is actually more time for them than you set up like in their houses. The teacher is only standing on the stage and talking something, reading something on the PD or like on the textbook.
+
+And second is that there will be like students will be much more passionate because they have to be much more conscious about the information the students can get from the OU, like from the internet. So, which means that they will be like more interesting than, like, compared to how teachers have been reading the same content for maybe 10 years. 
+
+And the point is that there will be more supervision also, those from the parents, at SCH because everyone knows that the students actually can now, like, it’s supposed to allow a lot of information. So, which means that it also gives, like, the parents and like government also have this awareness that they have to focus on this. You have more check and balance on this. 
+
+Unfortunately, there will be pure discussion why this is so important. This also keeps the voice or like. This is also important how the rich students can actually bring more resources, and which this can share by the cars. But compared to the last year, like this person can never reach the resources shared by the people. 
+
+And then, like, this is also why in our houses we improve to us. So why does come like information is so unique? So like why does have Progressive education models so unique? That’s because it actually gives students maximized agency to explore information. 
+
+So, in our set of houses, you can actually get more information from various fields. So, why is this information so unique and so important? The person that I think about is, like, taking this for example: if you choose to learn environmentalism, you choose to learn for education, and then like the textbook doesn’t tell you where you should learn this, like where you should study in this university, which one is the better university, or which way you should learn them at best. 
+
+So only through exploring the information on the internet, you know what you like, you know where to start, you know the future, you probably know all the things. And this kind of, like, maybe some typo, there might be some demonizing this kind of environmentalist, and there might be no emphasis or some misinformation about this. We have actually careful stand for national identity, and compared to their side of house, you can see how the Genz's tries to like afford to become an environmentalist. 
+
+You can also see lots of minority knowledge, and this also triggers more discussion. And this is what our house proves that this is the unique thing that our model has. 
+
+And move on to, like, because I think like CG is kind of derivative from their upper houses. So my point is that I have already stated their premise about their arguments are bad. So this already states that because like all the houses are kind of tangled with which one is can have a good quality of teachers. But we actually want, like, we actually solve the root problem. 
+
+I’ll tell you why people in their houses, like, because the T are actually much worse, so which means that the quality is actually much lower. So we actually save the comment that L and also what I talk about there; they can like the like is about the also teach pack pH something, but that comes from symmetric because much better houses because you can actually obviously see like more discussion, like more interpret information. 
+
+It must be a more interesting house and, um, and also so the contribution of CO is that first we actually feed the cover's bench the premise, and we should also never us why the things textbooks matter. And second is that we actually tell you why this unique, all information is so unique. So based on that, we’re proud to oppose.

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Panama WUDC 2025 Round 5.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,361 @@
+<pm>
+Transition smoothly a bit of characterization. Then, these are liberal university students as organizers who opposed Hasina's authoritarian rule. Specifically, they were opposed to the spoil system that gave jobs and social benefits to the descendants of people involved in the 1971 Liberation War. They took the cause to the street recently, and their national military cracked down, and therefore the government has been overthrown ever since. 
+
+First argument: Democratic consolidation. The goal of this debate is on OG; you want a stable transition to democracy. Context: Bangladesh is at an extremely pivotal and fragile moment of transition. This is a post-revolutionary state. The military still has huge amounts of influence, and large factions of the military still have ties to the Hasina government. On top of this, Bangladesh is also a relatively impoverished country with high levels of ethnic and religious divisions and tensions. Therefore, there is a lot of instability currently brewing within the region. 
+
+What then happens when student organizers directly run for political roles? We say this is quite bad for a couple of reasons. One, it actively reduces the buy-in to the prospect of a future democratic government, especially the perception of it, which often impacts how it plays out in the long run. Why? Because often, youth have religious conservatives and rural populations in Bangladesh, and on top of that, people and supporters with loyalty to the old regime who are deeply skeptical of these people running for office. 
+
+Why the specific concern with this crowd of student organizers running is that it alienates a substantial amount of people who fear that the student organizers are not striving for a truly democratic government but instead just authoritarianism run by the opposition party themselves. 
+
+What is the impact of this mechanism? This often means that there is likely going to be less buy-in for institutions, i.e., for example, people don't pay as much taxes, and that's a big problem for Bangladesh right now. Or, second, it is easy for radical opposition parties to characterize student-led parties or governments as radical and violent. If you view these parties as radical and violent, you are more likely to vote for a radical alternative, nationalist, or Islamist party. 
+
+You do things like exacerbate ethnonationalism in politics; you actually do more instability. Second, this is also bad because it reduces electoral competition. How does this actually happen? Because many people involved in the protests are almost assuredly going to vote for these student leaders when they run. Why is it the case? Because often they have already built a cult of personality when organizing these revolutions. 
+
+They all have a charisma, which is what allows them to organically rise to the top of these revolutions in the first place, and there is a track record of their efforts and their success. Most importantly, these leaders are also likely to run in the same party or government to actively capitalize on the July Revolution support, which is unprecedentedly large compared to any efforts they have made in the past. 
+
+Why is this terrible then? Because this actively increases the fear of further democratic backsliding. If you are already a person on defense and skeptical of the revolution, when there is less support for these figures that cannot really be challenged in any meaningful way because the AL government and their credibility are down the drain, you fear they become the Nena, even if they never end up like that. 
+
+This is a comparative argument. Why? Because in the counterfactual, there are still going to be parties that run to appeal to these student voters, these student protesters. But there are going to likely be more competing parties and political figures because they cannot all unite under the silver bullet that we took down the AL government. 
+
+They are all going to have to do so much more to differentiate themselves to make sure they are proposing real policy. But also, second, these leaders face less political accountability on their side. The students who led the protests are, while very able people, not actually infallible. Power tends to corrupt even when there are good intentions. 
+
+In some cases, when you give large amounts of power to a small group, they often have selfish incentives to engage in things like ethnic favoritism. You may view that you need some level of majority support to make sure that you can stay in government to pass the policies you want to pass because you genuinely believe ideologically these are good policies that you want to help the Bangladeshi people. 
+
+You often sometimes might engage in corruption because you believe there is no way out to get funds besides actively appealing to the military. In some cases, even if you think that these are all done for good causes, this often leads to democratic backsliding, even when intentions are not harmful. 
+
+Often I say that, sure, these leaders are good. We agree they’re probably good, but when they get into power, things often change. We argue that change is likely, especially in these circumstances of large amounts of instability. But third, what this means is that leaders cannot be held accountable to the ballot box, and this is no longer that different from the old regime. 
+
+This is terrible. The counterfactual is that we likely think there is a multiplicity of parties, and leaders are likely going to contest in these elections. Student leaders likely support a variety of parties. Political competition is good. Why? Because you often have to appeal to more groups, more minorities. 
+
+It is harder for you to alienate them, you often prevent backsliding, and they hold each other accountable, which is crucial in a moment of democratic transition. Second argument before that closing.
+
+<poi>
+So if the anti-discrimination student movement doesn't run, what other force has the institutional capacity to form a party? Or is it just going to be lots of sort of small independent groups cooperating also, that up fighting against each other? 
+</poi>
+
+Well, I mean, I think this is a question to be answered in the round. I'm not exactly sure right now. Ryan will do it. 
+
+Second argument: This reduces immediate political instability. It is not even clear that we will get elections or when we will get elections. Therefore, we need stability to make sure the transitional government at least works in the interim because these are lives of people at stake. There are families to feed, and there are people we need to house. 
+
+Why does this actively benefit the conditional government then? Because here's a comparative: it is far more likely they get a military coup on opposition. The way you should weigh this argument is that even if this happens, like 30% more likely, that is a huge risk we would not wish to take because often that leads to blood on the streets. 
+
+Often that means that people's livelihoods are destroyed, and you lose faith in democracy, which ends up being irreversible on their side. The military holds very powerful positions in Bangladesh for reasons. They've always been given huge levels of control of the Bangladeshi economy since the Cold War. 
+
+They are politically influential because of connections to political parties. The problem is that when the military backs the incumbent government, they have a vested interest in the leaders of protest movements. Why? They do not want the leaders of protest movements involved because the leaders specifically are people in unions and figureheads of the anti-military movement. 
+
+Then, when student organizers begin running for office, you view democracy as a threat to the military's grasping power, and this is a perception issue on their side. The counteract by no means is perfect on our side, but student protesters are more able to portray democracy as good for the military. 
+
+You can better ally with the military or at least not go directly against it. Even if it's not a clear path on our side, they will undermine elections, and there's more violence against protesters. That's all on that, far worse. Very proud to propose. 
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+So, we're going to explain two simple things in opening opposition: first, why leadership is better; secondly, why the world in which these student leaders engage outside the democratic system is far worse. 
+
+I'm going to prove how you get instability that OG thinks is so important, as well as better policies. So, firstly, why do we just get better leadership within the system? We agree with the premise of opening government that these student leaders are likely to win because they're often uniquely inspiring people. Many people supported the movement in the first place to overthrow the dictatorship, indicating a large commitment of support. 
+
+The current leader of the provisional government is likely to back these individuals as well. They are just generally relatable to you and uniquely inspiring because they represent the movement that gave them democracy and was pushing to give them democracy. It represented the end of the dictatorship that oppressed so many individuals. 
+
+Why is this so good? I have a couple of reasons why the people make better leaders and are uniquely able to represent the youth.
+  
+And make their voices important in the political sphere in the first place, and the premise directly challenges what we get out of opening government that says there will be incentives to represent the youth on either side of the house if we prove that youth otherwise would be politically disengaged. This means there's less political incentive to cater to them because they don't see them as viable voters in the first place. Why is this the case? Firstly, youth deeply distrust the establishment, not only due to decades of oppression under a dictatorship, or the sudo dictatorship, and a legacy of corruption associated with other parties like the BNP as well, but also just generally associate the state itself as a source of repression. 
+  
+Additionally, youth have incentives to engage in rational ignorance where they believe that their vote doesn't matter, and they have less incentive, therefore, to be politically engaged. It's not worth it to put in the effort to, you know, vote and to try and learn about political parties if you don't think your vote is going to matter in the first place. Even when you do consume media, it often feeds you negative narratives about, for example, why democracy is a shame. Horrible things in your country are happening, and it's not worth voting because media often sensationalizes the worst things that happen because it's the most eye-catching. 
+
+This means that youth, who often disproportionately appeal to these things, have no incentives to want to engage politically otherwise. So, it is uniquely only the leaders that represented the transition to democracy that youth are willing to fight for the past that would make them engage in the political system and have some degree of trust to want to vote in the first place. On their side, they have no leverage. 
+
+The second reason why youth are going to be disproportionately not represented is that they are economically weak as well. This is likely because, you know, being quite young, you have less time to accumulate wealth in the long term, which gives you political and economic leverage. Additionally, Bangladesh is currently going through an economic transition, moving from a relatively poor to a more middle and upper-income country, which has resulted in large amounts of unemployment in the short term. As you know, when your country becomes richer and wages rise, it means that as the economy begins to transition, many people are left behind and left unemployed. 
+  
+This disproportionately harms the youth because their lack of experience and time means they're not likely to be, for example, the highest middle management type people, and more likely to be workers, which has left many of them economically in the dust. This means that they have less lobbying power, but also less economic power to be engaged in the system as well, take time off to vote, and to do things like attend protests and rallies, especially in the context of a post-revolution society where a lot of their will to engage and their will to protest has been exhausted. 
+
+This means that in the absence of these individuals, they get no representation for the youth. Furthermore, I want to explain why youth leaders themselves are incredibly good. This is because there's likely to be a selection effect where the youth leaders are likely to be people that have strong liberal democratic values, to the extent that they were willing to fight and potentially be incarcerated or die for these values in an oppressive regime in the first place. This suggests a deep ideological attachment to things like democracy and the liberalization of society. 
+  
+What is the impact of all of this? I think it's first just good that we have good democratic liberal values, or things against corruption and pro things like meritocracy. But also, on a political policy level, it's good that we have demands to cater to people that have long-term interests, that is, the youth who are going to live for much longer than people who are not the youth. This is important because these demands, for example, have transitioned away from textiles and other forms of low-skill industry, which is bad in the long term even if it is desirable for politicians in the short term. 
+
+Why are these things bad in the long term? For example, textiles or other forms of manufacturing are often unsustainable as Bangladesh becomes more economically wealthy. As incomes rise, exports become less competitive because you have higher costs of inputs, and this is bad because it hinders other industries. Additionally, automation would otherwise force countries like Bangladesh to industrialize as well. 
+
+So, why is it the case that alternatives are bad and are going to care about these short-termist interests? First, let's begin by characterizing who these alternatives are. For example, the BNP is an old establishment party, which has the resources and the legitimacy to succeed by being an opposition party to the Awami League. This is a problem because they have a long history of corruption and institutionalized corruption, which is likely to continue. 
+
+Often, you as a leader of a party that is engaged in corruption become passively adapted to having large amounts of wealth and resources, but they are also likely to be politically short-termist as well. They are likely to have connections because, as an old establishment party, you have large connections with industry, for example, manufacturing or textiles, which is often tipping point of view catering to the their interests. Not only do they have personal connections, but because there are also competing alternative incentives. 
+  
+For example, many workers in society are somewhat short-termist; they want to keep their jobs in the short term, even if it's bad for the country in the long term. Thus, these two factors incentivize alternative parties like the BNP to overvalue short-term interests and prioritize things like textiles rather than adapting and investing in better long-term economic plans. Secondly, I think another alternative is likely to be Islamist parties as well because Bangladesh has a large Muslim population, which is likely to be incredibly oppressive towards Hindu minorities. 
+  
+This is likely to be the case because Islamist parties use this as a primary means of differentiation as a political party against other parties, which leads to a more extremist type of rhetoric and policy stance. Secondly, I want to explain why it is worse for these leaders to engage outside the political system. Before that closing.
+
+<poi>
+UNSS has been a powerful democratizing and anti-corruption force even just since August, and overthrowing the Hasina was the cause of momentum that can be channeled to strengthen existing political institutions. Which Young people now, not in the past, have the desire to work.
+</poi>
+
+But but the problem is it's associated with these student leaders alongside the government as they front for the pro-democracy movement. When they don't run, they also look to do things like be critical of the otherwise democratic system. In the counterfactual, which we are going to explain now, in the short run, we think in a world where these people do not run, it leads to more instability. For example, these student leaders are more likely to do things that start protests because they believe these other alternative parties are bad and anti-democratic, which they are also likely to be, as we proved in our previous point. 
+  
+So, they do things like protest in the streets, even if it's not all youth; it's likely the leaders and their close followers who now are not choosing to run but still have the original passion and desire to be engaged. This is a problem because these types of protests firstly lead to things like democratic backsliding and distrust of the government, which OG think is so harmful, but also creates instability itself, which leads to things like investor flight. 
+
+Finally, I think the overwhelming dominance of the student party that would run on our side is good in terms of avoiding the gridlock that occurs more when you have a plurality of parties on their side of the house. That are to have overwhelming majorities, and gridlock itself is often inherently bad when, for example, parties have incentives to sabotage the main party in a coalition because they want them to succeed less so they can win in the next electoral cycle. This is really powerful because you don't pass basic infrastructural bills that Bangladesh needs in a post-conflict society. Proud to oppose.
+</lo>
+  
+<dpm>
+If this was WEDC 1980 and motion was about Zimbabwe and ZANU PF and Robert Mugabe, all of opening opposition's arguments could be made to the very same extent that the people we need to care the most about are the young revolutionaries involved in the protest movements who need to be represented by their lovely figure, Mugabe. We all know how that story ends—hint: not well. The thesis of opening government is straightforward: power corrupts. The student protesters did a good thing by opposing by toppling Hasina's regime.
+  
+The best thing, they can now do is to stay on the outside to criticize, yes, to protest, as opposed to become corrupted by the political establishment. Three points in this speech: first on youth voting, second the counterfactual, finally democratic consolidation.
+
+First on youth establishment. This is opening opposition's main point. I have four lines of response. Response number one: the premise of opening opposition's claim is that the youth are otherwise unlikely to engage in politics. That's unlikely because student organizers don't disappear on our side of the house. They still exist, they still have charisma, they still have a sense of personality, and strong incentives to encourage youth voters to turn out and vote. 
+
+The reason why this is probably a message that will be received well by young individuals is for all the reasons that opening opposition themselves name. For example, the fact that these leaders have unique power over student protesters, the fact that these people have charisma, the fact that these individuals are seen as having accomplished a revolutionary movement. This means that even if there is a marginal reduction in the youth vote, it's not 60%; rather, we probably get a high level of youth turnout on either side of the house, mitigating opening opposition's claim. 
+
+Response number two: political parties, most obviously the BNP, have strong structural incentives under our side of the house to appeal to our youth voters. This is for three reasons. Reason number one: the August protest movement energized youth votes in a way that was not true historically. So, opening opposition is right; historically, young voters in Bangladesh did not participate in democratic politics. But the fact that they have now been energized and mobilized by the most powerful moment in post-independence Bangladeshi history means that youth voters probably feel empowered to participate in democratic politics, even if their leaders do not run. 
+
+Reason number two: political parties have strong incentives to appeal to youth voters to deter any potential violence. Hint: what did student protesters do this August when political parties did not represent them? They turned to the streets; they rioted. Foreign investment plummeted, which means even if the BNP, excuse me, is corrupt and selfish, its corrupt and selfish interests align with appealing to youth voters to ensure there is not a second July Revolution. 
+
+Reason number three: on our side of the house, we have durable fiat to assume these leaders do not solely form a political party. But if you're in the BNP in the next 5, 10, or 15 years, you're always concerned that if you do not appeal sufficiently well to youth voters, these guys might come out of retirement and actually run against you. This means the theoretical potential that these organizers could potentially run in elections is a powerful preemptive deterrent against neglecting or ignoring the youth's vote. 
+
+Response number three to opening opposition: we'll flip their claim. Youth distrust will be worse on their side of the house. This is an argument that applies to the longer-term prospect, not the immediate term. Both teams agree in the short term the people who participated in the protests vote overwhelmingly for these figures. But what happens in the long term? Student protesters are likely to feel enormously disillusioned with Bangladeshi politics. Why is that? Because when these people become political operators, when they run parties, when they're in government, they have to make decisions and trade-offs that protesters feel violate the principles they pushed for.
+  
+These people have to accept campaign contributions from corporations; they have to engage in political horse-trading to overcome the gridlock opening opposition describes. Here's the problem: when the person that you saw leading the revolution is now engaging in the very same kinds of political shenanigans that you opposed and fought against, that is when you are much more likely, on their side of the house, to feel personally attacked. 
+
+Now to be clear, on both sides of the house, some political party has to engage in horse-trading, campaign contributions, etc. It's better when that's a mainstream political party like the BNP, as opposed to these figureheads of the movement violating their trust, which flips their claim on engagement long-term and also increases the probability of protests on the streets. This comprehensively flips opening opposition's claim and mitigates it to the point they cannot win on this argument. 
+
+Point number two: what is the counterfactual? Opening opposition says that the likely counterfactual is the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. We agree. Here are three reasons: first, this party has existing infrastructure. They've been in power or been the main opposition movement since the rise to power in 2009. They've been the main secondary party in Bangladesh since the 80s. 
+
+Reason number two: the AL is overwhelmingly unlikely to win votes in the upcoming election. Why is that? They've been enormously discredited; their leader literally fled to, I think, India. The point is that the AL is at an all-time low, which means the BNP has enormous capacity to win the election because they have existing infrastructure. 
+
+Reason number three: just empirically, polling shows that the BNP is probably going to be the largest party in whatever the next election happens to be. Now, opening opposition's claim here is twofold. First, they say that radical Islamist parties gain power. Second, they say that the BNP is bad. 
+
+Let's work through both. Their first plan on radical Islamist parties doesn't work for three reasons. Reason number one: there's a huge problem with this argument, which is they are right; Islamist parties will get some power. But the groups that are voting for Islamist parties would never be the student protesters on our side of the house. The reason why is that the vast majority of people involved in the student protest movement were liberal, democratic, or university students. They are overwhelmingly secular or not highly religious, which means if the organizers of the protests don't run for office, then the people who would have voted for them are not suddenly turning to radical Islamist parties because they believe that as a legitimate conception of democracy.
+  
+Therefore, the logical alternative is they move towards secular parties like, for example, the BNP. Response number two: it's unlikely that Islamist parties gain substantial power because there's a game-theoretic disincentive to vote for these parties. The reason why is that you know that the percentage of votes that goes to any individual Islamist party is low, especially because there are multiple of them and they split the vote. So you, as a voter, have a game-theoretic incentive to vote for a secular party that's likely to get a greater share of votes because that's more likely to affect the outcome of the election. 
+CO.
+
+<poi>
+Why you distinguish between why are you saying that the BNP is the secular party? They're clearly the non... 
+</poi>
+
+no, no, no. So just to be clear, the claim I'm making here is that the radical, fundamentalist Islamist parties are not likely to be in power. Our claim is that the BNP is preferable.
+  
+This deals nicely with opening opposition's second plan. They say the BNP is short-termist and corrupt. A lot of problems here. Response number one: the BNP can be held accountable on our side of the house for the specific advocacy, criticism, and protesting of powerful organized movements. The BNP has incentives to listen to these people, even if they're not involved in politics, to ensure there is not another wave of revolution. 
+  
+Secondarily, the BNP understands that it has to earn the support of these voters because these voters, for all the reasons opening opposition identifies, are distrustful of mainstream parties—and legitimately so. So the BNP, unlike student organizers, cannot take these votes for granted, which means the BNP has strong incentives to rebrand itself, to internally purge corrupt members through its party. 
+  
+But thirdly, and this is critical, we are fine with gridlock. Here's why: because the biggest problem facing Bangladesh is not that you don't pass policy. The biggest problem facing Bangladesh is that an authoritarian movement gains power, does not have checks on its capacity to legislate, and turns Bangladesh into a secondary authoritarian movement. Gridlock is good because it moderates policy, even if Islamist parties are counterbalanced by secular parties. 
+All of which means that it is good to have gridlock. On their side of the house, it can increase the probability of backsliding and military violence. We propose.
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo>
+First, I want to clean out the PM claim on the likelihood of a coup. It's extremely unlikely that you’ll get a military coup. One: the military lacks funding. FBI is declining. The military cares about funding because democratic institutions actually favor the military. When parties compete against each other in the potential of a democracy, they are also likely to compete for the military's favor, which is why they allow me to give the military funding. However, this depends on having access to foreign investment. 
+
+Second, the youth movement is a substantial unifying force, and the military doesn't want to go against the entire unifying force of student leaders and a young youth movement. That's why the militant chief Waka Zaman gave concessions.
+
+To the transitional government under you, this is why the youth movement is specifically less likely to be anti-military after this point. The military struggles to challenge the youth movement. In contrast, the military probably has substantial capacity to challenge the BNP that doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy that the youth movement has. As a consequence, a military coup is anything but more likely on their side. 
+
+Third, there's likely to be Western leverage. Bangladesh is in the middle of a $4.7 billion IMF bailout, and the biggest market for its goods is the EU, which is looking for a trade deal because in 2029, the EU's favorable trade conditions are set to expire, meaning Bangladesh can't export to them. However, the West will not use its leverage against a coup if the BNP is in power. This is because Khaleda Zia's administration was extremely unpopular among the West, precisely for engaging in the same kinds of democratic backsliding as Sheikh Hasina. So, military coups might actually be favorable for China or the West in the presence of the BNP but not in the presence of a transitional government. 
+
+So, anything like a military coup is more likely on their side. Now, for this slip to work, we don't have to prove that a military coup is more likely than not. The risk of a military coup is a massive detrimental impact to Bangladesh because investors are terrified of military governments and they pull out capital, meaning Bangladesh struggles to transition its economy. In expected value terms, this impact is larger than any of the other impacts in opening government. 
+
+Let's talk about the plausible alternatives in this debate, beginning with the BNP. The first point I want to make is that the BNP will not face political competition in the short run. So, I think our side agrees that the BNP will be in power, but critically, it will not be held accountable. It will not face political competition, and there's not substantial risk of youth leaders re-entering politics because of how the BNP will establish itself as having an overwhelming advantage in politics. 
+
+Reason one: they have a leg up in terms of funding. They have name recognition and existing stockpiles of funding, plus large amounts of corruption from being in opposition for a while. This funding is critical to finance electoral campaigns. Here's the thing: youth leaders have a unique moment of legitimacy right now after the July Revolution, but people's memories of revolution are short-lived. The reason why is Bangladesh is facing an economic transition; it is at the risk of a foreign exchange crisis, which is why it is experiencing a bailout from the IMF. 
+
+Youth unemployment is at record highs. What does this mean? It means when the BNP has substantial amounts of funding, youth leaders, if they re-enter politics in a future moment when people experience economic crisis and don't have immediate memories of the July Revolution, they won't just look at a youth leader and automatically think they are good. Funding is extremely important in elections. Funding is also important because voting is hard in this economic situation. Li's argument was not just that young people are motivated to vote; it's that they don't have the capacity to vote because the youth union is high. 
+
+You don't have the time to take off work in order to stand in line to vote. This is ours and enough, and the BNP probably doesn't want to encourage young voters, precisely because, as Li's argument concludes, it is scared of them. So, the BNP is likely to make voting specifically hard. The same applies to the youth engaged in protests, but the youth are terrified to engage in a second protest. The protest already led to massive humanitarian losses; it was the military gunning down protesters. Even if it led to success at the end, the youth are tired of continuing to engage in future protests, so there isn't a substantial risk of protests. 
+
+What this means is young people will struggle to turn out to vote, and the BNP's political power is likely to be entrenched because when it is in power, it will continue gaining access to funding by being the incumbent party, meaning future political competition is unlikely to threaten it. 
+
+No, thank you. Third, the BNP's existing voter block is much less fractured. Historically, people who are worried about Indian intervention in Bangladeshi politics are people with more of an Islamist inclination, who have fought with the BNP, and their voter block is too fractured in the future, meaning other political parties will simply be absorbed by the power of the BNP. As a consequence, the BNP is unlikely to face large political competition in their best-case scenario if a coup does not happen. 
+
+Why does this matter? Because the BNP is first because it meets all the PM's arguments on political competition or lack thereof. Political competition is asymmetrical. But second, let me listen to the BPM's arguments on young people and why the BNP will care to do that. First, the BNP will not care about them. What are the arguments here? One, they say youth voters are energized for the protest. This is an assertion. I demonstrated the substantial exhaustion among youth voters after the protest, combined with complacency about Bangladeshi politics, because these specific actions of the Awami League, for example, reservations for military members from the 1971 Revolution, are gone. 
+
+There is a combination of complacency and exhaustion, which means youth voters aren't energized and aren't likely to turn up. The second mechanism is that student organizers have credibility and they have incentives to tell them to turn out to vote. Here's the problem: youth leaders are likely to back the BNP. Why is this likely to be true? In the absence of them coming into positions of power, it's because the BNP has a unique narrative. Khaleda Zia was arrested by Sheikh Hasina, which means they are able to use the narrative of saying, "We are the BNP, the party that was persecuted by the Awami League." 
+
+This power gives a substantial amount of influence among young voters, so the initial involvement and endorsement of student organizers is for the BNP. Plus, the BNP has funds, so it has the ability to do things that pay them off, especially in this environment. That's often working against them. They are unlikely to continue spreading their values or encouraging young people to turn out. Plus, I have explained why young people don't have the capacity to even if they want to turn up, which is why turnout in Bangladesh continues to be low. They see there's a risk of coming out of retirement. 
+
+I explained what in the long run, which is the potential time period that they will come out of retirement. One, they have damaged their credibility because they made a promise to exit politics, and two, they will not be seen in the same way because memories will be shortened. All of this means they will not be a meaningful challenge to the power of the BNP. The BNP will crush political competition. 
+
+Here's the thing: youth leaders will be better than the BNP. Their argument is that youth leaders will be totally insulated from political competition. So, why will they give a care? Here's why: because youth leaders aren't a monolithic group. The fact that even some youth leaders are potentially ideological faces substantial amounts of pressure. 
+
+No Thank you to ensure that basically youth leaders push for democratization and similar notes. Closing, you have anything. 
+
+<poi>
+Your own argument on why these leaders are non-monolithic; this is the precise reason why there's likely to remain political competition on our side, given that different factions of the organization movement probably back different parties, including the Islamist parties described to us. 
+</poi>
+
+No, but I've just given you a bunch of reasons why the BNP will beat all these potential parties. In a first-past-the-post system, strategic voting means that voters will always back a single party. The BNP will act as a shelling point, plus they will use brand loyalty to get them in, even if they have differing views. However, they are in politics. Even if they temporarily win, if one of them starts engaging in democratic backsliding, other youth leaders can turn against them and form parties of their own, which can drive political competition, which can help Bangladesh. 
+
+Here's the argument that they totally missed from Li's speech: the BNP has strong economic connections with existing textile industries. Textile industries have backed them for a substantial amount of time, so they depend on them for their resources. They owe them favors; there are family members appointed to top positions in several textile industries that didn't want the Awami League to win. 
+
+Why does this matter? Because Bangladesh needs to stop industrial policy favoring textile industries as wages rise in Bangladesh. It can no longer compete with countries like Ethiopia on textiles. Plus, Bangladesh is in the midst of an emerging market crisis and needs to transition up the value chain in order to grow. This growth is necessary to do things that create youth unemployment, even if the BNP cares about the youth; it cares about the funding it gets from corporate backers, which it can use to win way more votes than just the votes from the youth. 
+This means the BNP will be structurally politically fucked up. We stand on opening opposition.
+</dlo> 
+
+<mg>
+This speech will provide a variety of reasons to believe that even if students are uncorruptible, morally accountable, they will be ineffectual and they will cause the greatest degree of harm in this state. I want to start by positioning this extension against opening government. Opening government, I think, assumes that
+
+Students are really likely to explain that young people will be almost automatically behind them, but then they also explain that there are a series of perception issues that might block young people out of power, which I think kind of mitigates the harms of their first issue. I think then, subsequently, it provides a series of good potential risks that could occur where students are, for instance, corrupt or overly radical. But I think this potentially requires a relatively uncharitable view of the incentives of these students, who I think, to their credit, are pretty pro-democracy, are pretty enlivened, and a subject for kind of accountability incentives that both teams. 
+
+No, we will make a more modest, certain, and internally consistent plan. Regardless of the virtues of these students, if they pursue their demands, they will damage the legacy of the revolution and its attached political program, which is bad.
+
+The first thing I want to explain is that the perception of these students is cynical, and opening opposition points to kind of generic reasons why people are suspicious of politicians, which I think are true. But I think there are some more specific reasons why people are likely to be particularly skeptical of students. Crucially, I think youth and radicalism is something that is viewed more fondly outside of politics than within, which is just to say that people understand things like youth and radicalism as virtues in many instances. But they also understand, for instance, that they were far more strident in their youth, that their views changed over time, that young people are still developing and do not always have well-formed ideological views, which I think is, in general, pretty bad in terms of young people getting elected and in terms of them attacking older people's votes. 
+
+But I would additionally note that it is a barrier to collaboration with older people in politics. Like, I think it is quite likely that even probably pretty good politicians who are older, who are more experienced, are pretty skeptical of these young people, making it far more difficult for them to achieve their aims.
+
+The second thing I want to note is that the specific demands—not all of them, but some of them—made by these young people are both unachievable and undesirable. I think this is probably a better explanation of the problems of these young people than opening government, who I think assumes that they'll do things that are particularly corrupt and particularly immoral. But we are just going to explain that if they pursue the political program outlined in their nine-point plan, that is bad.
+
+What is their political program? A couple of things: Firstly, they want to fire tracks of police commissioners and superintendents involved in student casualties. Secondly, they want to fire tracks of vice chancellors of universities all across Bangladesh. And thirdly, they want to remove security personnel at large from university campuses in Bangladesh.
+
+The first thing I'm going to do here is explain why those political positions are likely inflexible, and then I will explain why they are bad. The importance of explaining why they're inflexible shows why young people—no, thank you—will not kind of be strategic and adopt particular positions in order to avoid the sort of backlash. I'll explain later why they are inflexible.
+
+Firstly, I would note that these things are highly public, highly published, that in the nine-point plan, which I think makes them relatively difficult to walk back because they are a stated ideological commitment. But secondly, I think that they likely believe them both ideologically but also incredibly emotionally because fundamentally these sorts of demands represent revenge on the kinds of people who students viewed as being particularly punitive or particularly immoral. That, I think, additionally means that this is likely an expectation of their peers in the movement, making it socially very difficult to avoid.
+
+Additionally, though, I would think that the most radical young people are likely to be at the forefront of politics. Those are the people with potentially the most charisma; those are the people with the strongest belief that pushes them into political roles relative to more moderate young people. Finally, I think they probably have a pretty rational desire to disempower political enemies like vice chancellors and like police.
+
+But I'm going to explain now why that is probably a very bad thing. So young people enter politics with a list of demands about disempowering people like vice chancellors. Like this, I think, is highly unachievable. I think that this is a set of people who are obviously incredibly empowered in society. They have access to incredibly important institutions like universities and police, and they are important—like obviously, it is important to have police in Bangladesh. And that means I think that they are particularly powerful enemies. 
+
+And this provides to you, I think, a far more specific reason why things like civil resistance or more moderately institutional resistance is inevitable because the set of people specifically who these young people have upset are the ones who their political program irritates, who are the ones who their political programs continue to provoke. But I also note that these numerous enemies—like we're talking not just about powerful people but about like hundreds, probably thousands of police—these are people who are going to be motivated against these students.
+
+Finally, though, I would note that this also alienates you from potential political allies because I think it's pretty unlikely that, for instance, the BMP is particularly keen on mass firing security from university campuses. I think a lot of, you know, adults are probably pretty like—they think security is a good thing to have in universities on some level. I'll take you in a second. All of that I think means that young people are likely to suffer in terms of getting traction in achieving their political goals. They're likely to be ineffective, and that I think is something which is far more likely to lead to the problems with youth engagement described by both opening teams. I'll take opening now. 
+
+<poi>
+If the impact is a loss of political support, if the impact isn't a loss, and just they lose political support, they lose the next election, abandon these policies.
+</poi>
+
+I already explained why they are likely to be theistic, why they could be strident and inflexible, but I also just explained why there are a series of less—like the things that are still bad, things like institutions refusing to cooperate with you, things like potential political allies refusing alliances with you.
+
+The next thing I want to explain is that formal politics uniquely leads to division and conflict, which is that, and I wonder—I think this is actually kind of conceded by opening opposition, who says, "Well, it's fine if they become a bit corrupt because they just condemn their peers." Formal politics is more divisive in civil society firstly because you are required to take far more specific political positions, which opens up for more ground to disagree with each other, to have any differences. Secondly, politics is competitive, and you’re likely running against each other in things like pre-selections, and it's the kind of personalities that are trying to gain those spots, trying to gain media coverage. 
+
+Thirdly, I regard that these are likely people with reputations as firebrands. They want to prove it by holding those around them accountable, by being particularly vocal in discussions. Why is this division so bad? It's the quickest route to absolutely destroy the credibility of this student movement. You require like one incredibly public statement to make people distrust these leaders, to make them, you know, to be more skeptical of them. Secondly, it splits the movement all the way down because the peers, the people who follow these leaders are likely to want to pick sides. And thirdly, it obviously just has an opportunity cost to becoming far more unifying civil society leaders.
+
+I want to weigh civil society here because I think opening government is a bit vague about what civil society figures can actually achieve. Why is civil society important? Firstly, it's far more acceptable. Opening opposition tells you it's incredibly hard to vote in elections—there are enormous barriers—but things like social media, things like access to media, are incredibly inclusive and allow people to participate in politics far more easily. Important to be there.
+
+But secondly, civil society is more resilient. It is harder to crack down on civil society figures because they are perceived as legitimate, because it's opposed by institutional actors, which means it's important to seize your notoriety to be in these civil society figures. A place where it's important to have powerful individuals within politics is probably already covered by individuals being motivated to vote, caring about politics in a historically unique way. Proud to propose.
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+Firstly, on the future political system of Bangladesh, secondly on stability, and why the BNP would be bad for it, as well as incredibly bad government. Let's start with the future political system of Bangladesh because we think the biggest hurdle in this debate isn't about who wins government the next time because what's happening at the moment is we have an interim government, and before we go to another general election, they're going to have an election before that to form a special assembly to rewrite the Bangladeshi Constitution and reform the government institutions of that country and The most important thing in this debate is who has the power to form the long-term constitution of Bangladesh and what the formation of government is going to look like. That very intuitively outweighs the rest of the debate. 
+  
+See, they're talking about all of the government structures that inform every single election into the future. What are the problems with Bangladesh's political system at the moment? First of all, the massive ring of elections. What was supposed to happen is that the government prior to an election would give up power to a caretaker government, such that they weren't in power during that election so that they couldn't rig it. The Awami League refused to do that, and that's why the BNP boycotted almost every election in the last decade. 
+
+Secondly, there's an enormous amount of corruption in the Bangladeshi government. There’s an enormous amount of people who are appointed bureaucrats who continue to preserve their own ends. There's also an enormous amount of judicial problems. Judicial act members of the judiciary essentially act in line with political parties. All of them, of course, do mass resign in protest because the country wanted to bring back Sheikh Hasina after she had fled to India. 
+
+There's an enormous amount of problems that need to be solved in this constitutional assembly, and currently, the interim government has established a large number of commissions under Muhammad Hasan and also with the involvement of the student leaders to reform these policies. Why is it all; Yes  
+
+<poi>
+Yeah, Yunus has a no-price? Do you think that the international actors are likely to want to negotiate with him or a University student?
+</poi> 
+
+Hassan isn't going to run in the next election; he's coming in as a caretaker, which is what he did in the last caretaker election about 20 years ago. But he's very explicitly a caretaker; he's not here to be a long-term political actor in Bangladesh. So why is it that then, why is it that it is necessary to have these people involved in the constitutional assembly? 
+  
+First of all, the existing forces in politics benefited from each of these systems, all of their allies. They were put in place by the existing political system, so they're incredibly unlikely to want to change it. But secondly, without a force, without a specifically large institutional force against this, it's likely that any smaller forces that OG talk about, like individuals or small groups—two or three running—would be able to get this team through. They're likely to be bought off or horse-traded by the larger parties. They're less likely to have an agreement on what this reform should look like. 
+
+So even if they all agree there should be reform, if they don't agree on it, they're on net going to get outvoted. And also, they weren't involved in the creation of it. The student leaders got named Mohammad Hassan in that serve in roles with those commissions developing it, so they are the ones who are involved in development and can get it passed through. 
+  
+Why is it that they can only get this done if they are a party? First of all, being a part of the party is necessary for branding and selling your campaign. Secondly, like elections, it's a big business. You need operatives, you need money, you need ads, you need institutional capacity. You can't do this as two or three individuals. 
+
+The next thing I want to prove is that other institutional power in Bangladesh is very, very rare because they keep going to other institutions. UN might support, but there's good  and I ask them to name them; they can't. But there's good structural reasons to believe there aren't a lot of other large institutions in Bangladesh that could form themselves into political parties. 
+
+First of all, it was an authoritarian country. Secondly, the Awami League tried to position itself as a big tent party that included anyone, so they had an incentive to try and bring in any other institutions and align themselves with the Awami League. Thirdly, Bangladesh has been in chaos for many years. The initial protest against the quota system started in 2018, and in that context of chaos, it's very difficult to form institutional power.
+  
+So that means that there aren't a lot of other large institutions that could step into this gap. The best comparative, then, BNP or other smaller parties, opening government, says, "Well, students are seen as bad; they're seen as irrational; they're seen as too young." But the problem with this is that this party isn't just going to run students; they're going to bring other people in. For instance, they brought in Hanan in the short run. 
+
+Also, they brought in a large number of university professors who actually designed the original system of reform. They worked with their own professors and military leaders, as opening opposition points out, military leaders who told the military to put down their arms, not to oppose this. And those people have almost nothing in common except for the fact that they were brought together by an anti-discrimination students movement. 
+
+That is why they're likely to be taken seriously, and that also robs closing government, who, well, they're incredibly terrible, but they brought in a large amount of support. The key thing is that they are important for bringing those people together. I also want to note here, not only is it important that they're part of the constitutional assembly to solve all those problems, but it's also important that they are the first government afterwards. 
+  
+Because, as I allude to, the entire Supreme Court of Bangladesh was forced to resign because they were seen as trying to bring back Sheikh Hasina. That means that they're going to get to appoint the next set of justices who will make the first interpretations of the new Constitution that will serve as the baseline precedent against which that Constitution is interpreted, and that's incredibly important. 
+
+They also set the norms of how it's interpreted, and if another party wins, they have an incentive to show that the new rules that they don't like are very bad and very difficult in order to manufacture consent to get them taken away. It's very important that they are not only involved in the right giver, but that they are the first party to interpret it and to appoint the justices who do so. 
+  
+What are the benefits of this? It means that you get a government that functions, which is important for your economics. It also means you get rid of the quota system, right? Which is not only unitarily but also incredibly bad for the functioning of government because you appoint a large number of freedom fighters to the system, not because they're good. 
+ 
+And it crucially makes the Bangladesh Public Service not politically neutral because the freedom fighters that are appointed have political allegiances, and that means you don't have a neutral public service. That pretty much what way pretty intuitively over the rest of the debate. 
+  
+Second extension: Why is it that you why is it that you get more stability? Opening government says you will get the military... See, opening opposition pretty concisely points out the military explicitly allows them to come through. You're very unlikely to get a military coup. 
+  
+Why is it that the BNP would be incredibly bad? First of all, their leader, it's not clear he can legitimately run in charge on anti-corruption, and different courts are split over his actual legitimacy as a candidate. So that means that they're incredibly likely to be protests. Secondly, there's very likely to be huge protests when this aggressively pro-Muslim party wins, who has done terrible things to minorities in the past. 
+
+Thirdly, your relationship with India is likely to be substantially worse, and they're likely to foment unrest on the ground. We already saw Indian forces in the country protecting Sheikh Hasina during the last revolution, and they have an incentive to foment chaos in the country in order to reestablish their influence. 
+
+And I know these aren't the only reasons why you don't get stability. There are also reasons why the BNP is bad; like they are anti-Hindu, we should care about Hindus. They are anti-India; we should care about your relationship with India, your trade relationship, your security relationship. They have done corruption which is not only rampant, you can't legitimately run, but also you know corruption is bad. 
+
+Additionally, I think it's important that these student leaders are there to be able to tamp down protests. Opening opposition says, "Well, the student leaders might do protests," but I think that's the lower impact argument because their protests, on net, have been pretty good and pretty reasonable. 
+
+What's more important is the bad, more aggressive sets of protests that might come from other actors, which we think they're uniquely good at tamping down and stopping from becoming violent. First of all, we will still lie true if these people don't follow through on their promises. Secondly, they are powerful figures who can come out persuasively and urge people to calm down. But thirdly, the protests are more willing to negotiate with them. 
+When they're in government, because they have a history of being receptive to protest, rather than, they will never listen," this protest will never work.
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+First, I'll explain why closing government wins the debate, and secondly, why the opposition bench loses. Firstly, why did we win the debate? I think we make kind of two contributions. The first is just explaining in substantial detail why these student leaders would be both bad at politics, but also, perhaps more importantly, good at civil society and impacting why that is a society and politics changing for us. The second, I think, is just outlining that most of these specific demands of the anti-discrimination student movement, in their highly publicized 9o P published like after deposing the cner, are bad.  
+  
+Of course, as this team might respond, some of those demands are like fine. For instance, asking for compensation for families of protesters who were killed—that's fine. But those kinds of demands are not sensationalist, nor are they radical. They're extremely unlikely to focus on campaigns of opposition or media, the things that they are held to by phoners and that are indeed in the spotlight in the media at the moment. Many of those demands are incredibly bad things, like firing huge tracks of police who are related to the universities or whose jurisdiction covers the universities where protest was suppressed.  
+  
+Even if those police were not directly involved, like they didn't kill a person, they just have jurisdiction over those universities. No security in universities, firing Huge CRA ofc, and a national ban on the Awami League unit. I think those policies are bad in a few respects. Firstly, I would oppose many of them on face value on their grounds alone. For instance, I don't think you should ban student movements of most political parties until they pass you an extremely high threshold. I think that is probably something we should be conservative about—not restricting free speech.  
+  
+I think police, who are often underpaid and not personally responsible for violence against students, who happen to be part of a systemically corrupt institution but don't have much choice in that, should not be fired from their jobs. I think those are immoral demands, and we should not stand for them. Secondly, those demands are literally impossible to fulfill. As Ellie points out, to no response, powerful enemies in the form of the whole police force is incredibly scary.  
+
+This doesn't work, which at very worst for us is just an enormous opportunity cost of resources, a failure to get your policies passed. But also, my group is incredibly embarrassing and delegitimizing for these student protests and for all the civil society organizations and movements that we point out are attached to, where they can do good work out of politics. Maybe, for instance, you want to go into politics later. You can't; you have an initial track record of doing terrible things and failing to pass a policy.  
+
+The responsible get from opening opposition in a POI is, firstly, well, if there's a risk of a coup, then you moderate. I think Ellie preempts this in quite a lot of detail. We explain that you aren't rational, but it's very unlikely that there's a risk of a coup on their side. You're not thinking about the future in that extent. That it's incredibly embarrassing and maybe, for instance, backlash or political violence in the short term to backtrack on your established demands.  
+ 
+And importantly, even if some people are rational in this way, the most prominent leaders of that movement will not be. The second plan they make is if you don't moderate, you're going to lose the election. But firstly, I would note if that harms the movement of anti-authoritarian student protesters, regardless, even if it's true that you lose the election by having these demands, it still hurts that movement. It hurts, for instance, initial movements by students, any student in Bangladesh against corruption, against authoritarianism in the future—they are tainted with that brush, which it is incredibly easy for opposition parties and media outlets to keep up on.  
+ 
+But secondly, maybe at the very best, this hurts OG, but it doesn't hurt us because we explain why involvement in civil society matters. And importantly, you can also run more successfully for politics later. For instance, you could run more successfully for politics later if you're hard with this brush. If, for instance, you have demands that are bad, that means that you can't operate in civil society as well. But finally, I think some people probably still do win.  
+  
+And I want to know if even if you only get one politician representing this constituency in Parliament, you cause huge amounts of chaos. You shift the Overton window; you mean that people discredit other more sensible leaning policies, like restrictions on police powers. That there's gridlock in Parliament—all of that is terrible. Why does this then get us above opening government? I think it represents a fairly generic criticism of young revolutionaries on the basis of their radicalism, but also the tempting vices of politics like corruption.  
+
+But the problem with this is, firstly, claims in terms of entire commitments to corruption, while true, seem relatively symmetric given the features that this team themselves points out in terms of the political system in Bangladesh at large. But secondly, radicalism, of course, as our open says, can be bad but can also be good, right? Like deeply radical movements, like, for instance, anti-colonial movements or feminism, are both good ideologically but are deeply attractive to people, even though they ask for very large changes in the status quo.  
+ 
+We explain that the changes we're asking for are bad, which means they are both unpopular but also undesirable. But finally, we impact the alternative. Civil society not just politics, which makes society and makes government better—we win.  
+  
+Let's now talk about opening opposition. Opening opposition, I think, is dangerously pessimistic in their vision of the status quo. They say the BNP will have no political competition without students to push back. The reason for this is because it's prohibitively hard for the youth to vote. The BNP receives money from lobbyists; they'll always get young people on their side. Students don't. This is dangerous because it's a self-defeating argument for opening opposition. If the BNP is so powerful, then students contesting elections will fail regardless.  
+  
+One attempt to bridge this gap is to say, well, people care a lot about youth and revolution. Now you have to take that opportunity. That is insufficient for a few reasons. Firstly, it could last that momentum, right? Like if you present yourself as political critics, part of civil society, it is likely that the actual authoritarian momentum will lose. But secondly, if opening opposition is right that there is an appetite for change, that doesn't mean there's an appetite for supporting this specific political party, especially because their power is in opposing the AL, not in creating and endorsing their own political platform, which I know requires many different skills and virtues.  
+
+Finally, they say the BNP has a textile contract, which is bad. One, this is self-correcting; yes, lobbying is powerful, but votes matter from individual people whose wages are going down. There are other competing businesses that join, like eristic contracts with fire. Or secondly, if the textile industry is so corrupt, then that means that other parties who are established also need money and also take that money.  
+  
+Finally, let's probe about closing opposition. Firstly, they say the young people in politics will help the future political system in terms of changes to the Constitution. One, it's unlikely that those young people are elected or listened to. If they are elected, for the reasons we give, they don't have the ads of the institutional capacities that this team describes as necessary; that is overpowering. Secondly, Yunus has decreased corruption massively, and it's likely that its oversight, as the caretaker government, will make sure that the special assembly is good, that it's not done corruptly, and so on.  
+
+But finally, they say, well, the students have united lots of different parts of society. That's true with regards to taking down the AL; it's not true with regards to rewriting the Constitution, where you want usually different interests. If you are the military as opposed to if you are students. They say next that the BNP will fail. Firstly, in your opening, he says they guarantee success no matter what. But secondly, the barriers they put up are transitory. They say the leader is bad; you get a new one again. Yunus has massively decreased corruption in Bangladesh.  
+  
+They say your relationship with India is bad. I'll fit that; it's way worse. Because India hated the student protesters, sent police to target them and bring them down. Is your relationship with India, or rather, does it hurt it? Because obviously, India doesn't like the student protesters; it doesn't like it when the special assembly supports them and has them in their midst.  
+</gw>
+  
+<ow>
+The youth leaders win elections, and secondly, on policy, they implement when they win, good or bad. Firstly, on youth leaders, whether they'll win elections, the first problem, the first reason why I think this is pretty obvious that we explained is that they have already proven themselves to be highly effective political organizers. This seems dismissive about the amount of effort required; it is the protest place for long periods of time and involves more than just organizing people on the street, but organizing highly complex networks of people who cooperate around an infrastructure system that cracks down on those students. 
+
+And then after that, being able to negotiate the process of establishing a relatively democratic transitional government in order to manage the process of moving towards democracy and establishing a series of missions in order to do it and analyze the problems that existed in the previous system, which could suggest to you that these protesters are efficient organizers and are likely to be good at winning elections. Secondly, we think the BNP themselves have lost a lot of institutional knowledge without winning elections. 
+ 
+I think that while they are probably likely to be effective, they're unlikely to be unbeatable. That is firstly because they've been disempowered by the Awami League; they've been in long-term opposition for decades and suggest they haven't had that much infrastructure around. Secondly, and additionally, they've boycotted elections for a long period of time; the infrastructure around elections has likely been lost.
+  
+Now, for opening opposition, we agree with opening opposition that in the counteract without students, it's likely that this BNP is going to win the election without student opposition. What Matt says is not that this is never going to happen, but that if it did happen, it would be bad because the BNP isn't a whole party. Thirdly, their unpopular policies are outweighed by a series of very popular features. That is firstly coming from outside the establishment because, although it's true that people have some skepticism about the group of students and whether or not they'll be anti-democratic, they know for certain that the BNP has been corrupt. 
+ 
+It's led by a person who is currently being charged for money laundering; its previous experience has been previously called out for corruption, which guarantees them some amount of legitimacy. Secondly, the people in Bangladesh want democracy. Living in a dictatorship, having at least one party that is working hard towards democracy is a meaningful draw for people, even if they have a series of unpopular policies.
+  
+Thirdly, the students aren't a super racialized religious party, which is a characteristic of the BNP that has alienated a lot of people in Bangladesh, who see that racialization as something that causes division, escalates tensions in the region of India, and is detrimental towards the likelihood of getting trade and economic development in the future. Finally, they're not children; these are university students—well, pretty old university students—who have been politically organizing for a long time and who have experience in some level of politics at the youth level. 
+
+People are likely to be adept. Let's do some way; so, it says it won't work. This is obviously going to be a hard thing to achieve, but now is the best time to achieve it of any time in the future. The Awami League is split; the Awami League is on the run, and their leader has left India. They lack a firm alternative towards the leader, someone who can organize them. They have a lot of momentum at the moment, and the BNP is at a critical point where it is also unlikely to succeed for the reasons that I previously explained about the lack of infrastructure around elections. 
+  
+So now is the only time that it could work, and that's when it's in so rearing around the likelihood. Then I think we do prove the highlight of success; in fact, this is considered by the Prime Minister, who claims that they will be so popular and unbeatable, they will have unchecked power, which will result in them becoming evil, which therefore makes government a knife of hope. 
+  
+But secondly, even if they don't, it's still good for them to have some level of power. Firstly, because it makes better accountability on the BNP and the Awami League if they are the ones to end up in power. But secondly, it's a boost for building momentum towards future political successes as you build institutional knowledge around elections and toward the future. 
+  
+Next, let's talk about whether or not their policies are bad. They outline that some of these policies might have negative consequences. Firstly, many people who they want to remove from power are extremely unpopular. For example, police commissioners in Bangladesh are notorious for being permissive of things like police officers engaging in violence and engaging in rape; they are people who others also want to see removed. 
+ 
+Secondly, it's often necessary to remove these figures in order to remove corruption. A lot of these people are aligned with corrupt political figures from the Awami League, which makes removing them necessary in order to disrupt the infrastructure that allows corruption to continue. Because even if you change who's in power and the BNP comes into power, if you permit the lower levels of corruption to continue to permeate the system, the BNP then becomes the corrupt political party that's in power. 
+ 
+Thirdly, it's necessary to gain trust in government as a result of the aforementioned problems—the fact that they are corrupt and the fact that they are associated with previous members of the Awami League and the fact that they're unpopular. If you want trust in any new government, you need to remove the infrastructure of the old government; it's unpopular. 
+ 
+Finally, the most important for justice: these people are evil people who deserve punishment. The student league should be considered a terrorist organization; the Awami League youth group should be disseminated and destroyed. They are a group of people who deserve justice to come to them. Could these youth leaders finally then be flexible even in the instances where these policies are bad? 
+ 
+Firstly, they have explicitly set up a series of commissions to redesign their policy platform with experts involved. That legitimizes changes in refinement that occur in policy—not as backsliding, but as academic refinement on the policies they have established, which makes that change legitimate. But secondly, they're likely to believe in that flexibility and not be so heavy-handed because they're working with a new set of people. They're working with people like Hassan, the leader of the government, and the figures and academics they have put into these commissions in order to redefine their policy. They have a revealed preference towards redefining and establishing a new political platform that is likely to have positive outcomes even in the episode policy badly gets fixed. Okay 
+
+<poi>  
+15 seconds, OG already gave 5 reasons: the BNP is accountable. students are immensely advertised why the BNP race? BNP must satisfy protestor demands for politicians from entering; they can still operate outside politics, and the BNP needs to prove its change from the past. This beats your extension directly.
+</poi> 
+
+It doesn't; Allowing the BNP to come into power at a moment of unique political back and crisis and high instability with a system of corruption already in place means that none of those democratic abilities exist. They might have potential pressure from young people or from other political parties, but if they rig the next election after this next election that they win, they don't get any of those better outcomes. 
+ 
+But if you believe that's true, then the BNP should have accountability to get better accountability when there is more youth representation in Parliament. Next, to respond to opening government: first, they say this is going to empower parties that recognize that people have these leaders. Firstly, this is directly contradicted by their later claim which states leaders will be so popular they will end up having unchecked power. 
+
+Secondly, these people are likely to be skeptical of anyone protecting the branding of being the consequence of the revolutionary movement. Next, they say that student leaders will have too much unchecked power and will become corrupt in the end. Firstly, if there's any meaningful degree of skepticism, that explains where the democratic ability on leaders comes from. 
+  
+Like, if you believe the BNP is likely to be successful—or at least a pushback, like they say—you should believe that there is pressure that forces them to continue to be democratic because there is someone pulling them out and forcing them to be better. How are they likely to go about gaining their legitimacy? Firstly, by doing the things they said about abolishing the quota system, which only makes sense. Secondly, by gaining the backing and approval of various groups who support them in the process of revolution, like university academics and the commissions they set up. 
+
+Thirdly, by maintaining that commitment to democracy into the long term. So if you believe that the BNP is a meaningful opposition, it explains what youth leaders will continue to be long-term. If they do win, then the BNP winning is good; the BNP is horrible firstly they can do horrible to minorities, Secondly they is led by a corrupt person, thirdly and escalates tensions. But also, better make best. Proud to oppose
+</gw>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/Panama WUDC 2025 Round 7.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,345 @@
+<pm>
+This is a debate about courts and justices and judges. So, judges will interpret this as a sit and pride over certain appeals over Merchant Acquisitions after regulators have regulated and companies sue if they think that this is unfair. 
+
+Secondly, I think this framing is important because regulators will know that this is the legal doctrine that judges and courts will adopt. Therefore, the way we approach regulating mergers and acquisitions will keep a broad scope in mind. For instance, they know they can get away with complaining that this merger acquisition has failed to conduct environmental information surveys on how this merger acquisition will deplete energy resources or, for instance, pollute the local environment. 
+
+This is important because our first argument is that consumer welfare declines in this context. The first thing I want to talk about here is that we're going to be able to essentially create companies to self-regulate before they go into the merger acquisition process. So, here's the through line: they will perceive that regulators will regulate against them if they do not provide information on things like the way they operate. Therefore, they will preemptively have this information on hand to prevent issues like being sued.
+
+The reason why this is important is that there are three or four reasons for this. Firstly, investors are wary, so they'll be scared if it's too risky because of the media attention that will happen if they get sued, for instance. Other considerations come into play. Secondly, legal fees are incredibly expensive for lawyers and related costs. Thirdly, if you fail the first process in the district courts, you have to appeal again and again. Appeal phases take a long time as well, so as a company, you want to make sure that you cover all your bases. 
+
+Fourthly, you are acquiring another firm, so it's likely that the other firm might get cold feet if they feel that you have not prepared enough for this process as a whole. The importance for this is that we reduce information asymmetry. 
+
+Here's how I want to contextualize this: if a company knows that they will have the merger acquisition blocked because they have not provided the necessary information on pollution, they will go and hire consultants to make sure they conduct stuff like an environmental impact statement that reveals the total GHG emissions that will result from this merger acquisition. 
+
+The reason why we think this is fine is because if you have a law of capital this or you have to have a law of capital in order to acquire another firm, so this will be calculated in your decision-making process. The reason why this information is good, firstly, is that it's good for the public to be aware of this information. That is to say, if you live in communities that are going to be near these stores or data centers, your energy prices might increase if they come in. 
+
+It's good for you to engage in local campaigning for your local politicians to create ordinances against these types of companies coming in. Secondly, I think it's really good for investors too, who might want to invest in this company after the merger acquisition, to know the implications of what they're getting into. Revealing all this information to the public is good for the company and for the market as a whole. 
+
+The second argument that I want to talk about is that we get more political will on our side of the house. I want to note that regulators do want to regulate because on their side of the house they might think that regulators are going to do this in a bad way. Firstly, the reason why they do so in a bad way in the status quo is that they have too narrow of a stick to adjudicate mergers and acquisitions. If it is the case that you can only assess mergers and acquisitions if they reduce competition and prices, it becomes a lot easier for a company to fudge the numbers and hire people to say that competitive prices are going to decrease. 
+
+But because we've seen a proliferation of M&As in 100 like 450 past year, the Department of Justice and the FTC currently do not have enough resources to investigate all of this. It is easy for mergers and acquisitions to go unnoticed. Secondly, they also have a revealed preference for doing this because, for instance, they want to get promoted, want more funding from Congress, and want to gain like more media attention for their agency. 
+
+Thirdly, because there is bipartisan support, this is why, for instance, a lot of people like Lisa Kahn, because Lisa is really harsh against tech. That's why we have support from conservatives. Because of this bipartisan support, we've seen a lot of like like like interest in this as a whole. The reason why this independently is not enough for them to block more M&As and acquisitions is that using this as a legal doctrine is too low. 
+
+The second argument i want to; The third argument I want to pause on in this speech is that all the comparative aspects are part of why this is far worse. On the comparative, it is far worse to get environmental accountability and privacy accountability on their side. The first reason behind this is that privacy laws and environmental laws lag behind the industry. For instance, laws regarding the protection of consumer welfare on like data and AI often catch up to the emerging technology in the status quo. 
+
+Things like environment, like the EPA and stuff like that, constantly get repealed in the status quo. like For instance, the "Halliburton loophole," which allows certain companies to not dispose of waste water properly, is something that was repealed by corporate interests. I'm going to prove to you why these types of regulations are not susceptible to these flaws, but before I continue I will take POI's, 
+
+<poi>
+Still haven't explain why to solve any of these problems like why does it helps the environment, why does it help with privacy, why does it help with things?
+</poi>
+
+So, The thing that I mentioned is that it's a preemptive measure. This is proactive; before the merger occurs, they have to prove using data studies and stuff like that to prove that there's going to be like like less environmental harm and stuff like that. So This happens before the MNA happens and then and then I'm going to prove to you why you now give like like courts more ability to have legal prosecution on our side of the house. 
+
+All right, So What happens on our side of the house. what we think happens is when regulators, by the way, when regulators like the DOJ and stuff like that like regulate M&As they are not susceptible to like acts and stuff like that. They get to create their own doctrine when they're trying to do this. So When these these like these rights get sued, if other companies think that this is weak, what happens is this goes through the court process and creates cases for future court decisions to be based on. 
+
+For instance, if a utility company gets sued, then the facts of that case can be applied to future court cases. The reason why this is important is because these doctrines provide future courts with a legal basis to determine this information. The third argument I want to posit—sorry, the impact of this is that, firstly, what happens is we get less M&As on our side of the house because the barriers to that is much higher. Therefore, you have to ensure that your information you put out there is accurate. Proud to propose.
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+This is a far worse, less important standard, and we can deal with this as a problem with the nature of other forms of direct regulation. If they want to argue that the state is weak and not enforcing direct regulation, those are the same weak states that will write this law incredibly badly, not to do the sets of things that they want to do, and instead to subvert democracy and make things worse. 
+
+Two arguments from the opposition: first of all, this massively freezes out investment in mergers and acquisitions, both of which are not good. Secondly, why this is a worse, less easy, and ultimately more harmful standard to aim for. Let's start with why this freezes out investment. 
+
+The first thing to say is that it massively broadens the scope of what can be used so the first primacy why does this mergers way up. Firstly this massively broadens the scope of what can be used to reject a merger. Secondly, that scope becomes nearly boundless because non-economic harms they nearly boundlessly categorization, and it is incredibly easy, even if there are codifications, to argue for further expansions of it. You can say well the combination of this right and this right implies this further right, this implied rights natural laws that we ought to care about. So it's incredibly easy to go further. 
+
+Thirdly, these are much more interpretable because they're a lot more about value trade-offs, which also means you raise the uncertainty because judge-specific risk is more specific; it's higher because particular judges are going to interpret this in many more different ways. Whereas judges at the moment, when it's a less subjective standard, would have more correlated views of how it works. 
+
+And it also shows the willingness of courts and of your legislators to continue to expand antitrust legislation into the future, which means that you're incredibly likely to have people think that mergers are less likely. Why is this a harm? First, because you get less mergers, and secondly, you get less initial investments. 
+
+Let's start with mergers. Obviously, when it's harder to get a merger approved, you're less likely to attempt that merger because there's a high level of investment that has to go into setting up a merger, finding a merger partner. You have to do things like due diligence, set it up; that is an incredibly high cost that you won't do. You might clear it sometimes, but on the margin, you're less likely to do it at the point where it's less likely to get through. 
+
+And we think that mergers are, on net, good because they lead to larger scale. It means you can operate more efficiently because you get economies of scale. It makes firms more durable to idiosyncratic market risks; they're less likely to go down, leaving consumers without goods and workers without jobs. It means that you can reach more consumers more easily, to have more scale. It means that you can invest more on net; you can do more innovation. 
+
+It means that profitable parts of the business can cross-subsidize non-profitable parts of those businesses. So, that means that these mergers are, on net, good. And I know that those mergers are likely to be pro-competitive for the reason, first of all, that under the consumer welfare standard, they wouldn't be let through if they were not brended. 
+
+This team may just not notice the fact that a merger has happened in almost every jurisdiction around the world and, in a few months in Australia as well, there's mandatory notification of the regulator when you reach a certain threshold. They're not going to ignore that from happening. 
+
+But secondly, I would argue that mergers are, on net, pro-competitive. The reason for that is that without mergers, you often get one or two large firms rise to the top, and then no one else is ever able to compete with them or grow to compete with them. If it's theoretical competition but I have 80% of the market and you're 2% of the market, you're never going to have the kind of economies of scale to be a reasonable competitor. 
+
+But when all the smaller firms can merge, they can then become reasonable competition. So, actually, mergers are a net pro-competitive. I'll also note that there's now an incentive for larger firms not to provide business-to-business goods that allow the fixing of those externalities that would allow smaller firms to merge. 
+
+So, take an example of this: Google letting you use their login on their website is really important for you being able to alleviate privacy concerns. But if Google knew that it would allow the small players in the market to merge, there might be a concern otherwise that they would have too much data and they would be privacy-concerned about it. 
+
+They wouldn't want to let those smaller players use that Google login, so they no longer want to provide goods that allow the amelioration of those externalities because they know that the minimization of those externalities makes it easier for them to be competitive with them. 
+
+So now we get more competition. And I'll also note that this now means that competition law becomes less popular on that side. First of all, because it's now making decisions about things that aren't universally agreed upon. Secondly, it's associated with the left, because under the status quo, the right can be pro-market but can say, "Oh, this is necessary for the market to function efficiently." 
+
+Whereas now you're saying we should trade off market efficiency for other outcomes, which makes it far less popular. It can also be framed as a form of corruption because you're using it as a political weapon, and you're now likely to have lots of people who lose their jobs and can make the argument that my job is traded off a fucking squirrels, tat makes competition less popular. 
+
+This means you're less likely to enforce in the first instance if they're worried about competition. We now get less investment into really important things, and if you don't do the initial investment, if you're worried you might not be able to merge or acquire, first, you often don't do the initial investment because you want to get bought out in the end. 
+
+You're more likely to be able to make your business bigger if, along the way, you can buy out other firms. So, the likelihood to merge means that my initial investment is worth less, which means I'm less likely to do that initial investment. Yes, 
+
+<poi>
+The issue is when these firms become too big to fail. You are unable to have these environmental and privacy regulations in the future because a few drops in the bucket produce large companies that need to have this proactive regulation. 
+</poi>
+
+Then you have large fines, like there are incredibly large fines that have been put against huge companies in the order of billions of dollars, or you just ban it; you send people to jail. Regulation doesn't always work. 
+
+One regulation has followed, come on, most debated argument in the world. The second argument: why is this a worse standard to aim for? Because when you're optimizing for their standard, you're optimizing for more things, you can less optimize for our standard of economic things. I'm going to explain why the economics is more important. 
+
+First of all, it's easier to be able to optimize for this; this is many more steps removed from the company, so you do the chain of causation is less certain. That makes all of the harms less speculative. It's also more dependent on exogenous outcomes that they can't control, so it's much harder to optimize. 
+
+And it's a values distinction, right? We don't—it's trivially good that cheaper prices and better quality are better for everyone, but this is about a series of value trade-offs, which makes it incredibly difficult to optimize for. 
+
+But even if we could optimize both equally, we would say that this is a more important standard because economic conditions are the most important thing to most people around the world living close to the poverty line. This matters to everyone, not just people who particularly care about privacy. 
+
+It matters to consumers; it matters to firms and their growth and their workers when they can get cheaper input goods. We can probably predict it much better on our side. We have things like market modeling; we have lots of super analogous examples. 
+
+We also get far better—oh, also know, we can, on our side, regulate out the set of things that they want to talk about. We can set a baseline; we can say you can't do these bad forms of price dumping. But you can't set a baseline for competition law because you're worried about price freezing out supply. 
+
+You can't set a baseline for how much innovation you have to do. And the next thing to say is that consumer law actually feeds into other things because the consumer standard feeds into other things. Because when goods are cheaper, consumers can more optimize for themselves what kind of privacy they want because they can discriminate between goods far easier when the cost of doing so is less. 
+
+Because economic development allows you to develop things that end up, in the future, contributing to those externalities. We also get less corruption on our side because they talk about democracy. I don't think it's a good idea that the government is able to make decisions about who can and cannot stay. 
+
+I think that the government shouldn't be making that decision. I think that in the worst cases, where democracy is actually under threat, that is incredibly likely to get weaponized in order to throw down your political enemies; that is a huge harm. 
+</lo>
+ 
+<dpm>
+Two questions in this speech. First, which side has—on which side is regulation more likely to be successful? And second, the side that provides the most impactful regulation on success OO makes a number of trades. 
+
+The first thing they say is that this makes mergers and acquisitions more difficult because it relies on a more nebulous legal standard and more nebulous legal reasoning. First, I want to point out that this does not interact with the material you get from Victor that explains why M&As are likely to be harmful in the first place at best with the symmetrizes this content. I will understand why they're particularly and why these arms are incredibly precious to individuals. But secondly, I just don't think this is true, right? I think many a time the legal system is able to establish legal standards for things like harm to the environment, harm to privacy, for example. It's easy to prove because we have a broad sense of what kind of data we don't want to be in the public domain or the kinds of data that we want to be in the hands of corporates. Crucially, I will flip this because the test for increased prices, for example, is vastly more speculative because it's a game of margins. Often, it's obvious when there's a violation of privacy, but with the advent of increased scrutiny on privacy due to things like artificial intelligence, like abortion legislation, and so on, this is likely going to improve over time. With prices
+
+What's different is that it is difficult for you to prove that the margin by which you reduce or increase prices is a margin that is likely to be consequential. Is a $1 increase enough? Is a $2 increase enough that sort of thing? They then say that a reduction in M&As is harmful in two ways. First, because on their side, in the absence of M&As companies, operate on a larger scale. I think this is harmful because already the companies that are able to engage in acquisitions in the first place are profoundly powerful customers. They have incredible influence over political systems; they make the economy incredibly dependent on them. Imagine the nature of companies that are engaging in these M&As. What happens if they consolidate? It supercharges the harm if you get our picture. 
+
+They then say that these companies become less vulnerable to shocks. I only think this is true for horizontal mergers, that is, cross-industry mergers. But I think in the majority of cases of this debate this likely deals with vertical mergers because this is where harm to antitrust is almost consequential. If you own the entire production line, it's an incredible stretch to antitrust standards and antitrust explanation. Lastly, I want to note that often the standard necessary to prove a harm under the consumer welfare standard is often very difficult to acquire at the point at which this regulation is happening. There are two reasons for this. First, businesses are often able to do things like price couch, particularly at the moment of the merger or the acquisition. They keep their prices very low at the beginning of their ownership and then influence the market. Then they drive these prices up. This means often you're not able to prove an immediate harm in court because the harms associated with monopolies are often harms that emerge over time. 
+
+This is important because this debate likely happens in Western countries that rely on a posterior legal system where it's impossible to preemptively litigate, or rather very difficult to preemptively litigate because courts are very focused on proving a degree of harm to consumers that they will never be able to prove. Secondly, though, businesses in court are often unable to make claims with respect to economies of scale that make it easier for them to claim that they will actually have the financial power to be able to do things like lower prices or increase quality and so on. The weighing of this is as follows: both sides must come to the agreement that the success of regulation is important. Companies will have extraordinary levels of power and influence in the places where this debate is likely to exist. There's an incentive to cap this power and influence as far as possible. 
+
+We think we do that best before The second question on impact for regulation; Cases 
+
+<poi>
+Just to clarify: do you agree that there will be a substantial increase in blocking of mergers and acquisitions on your side? 
+</poi>
+
+We think there will be a reasonable number of mergers and acquisitions on both sides. We think this debate should be premised on the fact that a finite number of mergers have been flagged. This is simply a question of, on both sides, we're litigating for the same mid-day, which is more likely to yield impactful regulation. Our side tells you that we make companies preemptively regulate in such a way that they're unlikely to do in the world of opposition. 
+
+Opposition says that economics are often the most important thing to consumers, but I want to be perfectly clear on a number of levels here. First, often consumers within the market are able to regulate for things that affect their economic conditions most directly. Consumers can see for themselves when prices have gone up. Consumers can see for themselves when quality has gone down. This is different for harms to democracy or harms to the environment because these are harms that often happen over a protracted period of time. Democratic backfighting doesn't happen overnight; it happens over a long period of time. These are harms that are very difficult for the immediate consumer to see for themselves. 
+
+This is precisely why we think the FTC and the DOJ need to be the ones to creatively point out these harms and try to prevent them. But secondly, I think there's a logical priority here because obviously economic conditions, the media, and consumers are reliant on things like the existence of a functional democracy. In the absence of democracy, you don't get the kinds of investment that you think are necessary to bring jobs and create employment for individuals. In the absence of a clean and healthy environment, you don't have, for example, a labor force that's equipped to go out into the workforce. You don't have, for example, the land that's necessary for the vast majority of economic activity in many parts of the world. 
+
+I want to weigh this in two ways. One, the places where this debate likely exists are places where harms to non-economic outcomes are under new scrutiny in a number of ways. In cases like the US and the EU, where right populists have gained power, where climate justice movements are on the rise, and where privacy issues due to things like the wars for the right to abortion and the regulation of AI connect these struggles in such a way as to raise political capital with this regulation. I think raising this capital is important because the comparative big companies are often able to market themselves as doing incredible things for the market. 
+
+Before AT&T and T-Mobile attempted to engage the merger in 2011, they flooded the market with advertisements about how much the cost of accessing, for example, the internet would go down and how incredible this would be for the immediate consumer. Often, we think it is necessary for you to be able to connect pre-existing movements for regulation in such a way as to raise political capital for the regulation of these M&As and for these businesses and their activities. But secondly, the harms associated with privacy, with democracy, and the environment often disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. Environmental harms, for example, ruin the lives of individuals on the ground. Indigenous people, for example, are disproportionately affected. In the world in which you harm the environment, harms to privacy disproportionately affect women, who in many instances have very limited access to their rights in the first place. They are likely to be disastrously affected, having their lives ruined by violations of this right. 
+
+Harm to democracy is often dangerous to the middle class because you take away the political capital that they often use as a check against the economic capital of the ruling class. This means most importantly that we think these kinds of harms should be prioritized because they are the most approximate to the median consumer. This has two consequences: what it means is that these are the kinds of harms that lead to consumers actually raising political capital for these mergers and for these acquisitions. But secondly, we fulfill an obligation to prioritize the most vulnerable individuals in a way that you would never be able to do on their side, in a way that makes us so incredibly proud to propose.
+</dpm> 
+
+<dlo>
+I talk generally about the biggest question. This, and I'll get into the specific claims made by the opposition. The most obvious question you need to ask in this is is trading of business growth, all these goals, environmental, privacy, and democratic protections actually work. This is central to whether you should empower these organizations against democracy through the will of judges deciding to do so. I only make two notes of back. Firstly, there's little to no proof from the opposition of how mergers and acquisitions actually result in these harms. They give a very, very small number of even examples of how this would occur.
+
+That should suggest to you that at best, I think this happens to a very small extent. Even if closing government let go off that significantly. Secondly there's also no proof of why causing these harms necessarily comes from a lack of competition. This is to say that a tech firm buying a data company can significantly harm the privacy of its users and of consumers in general, whilst being in a very competitive market. And that's important because it dramatically expands the scope of these regulatory bodies to consider often what is only mildly anticompetitive behavior to be something that is worth being shut down. So they're now acting beyond the scope of what they were previously tasked with.
+
+For the rest of this, I would now pretend as if they had proved both of those things to be true. And later, why is it not worth trading up business growth for these goals? Firstly, as we explained, these harms, not universally, are great harms in the first place. All people believe that harms to the environment are actually harmful. The idea that animals and trees actually matter as beings is something that I believe, but a lot of people may not. Maybe that's bad, but that's true of a lot of people. And even things like high costs, for example, a lot of people want companies to collect more data so that they can offer better services. Comparatively, higher costs are every election year a huge concern for consumers that everyone doesn't want because it objectively makes your life more expensive and more difficult.
+
+Secondly, even when they are agreed to be harmful, the trade-off is much more ambiguous than with consumer issues. Environmentalism, for example, is often a controversial issue. It's something that affects a small group of people, the people who live in that area that is being polluted at the benefit of everyone else who is able to access the resources. Whereas consumer protections affect everyone. Everyone who purchases that good bears that cost, and everyone in society bears the cost of less innovation and the decreased functionality of the products that are available.
+
+And thirdly, business growth is just very, very important. It gives people access to jobs and prevents businesses from going under. Often, the reason why acquisition or mergers occur is because those two businesses couldn't independently operate without this. It creates more efficiency, which again leads to more jobs. It helps the economy grow. It is substantially better than other alternatives. It's also more durable because it makes companies larger and therefore more resilient economically. So business growth should be valued as something that is important to people's lives as a moral concern, just like the moral concerns of environmentalism are important.
+
+The final thing that I want to prove here is that I am on the side of being overly valuing these kinds of protections, like protections of the environment and democracy over business concerns. Why is that true? Firstly, it's because they're appointed by politicians. Some politicians care a lot about business concerns, but others care a lot about the environment and about privacy and about those issues. For example, many left-wing governments value those things as being above and far more important than other things. Socialist governments, for example, value those things at the entire expense often of economic growth. These people will select deliberately judges that are most likely to be pro-environment when they engage in decision-making, which is popular around the world.
+
+Secondly, those judges are often unaccountable. They kind of cannot be removed because of the separation between the legislature and the courts, which means that when they make bad decisions or have a proven track record overly leaning towards environmentalism, it can be very difficult to review. That level of judicial activism is common around the world. For example, in Europe, there is extremely judicial activity, as well as in South America. This is a very common problem, but they think only about the law and whether it meets specific criteria in that proven level of harm.
+
+The environment, like I should believe, is this trade-off worth it in theory or in practice? But secondly, and arguably more importantly than that, this is clearly something better handled by governments and by democracy. If the trade-off is ambiguous and it's unclear whether it's worth it, you put it in the hands of people that are accountable to the public rather than unelected judges who do not have a mandate to do so.
+
+Let me just respond specifically to the claims made by this team. Their first claim is that this will lead to more data being released on the level of environmental concerns. They actively release that data. Firstly, there's no reason to believe they would freely release that data; they might store that data so they can later use it in court. It's unclear why they would make that data public unless mandated to do so. Secondly, equally, they might hide that data because if they have to prove that they were going to cause some harm to the environment or some harm to privacy, they can also just never show that data. So that if they were in court, you wouldn't be able to prove the merger decision is going to lead to that harm.
+
+Thirdly, collecting that data is a big expense. It slows down business because you have to do a lot more record-keeping and keeping track of that data, which means you do actually face a trade-off here, which in many cases isn't worth it. You don't need to do that because the merger or acquisition was fine in the first place. And finally, we think there are better ways to regulate this in the context of if you believe it is absolutely necessary.
+
+Next, this will lead to more political will to be controlled and pledged. This isn't the easiest flip in the world. Firstly, because these are much more ambiguous. Now, DPM explicitly says that issues like harms to the environment or harms to privacy or harms to democracy occur over very long periods of time and are things that consumers are unable to detect. Therefore, they must be in the hands of the FCC or other organizations. That is a concession that now the government also has to stand by. If you believe that's true, you must believe that consumers are unaware of why regulators are making these decisions, or at the very least, they are more skeptical of them.
+
+This means they see regulators blocking things that would create jobs, maintain business stability, and support growth at the expense of something they have not realized yet. Comparatively, other things are much more politically valuable, which is why those sensible levels of regulation get more support on our side. 
+
+But secondly, it's more politically unvaluable specifically to the right. These are obviously things that hug towards left issues, like privacy, democracy, and environmentalism. These are left issues, whereas specifically right-wing parties oppose them. The impact of this is probably that it's less popular in general to fund regulators, and specifically popular right parties to remove their money. That's important because when they have less funding, Yes
+
+<poi>
+Your case seems internally inconsistent. So that's majority of people care primarily about economics and politicians probably appoint people who don't go crazy far left woke and only
+care about environmental issues by your own characterization...
+</poi>
+
+Well the problem with that is there are different people in the world right some people prefer issues. others don't. we have left wing parties, right wing parties. our intention is left wing parties are in power, which obviously happens a lot around the world. they appoint police judges that cause a series of harms and if you believe that a right wing politician pointing right wing judges you should believe those judges will basically never implement your policy if they don't support that level. So, I don't think that really works. The impact here is when regulators are less funded they both do their job less  they do less regulation to do it worse which is that they select worse forms of regulation.
+
+The final thing I want to point out is the large amount of corruption that will likely occur as a result of this. This occurs at the individual level, where the regulators are captured by the government because it becomes substantially more in their interest to do political goals as well as those smaller financial goals. But also at the government level, where you get certain firms wanting to influence politicians so the appointments will be biased in certain directions. This is bad for competition; it's extremely corrupt, and it decreases people's trust in the government. So, extremely harmful. Vey proud to oppose.
+</dlo>
+
+<mo>
+The main problem with the top half is the problem of characterizing the types of cases where the consumer welfare standard differs from the citizen welfare standard. The answer from closing government is relatively straightforward. The clearest example where this debate meaningfully differs is the example of large tech corporations like Google, Microsoft, AI, etc. Why is this where the debate realistically occurs? Three reasons. First, large tech companies are naturally highly consolidated due to network effects. For example, there is often a consolidation of large numbers of people onto a small number of social media platforms, which means that these industries are often large. But more importantly, the reason the consumer welfare standard cannot apply to these platforms, even though they are particularly large and consolidated, is because the vast majority of services provided by large tech companies are either free to use or very low cost. For example, no one has to pay money to Google Search; no one has to pay money to use OpenAI for service. The consequence is that the consumer welfare standard is completely unable to address consolidation in large tech companies.
+
+The other reason the consumer welfare standard does not work in the context of large tech corporations is because the perception, especially amongst the non-tech world, is that large tech companies are enormously innovative and job-creating. Most people think of Google, Microsoft, or Amazon as highly innovative, which means it's very difficult for a judge to argue we should break up Google or spin off OpenAI from Microsoft because the perception is that there is not a lack of innovation in the status quo.
+
+I want to be very clear about why this framing is important. Opening opposition runs a very scary doomsday case about what happens when judges start blocking mergers left, right, and center. But no, that's not what's going to happen under this debate. Why? Because on both sides of the house, you will only block mergers and acquisitions in cases where the increased competition would pose a meaningful threat to the environment, to security, to data, etc. The problem is that most other industries are not highly concentrated, which means that the merger between two relatively small automobile manufacturing companies has a relatively limited effect on the environment or a relatively limited effect on privacy.
+
+Whereas the much more important part of the debate is the context of tech companies, which is why, for example, Lina Khan—it's not Lisa Khan, by the way—is so in favor of our policy because she wants increased capacity to go after large tech companies.
+
+The other reason this is important is it answers opening opposition's challenge: "Oh, a fair claim. Why can't we just regulate these companies? Why do we need antitrust?" This is the burden closing opposition will fill that puts us over opening government. You cannot regulate big tech companies for three reasons. Reason number one: governments are structurally unable to regulate tech. This is because the vast majority of politicians are old; they're boomers. They often don't understand how tech companies work. Like, have you all seen that hearing where they literally asked Facebook what the hell an algorithm was or what a phone looks like? The problem is, given that you need power, money, and connections to be in politics, the people tasked with regulating big tech are often incompetent.
+
+Secondly, the pace of advancement in AI is far faster than the pace of advancement in legislators. No government can keep up with this. This is a one-liner PM, but here's the real reason why the legislative process is slow: it involves horse trading. You have lots of discussions between lots of different parties. By contrast, tech advancement happens rapidly because it's naturally self-fulfilling. When one company, for example, develops a better AI algorithm, another company incorporates the algorithm into its products and advances its own rate of advancement. This means you can never legislate as fast as the tech sector advances.
+
+Reason number three: governments do not regulate tech because of fears of regulatory arbitrage. The reason the United States will never strictly regulate AI is fear that if you tightly regulate AI, AI companies will flow elsewhere, for example, into less regulated districts. This answers the problem that opening government does not solve. Why is antitrust specifically necessary? It's because regulation is insufficient.
+
+The other reason this framing is important is because it frames out opening opposition's concerns about mergers and acquisitions. Why is that? Because these industries are already highly concentrated, so the additional marginal benefit of further economies of scale is relatively limited. Like, genuine question: these are trillion-dollar companies. Why do you need even more mergers and acquisitions to get the economy of scale opening opposition is talking about? Therefore, this is mostly a debate about utilizing the consumer welfare standard to enforce antitrust legislation against companies like Microsoft and Facebook.
+
+What does this look like in practice? To be clear, I just want to be very clear about this before someone strawmans us: our argument is not that we will break up all big tech companies everywhere in the world and they will all go to smithereens. Our claim, more sensibly, is that there is a higher probability under our side that you do things like spin off OpenAI from Microsoft, that you, for example, sever WhatsApp from Facebook. And even if you don't split companies off, you are more likely to impose antitrust penalties or fines on these companies in cases where they could engage in anti-competitive behaviors.
+
+Why is this valuable? Three reasons for closing government. Reason number one: large tech companies constitute an existential threat to democracy. The platform of Facebook literally has more users than the entirety of the Catholic Church, and this is a problem for two reasons. Reason number one: large tech companies have enormous access to data. The reason this is bad is not necessarily just because of privacy; it's because when you have data from many different platforms—for example, Facebook has your data from WhatsApp but also from a social media platform—you can then increase the effectiveness of algorithms to increasingly manipulate people's political preferences to run more targeted advertising. See Cambridge Analytica. There are strong political incentives to do this because large tech corporations do stand to benefit from influencing political outcomes, especially in developing countries where the regulatory system is relatively weak.
+
+But secondly, it often happens that these companies control what information people are exposed to. They'll say, "Ah, but there's competition between different social media companies." But there's an oligopoly at play: a small number of social media firms and a small number of platforms. This means that the algorithms you are exposed to shape your political view. This means on our side of the house, even if we don't break up social media, we are more likely to have threats of antitrust penalties enforced against these companies that incentivize them to do things like moderate their algorithms to ensure that you see less sensationalist, hateful content. See the Burmese genocide and the literal provocation by hanging over on Facebook. OO
+
+<poi>
+The big tech companies are enormously productive, which we explain is on externalities because better technology grows unpredictably. Things help the environment, like energy technology, through cross-consumption...
+</poi>
+
+But there's an unproven claim here: why do you need the extra large economy of scale? We'll flip this: there are huge diseconomies of scale. The larger and larger a company is, for example, there are huge communication inefficiencies across the corporation. You are more efficient on our side of the house. Just to be clear, if you spin OpenAI off from Microsoft, OpenAI is still a multi-hundred billion dollar company. The benefit is you do not have the enormous inefficiencies that come from operating a vast company.
+
+Reason number two: we are more likely to get innovation on our side of the house. Why is that? First, you're more likely to get lending to smaller companies when the perception amongst investors is that smaller tech companies now have a viable chance because they will not immediately be killed or sued into the ground by a large company, like it's often engaged in patent evergreening and patent trolling to crush competition. There is now a credible threat that large companies might be broken up, which incentivizes increased capital flows to smaller firms.
+
+Reason number two: smaller companies are more able to access the crucial resources that are needed for innovation—like data, like power sources and electricity, like rare earth elements—which are currently monopolized by large tech companies. If small tech companies cannot get their hands on the data, they'll never build the groundbreaking AI they can if we use antitrust. Propose.
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+Two things in the speech. Firstly, I want to vertically explain why larger Companies are more important economically. Secondly, I want to talk more about why regulation is better on the house and why it’s important to have skill larger companies actually abide by regulation and also follow the social good in the first place. So first on economics, I want to begin by explaining why the blocking of mergers and acquisitions are going to be overused on the opposition's side of the house. I know this is a less contentious word, but I also want to respond to the government POI about why judges are going to consider economics and err on the side of caution in this instance. 
+
+I think the reason judges aren't going to care to some extent about economic interests is because oftentimes, in terms of the way the government is going to appoint judges, there is a conflict of interest. The premise of this argument is that the government has an incentive to win the case that they bring to court. This is a PR incentive. You want to look more successful; you don’t want to look like a failure, and you’re wasting resources by pursuing cases against companies that are ultimately going to fail. But we have financial interests as the state as well because often the state receives the settlement money from cases. This money can be used to, for example, fund other services for the people, which improves their democratic popularity. 
+
+We can have incentives in these cases. What is the implication of this? The implication here is that it means that states have incentives to appoint judges with similar ideological interests conceptualizing what the social good is. So when they bring cases to the FTC, the judges that exist are likely to actually approve the cases and block the mergers and acquisitions, which also unlocks a meaningful amount of the Ocas on the margins about why this is going to be done and an overly large amount of cases. 
+
+In response to the government, what are the actual harms of this? The first thing I want to do is explain why economies of scale are actually important for lowering costs. The government just says in a single line that they get economies of scale. This means they have efficiency, which lowers prices. These are just words; let me explain what economies of scale mean or actually do. I want to walk through why economies of scale actually meaningfully lower costs. 
+
+So the premise is that capital is a fixed cost. So when companies want to produce, they also have to invest in fixed capital, which takes a substantial amount of money. The difference now is they don’t have to duplicate capital across firms. If you save a significant amount of development costs, we can increase production nonlinearly to the amount of capital. But furthermore, you can also optimize for the best resources different companies have. 
+
+So Company A has very good and efficient manufacturing capital, but Company B has more efficient resources for innovation in other areas. You can use the best resources from each company to combine them. You can have better capital allocation, and you can actually have a company that is working more efficiently because the technology they have access to is better. 
+
+Secondly, I want to explain why we also get better innovation because again, the government fails to explain why larger companies are actually needed to get more innovation, saying that bigger firms are doing more research because the total money in an industry stays the same. They don’t explain why having it all consolidated is uniquely important. 
+
+So I think that, firstly, similar to the economy, research has upfront costs where you have to invest in R&D. Most critically, R&D is often incredibly speculative and risky. I can put a lot of money into research and development, but it can all just go to waste if it produces nothing in the end. You have to have a larger pool of capital to really take the risk in the first place when companies merge together. 
+
+Secondly, it’s important for innovation because you get more talent and knowledge sharing across companies. When the most talented workers, innovators, and researchers from two different companies can come together and share knowledge and resources, they can also, for example, share company secrets and engage in industry research as well, which allows these two firms to combine their knowledge and engage in innovation in this way. 
+
+Thirdly, it’s important for innovation because larger firms can also borrow at lower interest rates because they are often perceived as more stable and less risky to go under because they have more capital to work with. This is important because if you’re perceived as more safe, you can borrow at lower interest rates. Interest rates from loans are often seen as insulation against the risk of default. If you’re seen as being less risky, you have less need to insulate against this risk in the first place, so you can have lower interest rates. 
+
+Similarly, for example, bonds are higher; it’s easier to raise money, and yields are lower because you’re perceived as safer as well. Finally, the last economic thing I want to add, which is completely distinct from the opening conference, is that companies also have less incentive to want to expand as a company as well. This also applies to things like trust-busting and breaking up companies. 
+
+I think the government also put forth their characterization, and the reason this is because of an incentive to not want to expand as a company is because oftentimes you’re uniquely afraid of, for example, being busted because of all the reasons given about why this is going to be overused. The reason that you risk being broken up as a company outweighs your other financial incentives to want to expand. 
+
+Similarly, expansion carries some risks. When you break into unknown markets, if you fail to adapt to the market, all of your money can go to waste. So this becomes a unique tipping point to not want to undertake the process of trying to expand into other markets and make more profit if you think you’re going to be broken up in the process. Even when you expand, the profits are no longer worth the risk when you actually have increasing threats of being broken up as a company. 
+
+This uniquely harms underdeveloped regions. After this, I think all the need to be expanded to are emerging markets that currently don’t have businesses to neglect, the significant part of the world that currently does not have access to goods and services. Opening 
+
+<poi>
+Companies can grow in the absence of mergers and acquisitions, but M&A as a mode of growth often comes with massive layoffs to thousands of workers, dips in productivity, and the process of aligning business activities can also lead to mergers and acquisitions.
+</poi>
+
+Because the reason you want to use M&A in the first place is you know have the necessary resources to grow in the market. It’s not what the CG says; we have economies of scale. If you’re like economies of scale, you’re not going to have the same trade-off and regulation. 
+
+So I want to first begin by explaining why scale is actually important by abiding by the social goods. This is because it’s often not profitable to abide by these social goods. For example, having less profit means you have to spend money on lawyers to make sure you’re compliant with regulation in the first place. You can’t produce as efficiently, and this is generally not profitable; therefore, you only have an incentive to want to do things like, for example, care about the environment if you have enough money to do so. 
+
+Companies have incentives for regulation, but I also want to respond to government arguments. I think, firstly, citizens themselves have a growing demand in many democratic countries. For example, if they want to, they can protest or boycott companies with bad environmental or social practices. These protests, even if they don’t directly harm company profits, create enough unrest that the shareholders that deterred from investment as well, which means this instability is also bad, even if we boycotts themselves are not very effective. 
+
+I think shareholders have many other incentives to care about as well. Often, for example, oil is becoming increasingly volatile, making it more sustainable in the long term. This is also bad for shareholders, even if the company can survive it, as it harms, for example, the profit and the amount of equity or dividends a shareholder can have. Companies have separate incentives to care about regulation, which proves that companies self-regulate even if all the incentives that the CG outlined about why imposing regulation is very hard are true. 
+
+I want to explain finally why this upregulation exists. I think the reason this regulation stops existing in other houses is that voters start to become complacent and trust in being safe is insufficient. This means that we have single-issue voters on the idea of imposing regulations in the first place.
+which me have less broad regulations, which is bad. Regulations apply to all companies. This is a more important impact on this for all these reasons we oppose.
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+So this debate is not a debate about whether antitrust is good or bad. As for both the OO and CO case, which is the biggest problem on their case because their met is our standard results in more enforcement, and that's bad. Our exception being this: we explain to you why this doesn't actually apply to the vast majority of cases that both auctions want to talk about. 
+
+This is largely a debate about how we want to regulate and how we want to curb the growth and anti-competitive expansion of large tech companies. That immediately minimizes all of the impacts that both teams want to talk about. More importantly, I don't think it's very fair the way this characterize your exception. Our argument isn't just about threatening democracy; it's also about innovation. 
+
+We give you three independent reasons why we get more innovation on side CG. First, more investments into smaller tech companies that are currently prohibited due to these large companies' dominance. They buy out these smaller companies before they can even grow in the first place. Second, we reduce diseconomies of scale, which produces efficiency in tech companies at large. Third, there's a greater ability to innovate for smaller firms. They can access things like data, power, and rare earth minerals, which are often incredibly important and crucial for startups. 
+
+For these companies to make sure the product can even get off the ground in the first place, there is no response detriment from their side. Two questions: first, let's talk about M&A and investments because that seems to be the only thing both sides want to talk about. Obviously, that has spin-off things like innovation, economies of scale, ya ya. The second thing is about how this regulation happens, who you appoint. 
+
+Now, the first thing that M&A investment says, whether these large companies are good or bad, there are two ways to actually take out this argument. As long as I prove either one is true, the argument is out. The first is M&As don't actually significantly reduce, or this debate isn't about that, so the impact is minimal. The second way is large companies are just not good, so we're fine even if M&A goes down. 
+
+Method one: the vast majority of mergers outside of all the reasons that has already given why they're not relevant in this round that happen are small-scale mergers. Increasingly, if you read reports from places like The Economist or companies like Bank of America, you realize that most mergers currently engaged right now across the world, including Europe, are small hat mergers. 
+
+Because why? One, you tend to be able to increase your deal flow more, and two, often they're easier to negotiate within a shorter amount of time. Because often, guess what? Mergers and acquisitions are really negotiation-heavy and costly, because often companies can't agree on the same price. Third, they often require lower costs in general. 
+
+What this means is that it's just empirically untrue that the majority of mergers right now are large. Often, they get so large to the point where you have these concerns in the very first place. This isn't a nice way, and like because OG CL, the M&A goes down. 
+
+Oh, to Pro, our CL is the scale that isn't nearly as large as the either team wants to say. Also, case not applicable, all my friends. But no, no, no, let's take the case of their very best. This is not about whether it actually goes down, but a perception problem. 
+
+So there's the fear from investors of uncertainty, but the large companies that tend to be implicated in anti-competitive mergers—think companies like Walmart, like Google, like Meta—are companies that are probably quite lucrative investments regardless. This is Google already having weights in Gemini. 
+
+This is Microsoft rolling up the Microsoft Go pilot program to increase coding efficiency. These are companies with long track records and relatively high levels of performance. So at best, I think the impact is very, very minimal on their side. 
+
+The second thing, the second way argument is that large companies, especially tech companies, are terrible as our case because, um, all the places, things like economies of scale are good; they're able to have upfront investments, and they can borrow at lower rates. 
+
+So like, OO says these words, CO says it slightly fancier terms. Like, I don't know to what extent you want to credit the two sides; it doesn't really affect our argument. So we don't disagree with the fact that obviously there are some benefits that come from having a larger company. 
+
+Our argument is comparative. This is why we don't care as much about those benefits as the part that actually harms. So even if we believe everything that CO says about how, and also OO about how economies of scale happen, like with terms of upfront capital and fixed capital—which, by the way, isn't a really good explanation of the case either—we argue the end outcome and benefit for people is small. 
+
+So clearly, there are some benefits and power, but the importance of this is intensified harms with a group of people versus very diffused and speculative benefits that CG uniquely foresees. 
+
+So yes, 30,000 people in China will die in cancer villages and live out because the Apple factories have dumped toxic chemical waste there for years and decades. So maybe the 1 million iPhone buyers every year can save five bucks each or have a slightly clearer camera. 
+
+The reason why we care about the former group of people who face intensified harms so much is for three reasons. One, there is a greater degree of harm per person. This matters more because it substantially affects their lives more. This is their health and life or death, whereas for the other person, it's inconvenient. You can't buy, I don't know, an extra burger for lunch or something, and I don't really care about the second group. 
+
+No, but also, second, those who are often intensely harmed face other disadvantages in their lives, which means it's hard for them to voice out their concerns. So, for example, if you live in a cancer village or if you live in really poor places, you don't have the ability to voice out; you don't have the ability to try to push for change. 
+
+But third, lower pricing also takes a long time to kick in and often has to grow through many stages of the supply chain. So often you have to take a cut at every level, and often it kind of trickles to the consumer. They don't actually face that much of a price cut, so you don't actually improve consumer welfare by that much, but you also don't have browsers to these companies. 
+
+Therefore, what this means is that most of the benefits you want to talk about may exist, but we already cannot be outweighed by the sheer harm that we provide on our side of the house. These things are going to happen in most parts. 
+
+Secondly, let's talk about the politicization of the FSC and regulatory bodies. Things like their leftists—you can see them as corrupt, they're political—then you have to select like really harsh regulators, which means less enforcement for regulation. 
+
+<poi>
+lots of firms outside of tech, externalities, and concentration applies to them too. And OB isn't about how much antitrust is saying; it's more of a chilling effect because of higher risk. Last time we asked about cross subsidization and got to respond on economies of scale, you responded precisely to what I've asked.
+</poi>
+
+Look, the biggest profit in competitive behavior, respectfully, has always been in big tech. If you read the recent news, but if it's like, if it's not big tech companies, fine. If you're polluting rivers and killing people, we find you should also get punished on your side of the house. 
+
+Second, breaking up big is bipartisan by most part. Judge the left thinks it's anti-competitive; the right thinks it’s really bad. I don't know what issue they have on off. 
+
+Second, there's a game disincentive to politicize antitrust bodies by the tech because for the very reason that often if one company can do it, the other company feels they lose out. So there's a collective collusion to decide not to do it. 
+
+Third, courts are likely to be reasonable because they don't want to scare away any investment in companies too, because often they realize if that is the case, they lose the exact funding that they actually want, as per the opposition case. 
+
+But even if you don't believe any of these reasons, our argumentation is that fine, maybe you let cage regulators, but at best we think the harm of that is not nearly as large compared to what we before on Raya's case. Very proud to propose.
+</gw>
+
+<ow>
+Consumers saving money on a smartphone means they spend on other goods, creating jobs for low-income workers. who wouldn't have jobs otherwise and wouldn't have the money to access healthcare. Technological innovation is more than that, though. Companies engaging in technological innovation have been the driver of economic growth for the past centuries, and economic growth improves living standards. It gives societies the resources and tax revenue they need to invest in clean technology. A lot of these companies are investing in clean technology.
+
+Antitrust enforcement, in order to help the environment, has often been used to block consolidation in the green energy sector on the basis that, potentially, this helps the green energy sector develop. This prevents oil companies from taking up patents, but oil companies investing in the green energy sector is critical to ensure solar panels get developed in time. These are large impacts, and these are concentrated impacts.
+
+Here's the problem with arguments about health, life and death, and environmental harms: their mechanism for antitrust helping is literally that antitrust will punish these companies, which causes them to not do this. We have another mechanism of punishing companies this way: fines. Regulations work in the specific context that antitrust wants to regulate. Because all arguments about not adapting your technology don't apply that way, that just regulates firms engaging in things like environmental damage, which is deterring them by using antitrust to break them up.
+
+This form of deterrence is better accomplished through targeted regulation. Now, I want to address their specific arguments on why this is primarily about innovation and what the harm in tech is. The first claim they make is more innovation. They say there is more lending for smaller tech companies because they won't be killed by a large company. Flip this argument: small tech depends on big tech. 
+
+There are a number of reasons why antitrust enforcement that blocks mergers and acquisitions that tech companies engage in ensures small tech companies can't develop and can't innovate. Reason one: big tech can potentially buy up small tech firms. Small tech companies struggle to compete precisely because of the network effects that big tech makes. If you start a social media company, investors are going to be terrified to invest in you. Why? Because a social media company needs lots of users, but users are attracted by other users already being present on the platform. 
+
+This deters investors from wanting to invest in a small tech company, even if it creates a social media company that has a critical new innovation that people want to access. However, investors will invest in a small tech company if they realize that this new innovation is also something a big social media platform that has users in use, for example, Facebook, can buy. WhatsApp led to the initial investment in WhatsApp. 
+
+That for a social media company that was a messaging platform, or even if the company's media platform itself doesn't get used, the innovations that it creates can be leased out to big tech firms because big tech firms want the innovation from them. This is also why they want to simply block out these firms or prevent them from existing or run them into the ground using lawsuits. Because if it's right, small tech firms have some advantages. For example, they don't suffer from diseconomies of scale. 
+
+Big tech firms want to use those advantages for their own consumer markets, and the way they use those advantages is by giving them money to lease technology from them, which is why they don't just run these companies into the ground. This means small companies have some advantages, but these advantages depend on getting investment, and this investment depends on the existence of large tech corporations. This is why the greatest political advocates for small tech in the U.S., people like Mark and VCs like Andreessen Horowitz, oppose antitrust enforcement on big tech companies.
+
+Their second mechanism is democracy: that aggregation allows you access to data, and this poses a threat to democracy. The first argument here I want to flip is that there is a greater risk of social media companies trying to influence politics on their side of the house for two structural reasons. One, currently social media companies face substantial amounts of PR pressure and do not interfere in democracy. This is particularly large in firms like Facebook. Facebook lost substantial amounts and breached public relations standards as a direct result of their contribution to the Rohingya genocide and the Cambridge Analytica scandal, facing being grilled in Congress and activist investors dropping Facebook stock. 
+
+Facebook's stock dropped so sharply after the 2016 election, which created substantial pressure on Facebook to try to seem politically neutral and project political neutrality. However, this calculus changes for Facebook in a world where they believe antitrust regulators are more likely to be after them because then they want to influence governments to prevent over-aggressive regulations of their industries. 
+
+You preempt the act before antitrust enforcers can get to you to do things like misuse user data. But second, they don't actually explain why antitrust enforcement works in this space. Because suppose you break Facebook up into a bunch of different social media companies. Their own network effects mechanism proves that a lot of the users will still stay on Facebook. So you break Facebook up into multiple companies; a bunch of users go to the other platforms, but they realize other users aren't following them into these platforms, so they go back onto Facebook.
+
+The rise of newer and smaller tech companies in response to Facebook antitrust likely increases political influence. Why? Because smaller tech companies, in order to survive, are the ones that do survive at the end of an antitrust lawsuit. They are the ones who are likely to attract a lot of users. For example, the only one that will survive when you split Facebook and WhatsApp up is WhatsApp, which will keep all its users, and a bunch of users will use both WhatsApp and Facebook. 
+
+Here's a distinction, however: when a bunch of users use both WhatsApp and Facebook but they have different owners or new owners who face less public scrutiny because they are smaller companies, once they have been broken up, you're more likely to have owners who want to use the social media platform to push a political agenda. This is what happened with Parler, which is the social media platform much smaller than any of the platforms Facebook owns. It is the one that was actually politicized in the 2016 election. 
+
+No, thank you. This is why the regulation does actually work at accomplishing the objectives they want; however, it does hurt innovation. And here I want to explain why other industries are also meaningfully affected by this standard. Because their argument is basically that these industries aren't very concentrated, so they have less of an influence. So it's unlucky that regulators who get that. before that opening. 
+
+<poi>
+Even if you prove that more mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are good, this debate is also about regulations of general business conduct...
+</poi>
+
+Ya ya ya, And the regulation of general business conduct one-stop mergers and acquisitions, two, splitting companies apart, three, punishing behavior that attempts to get firms to expand or become larger, or cover a larger number of industries or diversify in these sectors. So that's the reason why M&A being there doesn't affect our case. 
+
+Because other kinds of business conduct are also affected. Why is it unlucky that other industries are also overwhelmingly affected? One, if it's a less concentrated industry, antitrust is more likely to be a threat to democracy because it means a single large company has some potential capacity to lobby while other firms don't have it, and therefore the large company uses lobbying in order to influence other firms. 
+
+Second, if it's a less concentrated industry, you're more able to fight an antitrust case. Regulators want wins, and antitrust cases give them access to settlements, which is why they try to get wins. Third, many of the specific impacts are relevant, like environmental protection standards or media companies for the use of the standard against ABC. 
+
+In this context, I want to be crystal clear: you get way too much of this because the opening opposition's justification is that you might get some office judges; you might get some conservative judges. Here's the problem, as my point out, unpopularity might limit that. This is why business extension comes in: there is a conflict of interest. The government appoints judges, but it gets money by building antitrust cases through antitrust settlements. 
+
+This conflict of interest results in over-policing, and this is where the impacts come in. We explained the argument on economies of scale, a larger impact than cross-subsidization, because cross-subsidization might lower prices in one bloated, unproductive industry, while economies of scale lead to lower prices for every single consumer good and create jobs in a lot company to expand. Propose.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/The Natolin European Round Robin Debating Championships Round 1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+Motion: This house would attend the Queer Liberation March rather than the Stonewall50 March.
+
+<pm>
+PM Speech Transcript:
+is the motion for this round is this house will attend queer liberation March, rather than the Stonewall50 March,
+Any movement of political organization is about offering unique benefits that could be achieved through other venues of discussion. Within the stone wall 50 March has lost its core political character and is providing benefits regarding benefits that are no longer exclusive in the modern era. After this debate is like a society, but specifically the LGBTQ community in which in March they should attend and pour their resources in too. 
+And as I highlight, the key strategic effect of this debate is about the unique benefits or harms occurred by each of the different prior marches, and why ours is preferable to Stonewall50. The argument I'm going to make is that it makes political messaging and perception better than on the OP comparative, that it undermines Clyde's key role when it is so banal and non-political in an attempt for mass appeal, and prevents better action from taking place in the long run. 
+So on that argument of politics and messaging, the thesis of this argument is that Stonewall50 is worse or compared to the queer liberation marks at getting unique benefits. What are the unique benefits we think that Pride marches should provide? Firstly, it's about organizing the community towards external policy based goals that will improve the lives of the queer community around the world. This is what the stone Wall mark originally was about, about protesting police treatment of the LGBTQ community, about protesting policy that harmed them from the state, and organizing politically to address that. But secondly, it's meant to provide a venue to learn about LGBTQ history, to highlight the horrible things that happened to them in the past and are continuing to this day. And thirdly, it's to highlight that acceptance and tolerance is not enough, that it's not enough to just tolerate somebody who is different from you. You should go further to create a world in which it is easier for them to live, where they are given the policy benefits that need to help them. Why does the Stonewall March fail in achieving these particular things?
+Firstly, it has no clear political message. Why is this the case for structural reasons? Firstly, in order to have mass appeal to the wider society, it has watered down its political message to the point of non-existence. At the point of which you want to get straight people to attend the march. You can't really do that when the march is focused on saying that straight, heteronormative society is a problem and something that we need to attack. When you're trying to get corporations into the march, highlighting anti LGBTQ policies in corporate hiring is not something that is going to likely get them to show up. So by attempting to get mass appeal, whether you've done that, has made it less political, made an excuse to have a party and seeing fun rather than something that's actually going to further the political ambitions of the LGBTQ community. But secondly, corporations have a structural incentive to have it be less political. Why is that the case? Because you're a corporation, you have many consumer bases that you want to cater to. One of them is the LGBTQ community, but others are more right wing or conservative individuals who have you attached yourself to an explicitly political LGBTQ message are less likely to be willing to buy your product or willing to get backlash from your consumers. What you attach yourself to is so actively political, so corporations have an incentive to fund the Pride marches that are more moderate, to push those more than actively political things, to attempt to convince the organizers that having a more moderate margin thing that they should particularly achieve. 
+Why is this so particularly harmful? Firstly, it abdicates one of prides key historical functions, which is a ground for political organization to discuss within the LGBTQ community what we need, what will allow us to push forward into the future and create a better role. Those key political functions of organization and activism, of creating that activist culture are undermined when pride has lost that key political function of organization but moreover. It's not just the internal political organization of the community, but the application of a key platform, the key area, and a place where you can distribute your ideology, where you have marches in the street, they're actively political and able to distribute information, someone that the public has no choice but to pay attention to, because of its publicity and because of its wide presence. So the application of that key political platform, because of the non political measure of the Stonewall 50 March, is particularly harmful. 
+The second reason why I think it has failed its goals is that the presence of non members of the LGBTQ community make it actively exclusionary to certain individuals. There are members of the LGBTQ community who are actively oppressed by the police, who are members of ethnic minorities, who are trans and thus more likely to be the target of police violence and abuse, these groups are less likely to be involved and actively participate in your activism at the point where you are including actors in the March who they see as antithetical to them. And this doesn't just have effects within the LGBTQ community, but it has effects between the LGBTQ community and other left wing activist organizations. There was a massive fight between Black Lives Matter and Pride marches because Pride marches were allowed police to march in their activities. 
+The reason why this is so harmful is when activist movements are able to band together to have unity and support across intersectional characteristics, that's when you have a broader base of support to get political exchange, and you have allies with other organizations who are more willing to help and assist you, but when you include actors in the March who are antithetical to them, That's when you're less likely to get that political organization and political support that is so crucial for getting changed. 
+Why is the queer liberation March particularly better? Personally, there is more political discussion. You don't need to water down your message for mass appeal. You don't have the issue of sponsorship and corporations who often prevent you from having an active political message. Yes, 
+
+
+<poi>
+talked a lot about messages getting water down. Maybe it would help if you like explain some of those messages that you think not currently out really think come out these messages.
+</poi>
+
+so I think a couple of things. One, highlighting that tolerance isn't enough and you need active political change in order to get policy highlight the problems with trans community faces that is often left out of priorities because it's too political and too controversial, highlighting how corporations often have systemic and homophobic cultures that doesn't get adequately highlighted. Matt would be happy to talk about that a lot more. 
+Secondly, will be more community focused. The fact that this will be less allies, or less just random people from the general population means that you're more likely to have an internal discussion within the LGBT community, which allows you to create an internal conception of what we need, what you particularly want and desire. 
+Lastly, I want to make one argument about perception, because the Pride March effectively become an excuse for a party, a demonstration of hedonism, because that's one of the ways they attempted to have mass appeal. But this perception of hedonism of the Stonewall50 March is harmful for perception, because it feeds into stereotypes of the LGBTQ community as degenerates, as people who are doing extreme activities beyond the realm of what are socially acceptable in that society, and it removes them from being an active political force that the population of political actors should be concerned with Stonewall50 doesn't offer the unique benefits that pride should be able to provide the queer liberation March does it should impact proud to pose.
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+The basis of opposition is really clear. We will first tell you why is progression still not to include more individuals to the Q lib has traditionally attracted, and why that's better than structurally happening at the moment. But second, we'll tell you what values do individuals ordinarily subscribe to, and why that is incoherent with the movement as the Q lib in a way in which is manifest over the past two years before your conception. The last thing we'll do is tell you why protests attend this form of protesting change, and why the other attending say, Q lib just makes individuals, or intercept communities highly bad, queer, LGBT individuals more worse off as a. Result of this 
+first, I think it’s important to characterize Q lib beyond just what said. Because, true, it's not politically there is no police support, but the result of that has been pretty atrocious in the sense that oftentimes these marches have become violent, they divisive in the way in which they concentrate their efforts and its political message. To put it in a euphemistic way, that trenten is oftentimes very singular that oftentimes excludes a lot of individuals from participating. And so in that sense, what we argue is that there's one class of it, the other class of it is not as common. That is, you can't find your own community to march with in as many areas as you could with total this extremely important framing, because it means any sort of movement isn't just the contingent on savior, clear message that it brings, but also the ability of which it is to spread awareness and stop individuals from voting against LGBT interests. 
+The first thing, why is Stonewall better? Now, I think there are few changes that they realized over the few years. The first is in 2017 where they changed the prime police individuals to protect Gay Pride marches as black cops, because it was a fair of, say, black LGBT individuals getting police reviews from individuals there. The second thing was that they organized specific queer POC movements and leaders who have formed the leaders of those white marches due to a growing trend of maximizing participation. There are three reasons why that's the case. The first reason, the first structured reason, why football has changed for the better, is because oftentimes the mainstream, rare interest in American is like gay marriage for the largest part, has shifted, and that has been fulfilled. And so I shifted to more intersectional concerns, especially the rise of more intersection concerns and Black Lives Matter the second, the second is in an attempt to capitalize on more niche markets, given that the mainstream market has been capitalized very efficiently, they need to appeal to individuals who otherwise been on the outlandish on the outskirts of the community. The third is that a huge criticism of the LGBT media, its association of bad corporations, that meant that the movement in itself has tried to influence corporations relations sponsors. So the relationship isn't necessarily one dimensional that is the that is Stonewall50 has that increasing effort to get corporations to reform in areas where their profits are dependent on, say, a lot are partly dependent on, say, the advertising on that particular platform. And that's important. 
+The reason why it's important that is when we argue that Stonewall provides the kind of March that an individual who's either career or an ally can able to ascribe to the best. What do individuals who have ascribed these values for one three things. 
+The first, in main is mainstream acceptance, either intersectional or not, for people to recognize that you're just as anyone else. The second is very important is group, solidarity with community, to get behind them in all instances. And the third is literally just a day to celebrate the progress of how far you've come in the way in which you succeeded to liberating many of the oppression that's happening in the world. 
+Why does Q lib fail in that? And the reason why it fails at a fundamental level is because oftentimes it's extremely scrutiny when it's angry. It is always obstructionist in nature. It's not celebratory in nature, in all instances. And the reason why it's strongly tends to that is because there's not much regulation, not much in terms of moderation, things like, for example, the lack of risk or the lack of interest has meant that individuals can often type individuals with more extreme or violent interests can hijack the protest more easily, and that means, to a large extent, the marches that you talk about here aren't about celebration, but often a cry against, say, the current situation, but not just something that can allow people to celebrate the best way possible. 
+The second thing, I think it's important, and it's a comparison, that is, if it's a perceptional problem on humanism, on opening government, the same perceptional problem is on humanism exists on either side. The reason is because people often associate this with the idea of the LGBT, not necessarily the specific protest, at least for the people they are talking about but at the same time, the perceptional problem also happens for the Q lib movement. So there's not much difference on that. It's a wash. What is the difference, though, is to do with the Stonewall50 and why it's more appropriate, the reason why it works is due to a few things. I think the important thing to note is that funding and political support goes a long way in getting certain policies changed. Now, the biggest criticism to this is the fact that there's no clear political message. I would point to two things. The first is, in the lead up to gay marriage, for example, there's a very clear political message there to banners, etc, that continue to exist in different forms of policy platforms right now, on the marches. But second is, if you look at the manifestation of Stonewall50 in different countries, you look at pink dot in Singapore when the light that they shine to repeal section 377A, in most cases, what we say is that whether it's a platform, individuals are able to express these political messages, it says that now it's more diverse. The pictures and videos you see show different avenues and different platforms that cannot exist and don't get the same sort of traction compared to Q Lib. 
+And what's important then is that I think the kind of the kind of change it gets here is on one level, awareness for the second level. I think the reason why it's awareness is important because oftentimes the kinds of policy we talk about aren’t directly antithetical to the individuals who are likely to vote against that. Individuals just need to know that it's fine and it's necessarily a good thing that individuals, every individuals, have their rights, and so. The level of awareness actually very key and crucial part to getting many of those policies going forward, because camera doesn't really affect anyone, in a sense, that one who is not queer but what happened? What happens instead, is that these individuals need to know that it's fine not to vote against them. And this is one platform in which that happens, but the second reason why it's important, because it helps inside individuals before I’ll take closing.
+
+
+<poi>
+So basically, most of the intrinsic value comes on downside will be non cooperatively to our side. And the ones you put are premise on non violence. Could you explain, for example, why people meeting without police get out of no violence more violence?
+</poi>
+
+I think the point here is that police protection. But in your word, there still be  police coming to form security. The difference is they are exclusively there to protect protesters, and that in itself, is really a comparative benefit. I think you need to import. The important bit here is what is health in sexual individuals? Oftentimes, the Q lib stand for the important framing is as an LGBT person, you need to opt for one particular pride march. One is more accessible than the other. On that sense has already inherent, rather increasing benefit in the ability to access pride marches in areas where you can't at the moment, because the Q lib doesn't have that kind of reach. The second is, because it's often violent, exclusionary people who are willing, only people willing to weather the damage are the people who go there's good children, people who feel for the same. But the third reason is, by joining Q lib, you make school more, even worse, because you take the kind of people who would otherwise be voting change from the International parts of the Stonewall movement would otherwise become leaders in those areas to the Q lib March, which is not even as strong. What this means is it splinters the movement into a worse match, harder to forward the policies they want to. So at the end of this debate, what do you need to consider is very clear, we have a movement right now that's increasingly diverse, increasingly inclusionary, but doing so would do it for the worse. Thank you.
+<lo>
+
+<dpm>
+Pride is something that I no longer want to attend and don't see a huge benefit from going to. If I want to go to a party, gays throw a great party. I can go to a party any night of the week, and I can drink and I can dance with my friends, but if I want to go somewhere to have a genuine discussion about where the LGBT movement should prioritize its resources, what kind of policies we should go forward, how we can effectively lobby the government and achieve change? I no longer have a venue to do that, because pride has become something that it was not meant to be. It is no longer a form of protest and discussion. It's instead makes a clear way to say that we are okay with the current political establishment that Teresa May can put on a rainbow dress and say how much she loves the gays. And then that's it. Everything is sold. I've imagined a massive problem right now, and one that we need to deal with, and we can only deal with through a queer liberation March. I'm going to talk about two things in the speech. Firstly, I want to talk about what the purpose of pride is, who we care about, and how we make pride accessible for those people. And secondly, I want to talk about more about political activism and how we actually end up getting that before. I want to do a little bit of a rustle on three main lines against opening opposition. The first is in their characterization of what this March is like. And I want to say, though, people say the word assertive a lot, but this really was assertive. Somehow we meet together for a non fire protest to talk about queer issues and the police aren't there, so suddenly we're all shooting each other up like I don't see any logic as to why a non violent protest to discuss LGBT activism is going to lead to violence. If someone comes in and starts attacking people, I'm sure they will probably call the police in, as opposed to like people get stabbed. But I think it's very illogical to say how suddenly leads to violence when there's no reason given for that. The second thing is, when they try and hang a lot on their case is in saying that Stonewall and pride has changed. It suddenly become super inclusive and try to cater to niche groups. And they say that's because it's been criticized already. But the corporations who sponsor pride and inject the millions into it that allows it to become a massive event that people know about are also the ones who do not want it to cater to niche interests. For example, what is the point of you defending like black trans people who are going to make a tiny buying demographic of your group, when by doing so, you alienate the moderates who have just about got on the gay marriage trend. That's about as far as they're going to get along those lines, you obviously want to cater to the lowest common denominator group that will get you the most attention. And that's why, when you walk around any city advertising for products you don't see like, tear down the like, I don't know, heterosexual establishment that's oppressing us, or you don't see things like make companies more inclusive to LGBT people and eliminate discriminating hiring practices you can think of more casually explain that instead, you see love. Love is love. Rainbows like. Flowers, everyone dancing. You don't see any actual political messaging. Wherever you look, if you go into a department store, they just put the rainbow flag up, and that's because they want to pick the lowest pumpkin or make a message because they don't want to pick up the interest in each groups. The second thing I want to say on this is that you can't just change corporations opinions, and because they have no incentive to do that, just because you partner an ally with them doesn't mean you've any influence. Maybe you get one seat on one committee, and you can voice your opinion in a way that you couldn't before. But I think that suppose it leaves the fans of change, I think is very naive. In many cases, people will try and make small policy changes. One of the things that people love to say, parties love this, but we're going to undergo a review, and the review happens, and that's a big announcement to make it seem like you're doing change, and then a year later that things come about review and no substantial change is being made. So instead, you try and do whatever you can on social media to make it seem like you care, but you don't ever enforce any substantive policy issues, because second you do it alienate your coure base. I just do not see the incentive for any corporation or party to care about niche LGBT issues where, in this, in the format they're currently doing it, the last thing they say is Stonewall, pride can still be political. And they use one example from Pink Dot, which I think is worth noting, is not Stonewall. But secondly, I think it's worth noting. I'm not sure where the space of political activism comes at Pride, like you're genuinely too busy dancing and having fun and chatting people up, and you are to actually ever able to make those changes. 
+I think what's also better about our queer liberation March is because you have more time to have political discussion, you could have a diversity of different opinions being voiced, whereas when you have limited time for discussion, you can only enforce one narrative. So I now want to deal with what is the purpose of pride. How do we care about who we care about and how do we make it more accessible? Because I think pride should always have been a political protest. It was celebrating or commemorating the community undergoing an attack and actually to survive it. Crucially, it's an event for LGBT people, and they should be almost in this, in these movements. Why? 
+Firstly, because they've got a sense of ownership from history. Secondly, because there's a need and awareness for them to be able to politically engage. I think fair people, because of many people, it's just one of their first experiences with the LGBT movement. If you live in like a rural area, pride might be the first time you've ever met someone from from your community and had a chance to experience and engage in that why is pride no longer safe and accessible for many people? Firstly, because I think corporations have tried to make it an alcohol fueled party. If you look at who attends now, it is predominantly CIS, white gay men who are also the most accepted by the media and most accepted by corporations, who major corporations were put across in their social media propaganda with pictures of or it's attractive again, cis white lesbian couples as well, who also seem to be people that companies want to push forward. Those are the kind of people who are now likely to attend. I also know having many friends who've experienced sexual harassment at Pride, who have found it because the toxic alcohol at this PHP and incredibly difficult environment surviving it, I know many people who no longer feel comfortable in going. Secondly, the political parties and corporations can attend in a prominent capacity. Many people feel that it's inaccessible. If you've got a right wing political party who have structurally voted against LGBT rights. It's very hard for you, since you're safe going to a march for those people are marching with a pride flag now. 
+
+
+<poi>
+So the problem with this speech is that all the descriptions of pride is potentially correct. But the problem is, what is it? What are structural reasons why the Q lib movement March is better than the current situation?
+</poi>
+
+I think we've made that very clear, you can engage in political activism, but if you look, there will not be corporations there, so there won't be the same incentive to make it into a drunk Pride March. Like, I know, the way of describing the intro slide did not make it seem like it was going to be a big party. It made it seem like it was going to be like, no corporations, probably not a lot of alcohol, not a lot of money spent on things about political discussion, about political activism, like otherwise we're not debating two different things. 
+So say, secondly, I want to deal with the impact, how we manage to lead to political activism. Because I think that pride is a unique forum, to be able to engage people and to be able to lead to political activism, and that's a very key important part of it. It's also a chance we were able to enroll in other organizations or groups. And I think crucially, it's a way to show the government we’re not happy with the status quo, that right now, the policies they're putting forward aren't good enough. Whereas I think a world where pride is about celebration and it's just about being happy and fantastic, isn't a chance to launch those kind of criticisms. So what kind of policies we need? We can launch at these kind of avenues. We can talk about who we want to help. But it isn't just the track of people who appeal to the media. It is dealing with issues that are more contentious. It is even, for example, with making it easier to change your gender and maybe giving children better access to be able to transition, those kind of things that are controversial the media don't want to talk about, but crucially, they cannot get it a pride, and we're only able to get that in a political way when we have a queer liberation March and very hard to oppose
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo>
+The naive characterization of the queer liberation movement loses the opening government this debate, there are two facets that characterize the queer liberation movement, structurally and we told you this and they got no response. 
+The first is that they were overwhelmingly divisive in the way that they manifest. Because I want to note here the amount of frustration that people of color and the queer movement historically tell towards their white counterparts in the way that they manifested. So the way that this occurred two years ago, when cops entered a bar and this movement kicked off in the first place, was to deny rich and white people access to those movements in that instance, the next point at which escalated is based on racial tensions. When this year, a brawl erupted between hispanic and black men will sort the queer liberation movement in the first place. This is empirically true, but I'll give you the structural reasons for it in a moment. 
+The second thing that we told you is that these movements were overwhelmingly violent. There was a danger to your life, overwhelmingly there was an enormous amount of rage, and there's very limited incentive to moderate that is important and will be in my two issues of Republic. 
+The first is on the policy argument of opening government. I want to know here just how grossly uncomparative this argument is coming from opening government. They make two claims. 
+The first is that there is no clear message that comes out of the pride movement in the first place. I want to reject that this is false, for the reason that Raza gives you, which is every movement and every interview that is given at the pride movement has a specific theme. This year, it was to help the black people of color in that queer movement who had not been enfranchised in the first place. And the reason they do that is the very after they wanted to bash it is because corporations overwhelmingly want to reach out to a group that has enormous volumes in labor of good capacity to buy goods and services, but also to increase the number of people in disenfranchised groups, such that the number of people within the five the five March increases. This is a self correcting mechanism, because to increase the number of disenfranchised people, you have to cater to their needs, and that's what the private Movement has done. The second thing I'm going to note here is the comparative, which is, they say, and this is literally an assertion, that you get clear messaging from a movement that is deeply divisive, that is made up of 40 different disenfranchised groups of queer people, and therefore you come up with a clear direction, even if you do, which is very unclear, given there are a lot of conflicting interests within the queer liberation group as it stands, that message is likely to be antagonistic, it's likely to be violent, and it's likely to have that division within that because you have to prioritize the range of different groups above others, as opposed to the celebratory theme that we told you undergirds that pride month in first place. 
+The second thing they say is that there is less discussion generally of policy issues. I want to note here. This is the unique benefit of their cyber house, and so bizarrely small that I think they lose on this basis, because they had to prove that that policy discussion manifested in something, and it was unclear why that the amorphousness of that did. Let me tell you why it did it. The first is that the queer liberation movement did not have that much power in the first place. It did not have the corporations sponsoring it during electoral campaigns. It did not have the rich money of the gay rich white men that Matt wanted to talk about in the last speech. It did not have the vehicle that was expected, accepted by the public as the mainstream paradigm for what the queer community should look like and the legitimacy back here. So even if you had discussions, it's unclear if you could outsource them. 
+The second thing that we said was that it was more likely to be divisive. In the first instance, the vast majority of the QRP actually does not support gay marriage because they think it is a heteronormative institution that's hugely divisive to the 1000s of men and women who have been married in same sex couples over the years. The second year, there is a blame game that is played that white people are antagonized. They're the people who stole that money and keep us down within their movement. The last thing that we showed you is that the perceptions are bad. This under does this under does the huge strides we've made on simulation, where people feel that people like myself or anyone else are just normal people in the community, that you can live side by side. They become they are seen as an angry movement, as one, as they do currently violently march the streets, or do so with rage, do so with with signs that say, bring down white patriarchy, as opposed to the celebration that exists. So even if they get policy discussion, the way that people perceive that policy discussion is not useful, because they don't take it. To the ballot box. 
+The second thing they say is that this is exclusionary, and they say there's no incentive for corporations to include this. The first is, I'm going to reject this in the first place, because it's literally just an assertion. We think that the huge strides the LGBTQ community has made in terms of getting things like gay marriage, in terms of the perceptions of people in Liberal cities, and overwhelmingly, these are liberal countries with liberal consumer bases. It means that this does not, does not do as much harm as the open government team says. The second thing that we told you is like you don't need to antagonize like you don't need to overly overtly say that we are supporting trans people. To help trans people, you can support the pride movement. They now get, for example, a seat on your board, and you can suddenly influence the process of corporations through that. The third thing that we said is that it is unclear why you need policy discussion for these fears in the first place. The problems of the black queer community can be done in the focus groups of specific movements that cater to their pains and their suffering. That is the queer element of the Black Lives Matter movement. We proved that there are different avenues through which you can push in an in a non divisive way, your interest. But crucially, we proved that this was a movement that allowed you to celebrate your identity, to have that affirmation, and no other avenue exists. So you have to pick one, and I'll take our opening in a minute. 
+At best, you had some conversation, but there was huge division and an undoing of the perceptions of LGBT people that you needed to get that policy change versus under outside of class, less discussion, but foot in the door, or boardrooms, where there is a normalization of trans people, where there is the capacity to enjoy and above your identity and other avenues could raise you from push policy. 
+At the end of that, ask yourself, who's coming up ahead. It's clearly opening opposition, hoping government. 
+
+
+<poi>
+Yet your characterization of what these countries are like is liberal, already accepting, already incredibly tolerant, when the LGBTQ community has already made massive inroads. If that's the case, you need to take that one step further and advocate for changes to the system, rather than the previous message of toleration. 
+</poi>
+
+Yes, and we can do that by saying the current system is intolerant, and therefore we should change the system. What you do is antagonize your systems and say you want to bring them down in totality, which means you're far less likely to get the support you need at the end of that, I want to tell you what this actually looks like on the ground.
+It is a quiet movement that allows you at the end of it, even if you disagree with that prior movement, it is one that is powerful, and we would rather have your preferences reflected on it, rather than a powerless movement. We would have young queer people who do not know there's an enormous queer community that is cohesive and resilient to be able to actualize that we wanted them to be able to be seen by the broader community as people have legitimate identities, the pride movement uniquely did that whilst not undoing the benefits that the LGBT community has brought. That's why I'm proud to stand in opening opposition.
+</dlo>
+
+<mg>
+We’re going to win this debate by telling you that the stronger March. It's particularly bad because it excludes people who are difficult in normal life to participate in this kind of March, to go to the marches, to participate from the debate and to get included in the community. But first, let me do three things. First, out of it, of frame, you can literally not adjudicate this debate from the opening half they claim the queer thing is one thing. They claim it's another thing. They both depend on. Where's the place you believe this happening if you believe this UK, probably they win. If you don't believe this UK, it's another place, probably they win. Because they both depend on the characterization and assertions that they may not have. Is this protest manifestation happening? What we're going to do is not depending on that, giving you the incentives are irrelevant of the country in the world where it happens, it excludes most of the people. 
+Second thing before our arguments on over impacting in this debate, the most likely thing, is that none of them proves real impact in this debate. Because probably it is true that in both sides, we have people having riots and manifestations which bring attention, probably both sides to change policies. And probably none of us is going to prove to you which of us is going to bring more attention. Because probably both sides bring attention. What is also true for a point is that our is vastly non comparative to this debate. They say, look, here you have a date in which you include yourself in the manifestation. And it is true. What it is not true is what they make the argument depend on, which is that their way of presenting the riot the manifestation is violent. They never gave a single region. While beyond the assertion why this is violent, might give you an analysis on why the absence of police is not enough to claim less violence, but there's more reasons which are structural, regardless of the war or in the country. Believe there's reasons why, regardless not police, you don't want to have that bad things. You don't want to have badness. First, because this day in which you want to include yourself with the rest of the community. Second, because you actually want to claim things now. Third, actually because it's the day in which you want to participate with others, along you and with you. What we say is you have particularly no incentive to make this a bad day, even if there's no police. Your incentive is to put the best day possible, because you want to meet with your own community.
+At the end of the day what we say no, CG, is that regardless of the world in which you live in, which you did you did to this debate, we think that it's much more likely that the people that don't usually go to these riots go in their side. Why is there a case?
+First because excludes you to politicization. Look, there's good reasons to believe that regardless of the country or the world in which you live in, there's politicization of this march first, what does the politicians do with this march? For example, Podemos in Spain, civica in Greece, they claim that this manifestation is good. That is the only way to defend the protest. They get invited to do speeches within the manifestations. In Juarez, which is a politician from Spain, which leads podemos party, make the opening statement of the march, which is, by the way, the most biggest march in the world, know, and he made the speech of the opening statement. This punctured the match political parties of the left normally puncture this much. They even claim in the elections that the only ones to support the gay the LGBT community, what do the right party are? Do they directly oppose the March as a consequence of the left is supporting it, or they passively say that those people are just weird? The logical Coronavirus This is that even if the march is something that I agree with, the moderates tend to ignore it because it's perpetuating supported by people who they don't agree with, they don't feel that they have a way to empathize with them because of the people who are promoting the right. 
+So our point is, regardless of the country we want in which you believe in, the incentives of the left exist to go to these parties because they claim they are the way to defend those rights. And that leads to moderate Open Services, more to joining these marches as a consequence of this, we think that this is particularly bad, no because the like the left or the people that already go to those March, they'll continue going whatsoever to those marches because they already activated as protesters. Those who are not activated as protests, those who don't go, will never go if they keep pushing from the light that left wing. No, that's the first reason there's politicization. That is bad. 
+But the second reason why it is bad at excluding people is because it's close those same people, the moderate to go due to the maximum participation. Aim Trent told you something weird, which is the corporations fund this intense, they push for motivation. I don't see how. I don't know how they say maximum participation is good and the way that you achieve is good too. We say it is not. There's several reasons why. When you aim to maximum participation, you bring back things. Note that even if we like. Can see here that we have some less participation that is probably irrelevant to the achieves of getting people. We mean not 1 million, maybe, but 800,000 that is relevant to the impact of the overall progress. Why do we think that when you bring many people into the riot, you do things that are bad 
+First, the way you approach to it is to commercialize the manifestation. No, you bring a big parties, big teachers, big people to say that the manifestation is good. You bring alcohol. You bring weird stresses. You make like contest. Who is bringing the weirdest stress? Who is the biggest symbol in our riot? Who is, I don't know, you make things in order to provoke people from participation. Olo gave you great reasons on how they do that. The point is, they failed to see. Who are they getting mobilized, which is the ones that were already supporting the LGTB movement, the ones that would already go, yes, if I'm a person who already empathize with the movement, and then you give me free alcohol, I will go there. Now I'll go there. But the point is, but doing this, you exclude models from going, 
+Why is this true? Because they don't empathize with that. They see, they feel that those people that Obrador, even if they share things with them, as in their LGTB, they don't feel persuaded by the way those things are presented. They say, I am not going to see like those weird dresses over there. This is good reason why the old age cases when they say we don't go to these marches, this is reason because people who are moderate, most times don't go to these things because they perceive them to be eccentric. They perceive them to be something weird promoted by a left piece in which, at the end of the day, they serve nothing with this is only because of the thing that they promote this maximum participation in the stone world. 
+At the end of this debate, you'll probably believe that in both sides, people keep going to the marches, but we bring something unique, which is that the people that usually didn't know in our world, they have more easiness to go. Those are the most important debates, because they are the ones who get mobilized the other way already, That's what we’re going to debate. Thanks
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+It took 50 years of courage and 50 years of blood to get to the point that you could have a gay US presidential candidate, that you could have a Supreme Court affirm the rights of LGBT people, that you could have the UK legalize gay marriage. It seemed audacious to me that having come so far and achieved so much, that the stance of the government bench was to say, we don't want those politicians there. We don't want the awareness the important thing in society. We don't want the money. We don't want the visibility. We want to go back to sitting in a corner where people do not have to look at us. We want to argue with ourselves when a lot of the structures they reliable said they were trying to build already existed. What I want to do in this speech is ask something that has not been asked in this debate, namely, what are the political challenges going forward that actually face the LGBT community across the world, and what, therefore, is the best format of the pride we take to face those challenges? I want to talk about two things, politics and history before that, though, I want to very briefly about two things from the government then, 
+First of all, opening government very poorly to their case, center on the idea that we need these marches to be a nexus of political discussion that currently pride in its form does not allow for an advanced discussion about what movement should aim for and what it should fight for most strongly, and that is the thing that we have lost. I have noticed that all of those formats of discussion already exist. The Stonewall foundation exists. There are ethical auditions. There are charities to do these things. I appreciate in the 60s, when pride began, these foundations did not exist and observed pride, therefore an important function in that respect. But they do not live in the world we have today. Those important discussions, those dialogues, those judgments about strategy and direction can already occur, regardless of which side, especially in one so I think most of the opening government case falls apart to deal with closing government and the notion of politicization. 
+I think there is a decent incentive, first of all, right wing politicians to also come to these events and stand up and get the same sort of vote gaining opportunities. I mean, they would, for example, not be able to explain how the Tory party went from supporting section 28 in the span of, like, 30 years to being the party that introduced gay marriage in the UK. The reason is that it's not as though all right wing parties are monoliths that will never look towards different opportunities to get vote. And as long as that, there's no incentive to them to reach out private movements. For exactly the reason the opening government gives you they claim more strong, more palatable to people, are far tailoring safe things for a lot of right Polish right wing politicians to take on board, and that's the reason they come on. The same thing is, like it was a bit boring to say that, you know, there would be less right wing. Stick for the like, radical like, you know, gay March that was, like, hidden away than there would be for the average LGBT March. I think a lot of the damage they talk about is realistically pretty symmetric substantive. 
+First of all, political change. I want to know that the first thing I asked open government was to name the extreme political changes they're facing, and what we got in response was radio silence. I promised that DPM would tell us and then nothing subsequently. What are the actual things that the LGBT community faces early on? A lot of the challenges were very non-adversarial towards the straight community for exensis pushing for gay marriage does not diminish the institution of marriage for straight people, violent or does not need to come into their home. But a lot of the subsequent change of things that will put very well burdens on the straight community, or at least force them into prominence in a way that not previously was the case. 
+For example, having education in the school where your child might be educated about what gay people are and the way they lead their lives and why they should accept them, or having to have government funding of things like transition surgery. These are things that put real pressure on straight people and are far more difficult to sell. If the movement that is trying to sell these things to you is an extreme one that doesn't want to interact with community that lives on the fringes of society. I think it is for that reason that the incremental steps forward for the LG community are more difficult ones, that it's exactly the wrong way to step back and say, We need to be more radical. We need to be less involved. 
+What are the benefits that you get on our side? Cast first of all, politically, I think it's staggering that no one has pointed out there is a tremendous value of having politicians marching pride and be very visible when someone like Pete flier or like Penny Wong from Australia, he's at the front of these Pride marches, he very essentially both acts as a platform to discuss, like what political parties are going to do for LGBT stuff going forward, and it also makes them accountable to the extent that political parties, as opposed to governments, will affiliate themselves with the cause of LGBT because that is a Burma, because these things are so prominent and so wash. That means those parties do face accountability. They have to make some kind of trade off and actually push the quality that might lose, put some votes on margin to other categories of people. If these marches are invisible, if there is no selling point, no media coverage, no reason to think these people are damaging to you, if you ignore them, there is no reason why politicians will have the same incentive to get involved. 
+The second reason why this wouldn't is it just builds connection between political institutions and LGP institutions, the fact that politicians marginal pride and the political groups want to organize and be involved in the running of these things mean there is communication with people who have all the complicated discussions as to what the strategy of an LGBT movement should be. And those political parties, they lose that political connection, that political infrastructure on their side, but they make it again. It's something that is hidden away that does real damage to their capacity to win those sort of backroom deals or the sort of discussion that realistically is the way the politics functions. If you want to make these incremental steps, you need to be willing to play that game or run away from it. 
+The second thing I want to talk about is funding. Now, to reiterate, obviously, you know, a lot of visibility just provides for like, is it a flamboyant event? Is it going to get on television, but a lot of people want to watch it. I think the important thing to notice here is that, yes, I agree. There are some differences in various countries between what the LGBT movement should aim for and what it can realistically achieve. But to the extent that pride remains like international watching a very visible and prominent thing, it's had influence and scope. Beyond the only individual countries where those marches run. It's become your synonymous with people in countries who might not have those foundational rights saying, Well, that is a place where I people like me exist. I can be proud of that, and we're not going to go away. They would take that away from the community, take no thank take that platform, that ability to point to very common examples of important politicians in other societies, important people in our society, standing up and saying, I'm not afraid of the things that you're saying going to tear down our society, and they would replace it with a march that is invisible by its nature, and refuses a large category of people. The second thing I want to talk about is history and symbolism.
+
+
+<poi>
+Right now we agree there is an event to cater to LGBT groups, but with pride, all you do is put a rainbow on and have bland policies and say nothing when we advocate for queer policies in a political way, you don't have to adapt to those changes, because right now you just a rainbow, as they identify with policies?
+</poi>
+
+I think you're conflating not being over the top but being bland, with the political activism that you push for. It is not true that just because you make pride something that is more palatable to people, that is a better optical appearance, you forgot those things, as long as those are stonewalls forgotten. We write that wants to fight for the people running these marches, the people marching from these volumes, have forgotten the things that they care about. It's they're choosing to use the leverage and the visibility to stand in that discussion, to stand there, rather than hiding away and presuming that shouting from the margins is likely to get you something. The last thing I want to talk about is history. I think that an important point of pride is the thing I touched on before, which is that it's a symbol of hope. You know that people from all walks of life can come together be LGBT, and that is like they can be proud and succeeded, and more importantly, it's a reminder of how far this community has come and what has achieved over the last few years. Now, Matt may have better gay parties than he wants to go to. That's not the case for everyone in society. There are many people who don't have that opportunity, and to sacrifice that one rallying point, that reminder that it gets better, which is an important thing to like, save lives realistically for people who live in very difficult and struggling circumstances, all for the same again, of a radicalization and very little political gain, seems a tragic thing to do. Look, we exist, and we're not going away with the rally inquiry movement to gain people around. Old rights in love and life for like, the last 50 years. Who would be tragic to throw that away because the government bench found like the Barclays pride flag on their like the corporate marketing is a bit tacky.
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+You probably do have realized that in this debate, every team has a completely different characterization of this demonstration, and that probably to have to adjudicate the debate in which characterization is more like realistic and fits better with the world. And Tony told you that these demonstrations are completely controlled by left wing parties, and that therefore the people of the moderate and right will be excluded. No real engagement with this. I am going to engage why this is the most likely standard. 
+First of all, as Antonio told you this demonstration has been organized by the left wing parties since the beginning of the movement, since the 60s or 70s in which this demonstration has started to take place. The organization were part of the left wing party, which were the only one which has sent the gay people. So therefore, for many years, they are in the organization and within the the the core of the movement which is organizing this demonstration, they are continuing, doing so by tradition and because they have these pieces. 
+Secondly, because within the political parties of the left there is groups which are supporting the LGBT movement. I mean, in the left wing parties, you have groups of LGBT people. And with some exceptions, in most of the red wing parties, for example, in Spain or in German or in Italy, gay people does not organize within the right wing parties because they are not well accepted inside. Therefore, it's these parties which have the we have the possibility to put pressure in order, not yet into put pressure in and to control the LGBT community. And sadly, because in most countries in the world, the LGTB voters usually vote the left wing parties, and therefore they have a huge incentive in doing, to get involved in this, in this, in this circle for these reasons. I think that entrenched characterization is by far the most important for Bucha. A couple of examples. Madrid and San Francisco are the two biggest demonstrations in the world for LGTB movement. In those two demonstrations, it's more than 1 million people every year. And you know what? For the past two years in Manila, San Francisco, Red Wing candidates are bound for the demonstration as public people. That means that they cannot attend as part of the party, popular artworks or filanos and like trumpists in San Francisco, because they are not allowed in demonstration, they can go actually because that they cannot go as political people, that means that the only speeches political related that you are going to receive are the ones of the of the left parties and are the ones which control the demonstration. We think that this is extremely important for many reasons, not yet. 
+The most important is that you are excluding 50% of the population, 50% of the TB movement for this demonstration, as this is like a biological thing. You have, like 50% of the people, which is from breaking which are not represented, but that demonstration, they feel that they are too extravagant, that they are left, that they are all that they hate, but also gay and them. So they are not going to feel part of that movement at all. We think that somehow it's going to rebuttal the entire case of the opposition, because they say, Hey, we need politicians to be there. And we say, okay, but what's the point? What's the change that they're going to achieve, if only politicians involved, and the only attention that you're going to get is the people which are already supporting the NPT movement. These people are already knowing the vote that they have.
+Now as the counterfactor, what we think that the queer demonstration is going to be, as we say it's going to be, what in the hell is the incentive for a job? For some reason, as open say, violent gay supporter of or fighting for their rights, going to change the demonstration if they are already controlling the mainstream demonstration. They are part of the of the student parties. They are already happy with the Strava that this movement is why can they will change the demonstration they are controlling. They are the actual organizer of the great bride, imaginative facial emerging. They organize this demonstration while you can with the change and go to the queer one. We think that the most natural thing to happen is that the queer one, it will be constructed as an opposition to the main one. And therefore the moderate people, the right wing people, the people which is not happy with being in the same demonstration, which are extremely committed, will go to another, to this other demonstration. So what we think would happen. Is that in our world, we are promoting much more in position, because in the world we have only that part of the population participating, being really strong and having some attention of the black politicians. In our world, we have a lot of population which not with never engaging with the LDP movement. Now really engaging when we think that this is the impact which Antonio brought to this debate, is that which is more important to need the movement is to be transversal, to be in both sides of society, both right and left. And which is more important is to have all these people working together and feeling part of the same movement, and therefore being happy with fighting for the A right.
+Now second point here why we think that we have more change in the long term in our side of the what they say is that because we have politicians and all the stuff there, we have more awareness and more money, and therefore we change more things. First of all, I think that this is kind of Uber impacting. We think that one demonstration is not going to change at all the way that politicians see the politics and they are not going to put an law or another law because of that. I think that the funding that they receive as not forgive. We think that the key things that change politics are a long term lobby, which we think is symmetrical in this, in this debate. But second and more important, deep political calculation, why is a right wing party going to allow a right gay, right gay,no sorry I have no time, the only, the only reason is because they think that this is a good calculation for voting, that they are not going to lose both but win votes if they do so, we think that this is much more likely to happen in the electorate. The people, which both these parties are going to be are we talking? 
+
+
+<poi>
+Look, in the eyes of a conservative person,the extreme left will always be associated with an antagonistic march like you did, because you support your policy. If you're a conservative person, which March would you genuinely go to? One is associated , or one that's not associated?
+</poi>
+
+I think I explained for all my speech why the one which is associated with extreme left is the the mainstream one, the strong war or whatever one, because it's the one which is controlled by the left for the entire for the entire period of time. 
+So as I was saying, the way that the red wing parties are going to change things if they think that the voters are okay with that, and that will happen if the gay voters of these platforms are engaged with the LGT movement. They feel comfortable going through demonstration. They feel that they have also any space within the LGT movement. And therefore, when the politician has to vote for rape, for forgiving rights, they would then they would think it's dispute or bad for the next election, and they probably think that this is good. We think that is massively more important than having a little bit more funding or to having, like, a little bit more publicity. Impressed. We think that you know what we have in we're engaging with the 50% of the population which is more necessary to have rights for these people, which is the people which is already not engaging with LGT movement, which is the people moderate already. And we get that inside of the house, making this process more transversal. Thank you very much.
+</gw>
+
+<ow>
+By end of this debate, I'm genuinely unconvinced that any of the other three teams have a path forward to end the oppression of the gay body, because Opening Government wants messaging without any degree of being able to implement that messaging in real politics. Open opposition knows that the killer movement is incredibly divisive. It gives us no path forward in terms of how we actually change things, reform things. And CG talks about engagement without ever explaining to you the value of that engagement. I want to address these concerns in two different things. First, I'm going to talk about political change. In fact, while I want to talk about inclusion in the marches, I'm going to explain on why each metric we've beaten every other team in this round to begin with, on political change. 
+This was the primary claim that we got from the opening government team. And the clip that we got here was that you cannot antagonize straight allies and corporations in mainstream pride as a consequence of these corporations funding you and straight allies being a part of the movement. I want to note a few different things. The first thing I want to note is a very important observation from job, which is that discussion in this debate is symmetric, because you can talk about all of your policy concerns within Stonewall therefore, the more common question, I thank you, is how this kind of strategic thinking is actually brought to the public. And the observation that I want to make here is, first of all that Q lib is unlikely to reach the masses of people which are necessary for political change. If their side is about making people within the movement to wear that's possible on both sides of the house, but if the debate is about actually making sure that we normalize these messages and getting it accessible to the public. You need to make sure that straight allies are there. That's a large corporate event where many people are attending and watching, so that's where they lose no thank you. 
+The second thing that I want to point out is that significant numbers of corporations are actively looking for queer messaging. This is a buyer's market. These are people. Who are gay, billionaires like Peter Thiel are relatively liberal. Companies like RuPaul drag race, all these different types of organizations are properly likely to be willing to fund these Stonewall 50 by asking for any significant changes. So it's completely unclear by all companies as monolithic as they suggest. 
+The third thing that I want to point out is that there's a massive tension within the opening government case, because on the one hand, they say companies don't want to endorse something that is controversial and because they're conservative, but on the other hand, they also say that these are crazy sex, crazy parties, which have lots of alcohol, something that conservative people would presumably also oppose. So I'm not really sure what opening government believes. I think the more plausible reality is that companies don't really care that much about how pride presents itself, and as a consequence, we get all the policy reforms and all the no thank you messaging that they want on their side of the house. But let's finally draw comparative because I think it's very important to note that there is very little engagement with material that came out from John's speech, because, as we identified, this is not the place for policy change, as we noted, protests now deal with more difficult acts of oppression to sell to the public. This is oppression which is either more subtle or something that is more oppositional. So say things such as funding transition surgeries can the unfortunate thing that we need to do is get significant ties between institutions and individuals that you can get those back door deals never abutted by the closing government team. That we need to get politicians to actually endorse and assimilate within this messaging. They need to have a platform to actually spread the message, but also be held accountable. The response that we get from closing government on this is that these parties are already left, so it's meaningless to actually have them participate. But the issue is this allows us to push it further to the left. Thank you. That in the Democratic nomination race, the person who comes up and gives a more liberal speech is more likely to get gay votes, and that means that you're more likely to shift the political spectrum to the left within the mainstream, like in the primaries of the Democrats, and actually get substantive change as such. I think we get massive political benefits, particularly from being able to assimilate with mainstream political institutions. And I think because we're better able to understand the random historical art of pride that makes it easier to sell. So for instance, the historical connotation with Stonewall 50 no thank you makes pride seem a lot more pressing and a lot more important given the pressure that occurred in the past. 
+Secondly, on inclusion, we have two different claims about safe spaces. I'm going to deal with the opening government claim, first, the claim from open government, sure
+
+
+<poi>
+the queer liberation March and expressions of pain better highlight at suffering the population than a hemistic party, and give politicians clear issues have to deal with your version of pride observes issues from non listed tokenistic contributions with useless money for alcohol.
+</poi>
+
+I mean, I just told you why it's not going to be apolitical, so that doesn't really engage with the analysis that I just gave you, but also Hewlett is going to be less accessible, which means that that message won't even get out there. So I think that you don't get that benefit. Anyways, 
+On inclusion, we get three different back business from the OP government team as to why this hurts the safe space that pride is discouraging people from attending and building the community. Claim, number one, that the presence of police officers is incredibly damaging for many people who choose to come to these marches. I want to point out that their side doesn't act to make many marches safer, because in lots of rural areas like the southern United States, you have safety and numbers in the police. But the problem is not internal violence. That was not a sophisticated claim coming out from opposition, but rather hate crimes or other external acts of violence that might accrue to these people to feel comfortable to go to go to this march in the very first place in Texas requires that you have a sufficient mass of people, which means that the visibility and level of scale is important, but also that you have police officers who protect you. And in those cases, these people are excluded. 
+The second thing that we get is that they're going to be significant right wing parties who attend these marches without any analysis. Again, the argumentation is that mostly parties. Don't want to be right wing as we get from closing I want to go to these marches as we get from closing government. Then that's probably untrue. And if it's a case that they do go, which is more true, they'll likely try to advocate for gay votes, which means that they won't be oppositional and they'll actually be trying to cater towards them. No, thanks. 
+The last thing we get is on alcohol, and that there's lots of alcohol at these parties, so lots of people don't feel comfortable, sure, but I think lots of people actually enjoy the alcohol environment. They actually draw some people in, presumably too. If you shift some of these people to who live, that means that that environment, no thank you also changes and presumably becomes more about the celebration, as many of these people who go to pride about that celebration and no thank you, the shift over will keep that kind of character. 
+But what did we tell you? No, thank you. First of all, I told you that you're less likely to create a relatable community, because the loss of internationalization means that you don't see people from halfway across the world who are also gay but have friends and are able to live day to day. You don't actually include people like, for instance, gay police officers or gay politicians. So on that metric, they fail. 
+The final claim that we get is from closing government. And I think they give a very simple claim. They say that this is going to polarize the right this is going to polarize moderates, because this is seen as extreme or will be endorsed by right wing parties, as Dorothy points out, is it rebutted? This is symmetric, because it's unlikely that a right wing voter would want to go to an extremely controversial rally, which is the press. Have some OG’s case, because they say these need to be extreme policy changes, and therefore it's not clear why they ever prove anything on the comparative so that means that right winners and moderates are unlikely to go but probably on our side the house, we're more likely to bring it in moderates, because we normalize the messaging of pride and normalize these things. We bring it to the mainstream, we make it more likely that people view things like gay marches as part of the mainstream, as dressing plant wine as Okay, as you see from TV shows like Paul's great race. 
+At the end of this debate, we give you the clearest path forward. We provide hope for vulnerable youth, and we also make sure that we have political change that is plausible and likely very proud to oppose. Thank you.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/The Natolin European Round Robin Debating Championships Round 2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+Motion: This House, as religious individual would prefer to be a part of a religious community that proselytizes over the one that does 
+not.
+<pm>
+PM Speech Transcript:
+This is a debate about what the good life looks like for someone who's already religious. It is not a debate about the general elements of religion, organized or otherwise that are not specific or unique to the fact that a community has an intention and a doctrine, a support mechanism to proselytize. Moving forward, we want to talk about three big claims in the speech. First, as to why religion, in terms of playing a role in shaping the way look at the world, has a far worse effect than you are, less of the house than us. It's been ambiguous. But we'll see why in a second. It's more a Methodical claim at this point. Second of all, why your belief in the faith that you currently hold, regardless of what faith it is we going to make this argument as general as possible so they can apply to a large number of belief systems, is going to be significantly stronger when you have to sell it ties and challenge those faiths and find answers to those challenges. And last of all, why this induces you to be charitable, to reap the benefits of that charity, but crucially, in a way that is distinct as compared to a more secular approach or a non religious approach. 
+So first argument on the metaphysics bit, I think there are two possible reasons why a religious community might decide not to attempt facilitation of a large scale. One is a deeper doctrinal belief, as some religions hold, that you simply cannot be saved, and making any attempt to try and save you by telling you about the presence of a religion or to convert you is not going to change that outcome, that salvation is intrinsic, as opposed to something to do with the choices that you make. The reason, I think this is a far worse belief to hold about the people around you is that very often, most people don't live entirely in the civil religious communities. What that means is that you interact with individuals like family members, friends or colleagues who are not at the point from the beginning, members of that community and the way they're doing these individuals, they're incredibly helpless. They can't be safe, and you know, they do to damnation. But it also means that in the worst cases, no, you view them as sinful. You view them as less than you i think one of these might be worse than other, but either way, it shapes your relationships with them, which is why this is important. It is important because you, over time, can't help but see their lives as less than yours in some way, wasted in some way or worse. And I think that it's damaging to the fact of trying to hold a positive conversation with them, to trust them, to confide a secret to them, or what not. 
+More importantly, it also becomes hard to build those relationships over time, because you you just struggle with the fact that on some level, they're doomed. There's nothing you can do about it that makes you feel incredibly helpless as well. But the second conceivable explanation for this is that you think they can be safe. The religious community chooses on focus those efforts on certain individuals, for instance, by choosing to focus those resources inward. The reason that's even worse in some cases because the agency you know you could have saved them if you tried to tell them about it, perhaps not all of them, but you could, at the very least, if you have a fighting chance to stay what is likely to be an infinity in hell, or what that hell looks like. Means that, again, in your interactions with them, you feel incredibly complicit with the fact that they're going on their daily lives, not realizing, because of an effort you could have made, that their lives made dead lives and their outlive significantly better. So I think either way on outside of the house, a world in which you're trying to sell ties, it's a world in which you, whether or not it's truth, consistently believe you are doing your best to make the people around you better. In essence, it means they are worth saving, and that is a far more aspirational, positive view of the people around you. That's a good thing, and the way we build relationships 
+Second your belief in faith is struggling. Why is this? When you proselytize, you have to answer and respond to challenges to that faith and how it fits the modern world, because you are so many individuals who, by definition, don't already buy into the belief system who are trying to get them to buy into why is it good? Because in the process of hearing those challenges and answering those responses by doing things like seeking advice from religious leaders, or in interpreting religious doctrine in a way that allows you to be consistent with your current behavior, whether or not you actually end up changing your views of a lot of these things, you become a lot more grounded and understand why you hold those views, or how those views are consistent with other parts of the belief system where you are in the process of proselytizing and answering those challenges. No this argument has nothing to do with whether actually successfully proselytize someone. It is the process of perpetually trying to proselytize a broad range of society that need to answer a broad range of views. 
+Why is this important? Three reasons. One, because a lot of religions involve surviving temptation, either to switch to an alternate religion or to just become secular. The easiest way for you as a religious individual, as the motion stipulates to fight that is to have a strong, grounded belief in the talents of that system, which are renewed over time, it will see an argument about free speech and its applied to religious context. Second, it is easy as well to feel dominated or insecure in a rational rationality slash scientifically dominated world, which is yet another reason to think that if you, over time, can find ways of explaining your faith that are consistent, even if they're not believed by everyone that. Makes you much more likely to believe that amidst the challenges that other people will be levying you, last of all, to the extent that most religions give you some sort of a moral dictum, it is easier to follow that moral code when you believe the underlying doctrine or system. So the benefits of a religion telling you to do a good thing are amplified by the fact that you are not likely to question whether that religion is practically correct, and as a result, whether the stuff it tells you to be a good person is correct as well. I'll take at that point.
+
+
+<poi> 
+What explains why you be happy when you're proselytizing. What happens when you're not?
+</poi>
+
+
+Cool, we’ll get to that. Well I mean look we're not proselytizing, you will be reaping the benefits of the proselytization to be much more secure in most belief. That's the way this argument, by the way, applies. 
+The last thing I want to say here is that it is also put conversely easier to persuade religious leaders to accept moderate changes to the depth and time on the premise that this is beneficial to a proselytizing end. This argument does or this appeal does not exist in religions who do not actively seek to proselytize for the reason that there is no need to cater to a for example, a younger generation, as a Catholic church is doing across the government world, because there simply isn't a need to expand the number of people by actively persuading them. Instead, what you then care about is preserving fidelity to the movement as it is. Ideally, if you as individuals are dissatisfied, it is easier to persuade if other people share this view as statistically likely. I guess it is easy to make persuasions to change or change interpretation of the Doctrine if you are in a community where the avenue of personalization is a good political, political, quote, unquote, justification for this. 
+Last of all, this allows you to be charitable the way that is unique. The first thing I want to deal with, very briefly, is that at some point this part might say it is better to channel resources internally, as opposed to persuade people outside. And this is 100% true for the reason that there is a balance to be struck, and white people will strike that balance. The reason for this is to proselytize individuals who do not already believe in the doctrinal system. They don't see like they don't see someone living in tough lives, a member of this community, and go, Oh, but that toughness is justified because of murder religious dictator might be they're not buying from that system yet. 
+In other words, the way you proselytize is partly about explaining the validity of your system, but it's also about showing that members of your community are thriving, that they are leading good life, and the needs are taken care of, both soulfully and spiritually as well as materially, which is why there will be a good balance to our pre resource that's allocated and doing facilitating as well as helping the community remain broadly impact and helping each other out. But the the positive thing we want to forward here is that proselytizing to the form of charity is a good thing for individuals for simple reason that it helps them create meaning their life and feel like they're making a difference. 
+The reason it is superior to the secular version of it is one on the secular end of things, there is this whole media justification for why you were doing this, which means that it either happens a lot less frequently, or even when it does happen, it feels a lot more like a chore, as opposed to something you are happy to do because of some divine promise in the afterlife, or because it is something you genuinely believe in as part of the larger system, all these reasons we oppose.
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+Okay, opening opposition case is going to be very simple. We're going to talk about how this kind of communities reduce the liberty and opportunity of make chose, to choose by these people, because the community is so close and makes so clear dogmas that you're not going to be able to choose between different alternatives. Like would like is therefore going to be much before two contentions in what opening government has said. 
+First, they make a really weird argument about people cannot be safe and like you abandon these people if you are not making proselytism What I think is just the other way around most religions, or at least most mainstream religions in the world. What they think is not that they are abandoning the people which does not believe in the same God or in the same values. Most religions actually Islam, Catholicism. Make this, or at least moderate Islam, this very clear, is that you can save yourself, to your behavior and to the way you believe in something actually Catholics even have a dog authority. You can salvation, get salvation without believing in the Christian God. If you go through a good life and you have good actions with this while, when you are a proselytism, you're almost implanting the other way around. You mean that you have to spend a lot of time doing this, because this is really important. And this is so important is because you are acting to submit or to somehow help these people to go to the heaven or whatever. Therefore, I think that the people would think that this will not to be submitted is in their side of the Earth, and think, what impact are this? If you are doing this all the time, that you think this is so important, you are going to get extremely frustrated when this does not work. And we think that this is the most likely outcome in vast majority of cases, because people or a are already deeply religious in a different way that you are in a different community. Or B, you. Don't really care so much about religion, and you think that these people is like, like, really intense people that you don't want to chat with, I think that the percentage of success of these people transforming the opinion on the religion of the people is increasingly really low, and therefore they're going to be really frustrated, even if they are right. And mainstream religions also think that the people that don't believe in the same God is going to be to the Hell, they will be not so frustrated, because they're not putting all team efforts in this task, and therefore they're not like the entire time of their life watching how all the people which is not converting to their religion they can think, Oh, one more fail. And this person which I was not able to convert now is going to go to the hell. I think that that's much tougher. 
+And secondly, about the reformat and religion, I don't think, I don't really trust why it's so important to put all your effort to your intellectual effort in like reaffirmating Your religion when you can reaffirmate other things, for example, in relation with other people, which also brings happen to you. But secondly, I think that the the frustration also applied here. I think that it would be really frustrating to think that you have really good, basic religious ideas, but you are unable to put those ideas in the head of labor. 
+Now going to the case of the opening opposition. Our main point is that this is going to reduce vastly the freedom and the liberty of the people in this community. Why we think this community has to be really, really, really strict and they have to share really common values which are really common and very like limit the capability of trading. What three mechanisms are there? First, because you have to have a unique message to start with that to to to these people, if you want to proselytize, you have to have some kind of dogma which is really clear in order to have all the people which is doing the proselytism in the same direction. Actually, usually it's like a big head or a big boss, which is the one which direct this proselytism and say, which are the important dogmas and the important values you have to sell second, because we think that you have to migrate a lot in this kind of communities, like really, really a lot. You have to read a lot and investigate, as they say, you have to form goods to work and divide like the city for the places you want to go, door to door. And suddenly, even your success in the community depends on how good you are selling this product this religion to other people. Therefore you have to put a lot of effort into being good in this that means that this is the third part probably you will spend lots of time in community. You will have to internalize a lot the value that they have, and they will be no yet, a lot of control of those values. We think that this is incredibly bad for at least two or three months. 
+First, we think that we will have really little space to have a different kind of religion than a community. That means that in our world, we have, like, the possibility of reinterpret their  religion and leave the religion or way. But in their case, it is much more difficult, because we are in a process of constant making a homogeneous idea of this religion. And therefore I will have less choosing to be like my own way of religion, but certainly a more practical point of view. I think that first it will be much more stigmatization for the people which go out of this life, for the sample, people which get divorced or which have some kind of a feeling of sexual liberty. This is few cases, but they they they exist many in many communities, and they will be much more stigmatized. And thirdly, I'm related with the second, it will be much high pressure over the people to follow those rules. That means that, because my entire life is focused in that community I part, I spend so much time, so many hours in my day, doing this community life with the religion, it will be much more pressure in me to follow their values. If I get divorced now, I will have no friends. They will make me feel really sad. They will be all the time pointing me with the finger. That means that I have much more pressure to follow their values. And therefore, even if I think I should not do something, probably will be somehow enforced by the social pressure. 
+
+
+<poi> 
+Being a member of a community that proselytize does not imply that you are personally doing it as a full time job.
+</poi>
+
+
+Obviously it's not, but in the comparative with our world, it's more in the our world than in his world. I mean, probably if you don't spend so much time doing this, there will be no such a proselytized community. What we think with this argument is that obviously it's communities which do not proselytize, which are also really strict, but that's not necessary. But in the other hand, when you want to proselytize a half a unique message and this kind of community, you have to be very strong with your dogma and to try to make an homogeneous values in that community and others seek a lot of the liberty of them. 
+Second part of our case, we think that this will enforce a lot the relationship with third person, or persons outside this community. First, because of the characterization of these people as the people look to these people, most people think that the witnesses of rawa, all these people, are really intense people, which I don't want to have fire on in my life for real reason. First because I don't want to see anything about another religion. I already have one or another values. But second, because sometimes many people think that these values are going to somehow endorse their social environment. For example, if you are a boss, you don't want your employees being all the time, by by employing, talking about changing your religion, etc. Or, if you are a parent, you don't want your child to be all the time with child which are like so personality, all the time taking talking about new religion. We think that this is important, because most of the consequence of this is that probably you will have to to close your circle of who you are friends, the close of children, which with people which you really engage with, because you are not going to be able to break through the barriers of most people, because they think you are intense, that they are propagating values that they do, do not like, and that you are like some kind of social like intense people. Therefore this is bad, obviously, because you have less relationships, but also it's more strong the second argument, because now you will have to be even more within the circle of your point. Thank you very much.
+</lo>
+
+<dpm>
+So, I think the crucial clash which is developing this debate is between two different visions of proselytism, a proselytism was about flexibility and attempted to persuade people in a reasonable way, and a proselytism, which consists of constantly repeating a single dog or in the home that someone else will adopt it, whilst hardening your own position. Obviously, both these types of proselytism have existed historically. We think structurally, ours is more likely to exist, both in general and to exist in the modern world. And therefore, overwhelmingly, that's likely the type of proselytism people are engaged in, and the type of proselytism which is affecting people's lives. We'll talk about why that is later for a characterization of proselytism, we don't think that modern proselytism tends to look like constantly shouting at people around them in public, the fact that they're going to be damned to eternal judgment unless they convert to your religion. It probably looks much more like looking for the opportunity when you'll know your friend is getting a bit lost in their life and share them with them. The thing which is important, which gives you a sense of meaning, it looks like providing services to people who know are struggling in their lives, so that when they're considering who's helped them, they'll be aware that your church is the person who helped them when they were down, and therefore they'll be potentially receptive to your ideas. Proselytism doesn't want to be done in a crude way, but it can be a deeply delicate and subtle process. 
+Three points in this speech before that, rebuttle to what we get kind of opening opposition. So I think the most important claim they actually make is that this is a clash between religions who see themselves as exclusively saved, and religions which say, Well, you know, if you're it doesn't really matter if you're a Catholic provider, you're a good person. I think every religion makes some form of claim of preference for its believers, that the degree of preference in accordance to them might vary, but you would generally say that your believers are in a unique relationship with God. Why? Because you have to be arguing that you are providing the moral solution, or you are not really a religion. Therefore, regardless of whether you have an emphasis on faith, people are better equipped to access divine reward if they are working through your religion and a member of it, therefore any religion is necessarily making a claim to be helping its followers, and therefore a claim that other people are worse off. We think the crucial difference is between those religions which see other people as redeemable, like the vast majority of religions which currently exist, or those religions like, for example, some of the forms of Calvinism, which have existed historically, which just says that some people aren't the elect, and therefore you should just reject those people who aren't the elect and not help them. 
+Secondly, in terms of frustration, we would say that if you are constantly shouting people, they are going to go to hell, and then they don't, they don't change your religion, but it's going to be a deeply frustrating experience if what you are trying to do is engage in meaningful conversations with people about something deeply important to you. We've got to be a very fulfilling experience, even if the result of that conversation is not what you'd ultimately hoped it would be. And sometimes you will convert some at which point you will feel a sense of profound elevation for having shared with some of the most important thing in your life. And sometimes you won't, but you'll still get a sense of fulfillment for having tried. We think people could be accruing a spiritual reward from engaging in proselytism even if they're not necessarily successful in doing so. So it's more likely affirming and deeply frustrating.
+In terms of the analysis about why there is going to be a turn towards homogeneity and backwardness in religions which engage in proselytism, the first thing you know, just you need a message that's definitely true. What they don't make and what they don't show analytically is why that message therefore needs to be inflexible and certain. I would make a historical claim, which I think is accurate, that when religions have been trying to convert people and win people over, they do two things. The first is they incorporate elements of those other people's ideas, because turning up to someone and saying, We have a completely different worldview. Drop everything you believe in is inherently unpersuasive. By contrast, highlighting areas of synergy between your belief systems and the more persuasive way to look at things to talk to people. So for example, you can look at the incorporation of ancestor worship into Catholicism in China, or the incorporation of paganism into early Christianity. Or similar, the way that religions have syncretized over the course of history, by adapting air into each other's message. But secondly, when you are competing for followers, and you're engaged in competition, that tailors itself to have an attractive message, which generally means one which is more flexible. Because although there'll be some people who'll be attracted to constantly being told they're doomed, the majority of people are going to find it more flexible be told that even though there are some things they could do better at, they also have the option to succeed and the opportunity to entertain some sort of enlightenment. So I think there's two claims there. The first is a claim about what is persuasive to people, and the second is an economic claim that you are going to try and appeal to people more by selling them an attractive vision, and by telling people that they can be redeemed, rather than by like, telling them that they're constantly doomed and therefore having a homogenous message. Secondly, in terms of centralization, we would know this without actually decentralizing, because you require large numbers of people to engage in the focus of prosecutors, or at least to fund it. Go for it. 
+
+
+<poi>
+Do you think most people join a religion after a long, confounding theological debate? 
+</poi>
+
+
+No, we think most people join a religion because their parents give them that religion. However, when people change their religion, then they generally do think about it at least quite carefully, like closing opposition might object to the level of certainty or thought people put into it, they probably put a greater level of certainty and thought into it than they would almost anything else. It's just that people aren't that good at thinking. They still think about it like at least quite a lot compared to other things, 
+In terms of centralization, that we think it makes it less centralized, because you're dependent upon your followers. And even if you are centralized, it's the more pragmatic people who end up in the center, because they have to be those who are constantly engaging with other people, as described by tech way, and which was never really rebutted. Thirdly, in terms of putting in lots of time and effort, they claim we put in lots of effort, and they jump to it being unenjoyable. We have all put infinite amounts of effort into debating. We still find it like, at least reasonably enjoyable. People could put a lot of effort into it and find it a deeply fulfilling aspect of the life. But also, people could choose to what extent they they pursue this like people aren't dogmatic when they pursue their religion. They could build it around their life in the way they want to, finally in terms of stigma and how you put pudding off others, I think you are going to be more flexible in your implementation of your rules, because you've got to keep your followers on side and keep them enthusiastic. And if you tell them they're going to go to hell, then they won't go out and proselytize. 
+But moreover, you're not going to for the previously explained reasons about crudeness and proselytizing the intelligent way. You're not going to tell people to constantly get their children to talk to everyone at school, because that would be actively counterproductive for exactly the reason to describe by opening opposition. And therefore, therefore you wouldn't do that. So in terms of two brief further thoughts, firstly, that you have to be uniquely responsive to people when you are required to go out and proselytize, and therefore you're going to depend on them, and you're dependent upon large numbers people. But it also gives people a unique empowerment when they are the philosophical agent of transformation. Are you as the individual believer? Is the person who is charged with saving your fellow human and giving them the most important gift in your life? We think that gives people a great sense of elevation, but secondly, a claim on the good life, we think fundamental life is frustrating and meaningless, and people find it really difficult to get things which cut through and make it feel like life is worth living, feeling you have the ability to spread the most beautiful thing in your life and beyond the ability to help your fellow people by giving them something which is genuinely meaningful, and get the opportunity to engage in meaningful conversations about that gives you immense power and dignity, which gives you great, great confidence as a believer, and great enjoyment of your life. Very proud to pause.
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo>
+I am going to do two things. First, I'm going to tell you what most of the benefits they claim are not unique to religions and strong communities and rather achievable by other means. Secondly, we tell you where do you get better relations? And thirdly, reduce individuality is harmful or not when it happens. 
+First, on OG, basically they clearly there are a lot of benefits of joining a strong community. I have two things to say here. First, most of the families, they claim are perfectly achievable by really easy alternatives. So most of the things that Raffy tell you are not unique. For example, the satisfaction of life and elevation. It is true that you get when you spread the word you believe it's good, but it's also true when you get it by charity or by doing people, or making people like wouldn't have survived in other ways. So you go to like any other charity, and you make people feel better. You make people that they’re gonna survive. You make people they're going to change their minds in other ways. Or you make them eat when they couldn't, or you make them have a shelter when they didn't. Probably the amount of satisfaction is almost equal.
+Second Consistency with your life, probably not, very importantly, not that religious, and most importantly, strong support from the community. It is true that you can get strong support from your community if you are religious. It is also true that you can get that symmetrically from your friends if you spend time with them. So the point is that most of the things they say and you can check your notes are probably symmetric to very easy alternatives. What they don't tell you is that the most important benefits of religions are achievable in our sight. So the most important parts of religion are true. For first, you have a moral code of conduct which is good, because easy to adjudicate whether something is good or bad. And secondly, you have the spiritual spiritual salvation that you know that there's good and bad after death. Those two things are perfectly achievable in our role. You can stick with those and still not engage in such a strong community, nothing. So the point here is, most of things they say are perfectly not unique. Secondly, where do you get better relationships? Harvey told you, but Raffy told you something very interesting, which is, look, probably you'll look to them either biased or complacent due to the release. However, you're telling that look, even when that's okay, you don't have the moral duty always to convert them, because you can believe that even if they behave well as they are, they can go to heaven. What Raffy rebuttals is look, but you have preference for them because they are part of your community, not that by the same logic they gave you when you failed proselytizing, you look them even worse. You look at them and tell them, Oh, but I did achieve. I did not achieve, even if I was trying to save them, even if I was trying to do them good, even if I did my best efforts, I didn't make them. so the same analysis they gave you when your relations get biased, they get even more biased when you don't convince them. And here's very important, the POI that Rafa conceded. He says, Look, many times you will fail. Why? Because many times that religion came from birth, your parents grew up in the sense so many, many, few times they achieved what they want. So what I'm telling you with this is that the most times you achieve this, like you won't achieve this. And hence the logic that they give you, or why they stigmatize them and you don't believe they're good, and the bias and the complicit, it will be even harder. In that point when the relations and how it works? we tell you one important thing, which is that it is much more difficult to engage in meaningful relations with others when you belong to strong communities such as this one. Why is this true? Because you are always going to disagree on core and fundamental things in your daily lives. You're gonna disagree whether x is good or bad. And the most important thing, you're never gonna Clarivate on that fact, because it's part of yourself on the comparative inner world. You are religious. But if you get to talk about, like, I don't know, pre marital relations or abortion whatsoever. If it's not that core to you, you can concede some things. Whether you are as strong as a community, you need to dependent community in each single time because you're part of a proselytizing community. Probably you won't be able to conceive. Probably you won't be able to engage in meaningful relationships with no one there not your relations, because you won't be able to engage in anything that is important to you, which they don't agree. That is frustrating in relationship. When you tell your friends you always want, when you tell your friends that probably abortion is shared, even if they think otherwise. We think that the worst is your relationship, much more than when they say or buy some unconfident lasting on reducing individual liberty. So having told you that actual proselytizing plan having a strong message and opportunity cost of your time, Raffy battle is two form. First, he says that modern proselytism doesn't imply that hard proselytism, it is true to a certain extent. It doesn't need you full time doing it, but it's also true that as also later, it implies a strong need to maintain the message. What I tell you with this is there's a demand to be consistent with your regards to your feelings, to your thoughts, etc. If you're proselytizing, if you're part of the James community, I don't know in New York, if you're part in Williamsburg, you cannot go out of the moral standards of your religion because it's part of what you do, your community defines itself by propagating that idea. Hence, that's the reason why you need to be consistent. Because if you're not consistent, it is very difficult to you to keep propagating that ideas. That is the precise logic. What gives you that the community presses you a lot. It presses you not to go outside, to do different things. So yes, it doesn't apply proselytizing at every moment of your life, but implies in every moment of your life is probably fine, like the fact that you're part of that community, a community that some of you, not every time, but most of your time, are saying that it's good to be part of the community. How does that deal with you having an abortion or with you having priority of relationship? Third thing is that they have a lot of oppression due to this point. That's why it's so important. That's why they are high demanding. That's why it's about closing. 
+
+
+<poi>
+When you're trying to sell your ideas and trying to recruit more people, you're much more likely to actually adapt in trying to actually move according to?
+</poi>
+ 
+That’s not very new, that's about the that Raffy gave also to this one, we say that there's competition, and this is false to a large extent. So yes, there is competition between religions with a because of the fact that they told you the men take it though you don't sweep religions. When you're 30 and you're Christian, then you're like Muslim. That doesn't happen. Vast majority of the case, it doesn't happen. So first that competition is not as real as they present. This is not a perfect market. With a I choose to go to another option. If my option is bad, probably it's not true, but will be. And more importantly, that competition needs to engage with the fact that each conceit that you make in order to be more attractive, it's also criticizing us to the community belong to. So if the Catholic Church suddenly say, Look, we're fine with conjunction, probably that is bad for them too, because more of the most of their stigmas, of their like, of the dogmas, are being related to God. So they cannot do just cherry picking in their volition without being inconsistent. They have a need for consistency. They have a need to spread a word that is unique in order to have their message spread, even if there's competition. We believe that that strong power they have come to have you out of the way, makes you qualitative, a lot of individual limiting at the end of the debate, the comprises most of the things they say are achievable in other ways, whether the claim that you lost part of your life and part of your relationship is unique to our world. Hence, within the brief.
+</dlo>
+
+<mg>
+Three things in my speech, first thing why practically it is more empowering ti individuals who are member of these groups. Why it helps them to achieve more political capital? And makes their lives much better. Second of all why moral is unacceptable to be a part of a religious community? that is not trying to spread the Earth and Thirdly characterization unique characterization of these closed religious communities and why they are very harmful? why they are more homogeneous? and why they are much more like to be underground? and really but before that two pieces of quick rebuttals first of all with regards of frustration that we heard from opening opposition I think Raffy’s point was good enough but I would like to add much more first of all if you are its even if it's difficult even if you are frustrated and you cannot reach every other person once you reach one single person the happiness you get his much higher which gives you much more motivation to continue over the course of your lifetime but even if that's not true the fact that it's much more difficult nowadays To spread the words that means there is a challenge in that religion which in incentivizes those individuals to actually question which parts of the Religion these people are challenging and not necessarily being convinced and hence creative mechanism for you to be able to change those unique parts for example, If the abortion is a very unique point than its much more likely for you to find the sub religious group that actually okay with abortion rather than not necessarily change sticking with your own views.
+Second of all, they say that look you disagree with the fundamentals if you are trying to spread the words and its much more difficult for you to be a part of this religion I don't actually get this point when you look at the catholicism or Islam if you see that some parts of these religious communities are discriminated against gay people for example you can easily find your own sub community and that move Christianity that is much more accepting to LGBT ideas right. You can find so many churches nowadays that are actually performing LGBT weddings in their own church because there is a demand because they have been losing LGBT community because of those narratives and now they have an incentive to change that and create this community and even even in Islam you find so many sub groups that are actually have female imams because historically they have been disenfranchising females in power structures now because of this questionings and because of those frustration because they cannot for example call more women or LGBT People they have incentive to create the sub communities and actually improve and be more inclusive no thanks.
+Let's start with why it's practically more empowering? A because if more people are believing into your religion which is similar world views to you the better, because more people understand you in a global scale. That means you're much more likely to find an appropriate community that you can actually belong and you can feel satisfied. But moreover, the fact that you are belonging to a group that is globally accepted and understood, that means that you are less likely to be discriminated because you belong to that group. That means you are not when you are walking on the street or when you want to perform your religion, you are less likely to be attacked and less likely to victimize and marginalize in comparison to their side of the world. Moreover, that means, if we are living in a Western liberal democracies, and in case, the secular tides are increasing the government and somehow oppressing the religion and the way you can exercise your religious identity now, because you belong to a bigger group, because you're trying to spread the word, you actually have higher political capital. That means you are actually in the position to be able to change and actually create checks and balances against the secular types that prevent you to be able to exercise your own religion. This is uniquely important, because only on our side of the house, this individual, this religious individual can make sure that they can exercise their religion in a way that they do, but on their side of the house, they are a fringe group. They are marginalized. They are victimized and but most, more often than not, in the media, they are portrayed. It's just couple of cuckoos who doesn't let anyone inside their group. That means, as a person, since it's an act of motion, this incentive of this religious person is uniquely important, which is something that opening government did not touch, for this person to be continued, to exercise their own religion and find that community, find that empowerment. This is crucial to actually have higher numbers and have bigger impact. But moreover, it actually creates also more structure within religion. This doesn't necessarily mean centralized or decentralized, but just the way it's organized, is much more likely to have a formal structures in the sense that you're trying to reach more people, that means you're much like to have fundraising activities, incentive to get donations. That means you're much more palatable to people, to be able to attract diverse groups of people, because you're trying to increase your sample size. And think of it as a political party, right? If you're in the center, that means you're trying to appeal to majority of the ideas, or more ideas. They have more members, rather than a fringe, far right radical party who is focusing on one idea. That means, when you have more fundraising and more donations, that means there are more schools, more hospitals, basically prone friction of services, more medicine, more shelters, etc. That brings, on average, even if you belong to this individual, as an individual, you have higher chances to get access to services on the secular world you may not have, right? That's a unique another unique benefit, the closing government is breaking due. Yes, closing
+
+
+<poi>
+Judaism is not initializing. Are we a bunch of cuckoos who think everybody else is going to.
+</poi>
+
+thank you very much. I'm pretty sure, like, exceptions exist on both sides of the house. And I don't think Judaism necessarily the only close community religion that is not necessarily, you know, cuckoos. And I could also say that, like, majority of this case doesn't necessarily apply to Judaism. There are many other religion religious groups that are very much close and very much cuckoo. Look at the self harming Christians, for example, right? 
+Second of all, why it's morally it's unacceptable to be part of a religious community, because you're basically selfishly benefiting from salvation, but you're not necessarily sharing the salvation with other people. We think morally, as a religious individual, you have a moral obligation to also save others. This is not opening governance, that because you get a benefit, it's not about the utilitarian benefit that you are getting. This is about principally, that if you're going to be safe, if you're only selfish saving yourself, actually you're not fulfilling your own religious duty to be able to make sure that other human beings are also safe. And I think that's the perspective that we are holding. 
+And lastly, by what kind of characterization of close religious communities we are talking about? So obviously, these people think that they are chosen, they are special people, and they are born special, which incentivize the closely, mixed, tight community. This has two implications. First of all, it is very, very difficult to get out, because only way for these communities to continue to exist is to. Make sure, because you're not recruiting to make sure that members actually stay there, that means they're much more likely to be radical, they're much more likely to be oppressing, and they're much more likely to be hard liner. That means, as an average religious individual, if you're somehow questioning or have some kind of doubts, you're actually being suppressed and oppressed much more, and you're not getting to let out. That makes it much more Cult like, and that makes it much more problematic. And second of all, it is much more homogeneous, right? Because you don't necessarily have that many of people, and you don't want to attract that many people, more often than not, these groups are not much more homogeneous. That means it's much more likely an echo chamber, and much more likely to be actually prone to radicalization, because if they want to spread the word, that means that they have to self correct mechanism. But if you don't have that duty, that means you keep believing your dogmatic views and more and more, which makes it much more problematic thing. So we have to look at what kind of religions we are talking about, and I do consider Judaism may be a good example on their side, but you still have to engage with all the other subgroups and Cult like religious groups in order to win this debate. Thank you.
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+So two points on framing, and then two things in constructive. The two things in constructive were going to be, who are the people joining those communities, and therefore, and who are the people joining those communities, and therefore, what do they look like, and how do those power dynamics play out and technically unequally of the communities to support their like people, both theologically and material and and materially and socially so before that, two points of prayer. 
+First, governments think being religious is very easy. They seem to think that religious people are a bunch of sheeple which are just satisfied with the Word of God and with the simplistic answers and never challenge anything and have no internal world to speak of, which is why they're like, Oh, you'll be religious, you'll be happy, you'll be giving simplistic answers to people, and then you'll be satisfied, but questioning fear and those things are nascent. Are nascent facts of our human existence, and religious people don't feel them any less than people who are not religious. The question is, when they have questioning, when they have existential dread, when they have anger, when they have difficulties in life, how are they able to cope with these and those are those things that are left unanswered by government with their flag conceptions of religion. 
+Secondly, which communities are we talking about? And this confusion it has to do mostly with is most of my answers to closing government. Why? Because they've just confused two axis. One axis is piety. How extreme is your religion? How like life controlling it is? The other axis is proselytizing. Those two axes are separate, orthogonal. They don't necessarily have to go together. You can have an extremely pious religion that doesn't proselytize at all. You can, sorry, you can. You can have an extremely pious religion that does proselytize, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, the Mormons. And you can have an extremely, sorry, a very loose religion that doesn't proselytize at all, for example, Reform Judaism, for example, Buddhism. So we, like, yeah, you guys wanted to exclude like, 30 million people out of this debate. Now you're going to have to exclude 300 or, I don't know, like 1 billion people out of this debate. So good luck with that. We found Buddhism, the second example for this for non personality. So those two things are separate, and the fair apples to apples comparison that you guys have to make in parallel is a non proselytizing versus the proselytizing religion, where the religious piety is similar, compare like Lubavitch Jews, which are proselytizing to just compare on a similar level. I am not cheat by doing the diagonals. 
+Okay, so how does the people joining those religions? And this answers pretty much everything, because everything had to do with strictness rather than anything else. So how do we how can we talk about the people joining the boom? Who are the people joining those religions? We say joining a religion is a major life event. You have to admit that you were wrong. You have to admit that you are going hell. You have to abandon your initial assumptions about life. You have to abandon your initial assumptions about the world. And you break off almost any and every social you break off a lot of social ties when you do because a lot of people are not happy with someone near to them converting their religion. In fact, almost no one is so. Therefore we say it takes an extreme situation to be willing to do that, which is why we ask them in POI, who do you think is willing to do that? Is that me, after you've sat down to me and explained to me why you. Know Jesus died for my sins, or is it more likely to be people in a moment of life crisis, people in a moment of extreme, of extreme difficulty, willing to forsake everything, to try one last moonshot, to try God's Gambit, if you will? So there, and this is why the people joining religions, and if you look at the real life examples, are people from either of two situations. One, the situation when they are in most of the time. One, a situation of extreme personal crisis, where they where they've lost, where they've lost, where they've lost some of the things that bar them. They've lost family, they've lost employment, they've lost and they've lost economically, etc. Or secondly, a situation where there's a big material power asymmetry between the converting and the converted. So this is like how all of you know, Africa was converted, mostly the people proselytizing, just significantly richer than the people not proselytizing. Give them a massive material advantage. This is why, like, they gave us the China example as well, so and so. This impacts how everything else unfolds in this debate. 
+The second thing that impacts it is that saving Lost Souls is always going to be a priority for the community, because it's like the, it's like the zero to 100 gamut, right? You save someone completely from the dead to be able to do that effectively. How do those things shape the services that the believer gets from the community and their life experience? We say first, we say, we say, the religion has several tools which are very important in order to help its people. The primary and perhaps the most important tool is the central sermon. You have like Sunday Mass and Christianity, you have like the Friday sermon. In Islam, you have a central event which is most which is most crucial. Why? First of all, because it's the most attended one. Second one is the it's the one in which your community can most support you, because the most people are there. Secondly, you have, you have the ability to give people specific services, to give them couples counseling, to take life counseling, to give them specific attention. Thirdly, you have the ability to get to have like theological group and let people teach. And just briefly, you have a lot of those things, and also with your social support, we think crucially, all of those things become diverted into the very low level of recruiting those people who are maybe less educated, who came into the religion, and those people become top priority. What does that mean? That means the Sunday sermon doesn't develop a long time. It stays the same because the new crop of recruits, it's always the same. They always want to hear the same simplistic messages that brought them there. You'll be better economically, God will save you. It'll be fine. Everything is going to be materially better for you. Now, unfortunately, when you're a real living, breathing religious person, you know that that's not fact, even though you are a true believer, a lot of bad stuff has happened in life, because bad stuff sometimes happens in life, but you get no theological answers, because whenever you come to your parish, what you hear is the simplistic things that drew the people in Yeah go.
+
+
+<poi>
+Can you tell what's the alternatives for these law schools to be able to have access to these kind of?
+</poi>
+
+No, no, okay, okay, clear, clear, clear, clarification, those souls are not lost under the vast majority of non proselytizing religions. Otherwise, they would have religious imperatives to proselytize, right? Or it's not your fault and it's fine like no religion tells you those people are lost and you should feel guilty about it. So, except those who proselytize. 
+So, first of all, you get no theological support, and that means in your when you come to question God, you have no you have nothing, no answer for you. Second of all, It centralizes religion, because when all of the parish is excluded from religious discourse, discourse only happens enclosed, enclosed councils of like the wise men of the religion, because the the the the discourse with the community is extremely low level. Thirdly, we say the support and investment within the community is significantly less because you have limited resources. Where are you going to invest? Are you going to give couples counseling or personal health or personal direction, or, like profession specific advice to the people who have been there for a while, who are gonna stay there, who are not under threat of soldiers deep losing their religion? Or are you going to help the people where you get the highest like return on investment of saving them from the loss? This means that being in a religion which proselytizes means being second class citizen in that religion. You're always going to be prioritized lower than the people joining. You always going to be prioritized and you're going to see a race to the bottom of your theology and your religion trying to draw. Thank You
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+I think it might be true that some members of religious communities struggle with not digging couples counseling. What I think they struggle with much more is, for example, in Mosques  not being being built because there's no critical laws that would demand that politically successfully. And this is not as extensional, right? It is to say, when you make when you make that community much more visible, much more vocal figures speak out, when you get people who have many men, maybe abandon their faith, convert back to their former faith, and go out and speak about it all. By the way, people who are hard to convert, right? Because oftentimes these are people who already believe that at some point or feel some sort of cultural attachment, that is a point at which you get very hard or tangible benefits, like being able to worship at all right, or being able to express your religion in public, or being able to protect it legally, right? I would trade that to campus counseling provided by my priest any day. I'm not sure of Noam and Tom, and they can explain why they wouldn't in their way. But before that, just a couple of points of the game, again, very close in conversation. 
+So firstly, their response to our extension is weird geometry, right? I didn't understand a lot of it, but the takeaway boom from Noam, I guess, is to say, Oh, we're talking about is not necessarily the ability to proselytize, but piety and how intensely you are investing in your religion. I think that's untrue. I think Mel is quite clear to say that oftentimes, well, can you be reminded and explain it? Because you had so many quiet okay, then stop fucking happening, right? I think Mel is quite clear in saying the number of people is the one that's going to make a difference, why cleaning their belief is not necessarily intense, right? The fact that I'm going to go out and demand something from the MP, the fact that they're going to be investing, maybe even like little amount of resources into their local mosque or their local church, is the thing that's going to make a difference, right? I think that's insanely important. And I think it's missed by the closing opposition. I think the only thing they miss, and the other thing I think they mischaracterize, is to say that most people who are going to join are going to be so different to their religion, right? I'm going to be so vastly, removed from it that you have to spend a massive amount of resources trying to, like, just read like the first passage from the Bible over and over again for next 10 years. I just don't think that's true. I think most people who convert are Surprise, surprise, people who are already proximate to their religion, right? Maybe they have, like, some ancestry Catholicism. Have heard something about it. Maybe they were caught, like in a past, and then they stop. They give us their belief because, you know, particular political stances that the church has taken, or maybe it is grew out of it, right? Those are the people that are easiest to convert. Therefore, the Core of that is, I think they're numerically the highest, like most sizable group in this debate, right? And I think those are not the people who don't have to spend resources in explaining, like, what the Bible is to but our people can have a very engaging discussions with right? Perhaps sometimes more engaging theology discussions because they are Catholics. Perhaps they come from a different perspective, because they're better than their religion at some point in the past, right? And those are people who can bring in perspective into challenge, like your theology as well. So I think that characterization is completely wrong. If they want their extension to stand. Tom have to explain. Why do you think the most sizable group of new recruits, who are completely oppositional to the religion to begin with. I just find it implausible. No, thank you. Okay, to talk about like my extension. Then. So I think Melda brings you what I think is most important materialism, right? Because this is an act of notion, right? And she tells you that the thing you care most about, probably is how you are accepted by the community that you live in, right? And she says that proselytizing is a unique mechanism that's going to make you more accepted. Right? This applies both religious minorities and countries where the majority might aggressive also also applies to religious people in secular countries where the rise of secularism oftentimes means that religious rights are not as protected. But he says, well, as much investment in new things that they would like to see. So why is this important? Right? Because I think that the biggest threat to your own religious rights and even personal safety, oftentimes, is being alone, is being a small group that can be trampled on, that doesn't necessarily have a voice in politics, that cannot necessarily organize and demand things politically or demand things as a voting block even right? I think when you convert, I know 1000s of former Christians in your neighborhood into actively practicing right. I think that gives you the ability for those people, then to even invest into your local community or demand something politically right. I think that protects your religious rights, and oftentimes also makes you a visible minority that is not seen as otherwise, which also protects you personally, your personal safety, right? I think the other thing, other way, that which uniquely benefits you, is that you become less unfamiliar. You're not seen as an outsider. Look, for example, Mormons, like in Europe, right? For the first couple of years, I would venture to say that loads of people thought it strange, right? Were like, probably averse to interact with them as they were personalizing. Loads of people had personal one on interactions with them. Realized that they are quite pleasant. They have that interesting place to say, which means they are now much more of a community. That's like, reaping some benefits from the local community. There's also much less like, much less likely to be marginalized or to be persecuted, right? I think Furthermore, you much more, much less likely to be persecuted if you're seen as a religion that is not ex that doesn't see itself as exclusive, and doesn't seem the majority of the country as being inherently born into sin, right? This is admittedly building on material from opening, but I think it's a completely different impact, right? That is to say, if you are community attaching the majority of Catholics, right, they're much assigned to persecute you, you present yourself as someone who just happens to have a different religious belief that is not immutable and that they can also adopt, right? Rather than someone who's been born into a life if you know objectively higher standard than they are, I think you're much more immune to persecution in that sense, also, they're classy, right? And this is important, because now that brings you the names. Brings it at the extension. I think as you build that in the box, most churches also big. Build things that I think are things that are seen to provide general utility to the country says, for example, religious schools, religious hospices and so on. I think when you try to detect those community projects, because there's a number of people in your communities, bigger you are. Seen as a more productive member of that community. This means you're less likely to be persecuted or less likely to be seen as an outsider, again, impacting on your personal safety, but also the kinds of services and provisions that your community can read. I didn't end the debate as an individual. Your highest priority should be whether you can or like meaningfully enjoy religious wines, whether they are protected legally, whether you have resources and facilities to worship you God. And this is the Malaysian win president's debate that brings a men for them go.
+
+
+<poi>
+There is a massive issue in your case that implies that this is the only way to get your benefit.
+Sit down. I don't think i never said it’s an only way. I just think it's a very, very good way. I think we can have more of that's of the House we don't have to prove there's like absolutely no other ways in which we can do that. I think that's okay at best, very poorly mitigatory POI, okay. 
+</poi>
+
+Lastly, Mela also tells you that even on a moral standard, even if you don't know why anything was said, you have a religious you have an obligation to proselytize. Because if you genuinely believe that, for everyone who's not religious, alternative Hellfire awaits when God's not gonna watch over them when they're playing from scratching, right? Then you're gonna gently a bad person if you do it, right? She doesn't just do levels in which this is true, right? Firstly, just because you want to be a moral person, a purely into a logical way, right? Just because you believe that, like the god, like most religions, wants you to be nice, it's quite a nice thing to save other people from hellfire. Therefore, it's probably moral thing to do that you want to do yourself. But secondly, also, just on a utilitarian, selfish basis, right? If you're saving many evil people from hellfire, you're much more likely to go to heaven yourself, right? Because it's quite a fucking amazing thing to do for other people, right? So I think God will probably appreciate it now others, and perhaps Ste’s response to this is say, Ah, but oftentimes you're not being successful and do that on mass. Well, the great deal of God is not utilitarian, right? He appreciates the effort, right? So I think from a purely selfish perspective, right? You still appreciate that, so you're still making yourself a favor, but at least trying to simulate some people from hellfire, right? So two levels, firstly, you're better protected on a personal legal level, but also secondly, on a moral level, and more likely getting to heaven. I think those are most of people, the things that religious people care about, and I'm glad to oppose you.
+</gw>
+
+<ow>
+Okay, let's first discuss what is actually the way you should look at this debate? Because I think to an extent, both government teams both exaggerate, especially CG, in what you should convince an individual both don't understand religion to a large extent then understand what is the most important aspect when you make the decision of which community to join. We like to say that the question of what does it mean about the community, what are the incentives of communities towards its members. How does it treat them? Is the most important question in this debate, considering that this is your source of truth, we’re going to explain it in a second. Then we'll discuss how does proselytizing actually affect the community and your relationship within the community, religiously and just on a general level? And lastly, we will talk about like religious imperatives that both governments just seem to assert that exists when, obviously the debate assumes that not but doesn't engage with the actual material, though there will tell you why, even if you think there's some material there who's still in the debate on theological level, before that a bit and mostly is in response to CG, because they are the ones seeming the mostly that a bit of a clarification what actually is happening today. 
+So the first thing to note is that CG, in order to prove any part of their case required that you as an individual person is it would probably double the amount of people within your community right now, right you need 10s of 1000s of people in order to change maybe one seat in any sort of Parliament or even local elections. Forget about the fact that no one except Jesus, has ever done that, as far as I know in the history of the world, according to OG and CG, a lot of people within communities don't even do that themselves. They're trying to convince other people. You see that the like sure, maybe you'll convince throughout your life, 10, 20, 50, people from here to not being prosecuted legally because of that, the distance is huge. Not Moreover that in response to us your claims that you mostly try to engage with people who have similar beliefs to you, which means that indeed, in advance, they wouldn't vote against you, then the second extension is like, look. But you know, we interacted in the outside world and other religions. You know, you tell them they still have a chance. They can be saved, as long as they're not Catholics or not religions. You guys tell them they have a chance, but only if they join your religion. You know when you have more religious tensions when you tell Catholics they are sinners, you don't have the interest to do that in their faces when you don't try to proselytize them and convince them to join your religion, obviously, the people wait mostly moments that Jehovah's Witnesses will tell other people's otherwise, you don't have that interaction and that tension in the world. Without it, you don't have that negative sort you think that at best, you create no political impact and you create less hatred from other groups. You don't think you get any of the sort of benefits they target. 
+So let's discuss why you think the community itself is the most important thing. Because opening opposition or right, to an extent, a lot of things that OG talked about are not unique, right? Like the feeling of elevation you get when you convince someone else is similar to get when you just do community work and help religious authorities within your community, and just feel that you have other individuals to get closer to God by your presence there, they're also truth by putting out that. Sure, when you succeed, it feels great, but most of the time, you're likely to fail, and you feel like you have failure God that you are unsuccessful, maybe you're not believing strongly enough, and therefore this might God punish you by being unsuccessful, and you have all those doubts. We don't know specifically which of these are more likely to happen to you, but we do say the community is the most important aspect for a couple of reasons. Hey, because according to both governments, most people don't proselytize. And don't do it most of the time, meaning most of the time spent within the community and doing things within the community, all the services that Tom talked about before. 
+But second note that your entire life revolves around the community. This is your source of truth and answer to religious questions, which are literally more important than life or death. This is about eternal life. This is about what's right or wrong. This is about an entity that controls everything, but also because in a lot of these communities, you tend to rely on them, very, very significantly, they are your best friend. They are your safety net. And this is why the community to be there for you to a significant extent, not that comparing that to your relations with the outside world or to the political influence that you have, almost none of this is the most important aspect of this fight. 
+So how is it affected by proselytizing? We say a couple of things. So opening opposition the government likely, argue on which one is likely to be more like oppressive. We are not sure even why that is necessarily a bad thing, but we also don't know which one is more correct. There are incentives for both sides to apply and do that, but we told them, in general, a couple of things, A  know, the community itself is directed to world, the outside world, right? They are trying to convince other people to join, not to keep you into the same extent. That means that on the trade off, they are more likely to put money, put resources, put the priests or the people who are new in the community, to try and give guidance to people who are new there, and not someone who's been there for the last five years. They have to make sure they're appealing to them second on your work, when you consolidate, you know that you are further away from your community through a large amount of time. If it is your job if you’re one of the I know 10, 20 I don't know what the government thinks it is. Percent of the people who do it, that means on your daily basis, you are far away from the community. You are far away from your services. They think, on a general level, the community is not incentivized to the same extent to take care of you and to accept you and help you while taking a second promise, but second to say, on this theological level, you are harmed significantly, because not what government case conditions actually are. Because when OG tells you, yeah, you try to be more flexible when you're trying to convince and define the common ground. That means that you compromise on religious aspects, not to the alternative that you have to compete with others. You compete for that common ground. It is a waste to the buffer in which every community makes more and more religious concessions to bring people in on the expense of your religiousness, on the expense of the following rules, on the expense of making sure the community adheres to the doctrine that God Jubilee has given them, because they have to draw in masses of people all the time, and because they have to compete with other religions as well. This is why you compromise the religious and theology itself when you do that, before we respond to the OG about asking yourself OG,
+
+
+<poi>
+So for some classes in the community, if you believe generally the message they are preaching to be effective at it, and the community doesn't provide them the level of service that they're promising to new members. The sacrifice of the community is to be terrible and ineffective when it isn't an incentive to do that.
+</poi>
+
+No, this isn't comparable. Instead, they still have some incentive to care about the people who are in there. But if you ask the question, Who is more important, the person is being the community for 5 years. He's more capped from the entire world outside. He has no relationship, or the person who's just now joined the community and is unsure. Obviously all the resources are always going to be go to the new members. Sure, there is a risk of some moving somebody to give them nothing, but you need to give them only enough to keep them in on the trade off of getting also new numbers in significant numbers, not only if they send you a word for somebody telling you that this is the word of God, then again, they change how you view religion yourself and say, This is a completely unpin word. 
+But then OG tell look between proselytize you ask yourself, and this is exactly where no analysis comes in. This is just not what it looks like. There are not debates about what theology is. It's convincing people they are sinners and religion would help them not forget to ask your questions to that extent. But on a third level, we just say that the new people who are joining are less likely to be as malicious as you and are more likely to corrupt the religion when opening opposition government they're not completely oppositional. That is true they still further away. So you say that all all of those levels your harm or your ability to access the community to get theological answers from the community and to leave as a religious person in a good and fulfilling way for alls please I pause.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/The Natolin European Round Robin Debating Championships Round 3.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+Motion: This House Believes That China should seek to curb debt at the expense of economic growth.
+
+<pm>
+PM Speech Transcript:
+We and the opening government believe that Keynesian economics can only work in so far that you actually have the needs for these roads. Have the needs for these cumin states investments in the first place? The problem is, once you already have developed enough cities, enough roads, enough infrastructure and stuff like that, the additional marginal benefit of investing in the economy like this is going to fruit you less. How you say economical benefits under ourselves. We believe that in this sort of scenario, then the transition in the rational transition of how you say countries like China and what countries have done needs to become how you say, more fiscally conservative, in a sense. But notice that this is not how you say. This is not actormotion, because so this means that the majority of impacts that we're going to prove to you is going to also rely on lives of people in China also lives on people over the world who can suffer an economical crisis, which is very likely for people on the path for spending more than we can actually say, and stuff with that couple of points in my speech. One is why countries in One Belt, One Road, and countries that China has influence over will be fucked over more second of how this interacts with dollarization, and why this necessarily leads to economical crisis, or at least crisis of liquidity, which is very harmful. And fourthly, why the environment will get the brunt of it, and why we cannot afford this in the status quo. 
+So why is the risk of collapse first, very obviously likely, at least, to the economical turmoil, then going into another crisis. So we believe that this debt and Alliance debt is required by a large sum of money, which is not trivial by any means. It is also how they say. There is also a large domino effect that can happen in this sort of scenario where a lot of countries are connected with China, either by China holding their debt, or China holding investment in their country, or they're owing money to China, which is the risk of collapse, is also risking to collapse everybody around it also that how you say growth is necessarily slowing down. This is not something that how you say you can keep at seven to 8% which is the highest China has, which necessarily means that at some point, this is the austerity of capitalism. Sometimes you cannot grow more than something at a certain percent. But still, on our side of the house, we don't believe that growth is 0% growth is lower, obviously, but this means that China, with the other R side of the house, thinks much more how you say strictly whether the project is worthwhile to invest in whether how you say spending this money is actually going to bear with fruit and not how do you say investing in a how you say country like Montenegro, who everybody said that is not going to be able to return to money and stuff like that. And this becomes even more important when I go into my next speech to notice that the Chinese foreign policy, the thing that is likely to become, there are several hubs, is a lot of spending on foreign policy, which is like a Belt and Road Initiative and stuff like that. The largest issue, yes, 
+
+
+<poi>
+like, who should the policies in support and why? 
+</poi>
+
+I mean, we support everything. Look at the issue. The issues. The most likely thing that they're going to come they're going to cost spending. The most likely scenario where they cost spending is to cut into large projects that are inefficient, either inward inside of the country, building a lot of infrastructure there, then only to their own, how you say, companies and so what exactly, or secondly, to the foreign countries and governance established, I think China has done this, doing this a bit recklessly, in terms of how you say, noticing and like, accepting things that will not necessarily bring them that as much money, but will bring them influences of that. We believe that under the status quo, where you how to say, have a loss of belief in Chinese currency and stuff like that, and loss of belief in Chinese economy, which can happen if you the depth how do you say starts starts going up. 
+We believe that this breeds more meddling, more how to say, tensions between China and countries that owe money to China, because this is their only way to get liquidity to actually pay off the debtors and actually continue on the path of not economic crisis, which means overall, for the countries that are involved with China, this will be much worse, insofar that China will khadisa Push much more for regime changes, meddling, horrible policy that will benefit the Chinese government, but not the government of these countries in in a sense of a way but notice that also can’t we see, why are they not doing it now? Oh. They could do it on both sides. Notice that this is a risk strategy, because breeds antagonism. But this suddenly becomes much more significant when this currency is the thing that is going to currency make your economy collapse or not collapse. And there are several houses, there's risks connected to this. But if they do it without any reason, they would how to say, have suffered harmfully. They have to do it because they have to have liquidity. They have to have money to pay it off. This means it's much more interesting interest of them to start bullying countries and be horrible, which is horrible because this is not Negro motion.
+Second of all dollarization, and this is a big issue starting with this, but that's fine. So we believe the majority of debt is usually correlated between the foreign currency, and currently the largest like trading currency in the world is dollar and stuff, and it's not likely to change in the future, which means that everything that China has is already correlated. It's almost always correlated with Yuan. And how Yuan interacts with the dollar. If people start losing currency in the belief that the Chinese government is in cars, isn't going to print as many is going to control therefore their their monetary policy. In a good way, or that they're going to be able to pay their debts. This means that the valuation that currency devaluation in comparison to dollar happens, which means that it expediates The crisis that is already coming, which means that after a certain point, you reach a point of no return where people stop believing that Yuan is going to be a fruitful currency, because in the future, China will have to print more money, do horrible stuff, and stuff like that. This is foreign help, because every loan that is now connected to Yuan, similarly, which is connected to One Belt One Road, is also going down with this and fucking over these countries in in in the beginning. And also this means that there is a lot a lot less foreign loans and foreign investment wanting to give money to China with the rise in debt and with the threat. And also, this is a correlation with the threat of US actually meddling and starting to to fuck you over, because this is a vested interest of the US under the status quo and will probably continue. So this is why US might be able to do this, but China can't do this under the status quo in the short situation. But notice that usually the expense, where this comes at the expense of is if you want to push for economical growth despite the rise in cost, need to do value the cost elsewhere and push for growth elsewhere. This usually means environmental degradation, which is horrible, because China is on the path of bettering the environment, because people have pushed for, like like, horrible smoke against horrible small that is happening in Shanghai, that we all experienced, went to zero and stuff like that. And we need we believe. We believe in under this sort of situation, it's much more likely for China if they cannot sustain when they say, if they have to push for returning money under after some settled time, to reverse the policies, to open more coal plants and stuff like which is horrible, because if we believe that climate science, we should in the next 10 years, if you don't curb our emissions, this means we fuck over the whole world, and especially the developing world. Who will be worse? Feel the world be worse off on the research journey. So under their side, we have couple of problems. First of all, the risk of economical crisis toppling down a lot of people, which we are bound to have because of the economy operates on boom and bust cycles. If it comes from China, it will fuck over many more countries. And secondly, if we don't curb the environmental degradation, which is likely to not happen if we if if this policy doesn't pay, anybody likely to happen if this policy doesn’t pass means that we we reverse something damaged humanity and make us so this where you should go to opening government. Thank you.
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+</lo>
+
+<dpm>
+Let’s be very clear on two things. The first one is, what do we support? Opening opposition correctly pointed out that they do not have to defend every single policy that China enacts in the status quo. In a similar fashion. What we can say that we will probably prioritize curving back policies which have the most detrimental harm, in accordance to the logic you hear in our first page. What is this? Probably one of the examples would be the curving of the massive overproduction of steel and coal in the global economy. Probably it will be a curving of housing loans, which have grown exponentially in China, especially over the last five years, less so than shadow banking, which has decreased, in fact, over the last two to three years. But as Milo says, we would in fact do both. The second thing then, therefore, is, what is the context this is this debate is basing because what you hear in the previous speech is a growth mischaracterization of both the state of the Chinese but also the global economy, now, in terms of the global economy. Well, China's expansionary policies made a lot of sense in the decade of the global recession. At this point, you have growth rates of largely increasing 3% a year in the Western world. At the same time with Chinese growth has, anyways, slowed down. 
+Secondly, but the only reason they give us on this, yeah, but this might be what's actually keeping up global growth, but to an extent that Chinese Chinese investments do, do incentivize growth, the disregard the analysis Milos gives at the beginning of his speech, I mean spending uncontrollably in building roads, building houses, building infrastructure, makes a lot of sense. At a point where you have very few appeals. When the economy is relatively developed, it makes less and less sense. That is why you have numerous ghost cities, an illustrative example of what I'm talking about in China. But crucially, what this means is the construction companies which built those ghost cities cannot sell those apartments, and they did take on debt to be able to build those apartments. 
+Now there are two options. Option one, those companies will default. There is a limited shock to their suppliers or two. And what exists in the status quo? The Chinese government essentially forgives or pays off the debt on their behalf. Now this makes sense at a point in which you have growth which is based on a strong multiplier analysis. He gives not responded to. However, when your growth is based on also largely financing vanity project with limited ROI, there's only so much money you have, the only real response we get to this is China has significant FX reserves. What at least two responses to this? Firstly, a lot of these risks in the economy are systemic, as we point out. So because a lot of them are internal, which means that someone can pay their debt, it cascades down the economy, which means a lot of these risks are very, very correlated. But secondly, just a point of numbers, Chinese foreign currency reserves have been decreasing. They're around $3.1 billion I Googled this yesterday. Check if you don't believe me, the level of debt, as you saw in the influence, is somewhat normal, 40 trillion. There is a question of scale. Considering my explanation of risk, you have a very, very high level of risk. 
+Now, the one response they could make, but they haven't made implicitly, but if you read it to your note, you can believe it is yet. But this is different once they are investing in developing countries, because there are the multiplier logic I described could still apply at least for those countries. A few things I want to say. Firstly, a lot of these projects aren't financed on an economic basis, but they're more finance on a political basis. That's why a lot of these countries have not been able to pay off Chinese debts in for a lot of these investments into part of one Belmont Road, Eritrea being a large example of this, were a few major infrastructure areas were nationalized by the Chinese government. The problem is, sure you're able to get your debt back that way, but you build a project that was relatively unsustainable to begin with, so hence you won't be making recouping that investment in any possible way. Secondly, there's a lot of other bad things to this, like propping up dictatorial regimes, like low benefits for the local populations, which they do not take into health. Then the final point on the risk of a global trade war, if anything, I will point out that the trade war with China is exactly a result of this kind of policy. So when US politicians, and it isn't just Donald Trump, a lot of reputable politicians beforehand that pointed out that China is effectively a currency manipulator. The reason from where that stands is this sort of policy. So if anything, ramping back on this would be would not only contribute to a more sustainable global system, but would what would what would contribute to a disengagement in harsh relations with the People's Republic of China. 
+So therefore, on a lot of issues which exist. One thing I do want to point out that on our side of the house, you will still have a large level of growth in the Chinese economy. Why is this the case? A few reasons. One, as I pointed out, they did conveniently build a lot of infrastructure over the past past several decades. Secondly, you have a large domestic demand that is fairly organic. So capitalism, for all its worst things, has managed to pull out 800 million people out of poverty in the PRC over the last couple of decades. But this also means there's very few left to pull out of poverty, which means you again get a declining ROI, as we point out. I'll take closing in 20 seconds. What this crucially means, then, is that you have a level of demand which was able to keep this level of growth trivially. Also you just have a lot of people, 1.3 million billion people, makes up for a lot of demand. You have a relatively strong private sector in the current firms that are not exposed to the kind of over leveraging we have described in our speech. So you will get a lot of growth. You will get a lot of growth happening on both sides. It will just be slightly lower on ours, at the expense of overall stabilization, closing. 
+
+
+<poi>
+That is only problematic if you can’t pay it we on closing opposition believe in modern monetary theory, you can always just pull in for money to pay the debt with.
+</poi>
+
+Yeah I mean then you end up? Yes, and that's an interesting theory. One thing I would point out is a problem with it. In a largely exported driven economy like the Chinese one, you will get branded a currency manipulator. Hence you will end up with huge taverns on your goods. So sure you can print the money, but it will essentially be worthless in the economy you want to describe. It's still a really interesting theory, just poor economic knowledge. 
+Anyways, further on this, then what essentially the result of the policy. One other thing I do want to point out is in terms of internal Chinese stability, something Milos points out that never gets a response to, which is a lot. So one point he makes is on the environment and how overgrowth in China is damaging to the global environment, and as much as the argument is boring, like all arguments about the environment, is not a reason why it shouldn't be credited. The second thing I would point out is that the broader populace is also, to an extent, supportive of this, where they are willing to accept lower economic growth, or, let's say, less smoke in their cities. So you will have a large buy in of the Chinese population. That means the the CCP will have no, no sort of large issues in implement this policy. So overall, the Chinese economy is drastically over leveraged. It is at risk of default of large companies in the public sector. Probably the only way to solve it is, as closing all points out, there are many issues which I describe in the answer to my POI, very powerful.
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo>
+Thank you. I want to talk about three things in this speech. First, I want to talk about the plausibility of default. Secondly, I want to talk about the international effects of this policy. And lastly, I want to talk about domestic Chinese effects to begin with, plausibility of default. I want to engage with each argument that they provided as to why they think default is going to happen. The first reason that they provided was that there's too much investment in fruitless Uber projects, and as a consequence, you default. As a result. The difficulty with this argument is, as series concedes himself that they have securitized a significant amount of debt, so there are physical objects which are the collateral for that debt, which they can claim in the instance of a default or a failure to pay a loan. Siri's claim here is that these aren't productive assets. But I want you to consider the wide range of these kind of assets. Includes these extra long Sri Lankan ports, which are essential for shipping in the region, includes things like the development of industry, which is Central Europe, which is the underdeveloped region, which has massive potential for growth. So it's not enough for Siri to just assert to us that these are bad projects. And furthermore, if things get really bad, you could just sell off that asset in the future to recoup that debt. So that wasn't a proper response. 
+The second thing that they identified in their thanks is that they built too much, too much infrastructure within China itself. Look, China's already caught on to this. When ghost city started to appear in the 1990s the Chinese government started to step back because they realized that they couldn't populate all the infrastructure spending that they have no thank you. So that's just not true. That is not the status quo. And furthermore, I think it's completely reasonable for John and I to say that we should support economic growth in different ways. So, for instance, train workers in order to build a more productive economy in the long run. 
+What was the solution that we provided on our side of the house? I think this is fairly sensible. Sensible in the case of this debt is USD. You can sell the USD denominated debt that the US government already wants you to be able to pay that off. No. Thank you. In terms of printing out rift, I think that's a fairly sensible solution, because in many of these circumstances, inflationary effects aren't as large as they suggest. No. Thank you. Their claim is that the inflation means that they will be have tariffs put on them. But I think this is remarkably unlikely for a couple of reasons. 
+The first reason I want to point out their thank you is because in many of these circumstances, China was previously a currency manipulator, but only ever switched for their own domestic reasons as they transition towards a more skilled economy and external pressure never backed up. The second thing that I want to point out is that the implication of their policy is giving that win to Trump. So the long run, they're going to lead to those same types of tariffs, which are going to be equally harmful and massively damaging. So the takeaway at the end of this argument is that default isn't that likely, and we can solve it in other ways. Why then do we need to corrupt the our side? Because even if you need to back off, eventually, problems do exist in Europe. They say that they don't. But look at populism leading to massive trade tariffs around the world, Brexit and other trade wars, which are likely to inflame the economy at the current situation, particularly for investors who see other countries and country as an investment risk, given the fascism that is rising. 
+Claim Number two international effects, I want to start off with the easy claims to deal with on the opening opposition side. First, we say that this leads to bullying countries. This is the status quo. Regardless of whether or not they're invested in a board, they will always act in a geopolitically manipulative way. And the reason why is because, as identified OBOR is a political project as well, so bullying will happen regardless. For instance, in Australia, the Chinese government literally funded political parties to try and change the democratic outcomes of those situations. So I think that this kind of interference would happen regardless. But the second thing that I want to point out is that OBOR is actually massively beneficial, if that facilitates global trade, even if you take losses in the short run, both personally and on the surrounding countries who are part of a war, the connection of that trade route means that there's radically more infrastructure to trade along the route itself, meaning that Sri Lanka can easily trade to Europe and Africa, which facilitates their growth in the long run. No thank you. Lastly, I want to point out that it's probably too late for us to back out on World War. Many countries have already reoriented their economies by putting massive amounts of government spending into building infrastructure or into this project, so that will just be a sub cost that is wasted and still hurts those countries, in fact, more so to back off now.
+Next we talk about the environment. No, thanks. I know the easy response here on the environment is that China is actually one of the most environmentally responsible countries in the world. They signed the Paris Accords. No thank you. And actually comply with them, and they have the greatest amount of investment in green energy in the world. And do you know what happens when you reduce their economic growth? They have less money to put into green energy. No, thank you. Green Energy is a better solution, because the collective action problem which faces the world will exist regardless of whether China decreases the emissions and perhaps installs it from doomsday in 10 years to 12 years. The more viable solution is to allow every country transition into a better system. So what do we tell you in John's speech? John. Speech was very particular, because it explained to you the massive harms of approved from this policy, that the reduction of production in steel and oil, for instance, isn't one that is fruitless, but rather is one that's going to lead to direct knock on effects where other countries who buy those goods no thank you for manufacturing of their own goods, will no longer be able to facilitate their own trade. So as a massive effect around the economy, policies like cracking down on shadow banking industry actually means that people who have the mortgages leveraging to shadow banking will lose the mortgages, and therefore that will cause a massive decrease in consumer confidence and consumer investment policies such as, sorry, so the policies that are likely to come out from the Open Government are likely to cause larger financial harms in the larger and decrease the amount of investor competency at large perfect. Closing.
+
+
+<poi>
+The productivity of the Belt and Road Initiative depends on all of it succeeding. The things are not separately as valued. So when one of them fails, that leads to the question.
+</poi>
+
+no, that's incorrect, because the infrastructure still exists. Even if the industry within a particular country fails, the way of trying to move goods between them still exists, and that means that surrounding countries who rely on that trade network are stable, still able to leverage that by a bit. 
+What is the harm in international sphere? I think that the problem is that this causes a massive justification for the trade war. So this means that populists like Trump are likely to be able to sell this narrative again and again, which reduces economic growth again, and particularly given the fragile state of the economy, this will lead to significant knock on effects that will hurt everyone. Lastly, on domestic Chinese effects, they claim that investor confidence is going to fall. I have a few different responses. First of all, I want to point out that you can create massive growth within China by this policy, because even though this may be a short term hit, things like printing out more Iran will actually decrease the cost of them exporting goods, which means that there's more foreign investment that goes in because they become a more productive manufacturer. So it's actually likely that you get increased investment because they become better exporters. But moreover, we told you that this leads to less loans when state loan enterprises and other banks start to fail, that means that they become reluctant to provide loans in the fear that they might fail. So that stalls the entire Chinese economy, which is, by the way, a massive purchaser of the global economy, both collapsing the Chinese economy and international economy. 
+The last thing I want to mention is that this is probably quite bad, because Xi Jinping is going to lose a lot of domestic popularity, and when transitions happen, that leads to lots of corruption. Purchase. Their claim is, ah, but we reduce smoke, so people will be happy. The only way you reduce smoke is by cutting a massive amount of cars in Beijing and Shanghai, which would never happen because that stalls our economy. What is the takeaway from top half of this debate, while opening government has good intentions, the consequence of this policy is billions of Chinese people suffering in a massive reduction in consumer spending, both in China and abroad, leading to financial recession everywhere that makes the page. Thank you.
+</dlo>
+
+<mg>
+So so far, we've heard a lot of analysis on why economical collapse is bad. While that analysis is very engaging, it is hardly on flashing this debate, because both sides seem to agree that economical collapse will be a highly undesirable outcome. And so all that's left to debate in this debate is on which side is economical collapse more like. Please note that any attempts to like throwing out economical collapses, like edge outcome or black swan event, irrelevant on both sides, because both sides have conceded that China is teetering on the verge of economic collapse. And the question is, what do we do about so therefore my good point will be, why? Why China will be an economic collapse, collapse? Should the status quo continue? And secondly, why China won't collapse economically under our side of the Melchizedek. How convenient. Before that few points involved. 
+So the first idea is there won't be a collapse. When, When? When? Even if this, even if this happens, because there is collateral value in these bonds. First of all, note that a lot of the logic and arguments that you get from a about. Losing trust in the Chinese government, losing trust. And it's like Fidelity Investments, etc, having significantly more under our side of the motion when it downsizes more significantly. And so therefore saying there exists collateral is actually even truer. That's where collapse happens significantly more on our side. Secondly, please note that collateral value is greatly diminished because they run to say, but it's still valuable, right? A road is still a road, but still good is not good enough. In economics, someone bet a sum of money on this project, because the debt is essentially a bet. Someone bet on this project making X amount of money, and if it makes a 10 of the X, then it is useless. It is worthless, and it leads to economical collapse. And let me tell you that road between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan is not as useful when Belt and Road doesn't happen. That port in, that port in in, sorry that that port in Africa is not as useful when Belt and Road didn't happen. 
+So, so, and secondly, we get this idea of green energy. We think this is really just trying to run as far as and fast as they can from the debate, because transitioning to green energy does lead to a slowing in economic growth, and therefore economic policy supported under their side. And the idea that Xi Jinping will fall was a throwaway point on their side. So if you didn't spend time on it, I won’t. 
+Okay, so why would China collapse? Should the status quo continue? We say there this is a highly complicated BRI like Belt and Road initiative, highly complicated project likely to collapse. Why is that? Firstly, an undervaluation of cost. Why is that? First of all, risk assessment is incredibly hard. Second of all, please note that the risk assessment here depends on the cooperation of these governments, and those governments tend to be unstable. It's extremely hard for the for China to to quantify how likely a government is to fall. Thirdly, though, even if they were to quantify initially, that chaotic system has already shifted, because one of the things that destabilizes those very countries is opposition to Belt and Road within them, and so therefore instability increases even further. Fourthly, note, there's an information asymmetry with three actors, and two of them are predisposed to life. The three actors are the government receiving this project, which had the incentive to say, it's simpler, it's easier, and has all the incentive to do that because they want the court to happen, and when they believe, once the project will start, it will be finished to completion. 
+Secondly, and second of all, the contractors, they want to be on their next step in the party. They want to succeed. And since this is very long term project, being good at the beginning is all it takes. Is just like the banking crisis government said, Why? Because you're measured short term and short term, low valuations are success. Lastly, please note another chaotic effect here is the desire of other superpowers to thwart the project, therefore tempting countries away from their from their engagement with the product. Same thing happens with an overvaluation of the benefits of the product. Again, it's extremely hard to predict value. There is an interest of both of the actors which possess the asymmetrical information to lie and say that the project will be more valuable than it is. The numbers of growth that we perceive for these African for Namibia are higher than the ones that are, that are going to be there, etc, etc, and the interest, again, of the contractors and as a product. 
+Now what's even more dangerous about this is that those risks interact. They don't add to one another. They multiply with one another, and that is because of the inherent interdependency of the Belt and Road Initiative. Because if you want to get something from A to B, you have from A to C, you had better have B, C, D, and all of the other links along the way in place. For example, once the if the Pakistan, if the Pakistani passage falls through the Belt and Road Initiative, dramatic swaths of the East African part of Belt and Road Initiative become almost completely irrelevant. And so those risks interact in a way that a lot of crucial links to default make the other links completely lacking in value. And so therefore, we think it's extremely it's extremely hard to evaluate the cost and benefit of this project, or when a project benefit doesn't meet its cost, that's when you have risk, because a debt is essentially a bet that with the money you took, you can make more than the than the than bringing that money back, plus interest, but if you didn't make as much money as you expected to make, you can't deliver on that obligation, and you have to default on that debt. I hope that was also intelligible to my average voter, which seems to have been forgotten in this debate. 
+Secondly, we say a lot of diminishing. A lot of the things that they even agree with about the diminishing productivity of China still over becoming less and less efficient, a lack of creative destruction and a lack of ability for the Chinese economy to adapt and the trade war with the United States are also things which would harm Chinese ability to funnel money from other places into that project. I talked about why we get stability on our side, but before that closing 
+
+
+<poi>
+Also all debts need a collective if you're right, and collecting the debt will crush the entire world economy who's collecting that debt?
+</poi>
+
+So, what how does that default works? That default works is by selling that collateral to those people in like debt arrangements. But unfortunately, now those people are left with half an airport or half, what's the word for it? That's harbor. Half a harbor and half a harbor ain't worth shaped. And so therefore those people are stuck in China White Elephants, after they made dramatic public political and monetary commitments, now defaulting in their own economies, unable to fulfill financial financial commitments that they made in front of their supplier. 
+Why do we not get collapse on our side? This has a lot to do with flipping the analysis that we just heard. Because, first of all, right, now everybody knows that China fudges the growth numbers, so when the growth numbers actually become lower, that risk has already been taken into account by global markets to a large extent. Second of all, because this because of collapse, is a black and white process. There are no control processes. But when you have a controlled demolition then, or a controlled retraction. Then, every project that closes, you can have international, regional and national staff trying to over to trying to oversee that, trying to undo that. So for example, for closing a a a bunch of ports in the East African coast, we can have other superpowers investing into them. So we think, and thirdly, we think all of the other actors, just like Schulman said, have an incentive to support a gradual slowdown in order to avoid a collapse, and so they would be on board with that, but unlike where the class they actually have supposed to do so thanks.
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+So far governments have talked to you about with how this is an impending economic collapse, and how when it blows up, it blows up big. Opening opposition then comes and tells you that calling the bluff now China, saying this would happen, would make this blow up big and cause the same harms. So in order to crush this deadlock and win this big, we need to prove to you why China can actually keep this, what they call pretense, and actually keep it, keep the collapse away from at least as long as opening opposition says is needed for the global economy to diversify and protect itself, if not longer. What we're going to tell you, in extension, is in economies the size of the US or China, who spared the entire globe, who were so many other countries, are dependent on them. The the simplistic economics of this project might not work. Don't necessarily apply because, because there is a principle in the of modern monetary policy. Well, when I control my own currency and I'm not elected of someone else's currency. That means that the only thing I have to balance my currency and get is a surprise event of my goods and services and the things I settle as long as we can show you that China is able to do this. It continuously does this for years, without the likelihood of it significantly slowing down. We can we still easily take this debate before that just a little bit of two things first of all, it is unclear to me why God says that all of top half agreed China is on the break of collapse when opening opposition The entire case is that China has guaranteed to take ahead and not collapse. It can survive this. And the rather of doing this is what causes a collapse. That is the first thing. Second thing we say is it not keeps telling about the interaction of lists and how these figures would be alive could cause a cascade failure. However, it is unclear why that is true. When nominee himself says everybody knows that China is not entirely on it and take this into account and those that are lists involved because of unknowns, because he says that if we do a controlled implosion and implosion, then people can recover. Because he took this into account that Hispanic going into this, which implies that this is not as dangerous as he says, but he doesn't prove why control implosion is possible. Not doing this against opening opposition. 
+Let's now complete the gap in opening opposition as to why we think that the current exchange is sustainable for for the foreseeable future. First of all, we say the important question is, let us define what does it mean? Sustainable because, because governments kept saying this is unsustainable, we can't keep it for longer, but they never told us what it is that's going to make this collapse. We say that China, so far have been, have been have been able to continue to keep the US wrong exactly, not exactly by having nobody with an incentive to actually call it on death or inept on anything with China. Why? Because this doesn't happen. Only because, yes, opening opposition said that people would do it when they think the economy is collapsing, but we say Furthermore, when China keeps printing money, it keeps initiating infrastructure, it creates an incentive, not only for the growth will they get, but rather for the demand for Chinese goods and services and infrastructure. They drive that growth. They created a business setting before no so that no country actually at any point should we beg of them because of these backfires, because they said, Oh, but if they continue doing this, they will be branded the third currency manipulator. Does it sound a threatening but they say they're already branded the currency manipulator. We say that massive tasks harming them would only happen if people can make do without them. 
+Why do we think it is unlikely now? Yeah, we said, first of all, China has been doing this for years. How? A in massive reinvesting in production, moving on, specifically in production nowadays, but I think openly, don't kick that bullshit out of me, but massively investing in production, whereas the devil is buying Chinese water doesn't necessarily have, right now, an alternative supplier, which they can just go and say, Oh, well, tariff is just as the opposition to top strainball is, he puts the tariffs on China and political cost more, because nobody produces like china. There is no one. Second of all, The they expand in Chinese services, whether you can leverage your political capital and disinvestment to insulate countries buy for those services in tech, in industry, creating their economy to be more intertwined in Chinese infrastructure, which they keep talking about. Oh, maybe Kazakhstan, maybe Africa. By Israel, Italy just signed onto this, like the European Union is being pushed to become even more intelligent, in which would they are more likely to be to be to support this to Victor faith and not to enable those things and back out, which makes it more likely that both would be sustainable, because nobody has ever had if they say that keynesian economics doesn't work, we're willing to take a step further into Neo Keynesian economics. Instead, the keynesian economics doesn't work only if you can, if you can get people to only people stop buying the water, only if you can get people to stop participating in the economy. Because in case of the Chinese economy, people just keep opting in, at which point it becomes more. If closing tells us that people know that there are ways and need to hedge their best, we say that continued, continue to have this economy going strong, rather than imploding, this is what makes it more likely that this country is likely to continue in dark road on its own. And then this is what gives time for opening opposition, in this case to to be true at which point they are, i will take the opening. 
+
+
+<poi>
+This just means, on our side of house, that you re evaluate new projects based on profitability and stuff like that. But projects still happen. The difference is you don't fund it with inflation, which also cuts over other parts of your industry, which you have to import resources from and risk hyperinflation.
+</poi>
+
+Thank you, we think that while evaluating good and new projects based on profitability It may sound nice, the ability to have new projects, the ability to continue to grow and provide infrastructure. They keep being flippant about the better road in of, What is the railway from Uzbekistan helps? Well, even if it doesn’t have China, the buildings, roads and infrastructure it world will not existed. The Nigeria has the ability to develop get oil did not they are building out of this infrastructure for such a not only for benefit of China, but for other people, if they say, oh, but they're going to evaluate qualitative, evaluate the possibility, we say, the ability to evaluate qualitatively, to also have profitable endeavors which would have challenged future sustainability, in that sense of contingent, the ability to create projects everywhere, which could, which continue to fuel and then it sustains the demand for such Chinese the ability to create 10 projects that would help people on the ground, which enable that a massively profitable project is something that requires that, because, not only to reach important when it is possible for China, you know, for example, oil, in fact, in the country, they don't need the country to have infrastructure. You say that ability is like the best of the balance in the world is slightly sustainable, because nobody in the world has has been decided to actually opt out and take the entire economy with it as they cannot, which is totally not a bit crazy and what they say, but rather a smart one.
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+Okay, opening government correct that there is a dominant fact that is likely to happen if Shannon Fauci or correct that it might be the case that when we back away from our promises to the shadow banks, it might also therefore, maybe we should ask ourselves, what is likely to happen on both sides of the hands. So the first question is going to be, what is the likely scenario? Is China likely to default because it's debt? Secondly, because it will also affect that. Are we capable of stopping that? And thirdly, where are the harms of economic slowdown and does it lead to collapse? And if not, how can we manage those sort of cases before that? A couple of metaphors into the mess that CO called an extension. So basically, most of the analysis is just saying, like, on why we're allowed to control this is like, well, we printed money until this point. Why not continue that? Maybe because we've taken unprecedented amounts of debts and promises We've never taken before, sure this policy might have worked when we didn't have those grand projects, or in the 1950s when we're in a developing nation other country we depend us it was actually a thing then they a weird thing about the incentives and keeping buying okay.
+Let's understand how currencies work, because clearly none of the opposition teams understand that if you keep printing Yuan and people have more Yuan, that means that they can pay more yuan to get stuff in them. That means that the value of the yuan decreases because people have more yuan to pay for the value that was before 30. They couldn't only pay 30, I can pay 40, because just added more yuan to the system without creating any value. So when they buy ATV, when they factor in import stuff, that means they pay more, and therefore the value increases. So you create exactly the devaluation that might also cost the call in a second. But don't just retain the currency, just print more money. Just don't understand how money and currency works. They will not explain their extension with in response to, be like saying in intensives something, and then the last brilliant someone else is why it is likely to be to be controlled. Well, you know, Italy just signed in, so the EU would build it out. What? A couple of things. Hey, a fact that the Italy signed a deal in the future does not mean that the entire EU would be on board to just taking China out. But a more broader, but not a specific example that they might have invented. Might not note if those countries were capable, to any extent of bailing out the product in payment, they would have done that themselves. They needed Chinese debts to do so, which economic international body would lend money to Italy to bail out China and the Belt and Road sure they might slow down the cost and say, Look, if you abandon the project again, no one would say, Yeah, sure that you will give like $5 trillion in order for Italy not to collapse just because they were stupid. It is so unlikely that anybody, because the interconnectors, will decide to build them up, but they will collapse just because the interconnectors. It is a harm that they are interconnected, not a benefit. No thank you.
+So firstly, what is not the consequences under our when debt contains so opening arguments is say over is just unstable. Then go here say, look, they can just take over their money and still they join their wagon and say which you didn't prove like is very very likely to collapse. It's too bad that am actually gives you a couple of very strong links to the lab that you are going to collapse and describe you what it looks like. None of those were actually respond. So let me tell you, hey, you need almost every single link to succeed. If you don't have the corridor between Pakistan and China, you didn't bypass Malaysia and the narrow straits, and therefore all the economic flows can't go directly overland, in a safer route. So all the other ports and roads are worth nothing, if only you have the roads up until close to China. About China, not none of the global goods that are supposed to go that will flow. So it is useless for the other countries to have it. The point was to trade through China and with China, because it’s large economy, secondly, there is an inherent inability to evaluate this product. Now Elaye tells us look, but they take it into account. A couple of responses to that. A it is in risk that they just impossible to evaluate because of the complexity of it, because every single it might fail, because you don't know the value of it once it succeeds, even if it succeeds, because you don’t know the exact value is it $1billion or two and a half billion dollars with the United States, we may not withdraw our Trump. What will happen in the EU such a global scale product is just unlikely to be so. 
+But lastly, note, it is not an economic decision. There's also politics involved, to a very large extent, political. Political decisions are likely to make shorter decisions build to try to build the port now, and that's why it's succeeding even is very unlikely, so we say that they are likely to undervalue and sell for short, and when the money is supposed to fall back, you have too little of it. Lastly, we just told you there are a million obstacles to success in each liberal country. These are just local resistance. You see everywhere in Africa, in Thailand, in in in, in Pakistan, for those projects, say that there's like, there's lack of knowledge of what is actually needed in order to set up a project. You don't know the terrain. We don't know political groups. We don't know the difficulties there is hard, and you are pushing to sign more and more countries as fast as possible. 
+And lastly, just intervention with Western states that slows you down more. The consequences are default book because they say but why is it the default. You have a company. Other companies have better on the project system. They have raised money. People have spent their money. Species have funded companies on the basis of will have a port in five to 10 years, then that port does not exist because of any authorities. All of the money that they invested in goes to nothing. It has no value. Now they can't pay debt loans and give me the bank all the jobs. The promised people are in there. All the investment chains have made and counted on them in order to invest in global work don't exist. At that point, things start to collapse. You don't have the money to keep investing. You don't have the money to pay back. And it's not only total your collateral is useless. Nobody has anything to do with that road or that half built port at the point of collapse. So we say our little arsenal in the house. You will collapse the cause of the debt, and you will vote, and all the consequences are going to happen before we continue. I'll take opening opposition as I promise.
+
+
+<poi>
+So One Belt and Road, debt isn't long enough to block China. You never explain why it was, but even if it was, it doesn't sound like strategic brilliance to suppress global demand and make the valid assets work even less if the thing you're most concerned about is losing the value of like a void.
+</poi>
+
+Okay, so here we get just the second question of, can we stop this? So a couple of things, A it is a very large part of it. Those are trillions of dollars of investment. They were that were made in the last couple of years. It is likely to grow even more. So it is at least 10 to 15% of that investment is the likely result of stopping that. But don't damage say, look, the damage can happen anyway, right? We've already promised that, so we're going to collapse a couple response this A that a lot of the process and procedures are on their way. Negotiations are happening. Currently, we haven't actually put anything on the ground in most of these areas. But secondly, this is just like a basic sunken cost, sunken cost fallacy, right? Cut your bosses don't go knee deep into the mud just because you had one foot in. But lastly, Noam tells something critical, right? Because opening opposition you Say look, but a lot of damages are happening anyway, because you backed up on your promises. 
+Forget the fact that there's no analysis on why collapse happens, just because when one shadow bank collapse in the Chinese sector, Noam tells them when you're more likely to control sort of scenario exactly because people already going to believe that the Chinese economy is going to represent exactly, because it's more gradual process in the collapse that is likely to happen on defaulting on loans, they have more ability to play around with that. So this is very powerful, please.
+</gw>
+
+<ow>
+Imagine a country that had its debt balloon up from around $2 billion within 50 years to around 23 Imagine a country that keeps depleting all of its natural resources in order to invest. Imagine a country that clearly does not invest enough in and of itself in technology. That country is called Earth, and no one here is afraid that Earth is about to explode, that Earth is not able to sustain itself economically, that Earth might have too much money or so. The reason is that once you start talking about those kind of economies that are so big, when we're talking about China, we're talking about like, 12% of the entire Earth, regular economic structures just don't matter, for example. So let's say their example, if my port is indeed half a hole and it is worth nothing, right? Maybe then it is very unwisely to just take it back and cut my lawsuit. Maybe what I would do is come to adeal with China, in which I would buy Chinese goods. They would give me Chinese goods to make up for that worth and so on. The idea is, again, that you could always maybe China could let a political favor and negotiate a trade between me and a third country and so on. The idea is that once we're talking about those skills, the amount of as they tell us the results, the amount of opportunities, of risk and of reward, is so hard to measure up. It's very weird to say overall, instead, what we're giving you is what can actually be done, and we're doing it on two questions. We'll talk about exactly about the risk of collapse while we have a simple mechanism that is likely to work. Then we'll talk about the so called the so called shortcomings of MMT and explain why they are relevant. Before that, a few points of rebound, they tell us, for example, which body would bail out Chinese enterprises in Italy, A an international body that is afraid of starting the chain reaction that we talked about, perhaps the US which have, which has still 20% of the world economy, and it will definitely affect them as well. By that making the government of Italy itself, perhaps, as Italy, they trade Chinese goods, or they traded instead. Those are exactly the kind of things that happen. We're talking about such global scale. Secondly, they tell us that the risks are impossible to account for. Okay? Why are them? Rewards possible to account for. We're saying that just like you could have a unforeseen event in which you are only stuck with half court, you could also have an unforeseen event in which a new technology developed, instead developed in Norway, enables much better driven in Nigeria, giving you a lot more goods than you would be expected. There is no reason to assume that their side of their pessimistic side is more likely on that idea. 
+Let's talk about, Oh, yeah. So let's talk about, about, first of all, collapses and risk and so on. We agree. OG comes and tells you just you're spending too much money. You can't keep it up. All comes and says a few good lookings. They say, Well, maybe you do have collateral and reserves, maybe some policies don't. You can have some policies that are that wouldn't harm growth as much. And obviously we completely agree with with O. The problem is that, as O CG themselves say you still are in debt. It is normally going to cover everything. People still, as I told us, make a bet that someone needs to cook, and we're saying, You're right, but we're talking about a debt of $34 trillion suddenly the rules of betting becomes very, very different. So here's an example. The US, for example, have a debt of $16 trillion no one in the world is betting that the US would fail to say that. There is no good reason to believe that the US is race forward than China. However, it's just about the matter of perception. So if you can keep that perception going on, this is arguing people, as we have heard that themselves. Want to believe that everything is going to be okay. Want to believe that the day it's going to be fine. So what do you do? Able to do? Many people would just collect on their debt. They don't think they can get anything right now, exactly because they sunk in cost. And this is exactly why they could wait for the future. They would bury the loss, to some extent, on them, on themselves. 
+Secondly, I told you you could always print more money. Now they're telling us you cannot print more money. We'll get to that in a second. But the question is not yet. You can think. The question is, if you print your money, will people take that money? And the answer is yes, they are sort of good, because you have good things to do with you. And you can invest in China, in Chinese Bucha, and buy the Chinese good and so on. Therefore, we told you that since China still has all of its political might, they can still, again relate, to a large extent, using that political mind. So if what they want, and this is important to CG, if what CG wants is a controlled explosion, we're telling you we have a good way of providing that control explosion using our method. Because what's happening is that slowly what should be where we have China, China can only keep on investing two terms that people still trust it. And if people slowly start to lose trust, trust, then again, they slowly start backing out, and that is fine. You don't get that huge chain event. It does happen when you have a concrete every year. Let's take all your credit. It does happen when you have a concrete policy that says, oh shit, we're in trouble. Now get up right then we say, stuff changing. So let's talk about MMT, why it's still working in spite of, like, the so control coming, and we'll tell you, construction
+
+
+<poi>
+ultimately mitigatory solutions, CEO suggests, are actual strategies for preventing those collapse with gradually downside. They are impossible to execute in the midst of a global financial economic crisis.
+</poi>
+
+Good, then that we're not in the midst of a global economic crisis. We don't understand what let's talk about energy. So it does. It is impossible for a few reasons, a the group, integrity, will be blamed as a a a as a country manipulator. One me tell you literally status quo. More than that was saying it is literally China's policy to keep its un low so they can keep on selling more goods. So when they're saying, Oh no, we would have inflation. It is, in fact, China that is making sure they are inflated to an extent today, so they might just not have to do it as much on their side, but that's all about themselves. Because they're saying, Oh, but what about all like, why wouldn't people still use the one? It could be worthless, but then again, NFT comes to the rescue in a few ways. Why do they tell you, A that it is about what you can do with your power as China. We will tell you, it's not only your political mind that you can go and so on, that you can make sure that you get cheaper good in other means. It means that, for example, if what you want is to import certain stuff or sections, then the PN and now comes incredibly powerful and so on. But we’re telling you you know what can do use taxation. What is taxation? Taking back the money? So the result too much, it is the easiest thing to do for all those listeners. Good day.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/The Natolin European Round Robin Debating Championships Round 4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+<pm>
+I think everyone insures that it is unfair. And a bit evil when we can stand here living an extremely high quality of life, and there are people in the world who live in complete destitute poverty, I don't think anyone's going to disagree with that. I think what this debate asks us to focus on, though, and the bit that is difficult, is to sort of posit the question, you know, even if we broke that down, even if we could get to a stage where a lot of these differences are far less extreme, what should we aspire to live in our life, and what are the moral responsibilities that we have with respect to how much we keep for ourselves and how much we distribute to other people? 
+So to clarify some of the stuff in this debate, I think we take a relatively expansive view of what the basic needs of people are. So it's not just like you have a hot, dry water and you're going to imminently die, probably have like, a healthy and happy, social life, like you are a fulfilled and contented person by some definition of that, to the extent that is an important bit of your basic needs, and to the extent we need a definition of your moral I think when I claim that my best definition of role is just that you feel bad about something like it doesn't need to imply that you go and do something actively. It doesn't mean to imply that some kind of like moral law of the universe that is casting down on you. My definition of moral is that, like, if that is the state of the world, and you're not doing anything actively about it, and you don't have a reason to justify it, then you know you should feel bad about that. You should consider that a wrong deal committing against other people. 
+Now I want to highlight something that I think is going to be incredibly important in this term, which is to say that just because something is immoral does not mean that it is the only immoral thing. And it does not mean that it is the only thing that you need to spend time fixing, and it does not imply that remedying that is the most important thing for you to do, if opening opposition or closing opposition proved to you that it might be better if society was structured around you know, like vastly increasing technology, obviously it was, like, incredibly valuable, because that was because that was going to improve the quality of life for the most amount of people in the future. Great. It proved that that moral duty is more important than the moral duty that we're talking about. We are highlighting a very specific question here, which is, in the absence of all other things, in the absence of any stronger, competing moral claim, should you view that, state of the world, as unjust and something you should feel bad about. And what I claim the answer that is yes. 
+
+
+<poi>
+When you think people should feel better? Are you defining the motion as we think people should literally feel better or is that just an indication of a vague sense that you think it's
+</poi>
+
+
+I do literally mean, like, you should feel bad. Like, my sense of how I know whether Sonic is moral or immoral, it's not because there's like a wall written down, like, up above, and it's because, like, I know in my heart that is like pretty shitty that I have stuff and have a happy quality applies, but other people do not. Maybe have a more sophisticated version of what immorality is. I think that's the most real to most people buying, 
+First of all, by utility. I want to point out, first of all, that almost always, like, almost always any marginal stuff that you have above the borderline, even if you cannot perceive it at the time, being like both generates more happiness for you, but less happiness for you than avoided were given to some other individual. And second of all, almost always, even if you cannot perceive it, is a result of something that is arbitrary and pretty unfair, and therefore presumed that all people have an equal right to happiness and that we should value all people equally. That is an incredibly strong indicator that the only acceptable end state of the world is when everyone is like, fully equalized. What are the reasons that people often posit that there are like arguments as to why you may actually be entitled to keep stuff for other people they don't have, or keep stuff beyond what other people have. The first reason I can think of is that people say you've earned it. Well, let's step through the reasons how people like actually tend to earn it in the middle real world. Like, often it could be inherited. If it's not inherent, then often it's the function of things like the birth worry that you happen to be a very well spoken or social person, very intelligent person, even if that is not something you can actively perceive on a very granular level. Between like, someone who is at the 52nd percentile, of talent in particular thing, and someone was at the 49th percentile, all of these things incrementally add up and feed into the state of the world, where your happiness is, the things that you get to enjoy your life, even if you feel like you put in the groundwork yourself for it, are just a function of things that are by and large beyond people's control. Where training society often do feel very viscerally about that thing that no, I did the harbor. I'm entitled to that thing. But when you really, really break it down, it's often extremely difficult to say, Well, if that other person had exactly the same situation as I had, they probably would have ended up wealthier. Well, I would not have. And once you realize that and take that veil away, I think it's difficult for you to not feel some sympathy for not for you to not feel as though it's unjust that you get to keep that stuff and think that it would be right for you to give it to other people. 
+The third reason why often there is like an injustice to saying I've earned it is that there are just imbalances in the way that people treat other people, even if you had exactly the same situation coming into the world, the fact that people are racist or people treat people in bad ways, in a way that you can never fully perceive or never fully recognize, means that often those people do get screwed over. They may you may say, I worked awfully hard for them, but I was just smart, so I deserved Well, maybe you didn't appreciate that person. Teacher was more native them in a way. And here's the thing, right? Because you can't ever really fully perceive the set of circumstances that has caused your hard work and someone else's hard work to result in different outcomes. I think it's extremely difficult not for you to fulfill the sort of definition around I think it was real difficult. It's. Difficult for you to not feel a bit shitty about having stuff beyond your basic needs, and other people might not other people have less than if you've got about your basic needs, because it's impossible for you to say the extent to which that is a totally arbitrary thing. The second reason that people often give as to why you might have specific reasons to give stuff, keep stuff for yourself, or use stuff to your own interests, is things like, Well, I love my family very much, much more than I like other people. 
+Realistically, proximity is not equal to again, that those people are more important to you or more valuable than other people, right? It could equally be true that if you've never met that person, they didn't come into what you would not care about them at all. And again, from behind that veil, it's difficult for you not to feel bad about that same world where you keep resources that could go towards other people. 
+Second of all, I want to talk about consumption. So this is a set of arguments that go, even if like, this is not an imbalance or like an unjust thing it is bad to Just use resources as a whole, before that closing
+
+
+<poi>
+Given that not just wealth, but also other social constructs and interactions are impacted by voluntary birth. So do you believe that capitalizing on any kind of privilege is exclusively moral?
+</poi>
+
+
+Ah, it's not exclusively immoral. Like I said at the very beginning, if you think you can do something good with that injustice, like use it for a better or higher moral purpose, then fine. If you have no reason to do so, then, you know, point back consumption. 
+I think that taking resources above and beyond what you need first of all, does harm to the environment by and large, or use up things that future people might want to use, and they have more rights, just the same way that we do, to the extent they will try and use the resources of this earth. And if we overuse resources, we will negatively impact their life in the future. We have a moral duty to them. But also, I think even if everything that I have says on people who lived in a perfectly fair life, no randomness society, and there were no future people to consider, I think a society that is structured where people are happy or tolerate having more than you is inherently a big evil right, like having yourself placed above other individuals and above all you, basically is sort of the foundational thing people engaging in things like strife or political tribe in public because you think you are better than other people or people who need to be beneath you. You need to have a society which I have a lot of other people do not have enough. It's only when you properly equalize and accept that sort of like injustice to you having more than what you fundamentally need that you can break down a society that's constructed around having some people who are beneath you and having some people to you oppress. I agree this is like a really difficult thing to reconcile, but I want you to, like, ask a very simple question, like, if you had two complete life fascio Like brave, empty individuals and they had nothing different form. Like, would you all want them to have more than the other? Like, probably not.
+</pm>
+
+
+<lo>
+It's incorrect for the Prime Minister to set this debate up by saying, if one is healthy, happy and content, then everything above that is something they need to share, because the fact is, the majority of us are not going to be happy or content with the absolute bare minimum, which you actually do need to defend in this debate right anywhere above, like suspended. So it's a real Peter Singer s Burton that you're going to have to deal with. 
+So let's clarify then, what is this debate? What we say on our side of the house that we stand behind the fact that it's okay for you to have wealth, it's okay for you to use that wealth, and it's okay for you to have more than others, we also have to say we do support redistribution by governments, but not on the grounds that, what the grounds that differences in wealth are immoral, but rather that we can enable more people to be happier and enable greater efficiencies in education and services, etc, by sharing that work. We're very happy to say that. 
+
+
+So I want to deal with two independent points of rebuttal before substances. So the first one is that we hear that proximity is not fair criterion, right? The fact that someone's far away from you doesn't mean that you shouldn't care about them in the same way that you care about your family. The first thing is, we say we dispute that we speed up the first round on the basis that we think that you do have a great responsibility to people who are closer to you, great responsibility for people who interact with and certainly a great responsibility for people who have given you things right, whether it's your parents or your teachers or your state, because you've benefited directly from those individuals. Right? Conversely, with people. Who are far away their situation can be incredibly unfortunate, and as you correctly point out, no one's disputing that in this space, but it fundamentally wasn't your fault, and this is where there's an important conflation. There is a difference between acknowledging something is bad and that it would be a good thing to help. It would make me a morally good person to assist. But it's not to say the same that it is immoral for me to continue living my life in a way which isn't just directly geared towards helping that person. And a simple reason for that is it wasn't my fault. It is not my fault that there are people struggling with poverty or disease across the world, right? That is not something which I myself was responsible for. Therefore, it's incredibly unfair, and we say wrong for you to criticize me as an immoral person, right? Let's be clear about something right? Calling something immoral, calling someone immoral, is a very high bar, right? You're saying that you are unjust. You're someone who is is is doing something which is just outright wrong, and we say that's not a sufficient bar that they've proven thus far. 
+Second, one other deals deal with is this issue about feeling bad. Because, in response to sellers poi, the answer is, is, yeah, we do want you to feel bad about it, right? We say we do good immoral, and we certainly don't want you to feel bad about it. And why is that? The first thing is, because you're not going to be happy or content if you're constantly walking around thinking that you are to blame or you are immoral, if you're not doing everything you can to help every other person in the world, because the fact is, even if you're the most altruistic and most morally good person the world has ever seen, there will still be millions of people suffering and struggling, right? And you are saying, I should continue to feel bad about that, and it's an awful burden to pace on an individual who might be doing things to help that situation, or might just be leading their lives and not harming anyone directly. Secondly, what we say is actually leads to inefficient altruism. If you walk around with what John says you should do, because there's constant feeling of guilt, constant feeling I need to do more, constant feeling of I'm an immoral person, you try and outlet that as quickly as possible, right? You give people handouts. You give people the items and possessions you have, because that's the easiest way for you to deal with that burden. We say that's incredibly ineffective, but it's far more effective. You live your wildlife, you accumulate wealth, and if you then decide, yes, I would like to help people. You help them in an efficient way. You give money to charities. You set up funds in the way that Bill Gates has done, in a way, by the way, you would never be able to accumulate that wealth at all if he took your principle from day one, right? He needed to live a bit of a life of luxury being able to, like, build a monopoly in order to help those people.
+So but first point of the substantive obviously, some of this has already been covered, but the first point I really want to talk about is we're going to be bolder, right? We're actually going to outright say, why is it? It's actually actively moral for you to accumulate and retain that wealth. Three reasons here, right? The first one is, when we were born, yes, there is a birth function set to I didn't choose to be born to my parents, but that doesn't mean I don't have a burden. It's a fact, if I didn't sign up to any kind of agreement when I was born that said that I'm going to make sure that I help people to invest in my ability, right? I didn't do that. So how on earth did you then impose that burden on me? Right? Because this, as I've explained in the example I gave you previous, is an overwhelming burden. Yes, very tiny. Go ahead.
+
+
+<poi>
+No one chooses or opts into a moral system, any moral obligation exists not because people have consented to it, but because we acknowledge that the feature of the world we live in.
+</poi>
+
+
+No that's not true, because what you're presupposing is that by that your form of morality, you're imposing on us in this debate is one that says consent isn't necessary. We say consent is necessary for moral morality to be determined or not. 
+The second reason we say for this is that you can't, and this is what we quite said earlier, you can't be immoral for doing things you've not contributed. Directly, if you punch me in the face, that's a bad thing. That's an immoral thing. You could not have. You could have avoided doing that. You could have avoided imposing harmony, right? But the fact that there are billions of people in the world struggling for things which have got nothing to do with nothing to do with you, has nothing to do with you, right? So it's illegitimate to them say it's immoral for you to accumulate and lose wealth in that situation, whatever things which are outside of your control. The second thing I want to look at is actually to explain why it's mutually beneficial. Why? Sorry, why mutually beneficial trades are always moral, right? Because on their side of the house, if, if I, for example, have a farm, and I like Bill, I get more, I grow more apples than I need to, right, I am not allowed to sell the apples. Or if I am allowed to sell the apples, I'm only allowed to sell it in order to give money to charity, directly, right, or to help someone. What we say, however, is, if I'm able to trade my apples with sellers bananas or something, right? And that we both benefit from that. We both now have two sets of goods. We both now have more than we have to do to begin with. I've improved his life, and I've improved my life. But importantly, many of these decisions, when you look at on the large on a bigger scale, lead to far more benefits, right, into more people being employed, into more people being the. Pay the salary. Need some more people being taxed. Need some more people being risen out of poverty. And that can only happen when those individuals make those decisions. 
+The greatest number of people who pulled out of poverty have been in the last 20 years, and a huge amount of that is due to capitalism. And we can't say we can't stand behind that. Stand behind enable people to make profits in order to develop and research and employ people. If we're saying the underlying actions those people are taking are immoral, that would be absurd.
+So when you answer look at this debate, and when you consider this debate uh uh after the speeches, what we need to consider is, firstly, were we in charge? Were we to blame the harm that these people are suffering from no were we ever signing up to something that says you would help them? No? And can we actually help them by doing things which we say are perfectly well, very proud to have both speech.
+</lo>
+
+
+<dpm>
+As any good philosophy around to go, I'm going to start with an intuition pump strategy. It may be immoral to kill one person, even if you save five people with it, because the act itself was a harm that was done unto them. In the same way, there are different, competing moral considerations. John and I aren't saying that the only moral consideration that exists in the world is the fact that you are wealthier than others and have more than your basic needs. But it's a prominent one. When all the claims that we get from open opposition talk about trade and other abstract ideas, I think it misses the crux of this debate, because it is true that there perhaps may be other competing moral ends, but in an abstract sense, when we say this act is immoral in the vast majority of circumstances. And that was a claim that we provided in our pre government. I want to engage with a few different things. First of all, I want to deal with the purely principled, philosophical question of this debate that I want to move into some of the more practical implications that come out from the opening opposition side. 
+Let's talk about the principled issues at a large or broad perspective. A few claims that we get from the opening opposition to claim number one, that proximity does, in fact, matter, that in many circumstances, these are people who have helped you and have made your life significantly better, and you haven't done anything to hurt someone else. No, thank you. A few different responses. The first thing that I want to point out is that this is clearly a silly intuition pump, because we have clear limits to these obligations. So for instance, in the case that you choose to use nepotism like maybe someone like Lee Chen, we would that leads to significant hearts even if you're benefiting a particular individual. That's to say, those moral obligations do not trump the broader fact that you're hurting other people as a consequence. 
+The second thing I'd like to point out is that there's a significant activist distinction that they time along, they say you did not get to hurt anyone else, and therefore you're not responsible. But the claim from opening government is that the mission, in and of itself, is a harm that is done unto them. I want to posit a few different reasons for that. First of all, that passively observing the state of the world, like when a murder happens beside you, is something that we would commonly describe as moral, and the reason why is he could have done more the fact that you didn't choose to stab that person in the heart does not change the fact that you could have saved a life, and those consequences are one most prominent. The second thing is that the act of mission distinction completely falls apart in this debate, a few different reasons. First of all, because there are some things that you were responsible for in some kind of way, in a sense that perhaps you gained massive wealth from slavery. You're a white American, and the fact that you are acting is complicity. The fact that you're acting means that you are contributing to that oppressive system, and that the fact that you have benefited off  it means that you have a reciprocal obligation to return that money and show that other people do well. The second thing is that the idea of Acts and omissions are given to themselves incredibly vague. So for instance, if you hit someone because you failed to break that can either be called a failure to drive, sorry, a failure to drive well, or that you kept on holding down the pedal on a car. These distinctions are remarkably vague and legal scholarship. We acknowledge that. 
+The last thing that I want to ensure that uh, no thank you, is that if your child starving you can, still ensure that they have their basic needs. That is fine with our side of the house, because we are fine as well as everyone has a basic need. But the question is, when that child is past their basic needs? When you allocate that money, and we argue that you should allocate that money to someone else who is more deserving and more in need overall, sure,
+
+
+<poi>
+Is it a moral to not work as much as you possibly can?
+</poi>
+
+
+Absolutely, yes, you have a moral duty to everyone else in this world. You have a moral duty to ensure that they have a better life overall. We argue that this is the same thing as the activation distinction, and just because you don't Intuit it doesn't mean that you aren't contributing to the pressure that people face when they aren't able to access clean drinking water as a consequence. Now, I do want to put a limit on this if you working more would not improve the world, then you don't have an obligation to where you are, but given the fact that you have the ability to improve the world on our side of the house, that's a massive benefit that we are able to claim overall. 
+The next thing that we get to is philosophical issues that you don't consent to this, and as a consequence, you can't be held responsible. This is ludicrous. I don't consent to being born into a society where we ban murder, but when I'm bad, when I do murder someone that is certainly wrong. No, thank you. The issue of consent is irrelevant, because there are some objective moral wrongs. It caused harm to someone else, and more importantly, that person did not consent to your existence, infringing on their own existence. So their argument is on consent that's at best, symmetrical and doesn't actually gage with the vast majority of circumstances that we're talking about. No thank you. 
+Let's engage with some of the practical issues that they bring up. Practical issue number one, they say that mutually beneficial trades are very good, and therefore you should be allowed to do this. As I pointed out before, this is obviously an issue which we aren’t talking about in the abstract. But let's engage with as if it was still a valid claim in this man. What I posit is that the system of inequality that we've created means that it doesn't actually improve people as beneficially as possible. So this is going to be a Marxist argument, but the fact that some people are able to accumulate wealth means that they control government, that they can choose where the redistribution of funds go. That also conveniently outframes their arguments about redistribution writ large, and that means that those benefits include a very small class of people think about the Afrikaans in South Africa. And so to say that is mutually beneficial when you're systematically oppressing a certain class of people is something that isn't kosher in this debate. So I think overall, even if you buy this argumentation, you can't accept that it leaves the people improving are like the meaningful people that we care about improving, because those are the people who are hurt overall. No, thank you. 
+The next thing that we get is you should not feel bad all the time. Okay, when John said you should feel bad, that isn't to say that you do feel bad as consequence of this debate. When we say a murder should feel bad, we're not saying that every murderer does feel bad. It's just that when you commit the act of murder, you do you should feel bad from a moral perspective. No. Thank you. So I think it was just a silly this trauma of what John told you, next 
+The claim that I'm anticipating that we're going to hear from No thank you. The back half is idea that you should use the means that we have to make the world better. So I want to add some construct material here, just to start off with, first of all, I want to point out that the vast majority of people misperceive their capabilities and the things that they want to do. No thank you. So for instance, when you improve wealth, you might believe that you're going to help other people, but the fact is, the psychological biases that we have mean that our empathetic gap only extends to certain people. Our empathy primarily goes to people who look like us, people who we can prophetize. That we talked about in round two, those types of people are self interested ends. It has a natural feature of humanity. So for them to claim that this is the reality of this debate, if they want to make this debate about practical consequences and misperceive that in the vast majority of circumstances, the accumulation of wealth does not get distributed. CF, every single billionaire in the world that hasn't donated their entire wealth, which is the vast majority of them. 
+The final thing that I want to point out is their claim generally, that no one is happy as a consequence of this policy, because they aren't able to meet the minimum threshold of thriving, etcetera. Engage with John's recommendation about why it's the case that this is part of her basic needs to be happy, etcetera. First of all, even if that's not true, suffering is far more damaging to most people than being able to watch TV or feel slightly more happy because suffering is all consumed you feel hungry and want to alleviate that. The second thing I want to point out is that's not always true that the cumulant accumulation of wealthy skin in societies for happiness because of jealousy, the fact that you have some phenomena Keeping Up with the Joneses we look at other people and the comparison makes you hard, harmed as such, I think the claims of positive are clearly immoral and that we Need to stop environmental damage and civil war. Very proud.
+</dpm>
+
+
+<dlo>
+I want to talk to you about three things in the speech. First, what the government's burden is why they have not looked up to it, and rebutting the things that we have heard from the government. Secondly, about autonomy, and why this is a terrible notion, morally as well as practically, for people, that we should have people feeling bad. And thirdly, allowing for actual social progress, and why this is just a terrible idea, both morally and practically. 
+But let's start with the government's burden. Look, government needs to convince you that all wealth beyond basic needs is immoral. They can talk about things like the accrual of very few in a paradise states. Note, that is not our burden to defend those because we. We can easily and happily say that we think it's important to have wealth versus we think it's important to have an ecosystem. We think we can even support vast redistribution of wealth, just not to the extent that, literally, when Bill Gates has more than he needs to buy his next meal, he will have to give it away. 
+Secondly, they try and run by this idea of a birth lottery and saying, Look, you know, if you inherited it, then you didn't earn it. Fine, don't eat inheritance. This is not what this motion is about. But then say, look, but there's so many things, it's hard to tell how much of it is. You right? It's hard to tell what you've earned from the state and so on. We think that's a reasonable statement. We think therefore it is hard to tell what percentage you are responsible for and how much have you earned? We think it is implausible to conclude that therefore you have zero influence, and your actions and your choices have zero effect, or Thank you, on what the results of your life. And therefore, we think it's plausible that you have earned, to some extent, some of your wealth. 
+Then they say they try to avoid any problem with the idea that this is a moral by saying, look, there are other considerations, right? And sometimes those other considerations win, but whatever those local considerations win, that's not a hit against the motion. But note, we believe that when you make everyone better off, it is not that there is an overriding principle that defeats it. We think you're doing a good thing if you have a mutually beneficial trade with someone, and you say, Okay, give me that money in return for me working more. Give me that money as well. We think you've made the world a better place. It is not that you have harmed someone by making someone else and then, but still, it's worth it. We do not think you did a bad thing. They then say, Look, this is they say, I ask you, why do people have to work as bad? And they say yes, why do they say yes? Because they realize that the case is extremely inconsistent. If they say no, right? The idea that we can the way that we can, I can trade my time for money, but that would be immoral, but then not doing that productive, productive work would be somehow more. 
+
+
+But wow, that's important to take and I'll talk about this for my points. But note what they are saying. They are literally saying that every single person in this room, morally should be forced to work how long and however, as much as they need until they cannot work any further. This is not a statement about how some of the most extreme rich can live in excess at the expense of it is generally a statement that says that people have no way to autonomy, and as a result, our tools and the optimization of other people's happiness. I'll go on to that more in my second point, that they but less than they attack us on this idea that they don't think and omission are different. We disagree, and they say, sometimes it's vague. Sometimes it's hard selling. That's fine. We're okay with sometimes that being vague. What we are not okay is with the statement that a baby that has just been born is an immoral baby, because they have because they live in a world where they have received a silver spoon. We do not accept even more, the specific definition of OG which comes up and says that, therefore, we think it is better. We think it is good. We want that baby, no thank you, to feel negative feelings and feel bad, just like we should not never harm a baby. We should never wish upon that baby harm just because it was born into a true family. 
+Let's talk about innovation. No thank you. One is the first is autonomy. Look, first of all, note that again, they agreed to principally slave labor that people shouldn't, should work as much as necessary, otherwise they are involved. We think that people have an innate right for autonomy. This applies not only to their work, but also the money, the autonomy over their body. They have autonomy over their choices, and they have autonomy over their actions. That right is more important than the things, the little items and products that we're moving around between people. How do we know that? We know that because the vast majority of people would not let go of their economy and sell themselves into slavery to get slightly better products, the retain and it is important to us to retain the basic right that every person born retains. Not only it's much more important than the kind of conceptual products of wealth that we have only in civilized societies as an innate right. As people born anywhere, they have the right, no thank you, to express their will and do what they like. 
+Note that if what they do causes less harm, no thank you than the importance of that autonomy itself. We don't accept that this is an immoral act. We think that people it is, it is unworthy to claim that by not sacrificing a huge harm for a smaller benefit, you're doing something immoral. And much like as a government, you shouldn't punish individuals who do not work as much as or not doing all of them above. So should we not wish upon them harm in other ways, even if it's magically rather than government. No. Thank you. 
+Lastly, let's talk about allowing for social progress, because Stephen already explained to you that mutually beneficial trades cannot be immoral. They are better for everyone. We want people to do them. We don't want them to feel bad while they're doing this. But this isn't just a small. Scale question of whether we trade apples and bananas, this is the basis of a functioning and successful society in two ways. One the first point. 
+
+
+<poi>
+So if everyone worked for the benefit of others, the burden and infringement of autonomy wouldn’t be very high. Just because you live in a world where most people are immoral doesn’t mean your actual yourself stop being immoral.
+</poi>
+
+
+So first of all it's not relevant what would happen if everyone were to do this because you think that each person individually Immoral so it would be okay to and slave that person because he alone cannot do as much as solved all the other problems so we don't think that is a response.
+So first of all capitalism on on the basis of that trade allowing people to work under the incentive of getting something in written and not donating that  necessitates That people are able to aggregate wealth that means we don't want them to feel bad when that happens that will take down are economic society but even more so know that wealth is necessary for the important things we want in life we think that art and philosophy and all higher efforts only occur when people are genuinely comfortable. We think that it's not a coincidence that the last majority of medical advancements only happen in developed countries we think its credible important that people are, A incentivised  which is what I talked about and capitalism but B, allowed to be have that wealth. Again note we are not confusing this debate with a debate where we are talking about government actions we are saying it is incredible important it is the best thing that they can do is to allow themselves without feeling a single bad feeling to look after their interests to be productive society to improve our world, and since we need that, we want that to happen, is the farthest thing from a moral please. I pause.
+</dlo>
+
+
+<mg>
+What does it mean when we say something is immoral As hinted at the point of information we offer it cannot be about consent, because if this were true, none of us ever consent into a system of morality. No moral statement could ever be made, because you could always use Steve's argument that as baby or as Young adult never consented to agree that Murder was wrong or death is wrong. The reason morality is a very fundamentally different thing from, say, the law or judicial systems or the rules of society is that it's not directly prescriptive. It's an evaluated task. It asks us to evaluate the features of an act, and as a result, come to a decision about how we feel about it. And I think that's what OG is going for. But the key thing is, it's not just about feeling. It is about the most reasonable understanding we have about what we owe each other, and as a result, when that shakes up to one side or the other, so we disagree with opening opposition. I think they themselves disagree with this case when they make arguments about the world being beneficial or better off, we are going to buy into a broadly consequentialist and utilitarian world. The claim we are going to make is the one Jason tried to make at 707, without much justification, namely, that utility isn't absolutely the way that economists, as much as pains me to say, would think, and that because we are social creatures, given that utility is judged subjectively inducted to other people. The act of accumulating utility destroys utility and act in the lives of others, and that is a moral harm in the same way it would be if you had stolen this stuff and reduced the ability to obtain that utility. 
+But before I want to remark a few things that Sella says, the main thing is here, he used the phrase this means that morally, you should be forced to work all the time, and that you have no autonomy, akin to slavery. I think this misses the distinction. And I think Bucha, right? The distinction here is, there is a difference between morality, which is what you should do, and the law or ethics, or like, not ethics, like political, political theory, right? But you can, and here's a good illustration of this. You would save morally. If you walked by someone who was drowning, you could save them at absolutely no cost. It would be morally wrong not to save them. Some version of this must be true, right? That would seemingly break autonomy, because you would technically be free, even if the cost of autonomy is smaller, to just keep walking, likewise with what they would call them deeper. But the fact that you still make moral statements suggest to us that autonomy isn't what we use to decide these issues. We decide if you have autonomy as a human being, what should you do with that autonomy? And that is what involves. But you guys are nothing just point out that we’re established with the burd here. They said literally, comically is whether you feel good. 
+So the claim of the utility isn't absolute. Other opposite that beyond your basic needs, where I think it's quite clear, thank you, how obtaining a bit of resource to fill a basic need would directly make your life better, and it wouldn't be starving. We couldn't be denying participation in some meaningful way making your life better. The pursuit of happiness beyond that point is about a subjective pursuit of a good life. So sure, some people will do it differently, but let's be honest, there are only so many ways you can pursue a good in your life, and it will not be 6 billion people, or any number of people, each pursuing their own good life. There's an extent which will pursue similar conceptions of good life within that. The second key feature I'm going to point out is that men, men are social creatures. We live in communities, because that is the cooperation that best allows us to achieve basic needs and all capitalism, no the result of that is that in that community, no matter how big or small it might be, whether it's a commune or a city or a country, your idea of good is often defined relative to what people around you have. You often make comparisons to others, and in some cases, you're encouraged to do so as a means to encourage you to produce more wealth or to consume more things, which is how others might produce more wealth. Those are some structural reasons to think this might happen. But I think the unique biological reason is, when you live with those individuals, you see yourself as equal, and as a result, the pursuit of happiness, should you be equally successful as a result, when you don't have the wealth that others have, even if they didn't work for it, mind you, you feel in some way less than others. You feel in some way despite perhaps having started at the same starting point in the same resources. You know your life is less happy to you, to objective you, than it was before. There are two things you can do. One, you can try and copy them. But all know this is a race at the bottom, in that your life is now worse because you work longer hours. Hypothetically, you spend more time foraging from the darkness like what administration one views. The point is you don't get the. Happier than you were before. You end up as happy as them because you don't have the same as them, but you're not any better off net than you were before, No. Second you might not be able to do that, in which case, no, okay, we end up at luxury of birth. But, OG is unfair. I think it's worse if you just give helpless, and that helplessness is a huge harm that would not have talked about if you did not try to pursue this in the first place. And note that pursuit was a harm directly generated from someone else trying to build up their wealth. So I think this means the test that Steve let me not consent, because that's wrong, but it does mean the test of, did your action willfully create consequences to others? I think the answer is yes, and as a result, we can say that it is immoral. It leaves others directly with less than they would have had. And it's not less than an absolute resource sense, but it's less than the important sense of what matters within us as human beings, how we subjectively perceive the world, which I think, as most of you would agree, is how we value whether someone is doing well or not, whether they are flourishing or otherwise. Go
+
+
+<poi>
+There’s a lot of talking about a specific, rather minor harm of me working and then being able to afford, I don't know, a hamburger, but your burden is to show that I have to remove all or according to your metric, it will always be utilitarian bad for me to agree one.
+</poi>
+
+
+Yaeh, because anytime you try and consume more than that, you make it worse for others. And the best case scenario is everyone does the same thing, and you're all roughly the same state as you were before. 
+So I want to point out one last thing here, which is that when Steve says in his speech that speech that obligations exist to people who are closest to you, we agree, and that's why the harm of our case is that this sort of effect might not be known to people who live half the world away, but they sure as hell have the largest effect of people who are closest with and arguably have the strongest obligations to which, if anything, magnifies the impact of our case visibly but Opening up have talked about. So last of all, opening up have the three criteria that's left over from Steve's speech. I felt the fact that consensus now is going to be in the context of morality, the direct action stuff dealt with no extension, I think, with each case, to be honest, also deals with that criteria. Last one that deals with the idea of mutual trade for advantage, sure, but the debate is about what advantage looks like, Right? Steve will not trade the bananas and apples and more people could have basic needs because one people was one person was good at growing apples and never growing bananas. That's fine. Reasonably, all comes from our case. And to be fair, opening up the crew when you meet those trades, and there is no other in that particular action, normal way of redistributing those returns. The last thing I want to say about opening opposition case is the reason why you have obligations to whatever individuals they keep if you didn't consent, even if you might have directly caused the action or ambiguous what the level of directness was, and there might have mutual advantages, is because those obligations are reciprocal in the same way that they say you shouldn't murder someone that's wrong. It's because that obligation would exist on that person as well if they were your in your situation, that's what makes moral statement. That doesn't allow us to make moral statements, because it means that even if in this particular world that doesn't exist, doesn't matter what is it in alternative world in position to afflict they will have that obligation to you, meaning that whether or not you consented to it, it's ultimately fair, it's sustainable, it's viable, and it is how we should think of morality. Morality isn't just the way of justifying what we do now, it's we have identified what is right. That's why we oppose.
+</mg>
+
+
+<mo>
+No time for fast introduction, three points of extension. First of all, why we believe that essentially, the implication of the entire government bench that seeking to be hobbies immoral and that's abhorrent. Secondly, then, a step further than opening opposition, claiming, even if it is your fault in marketplace, someone else is suffering while it's still not immoral. Thirdly, going beyond the scope of this debate, and explaining why, essentially how to the logic of both governments, like the human condition would be moral and why that’s also a horrible proposal? First things, first happiness. Happiness is your primary need in life. Everything we do, we ordered to be happy because happiness is what fulfills us, and happiness is something based on which we evaluate our lives. Now all as ovo correctly points out the bare minimum is very often not enough, because you want to be able to send your child to be able to send your child to college. Want to be able to go to college yourself. You want to be able to go outside the boundary city and experience other cultures, different things, and simply have fun in life. You very often do not be fulfilled if you do not, if you would like to pause it, regardless what that way says, even if other people around you are in a similarly bad embrace state, you still, on an absolute level, aspire to more, because, as a human being, you are aware of other possibilities, even if people around you are not fulfilling. Here's the problem, happiness is the most basic biologically conditioned human need. In other words, you never chose to desire happiness. You were born with the desired happiness, which was then socially prevented any trench even. Further within you and determines your quality of life. Unfortunately, today, what happiness is correlated to money and wealth, and you need to spend money in order to achieve happiness. You never chose the correlation, but you never chose to inform the system that prioritizes money. However, you still need to do that in order to achieve happiness. Therefore, the implication of both government cases, is this immoral to seek happiness simply because you have to find yourself in the system less in means of transaction? That is why? Why is very important, and where we go beyond opening opposition here is because we claim, look, morality necessitates agency. That's why, in courts, we reduce the amount of culpability people have when we believe that they did not have full control over their actions. It is important for other people that someone knowingly made a decision. Takes example, reinforces that, because his person is perfectly healthy, has no cost to saving or not saving a traveling person, therefore have full autonomy, and then we judge their morality. That's why it's not experiment. So if you never chose to desire happiness. You are biologically conditioned by the way you are created as a human to desire that, and you also cannot choose the system within which you realize that means there is essentially no agency at the end of the day after this also the fact that very often people simply psychological condition to want more. We believe we cannot judge the morality of an act if the quality of life of a certain person, and whether their life is happy or sad, and how they perceive it is ultimately conditioned exclusively by that. In other words, we can have a discussion about whether money is a good form of transaction. We do not believe we can judge people for using money, even though we might dislike it, because we do not use money, you cannot buy food. You cannot buy food, you will die. So therefore, even if using money is being complicit in the system of money, it's still necessary in other agency to choose that. 
+But secondly, let's go beyond what opening up one state here. So even if it is your fault that you are complicit in somebody else's suffering, let's make an analogy here. So even paying taxes United States of America, I'm probably complicit in police brutality. I'm probably complicit in other countries being invaded and imperialism being perpetuated. However, if ot wants me to feel bad about this, what are alternatives? I can either stop paying taxes, which essentially means I end up in jail, or second, I can move through which there are probably very huge barriers, like, for example, my family, my friends are here, my finances might not allow me to do that. It is immoral to force me to abandon my routines and for me, happiness every day, and this is linked to happiness. So given you probably not imposed that bored other people, you probably not impose this one as well, because the barriers are higher, because everyone is conditioned to desire happiness in the same way, everyone has equally no agency to be born into this system. So what is the logic here, even if you are complicit, given that you cannot stop being complicit, or it will destroy your life, which is equally valuable within the equal Moral Act of freedom, of utility that next brings us, and given that your individual actions probably cannot change the system. I if I were to move from the United States, there would still be imperialism, the capitalism is very logical. I'd not tell anyone, however, white light would be destroyed on the other half. That's a very good comparison to make here. But before I’ll take
+
+
+<poi>
+I am sure would have said it, would have been a huge bug than to let their slaves go. It doesn't mean we think that they’re good bloods?
+</poi>
+
+
+I do not see how this is necessarily related, because, look, here's the difference. We believe that pursuit of happiness is legitimate, as long as it's not directly harm other people. So make an analogy for you here. If I enslave somebody, I directly caused harm to them. I chose to coerce them into a position of slavery. In this situation, there is a mediator. So the construction of wealth in our society for the past 300 years has primarily been due to landed gentry, corporations and governments expropriating their people's money, which then create echelons of power which are transgenerationally distributed. But this was not of my doing. I was born into that world. In fact, I exist. Am necessarily complicit in its benefits. But that is not directly true to appropriate authoritarians of like pre Soviet Russia for goodness sake, moving on beyond the scope of the main habit up to now, everything is zero sum, and everything is impacted by the lottery of birth, very simple analysis. So if not the lottery of birth, I'm more more extroverted and more handsome, I will probably have more friends and more chance of achieving a romantic relationship. So under the logic of both governments, this would probably be immoral, because according to what text says, I am reducing the utility of another person by capitalizing on my privilege to have utility. So even though John defines like romantic and socialists as being foreign based, means that basic needs are also a spectrum, so there is inconsistent in all cases, because in every case within the spectrum, basic means someone is fulfilling their basic needs more than someone else. To the extent to which that is true, any contest taking happiness in life is necessarily more because it necessarily decreases utility and it necessarily capitalizes all benefits you have. Up given to the lottery of birth, it applies to every single facet of life. So if that is true, then there could be no a priori moral responsibility apart from the fact that we've not directly cause harm to others, because any action that we do is necessitated by some kind of privilege and precipitated by some kind of privilege. 
+The last thing I want to note here, if that explains that utility is an absolute on their side, there is less absolute utility because all people constrain themselves to a certain smaller, bare minimum level of utility. Know that things being zero sum does not mean they're equal in relations. So, for example, the government expropriating your wealth to get access, reduces your utility by at the level five. But then using that provided, hospitals increase their utility by 20. To think between zero something means equal therefore it has less absolute utility on the side as well. So we everyone’s magic.
+</mo>
+
+
+<gw>
+Opening government tells us in this debate that it's intuitive that we should have two equal grade lines, and if they equal, we should get them the same kind of stuff. I think it is intuitive, but there's reasonable faith from both opposition teams, which is what it's mutually beneficial for them to exchange their apples and their bananas and be better off together. I think we solved this well, because we show that it is necessarily not mutually beneficial. And in Texas analysis, we show that the process of capitalistic accumulation, even if it's only marginal, perhaps if sellers only possession is a havoc, we would still feel jealousy for that havoc, in a way which would prevent us from optimizing our enjoyment of life, and which would eat away in our sense of our personal relative to seller. So we think, therefore, that we solve the debate in closing government, because we demonstrated this isn't a clash between a utilitarian worldview and a principled worldview, but in fact, that inequality is necessarily a utilitarian harm, and that's what texture in the speech. And we received no responses to from closing opposition. So two things in this three things, firstly, responses to closing opposition. Second, responses to opening opposition. And third, the explanation further of why texture extension has a really worthless debate, and if that's taking later. Firstly, in terms of responses to closing opposition, the main thing we would note is that extension comes down saying this is not reasonable. It is not reasonable to expect people to sacrifice their own happiness. We say that morality has nothing to do with what is reasonable. We hold people morally responsible for participating in a genocide, even if not to have done so would have caused them to be murdered. We think the fact that they have to that horrific thing to someone else, even if it is the only reasonable thing they can do for the purpose of their own interest. No, thank you is not something they are morally justified in doing, and is immoral. Therefore we conclude that reality has nothing to do with reason. CF, give away everything you have before me, Christ, type, secondly, the pursuit of happiness is Secondly, claims about Pursuit of Happiness being a moral we are very open to claiming the pursuit of happiness is immoral in some circumstances, or even in many circumstances, especially if the effect of everyone pursuing happiness is there is a net lower level of happiness for everyone involved. I think that's what texting this extension generates. Firstly, about the level of happiness being a primary need. The first thing to note is that opening government already said that the level of basic need would result in people having a level of basic happiness. Now it is not necessarily clear to me that they are correct when they do so, but I note the opposition have never actually contested that claim, and therefore it does have to stand at this stage in the debate, or at least be a reasonable thing which hasn't been rebutted by close opposition, and therefore troubles, their troubles, their case. But I will also note that bluntly, it seems pretty plausible that like is us flying round and round Europe, debating against each other, working very, very hard on the pursuit of very competitive careers, necessarily making us happier. It's not intuitive to be the thing. Maybe it would just be like nicer if people weren't so competitive about the way they pursued the accumulation of wealth in general and stuff specifically. Secondly, it is a moral to seek happiness. I really think that the slave owner poi for opening government is very good here, because their claim is that pursuing happiness is the fundamental act of humans, and therefore it must be moral. There is no reason why the fact that it's the fundamental act of humans means that it is moral. It can be who are pursuing it in an immoral way. And I think the slave owner example demonstrates that very intuitively, finally, they say that you can't judge people for things they do, which are necessary, which they do, because it's the pursuit of fundamental human functions. I think if I'm starving and I kill, opening government to take their stuff that might be necessary for me, and it might be reasonable, it would still be immoral. And therefore, I think, in the same way, harming other people, even if it seems reasonable to you, is immoral. And their final plan, which I think is a good intuition part, but ultimately nothing more is it can't be a moral to chase happiness in other ways, like the pursuit of debating, competitions or other forms of life happiness, to the extent those things are competitive, we think that is immoral. If you give us the win in this debate, we will have committed a moral harm against the other three teams in this debate. But do so anyway. Um firstly second go
+
+
+<poi>
+CG’s evaluation of morality concludes that only authoritarianism matters, and never any autonomy, obligation or moral desert, and magically, even if I produce medication and keep my salary, it is always bad for employment utility. Why is any of this true?
+</poi>
+
+
+So I think the reason it's true, or at least the reason it's true in such a large majority of cases that we should assume it's always true. It's because of the way human nature works. I think this is what text explains and is never abutted, which is that people judge themselves relative to each other, because that's the way we've evolved with social animals. And therefore, the act of looking at someone else and seeing that they have something, even if the wealth differential isn't that big, quite a large amount of stuff which you don't have, causes you to evaluate yourself against them, and to change your life priorities in such a way as to pursue that stuff that isn't necessarily harmful to you. It might not be a big harm to you, but it is a harm to you, and therefore you are inflicting a harm on someone else. Our play from government is that inflicting a harm on someone else, even if it isn't the largest harm in the world, is a is immoral, in some sense, and therefore the motion has to pass. Open opposition response might be, but it's not a big harm. It's definitely still a harm, and therefore it's immoral to inflict it upon in terms of weighing up the other stuff we get coming out of open opposition.
+The first thing, first thing that, I think, is that sellers burden shifting stuff is brilliant, and demonstrates why closing government wins this debate, because it shows why opening government have failed to meet their burden, which is to prove that there is like not just this would be intuitively objectionable, rather what tech waiting decision shows and shows successfully, which is that people are worse off as a result of this, if you are harming someone else. Secondly, in terms of autonomy. Firstly, I don't understand why people have a right to autonomy. They tell us, people inherently, do people have just boundaries of chemicals like this building? Does this building have a right to be autonomous? Not particularly. Therefore, why should I, which is different sort of chemical? 
+Secondly, they say because people feel they should have autonomy, that's not universal. A man's peasant does not feel they should have autonomy. But even if they did, people could be wrong. There's no reason why the fact that everyone feels something gives that a sort of moral value of any sort. They say that there is an intuition part, that if you if you are all benefiting mutually, then that can't be harmful or morally wrong. Firstly, tech way shows you why you can't all be benefiting from the fact that one of you is harming someone else. Makes the act of moral and uncontested analysis where you necessarily are. But secondly, it could strike me that the settlement of the US or Australia was overwhelmingly on net beneficial for the average person who's called a huge amount of resources. Doesn't mean that it wasn't immoral because of the effects it had on the native population. So the fact that people are being lifted out of poverty great. They were living out of poverty in an immoral way, and we have deep moral qualms about that fact, the fact that capitalism has been net beneficial is not a moral get out of jail or three card. I think what opening opposition card is is a number of really beautifully framed assertions. And what tech wake has is analysis why someone is harmed, harming someone is necessarily moral. Therefore, every act harm someone has To be moral, for CG.
+</gw>
+
+
+<ow>
+So I usually dislike morality motions, and you can probably tell how I feel right now because of this, because I think this was very good before my switch. So let's start with the slave slave owners burn. That's the same thing as pushing the burden also on us to defending exploitative billionaire who stole his first million, literally, in this debate, this is the biggest wealth a person can have, and that's owning a difference person's life. That's not what we have to defend in this debate. We have to defend that you are legitimate and morally okay to seek further than your basic needs, not okay and legitimate in seeking, literally, to own another human being. Secondly, when they try to push the problem here and they talk about genocide. Look, they say morality has nothing to do with agency, but that's not true. In war, we literally allow humans to kill other humans because it is self defense. The reason this does not apply to genocide is because it's inherently disproportionate. You never need the genocide in order to defend yourself, and you're always doing this not to defend yourself, but to cause harm to other persons, even genocide Perpetrators are sometimes acquitted if we decide that they have no agency and that their life would otherwise not exist. It's not moral to steal belts from all the people in this room, and some people we don't have to defend, but having more than you actually need as a basic necessity is something that's moral, so that others in this room might have something less if you decide to do so on closing government and their idea of utility is subjective, cool, but that means that it's a lottery, of course, totally because your utility curve is something that's biologically and physiologically determined. That means that the same event does not cause the same amount of happiness in our peoples meaning that the same amount of basic necessity, which has to be the same for everyone, according to opening government, does not cause the same amount of happiness with people, because some people's utility happiness curve, consistent to the basic needs, is lower than with other people. That means that your happiness curve that's predetermined before determines your happiness terrible, and you cannot do nothing about it, because you are immoral if you try to compensate that your happiness curve consistent of material that might be lower than other people. So you need to have more than your basic needs in order to reach the same amount of happiness that are people. This is the same thing. People who have one to five happiness and people who have three to have seven happiness. People who have three to seven cannot go lower than three, but people who have one to five can go lower than three. This is like on their side of house. Even if this is true, the utility is not something that's good on their side of house, on open government. A lot of their claims are based on the idea that wealth happens only for the rich, only for the privilege and only for the groups that oppress itself. But let's put that they also have to defend this idea that groups who were dead, who were disprivileged Do not, are not morally like justified in seeking more than they had by the during the time that they were oppressed by the group who actually wanted them to have basic necessities to survive. 
+So in Africa, in post African clubs, in South Africa, they would want these groups that they would want people who were oppressed by the regime and kept their bare minimum not to seek something further, or if they seek something further, to get ahead of the mind that they had before, but they would oppress a cap to basic needs. They would say that this is a moral if we talk about this, no when we talk about comparative with closing with opening opposition here, like positive externalities, donations and benefits of trade, they help each other and are counterbalanced to some of the stuff that we hear from governments in this video, but they depend on the idea that it is still a criteria, anticipated and poor criteria, that we help each other, that we help other people by maximizing our wealth. And this is important to like watch this debate our cause. Our case was about this because it shows why we don't have the agency and are forced to act on the pursuit of happiness for the urge. So even if what opening opposition doesn't it's not true. When they say the important we have our people, we say this is still more than legitimate, because you are helping your very basic urge for happiness. If you go beyond necessity, 
+
+
+<poi>
+It's true that some people might feel jealous of Stella has a hammock, but it's probably far worse. There's money sitting in his bank account that isn't able to be used for a beneficial trade, that he's not actively spending on saving people's lives and doing stuff that feels like a much more important practical harm to people than something that seems important when you agree.
+</poi>
+
+
+Wait repeat from the hammocks part, 
+
+
+<poi>
+what do you care about more that Stella has a hammock and people are jealous at it, or there's like money in his bank account that He could spend helping people's lives right now, if you, like, wanted to and chose to do so,
+</poi>
+
+
+probably that he has billions on his bank account. But I don't know this is, this is like, this doesn't respond to stuff. Again, saying, right? 
+So if morality is inherent to human beings, we have to go and this is what both of them are saying we have to go through, go through social contracts to value morality. This means that all the constraints and negative personalities in modern societies of acquiring health are a product of that society as a media. This is what things talks about, as opposed to that. We can say that in any society, and this can be an unmonetized society. This can literally every been talking about money. This can literally be a society where you don't have money, or you require that different stuff that in any sort of this society, we are programmed to seek happiness. And that means, for example, that you go beyond, beyond your basic need in this aspect. So in a primitive society, this means picking apples and stalking them at the risk of someone else. Not being able to pick them up, because, you know, if you pick them up and stop them and you you can eat for maybe five more days, as opposed to filling out your basic need of eating today. In this regard, this is something that's important, but you're increasing your basic survival instinct, and this increases like the happiness to you. It's important that you cannot choose whether you're going to be happy or not, you have the urge to do this, and your basic necessities is something that constrains you in this in this regard. But what's also important to recognize here is that of like human nature dictates that we are not satisfied with what we have, which means that on their side of the house, if you take their mention, and that is doing your basic needs. These needs probably have to stay the same, because if these needs change with time, or they allow these things progressively go further and further and further, then they are susceptible to a lot of attacks. They attack us here, where people approve of the stuff like this, so on their sandal house. If this doesn't change, that means that progressively, your happiness is actually going down, right, because you're constantly having your basic needs met and stuff like this, but you feel more because you're becoming content with this. Like this is the basic analysis and like mechanisms they choose. Why it's immoral to have wealth, because people do more and more and more, and they're quitting really ingredient stuff like this. But if you flip this, if you talk about that, people are necessarily not happy with having the same amount of help over time, over time their basic needs, that means that under their hedging, the utility and happiness of all the people is gradually decreasing as long as they do not improve in life and stuff like this. This is something that's also connected to this. 
+So at the end of this debate, we showed that there's something more basic and primitive, like really biological, non physiological, that drives us to have more than the actually necessary at the very moment. But they also show you that in terms of like utility as after this, their world is a weapon. Everyone is equally unhappy, and that happiness decreases over time, meaning everyone is equally unhappy and unhappier as by progressing as after this. That's why we do very proud to oppose that.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/The Natolin European Round Robin Debating Championships Round 5.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,307 @@
+<pm>
+when the White House is filled with people like John Bolton, the National Security advisor, who are very sure that we can win the war with Iran in a breeze and actually secure Trump's presidency and filling his mind with this horrible nonsense and stuff like that, this is the riskiest and possibly the most horrible time to do this. But also, we're going to take even a higher burden. Why? Overall, this is a stupid strategy that they encompassed and they got the most they could have wanted anyway. 
+
+So, let's talk about what you can get from nuclear energy and stuff like that from this deal. You can get nuclear power plants. This is what they're claiming that they want. They want to develop their country with energy. And notice that with the agreement that specifically allows... and it specifically allows enough enriched uranium to have nuclear power plants at the status quo. So, this means that nuclear power—nuclear power is out of the question. They're already receiving the benefit let for nuclear weapons. Couple of reasons why it will be very, very hard to develop nuclear weapons, especially in a timeframe that is reasonable. First of all, the scientists were already very sufficient to be targeted. You need a lot of people who have a lot of know-how that were very much blocked up until this point, which means that the process for Iran specifically is going to be lot higher not higher longer than the other things. Second of all, you need to import the resources and... import, how do you say, a lot of raw materials, which nobody at this current theater scope, when the tensions are coming up, has a very huge incentive to give you. Even the countries who are loosely connected to you and they're not really allies but loosely connected are Iran—no, sorry, China and Russia. They still don't have how do you say how do you say the reason to fund this because, first of all, they don't want you to have nuclear weapons. This is why they sign on to a treaty. Second of all, they don't want to be implicated in a thing that can also ruin their relationship with Trump, specifically when they have already differing opinions. So, nobody has really the incentive to give you, which means that this slows down the process even more. 
+
+Thirdly, for Israel, it was really sufficient in taking down stuff with hacking, with projects like Stocket, and taking you down even remotely. And fucking you’ll but notice lastly, even if they did have— even if I didn't say any of this, the current estimate of them making a nuclear weapon would be at least 5 years from now if they start enriching at this moment in time, which means that even if they break this—which they started to do—they will not have a nuclear weapon in the next 5 years. But notice the second thing: even if they have the nuclear weapon in the next 5 years, it will be one nuclear weapon because this is how you develop. You need to develop multiple of them in order to have a credible threat and stuff like that. So, still even in 5 years, there wouldn't be enough to protect themselves and stuff like that. So, this is something that is out of the debate by this metric. 
+
+So, what is in of the debate? So, let's say risk of escalation of tensions, how say ruining your relationship with people who are actually defending you at the status quo and actually safety. Why is it ruin? Let's say even the best-case scenario where all I said is not true, we still win this debate. A couple of things. First of all, pro Trump's presidency in Trump's cabinet is currently filled with people like... with very non-coherent messaging. Some people are for bombing Iran, which would be like ludicrous for any normal presidency to consider because that would lead to a lot of casualties. But apparently, Trump was like 10 seconds away from sending, how you say, US military drones to bomb Iran in this situation. The problem is the risk of escalation increases when the tensions increase. It's not that wars start because somebody says "I declare war on you" and now we go there. The issue is they usually start by incidents that happen in the times of tension. What is the time of this? This is similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis and stuff like that, where everything is perceived as a threat, where somebody flying a drone over your territory because they want to provoke you is conceived as a threat and stuff like that. You're giving these kinds of signals that leave Trump in a very horrible position because he wants to appear as a strong man. If you down his drone, why is it likely for you to also escalate the conflict here? 
+
+Notice that Iran has a lot of decentralized units that are operating and that are downing these drones and stuff like that. So, the Iranian military guard and CS are necessarily more decentralized. The central government doesn't have as much influence over them. Why? First of all, because they were needed to, how you say, do guerrilla warfare against states like Israel, funding Kasbulla and stuff like that. So, they were given a lot of leverage. to central government can disassociate with them if need be and stuff like that. So, they're operating more or less on a directional basis where you can tell them this is what you do, but they have discretionary power to do something. This is very similar in other militaries, but it's more emphasized in the military of Iran and the situation. 
+
+This means that these people are much more... this is why downing of drones happen and stuff like that, which is not necessarily something that Iran should have done. This risk of escalating tension becomes even more pronounced when Trump is now sending more ships and more, how you say, battle carriers in preparation for war in wanting to intimidate you, which means that you can't interpret any other attack or any normal passage as an attack and risk escalation of conflict. But notice that this goes two ways. They can say Trump will lose presidency. We will cover both of these. If Trump stays, it's horrible for you for all these reasons because you ruined the thing. But even if Trump goes, you have ruined your reputation as somebody who... drones are portraying as getting fucked over by Trump by stooping to the same level as Trump by doing something that they said you will never do, that they said you will own her until, how say, because it's Obama deal. Yes, 
+
+<poi>
+but your analysis, decentralized stuff, actually proves that if he do the deal, some crazy guy who's a commander might actually shoot. He's...
+</poi>
+
+no, no, but you know why you know what's the difference in that case? That's not comparative. But what is comparative is more ships on the shores. It's more Trump getting ready to attack the overall idea of people being ready to attack. But even if that's not true, let's say about the EU. The EU is the one who has been honoring the agreement from the start onwards and stuff like that, specifically because you were honoring it too. As IR read in the situation, you're losing a valuable ally who managed to resist and push the International Community to also honor the deal based on the thing that they don't want you to get nuclear weapons and they think this is a good deal. The problem is if you disagree with them and stop that, it's much more likely for sanctions to be back. 
+
+Also, expediating... like slowing down the process that I told you before. But also, how you say, your businessmen, your politicians not meeting on relevant playing fields with other politicians where you can influence and bow for other people, not meeting in Dallas, not going to the Yen meetings because you're targeted by sanctions and stuff like that, which means you have less international sway, especially over your enemies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, who will be there to lobby against you no matter what. Which means that they have a seat at the table where they talk about their problems, where they talk about how you are bad, but you don't have a seat to defend yourself because people do not want to trade with you because they can't and understand. 
+
+So, safety lastly in the situation, let's say 5 years, but I said... but the last thing as well, even if you develop a nuclear weapon, there's triggers the nuclear race in the Middle East, where also Saudi Arabia gets nuclear weapons and all the other enemies go... go get nuclear weapons because they can. And what was preventing them? And what Saudi Arabia actually said, if they get it, we will get it too. And this is why it was urgent for people to make a deal. This makes it much less unsafe because it's much less unpredictable to deal with Saudi Arabia this way. You should definitely vote opening government. Thank you. 
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+Chair, adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen. Countries gain power in the world either by being an economic and political powerhouse or by being a military powerhouse. The Iran deal asks Iran to sacrifice their military capabilities in order for them to be able to gain prominence through economic prosperity. Iran is now being denied their chance to gain economic prosperity through this deal, and yet they are still being expected to make the sacrifices with respect to their military. We think that that is unfair. It's not the terms that Iran signed up to, and the way in which Iran is able to establish itself is by starting to go back on the terms of that deal, increase their supplies to the enriched uranium, and exercise their power in that capacity. 
+
+We think that will be better at achieving the goals of the Iranian government which is to ensure sustainable economic and political power for Iran and its people. So, we think the reinstatement of sanctions on Iran has hurt their products, their oil exports, and their trading partners have been penalized. You've seen a capital flight from Iran. What is the best outcome for Iran in this situation? One, you take actions which put pressure on the US to rejoin this agreement. Two, you get the EU to lower tariffs on Iran to compensate for the fact that they have higher tariffs coming in from the US. Three, you get the EU to put pressure on the US to rejoin. I'm going to talk to you about why the actions of enriching—of increasing stock of enriched uranium are most likely to lead to those sorts of outcomes. But first, I'm going to respond to opening government because their main claim is that this is bad because the US increasing tensions means that the US is likely to attack. I'm going to talk through this a little bit more throughout my speech, but I think quite obvious response. 
+
+Firstly, the example they give you of how Trump was minutes away from ordering drone strikes on Iran and then was pulled back is evidence of the fact that there is a check and accountability mechanism on the things that Trump can do. So, when they say it's just him and John Bolton and they can do anything they want, an example that they use showed that that is not true because there are Joint Chiefs of Staff who rise on these sorts of issues. There are also political reasons why it's unlikely that they would do it in an election cycle, etc. But I just want to point out that it is not true that they have the sort of power or the likelihood to act in the way that they characterize them. Secondly, the US is not the only threat to Iran. So, if we're talking about the Iranian government minimizing threats around it, if you completely decimate your military powers, the threat of Saudi Arabia becomes much more real. So, they'll give us reasons why the Iranian government should prioritize this slight increase in threat from the US over having significantly weaker military capabilities with respect to an aggressor which is so close to us. We think that is something they should be considering as well. 
+
+Thirdly, the example of why an attack is likely to happen is that ships are now near Iran. I would point out that the US has military presence and naval presence all around the world. It is the way that they keep checks on people. They have ships outside of China. No one is saying that it is likely that they are going to attack there. I think they needed more analysis in order to get that. Why are we likely to get a bettering of the position of Iran by following through on this procedure? One, it puts pressure on the US. The US joined the Iran deal because Iran was a threat to the region and the regional stability which the US relies on because it gets oil from there, it trades with people there, and it doesn't have... it's not good for the US if the region is constantly in terror and constantly in turmoil. 
+
+So, the only way you get respect from these individuals is if you become a threat because otherwise it's incredibly easy for them to ignore you. The US is likely to respond. It's similar to how it responded before, which is to say engage with Iran rather than attack it for a number of reasons. First, it is an election cycle year at the moment. It would be an incredibly polarizing move for them to commit to war within with a country that has a potential nuclear power when there's little direct threat to the citizens of America for doing so. So, it's unlikely that any politician would actually do that. Secondly, it is a war-weary country, and there's little political will for going back towards a war with a country that is so far away. Thirdly, they don't have an incentive for having less regional stability from a place where they get oil, so they don't have an incentive to create another state that is in turmoil. Someone who they cannot rely on as a trading partner, no thank you. But also fourthly and final, because their allies, who they trade with, who their economy is reliant on allies like the EU, do not want the US to go to war with Iran because they are also allies with them. So, they are likely to face significant pushback from their allies if they were to go to war. 
+
+For this, that means that the response to this sort of action is overwhelmingly likely to be a stabilizing one by the US rather than one which just attacks them, which is kind of... I think unfounded by the proposition team. No, thank you. The second thing that it can do is it puts pressure on the EU to compensate. The EU wants the Iranian deal to be a success for a number of reasons. One, they don't want Iran to be seen as an aggressor in the region. They also get oil from Saudi Arabia, and it's bad for them if those oil prices are constantly fluctuating. But also, they have kind of humanitarian obligations to not allow someone who could play a role in the war in Yemen, and they don't want an increased aggressor there. 
+
+Two, they spend an awful lot of time on this deal, and it's a really good pure win for the European Union. Its success can be shown to be a success and a worthwhile mission as a unifying thing that the US uh that the EU can hold up together as a strong, unified union. I'll take closing in a second, but also because it's better for them to have a new trading partner in a situation where the EU is in turmoil, where they don't know what the future of who they're going to be trading with after losing the UK. It's beneficial for them to be establishing more links around the world. There are all reasons why the EU is likely to, in response to increased uranium by the Iranian government, to try and accommodate them and make the situation good for them. Before I go on closing... 
+
+<poi>
+so how do you think that the Republican Party will react during those elections you mentioned in order to portray this strongly?
+</poi>
+
+I still think that it is too polarizing to do that, and there are so many other ways that it's easy for them to portray themselves as strong with respect to the economy, etc. I think that it would be very unlikely that this would be their first port of call. We're going to go to war with an enemy that doesn't really affect their life. They need to put in work and to say why that is likely to happen. 
+
+Thirdly and final point about why this would be bad for the Iranian government. South power, in order for Iran to promote itself in the world, we will have to sign more deals like this in the future to get more allies in different places. That means they will have to make some sacrifices in return for a benefit. They will be making deals with countries that are much more powerful than them. If the countries they are making deals with now see it as they can make a deal with Iran, make them make all these sacrifices, and then not follow through on that deal, Iran will still continue to make the cuts to their military, etc. Then it just leaves them open to being completely exploited in the future. Iran needs to either exert itself with economic power, which it currently does not have, or military power in order to gain respect. Taking steps like this do not likely escalate tensions to the extent the proposition would like to, but they are the only way that you can ensure economic prosperity and also the lasting power of Iranian soft power for their ability to join deals in the future. Please impose.
+</lo>
+ 
+<dpm>
+This previous speech was a lot of analysis of why it is a bad idea for the United States to engage in armed conflict with Iran. That disregards the analysis in our first speech. We agree it's a bad idea; that still does not mean it will not happen. One of the key reasons why Donald Trump did not launch US air strikes against Iran was because Jack Keane, a Fox News anchor who was present at the discussion with John Bolton after the downing of the US drone in the Persian Gulf, advised that it is not a great idea to do so. The decision-making processes are far less transparent than these guys will all think. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are more consulted by and large. There is a great deal of executive power vested within the presidency in the United States. There is a need to react to escalations of conflict within a reasonably short period of time. This overall means that you will not have a large public-scale consultation which will lead to rational decision-making when it comes to an escalation. 
+
+What is more likely to happen is you will have a few people at the table making these sorts of decisions. We already provide analysis as to why these few people are very, very problematic. Some of the most influential people within the Trump Administration are John Bolton, a gross foreign policy hawk who has called for war with Iran since the George W. Bush Administration, and people like Michael Phelps, the chief of staff, who has been similarly very hawkish.
+
+When Donald Trump, as he has already done so, consults with very few people when it comes to foreign policy decision-making. You have a far higher risk of conflict and escalation. We think that further, there is a large level of decentralization that exists within the decision-making within Iran. What closing ask in the POI there is, but why is this comparative? I mean, look, the level of decision-making that is provided by the Iranian regime is directional. What does this mean? This means that, by definition, you do not have a you do not control the chain of command within the puts forces or the Revolutionary Guard to a very detailed extent. You do not give out precise orders. Our direction, in terms of how aggressive you ought to be towards neighbors, is something that is provided by the regime.
+
+So, if there is a call for escalation, if there are numerous, no thank you, if there are numerous public gatherings, you continue yelling "Death to America," etc. These guys, in a situation where there is further escalation from the United States, where they also have to make decisions reasonably quickly, are far more likely to engage in a sort of warfare. Now, on the possibility of of uh of Iranian nuclear weapons, we have a lot of analysis as to why this is incredibly unlikely to happen. No, your main supplier of technology, Libya, has a different regime right now than it did five years ago. Secondly, the U.S. and Israel have been successful in various means of slowing down your nuclear program—killing your nuclear scientists, etc. This means it's very difficult to get there.
+
+But the further point on this is, I don't really understand how gaining nuclear weapons improves your international standing or makes you a bigger superpower. Look at North Korea; it has to improve the standard of life. The second thing I will point out is that yes, nuclear weapons may, to an extent, be a deterrent, but this is by and large true in democratic states and far less so in less democratic ones. I will point out that since developing nuclear weapons, India and Pakistan—both countries which are at best semi-democratic—have engaged in three different conflicts. Admittedly, they were regionalized, but this does not mean you have a strong deterrent, no thank you, towards your neighbors. Countries like Saudi Arabia, which is a fully autocratic state, countries like Israel, which is more democratic but still without a pure level of democratic accountability, especially with respect to its foreign policy, so you don't really achieve a kind of strong deterrence.
+
+Now, the U.S. will not engage because it's an election cycle. A few responses here. The first one I will point out is that 2003, the year of the Iraq War, was also in an election cycle. It was one year before the 2004 election; that's exactly the equivalent of this year. The second thing I will point out here is that, by and large, foreign policy is dominated by the need to portray or portray power towards your enemies. I will point out that in a situation where there is a likelihood of a small strike, like the hoods downing another drone or attacking a tanker in the Gulf of Persia, there is a high need to react in order to maintain your power in the region.
+
+So, yes, completely correct that a war is a terrible idea. The analysis we have provided over the last 12 minutes is why a series of small circumstances are far less likely to happen on our side of the house and lead to this grossly unfortunate turn of events. I will take Closing.
+
+<poi>
+If Iraq was invaded during an election cycle and with clear proof that no nuclear weapons existed, then how can the premise case be that the United States will be rational and de-escalate if we follow this agreement? 
+</poi>
+
+I find so what the point of this is that U.S. foreign policy can be hawkish in situations, even in situations where there is real proof of nuclear weapons. What I would point out is there has been a massive de-escalation in the years after the Iran nuclear deal, albeit with some aggression from the Republicans. The second thing I will point out here is, I mean, look, debate is a comparative thing. What you get on our side of the house is a far higher likelihood of a conflict happening. Now, the line they want to go towards is yes, but when you get nuclear weapons, you have a far greater deterrent. Look at two minutes of analysis as to why this is a really long process to which you will not get to the end of in five or six years; you are far more likely to get that sort of ion, so not really competitive on their side of the house.
+
+Finally, on the European Union, the responses we get there are that the EU will try to be prominent, but by and large, the EU is not a unified institution. The fact they haven't been able to elect the European government for two months after the election is one proof of this. The point is, though, that they have been supportive of the de-escalation of a conflict while forcing Iran to not develop nuclear weapons. Why is this the case? Because at any point at which they continue enriching uranium, the narrative that they are a radical and terrorist state becomes far stronger. At that point, it's far more difficult for you to garner the support that is necessary in order to push the United States towards de-escalating the Iranian conflict.
+
+One other thing I will point out is it's not that simple to stop enriching uranium. They have decided on this. Again, that is why negotiations with the Islamic Republic lasted for a decade, again because the decision process is not fully centralized. The final thing, therefore, I do want to point out on the risk of against is that there are strong lobby groups within both inside the European Union and the United States that are heavily pushing towards escalating conflict with Iran. The AIPAC, for instance, in the United States, the strongest Israeli lobby group, is very much pushing towards this on both sides of the house, but all of these lobby groups are far stronger on ours than they are on theirs. And I'm very, very proud to oppose.
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo>
+Two responses in terms of, and then I'm going to talk about U.S. response in this case. Talk about the state of the deal and what can happen in the future in terms of relationships. Let's first talk about responses. In terms of the first thing that they say in the specific case is nuclear weapons don't make you a superpower; that is correct. What we say, though, is that has nuclear capacity—its capacity to be a regional influence—is increased, that which is particularly important to Iran in the context of the proxy wars that it has at the moment with Saudi Arabia and the enemies it has in the region. But also, its capacity to develop its economy relies on things like trade and good relationships with, or strong relationships with, particular people in the region.
+
+The second reason why nuclear weapons or nuclear capacity is important in this case is because it does give you a certain amount of power, even if it doesn't make you a superpower. That's why this deal was struck in the first place, because people recognized that Iran having weapons meant that a compromise had to be made, which meant that Iran had access to the trade that it needed in order to develop. But the third thing is that this is not about Iran needing nuclear weapons to become a superpower; this is Iran needing a deal and how it interacts with people in terms of when it enters international deals.
+
+This is important in the context of trying to establish itself in general. When you approach international deals, when they go the way you don't want them to go, or someone falls back on their side, how you respond to that decides how people treat you in the future in relation to these fields. So, it is particularly important in this case that Iran doesn't let itself be walked all over but instead recognizes or responds in a way that suggests that if one person was to fall back on their side of the deal, they would be able to also take an action—not such that the deal would necessarily collapse, but just as a response of fairness, which doesn't put them at the back foot but rather gives them power in order to respond in the future.
+
+The second thing, though, is that when they say it takes five years to make nuclear weapons, one of the criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal was that it was that Iran might be able to make nuclear weapons in as little as three weeks because while the deal stopped enrichment of uranium, it didn't necessarily stop people working in the background on particular nuclear weapons. In fact, the reason why the U.S. withdrew from the deal was because it believed Iran was enriching uranium in the first place, which it was particularly afraid of because it felt that Iran would be able to create nuclear weapons in quite a short space of time, not five years that the opening government talks about.
+
+And therefore, their framing in terms of how these powers interact and whether people will take them seriously is actually categorically incorrect, both factually but also to how  historically countries have responded to this particular deal on Iran's power, which is important in the context of how seriously countries take Iran in general. In response to this, let's talk about the U.S. response, because I am just so tired of this analysis that all the actors are irrational. So, you can't say the actors stay this way, but we can if the actors are irrational; they're irrational on both sides. So, they can't say we know how Trump's going to act; we know how John Bolton's going to act because they're so predictable, but also tell us they are irrational. That is not analysis; that's just an argument you can't rely on at all.
+
+But let's actually talk about how irrational these actors are or rather where Trump might get his ideas and how they might be informed. Firstly, their response to the thing about the Joint Chiefs of Staff not mattering is factually untrue in so far as there are advisors to a government, and there are people who have the ear of the president. Insofar as those people have information, read the news like the rest of us. We think it is just the case that those people are likely to have information that is valuable; they can give to the president or give to people who work for the president. That means that they make rational decisions, i.e., not to go to war with Iran.
+
+The second reason, though, is that if news anchors could inform Trump in one case, why can't they inform Trump in our case? Because there's no reason why newscasters wouldn't take our side in this particular situation where wars are costly, where a deal with Iran or some sort of peaceful agreement with Iran would be better in general for stability in the region, which the U.S. is involved in, see its involvement in Syria, but also its good relationships with Saudi Arabia and Israel. There's genuinely no reason why people wouldn't encourage the president—whether they were news anchors or chiefs of staff or whoever has the ear of Donald Trump—to not get involved in any sort of conflict with Iran.
+
+But in general, we think there are three reasons why these people will advise Trump not to get involved in any sort of conflict that could uh that could put put at the region in any sort of term out in general. First of all, these people are generally pro-trade, and so far as Iran has any control over the Strait of Hormuz or any sort of trade routes that are important to global trade, it is likely they would advise against Trump creating a situation where that might be jeopardized. Second of all, in terms of military alliances, Saudi Arabia is a huge military ally for Iran, in so far as Saudi does not want Iran to have nuclear capability. It is likely that they would not engage in war with Iran, but rather try to negotiate a situation that would put that particular ally in a safe situation.
+
+Third of all, the threat to Israel. A lot of people in power in the U.S. are Evangelical or have Evangelical Jewish connections such that they would want to protect Israel. In so far as Iran is an enemy to Israel and has threatened Israel in the past, them having any sort of military capability or being militaristic is not in the interest of the U.S. and its allies, and therefore they would advise the president against it. Third of all, there are checks in the presidency; spending bills have to be passed through Congress. There will be a huge amount of discussion about this, even if it's just by the Democrats in the news, in the newspapers, in the world to the election in general.
+
+But also, there a 2003 War happened that was after 9/11. This is not the same as 9/11. They give you no specific reasons why this will necessarily be so much on the national conscience that people would be forced or compelled to be involved in conflict. 
+
+<poi>
+Cool, the EU, Russia, and China said they will uphold the deal if Iran does it too. The problem with this, you think that if they break the deal, they will offer us carrots. The problem is they will offer us sticks because they can push us to this with riling sanctions. 
+</poi>
+
+Yeah, so I'm going to go on to that now, but ultimately what we get here on the proposition case, just to be clear, is that they have achieved no link between Iran making this action and the U.S. response. We've explained to you why, even so far as the U.S. responses are rational, there is more likely to be influence, which involves it not involving itself in any conflict. Let's talk about the deal now, right? Because the opening government said the benefit of the deal continuing to exist is that you can meet with businesses and politicians, and you're still friends with the EU and Russia.
+
+And here's the reality: one, EU, Russian, and Chinese businesses have left Iran because the sanctions mean they can't trade with people. Second, businesses using Iranian oil with the connection to the U.S. have been sanctioned and have therefore stopped doing that. The reality is this deal, because it's happened in such a short time, is a structured web that relies on U.S. business capital and trade. That means that any business that has based itself or its business model on some sort of relationship with U.S. trade capital can no longer operate in Iran or can no longer trade with Iran because they're being sanctioned. Ultimately, what that means is that the status quo is that the U.S. withdrawal from the deal has crippled any good the deal was providing for Iran because even its other partners are not able to negotiate with them properly.
+
+The status quo is there is no renegotiation of the deal happening, but also essentially there's an international sanction on Iran because the people who came back into the country have structured themselves in such a way they can no longer actually beneficially trade with Iran. There are two options: one, we think the same; Iran becomes poor, there's unrest, they look vulnerable, they're more likely to be attacked in proxy wars, and Iran, at least in that case, enriched uranium could help them. The second option, though, is a renegotiation of the deal where they can achieve more trade, or the EU can encourage the U.S. to stop sanctioning, or Russia and China can encourage the U.S. to stop sanctioning its businesses when they engage with Iran. 
+
+That is the best-case scenario, but that doesn't happen in the status quo where Iran does absolutely nothing. Because the EU, Russia, and China have no incentive to create any difference in Iran's situation in the status quo, Iran does nothing; nothing happens. The reality is Iran is a vulnerable party in this particular situation. We have proven the link between Iran taking this action and the other parties to the deal reacting; they have proven no link between Iran taking this action and the U.S. reacting in a certain way. Please I pause. 
+</dlo>
+
+
+<mg>
+Who you said was right that Western countries would not react would react with hostility to this new nuclear program. What they means is that the most important impact in this debate is not the short-term military effect that this will happen; that sure is more likely there in the house. They oppose that in an government, and therefore that's a good impact, but that is still unlikely because a war is always unlikely; it's difficult to sell. Even if it happens, it's like really short-term and not going to be maintaining for a long year, but rather the most important impact is the long-term economic consequences that will happen to Iran that will extend for decades and that will restrain their economy for a long time and cause great problems to the regime.
+
+First of all, two additional rebuttals to the opening opposition. Okay, already opening government, I see that say so a really effective rebuttal that U.S. reducing the pressure because of the electoral period. But I want to add two more. First of all, the mechanism that they say that you want to maintain stability because of the oil. I want to maintain stability; I think that is not true. Already, they are under the embargo of oil in in Iran, and that is happening, so they are not dependent at all. They and the resources of Iran, so I think that what happens within Iran is completely irrelevant to the United States and I know Saudi Arabia or the the own of the United States within the country is much more.
+
+And secondly, I think that they do not take this into account in opening half is that these people, the people of Western countries, usually hate Iran very much. They think that they are like a terrorist, that they are like Islamic fighters, that they are really tied to terrorists. We think that this is extremely unlikely that you can sell to this population that a developing country like Iran, that they're far away and really poor, is going to change your policy with just an escalate of of of threat. No, thank you. I think that this is extremely unlikely that the voters of the United States, Europe, or Israel are going to be happy with their government surrendering to the pressure of a developing country, which they hate and think this is terrorist.
+
+Now, going to our extension, we have two parts. First,where we think that it's extremely likely that the sanctions will happen not only from the U.S. now but also for the next administration of the U.S. and also for other countries, such as Israel and Europe, etc. First of all, as introduced, because it's a great sense of pride in these countries, and especially this fight against a country which they consider underdeveloped and a terrorist and a terrorist state. This happens differently in the United States, in which most vast majority of the population hates this country and thinks that they are like terrorists or Islamic radicals, etc., and happens in another way in the Arab countries, which are surrounded by Iran, which have historical hate between races and would have the little opportunity that they can to damage these people.
+
+Secondly, for this reason, not yet, for this reason we think that for the voters, it's extremely popular to say that you are doing like an intermediary. You are not attacking this country because war in Europe is extremely unpopular, but you are able to put hard economic sanctions, which are not risky at all, but which are coherent with the idea that we cannot be supporting a terrorist regime which is threatening to put nuclear weapons, actually, in Europe. Many people think that if Iran is able to get nuclear weapons, they are going to attack Europe. It's not rational, but they think that this is possible because they are Islamists, they are radicals, and there's no more logic under that. 
+
+So, third, I also think that this works in the past; they think if for many years we put economic pressure over this country and they were forced to to to withdraw the nuclear program at the surrender,that then we have another time that we have another opportunity of doing the same—putting this country on its knees and without any risk, because we are not going to go to war, we are not losing soldiers there, and we are last maintaining the status quo. At the same time, we are putting a lot of pressure. We’re not saying that it’s completely impossible that they attack the country; what we are saying is that this is perhaps a 10%, a 15%, or a 20% chance. 
+
+But what we are sure of, at a 100% chance, is that the United States, Europe, and Israel is not going to respond in an economically friendly way to Iran, but rather with embargoes and sanctions, which will lead for decades of economic stagnation. Thirdly, we think that Iran, after these economic sanctions, are going to respond obviously. First, because they also have a really strong Persian pride, like the only Persian country in the world. Secondly, because of the pride of like the Islamic fighters against the imperialism of the United States and Europe. Thirdly, because they think that they have weapons; they can use Hezbollah, they can use Hamas in order to try to attack Israel and destabilize the region, and inflict some harm to Israel and to the prestige of the United States, which is not able to maintain safe their lives in the western countries.
+
+And also because we think that due to the economic pressure, it will be very important for the Iranian government to maintain popularity within the country. While you are suffering from stagnation or an economic crisis, it’s really important to find a common enemy outside which is the to to blame for these economic problems and therefore to put that blame there. That’s an additional reason to European countries, Israel, and also the next administration of Trump to maintain the status quo or to higher that and so maintain the system in the the country of of Iran. 
+
+What we prove with this argument is that it’s extremely likely that this escalation, at least in economic war, and therefore that Iran is going to be maintained like in the corner of the trap for many years. So what’s the impact of this? We think that, as most of the; I not, sorry I have no time. The The impact of this is that as all the dictatorships in the world, they are the Iranian dictatorship is potentially unstable. That means that in the past general election, the former president have to face like two billion demonstrations in the streets just because they were unhappy with his policies. That’s potentially what happens every time. 
+
+That means that when you are going to face decades of economic stagnation because nobody is going to buy the oil—which is 20% or 25% of the economy—when all the countries in your region, which have been allied with you, are not going to trade with you, are going to block you, you are going to face a long-term economic crisis. This is going to be really damaging for the government of Iran, which cannot maintain popularity. But with confrontation with the United States, that means two things: 
+
+A. It’s much more likely that in the long term, because of this process of economic stagnation, and therefore retaliation from Iran with Hamas and Hezbollah in the long term a war can happen or attack can happen but secondly, 
+
+B. It leads to instability in the Iranian government, just because of this economic situation that will eventually lead to to some protest for it. 
+
+Closing government wants this debate because we are able to prove the most likely thing in this debate, which is not war—no United States invading Iran; that’s like a 10% chance. But what happens in the next decades when the economy of Iran is going to crash because of the economic sanctions? What happens not only for the United States now but for the United States in the future, and for Europe, Israel, and the rest? Thank you. 
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+I've had it with people telling lies and getting away with it because they sound smart. Not happening this time around. Three things in closing opposition: 
+
+1. Why everything in government is sound comparative. 
+2. The benefits of a nuclear program far more than the open opposition. 
+3. The actual interests of the Iranian government—why this enables them to have legitimacy and power. 
+
+Everything is integrated now. Opening up’s response to the open government is: look, the U.S. is rational and will engage. We don’t care if the open side is right; let’s say that government is completely right. Let’s take their word that the U.S. is completely rational and therefore engages because of John B. feeling Trump’s head and so on and so forth. 
+
+Within their framework, it is incredibly unlikely that the United States will act rationally and de-escalate tensions if Iran complies with this deal for a number of reasons. 
+
+1. Stefan tells a explicit lie, or he has no conception of time. The reason why Iran started developing uranium again is because Trump imposed sanctions on Iran, even after Iran started complying with the deal because He construed the idea that Iran is not complying, and therefore Iran decided that since sanctions happen anyway, they are going to continue.
+
+2. The second Iraq war happened during an election cycle. International inspections of the United Nations proved that there was no evidence of nuclear weapons, yet the United States still invaded, even after it ostensibly democratized. They still retained troops on the ground; they did the same thing in Afghanistan because they had geopolitical interests there because as pakish government claims. 
+
+3. Both OG and CG want to talk about the narrative of Iran as an evil country. Note that this George Bush Jr. defined them as the axis of evil back in 2001. But since Trump has already construed a narrative that they are breaking a deal—which they were not breaking—there’s fast dependency here. It’s incredibly unlikely that after several administrations have convinced the American people that Iran is a rogue country that cannot be trusted, even if inspections show that they can’t be because they are hiding nuclear weapons elsewhere. 
+
+It’s very unlikely that the future establishment will back down on that claim because it delegitimizes their foreign policy, and it loses the electoral power because this is what the United States people believe. Exactly this is what CG concedes in their speech. They say people hate Iran; they’re convinced it’s a rogue and terrorist country. People will accept sanctions as long as there’s no war. Exactly. This is precisely what the United States government is going to do; they will retain sanctions on Iran because people support the sanctions on Iran and because they have electoral interests to do so. 
+
+Iraq is again an example; when you convince people that Iraq has nuclear weapons, even when it’s proven that they didn’t, in order for you to retain legitimacy over your foreign policy and for people not to vote against you, you still have to pretend that they had nuclear weapons, and you still have to go down there, although it was proven that they did not. 
+
+So essentially, the government concedes our case. Now, Mil is with decentralization. Like, Mil using big words in this debate is not going to help you. Look, having a weaker chain of command means it’s probably more likely that someone is going to go rogue after we sign the deal. 
+
+Again, note also that for religious reasons, most rebels in Iraq and Syria who rebelled against the governments there did so on religious grounds. This government is betraying our vow to fight for our world; they are siding with the enemy who invaded our Muslim brethren. Therefore, we have to rebel against this government. Note also that the idea of someone taking down a drone can probably happen anyway, regardless of whether we have this deal or not. 
+
+Essentially, again, can see it. Again, just another point for CG. So if you want to talk about sanctions, sanctions probably happen anyway, as I explained with the U.S. They probably also happen with the EU under CG’s framework. If people hate Iran because there are secondary sanctions on companies, every European company that does business in America has to face secondary sanctions not to do business with Iran. 
+
+Also, if people really hate Iran, then no country in the EU will openly trade with them, right? Because you don’t want to be ostracized from the international law system if they are a sponsor of terrorism, and you trade with them. By extension, you can become a sponsor of terrorism, which means that in all negotiations within the EU, within NATO, other countries are more likely to be aggressive towards you, telling you, “You trade with a sponsor of terrorism; we’re going to give you a worse deal,” and so on and so forth. 
+
+Moving on to benefits now—developing nuclear weapons. First of all, I’d like to point to an example of North Korea, which is the most isolated country in the fucking world, and they still manage to develop a nuclear weapon. And Yes, it’s right that they did not improve their standard of life, but it also meant that although everybody fucking hates North Korea, and although it’s the most isolated country in the world, nobody invaded fucking North Korea. 
+
+But even if that’s not true, the belief that we have nuclear weapons is incredibly important. It’s a stronger measure Milo gives you because even if the government is completely right and everyone is hawkish, the belief that we have nuclear weapons is something that’s going to help us. Look, the entire Trump administration is based on convincing people that Iran has nuclear weapons and convincing its allies to act in a similar fashion. 
+
+Note that even if Trump knows that they do not, he still has to get approval from Congress under the War Powers Act of 1974 to send troops down to the ground. Most countries work this way. At the end, this means that if people believe that a country has nuclear weapons, even if it doesn’t, it’s probably not going to be attacked for that. 
+
+We need to keep reinforcing this deal and show the people that we indeed have nuclear weapons, which is something that the U.S. is not going to deny because they are credible threats to Iran. Under OG’s metric, the U.S. is a credible threat. 
+
+So, the U.S. promised Libya they wouldn’t be attacked, and it was attacked. Saudi Arabia shows intentions to attack; it attacked Yemen directly. It blocks Qatar, which is one of its main trading partners. Israel has religious reasons for a preemptive strike because it believes that under Shia Islam, Iran will want to become a major state and invade Iran. 
+
+Therefore, as long as there is no credible deterrent in the form of nuclear weapons, all countries surrounding Iran have shown a tendency to attack other countries when they believe that the calculus is in their fucking favor. Look, Israel is also an example for our side as well in terms of nuclear weapons. Before that, something to say: 
+
+<poi>
+cool, yeah, there’s a comparison at the end of the debate is judged by the risk of escalation. The problem on your side then becomes that the path to nuclear weapons, which is not instant by Trump’s metric weeks...
+</poi> 
+
+Okay, sure, the first part was answered by the first five minutes of my speech. The second will be answered now. 
+
+Is also an excellent example of nuclear deterrence; there were four Arab-Israeli wars, the last one happening in 1974. 1974 was the year Israel acquired nuclear weapons. The USSR, which was in the Cold War and on the edge of the Cuban Missile Crisis, never engaged in a full-scale war. 
+
+Siri, go India and Pakistan admit it; it’s regionalized. Yes, exactly the point. Not until 1945 did we have cycles of 30 to 40 years of countries going to full-scale wars when their territory would be invaded and their cities bombarded. Now we have a reduced explosiveness; Kashmir and proxy war. That’s probably comparative. 
+
+But lastly, let’s talk about the interests of the actual Iranian government, as CG said—that to stay in power and avoid escalation. No, the entire theocratic system of Iran, of Ayatollahs since Khomeini, is based on the idea that Iran represents a third way which will spread Shia Islam and be neither capitalist nor communist. 
+
+The entire system of Ayatollahs and the Council of Guardians of the Revolution is based on the idea that we are going to do this; we’re going to be a strong country for our Muslim brothers. Given economic pressures, this will happen anyway. The only way to retain peace is to convince the people that we’re doing something for the future, that we are sacrificing now in order to keep fighting our hated enemies. If that doesn’t happen, people lose trust in their government. 
+
+That’s why opposition we finally win this fucking debate.
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+The reason why we are going to win this debate is very simple: it’s called possibility. So OG tells you that there’s a big impact if they invade. 
+
+OO points out look but it’s not that likely that they invade. Both things are probably right; they are likely to be small escalations, and they are also likely true. But no one is going to invade Iran. 
+
+Then CG tells you something weird about people invading Iran—“or probably to invade.” We are the only ones to tell you something that you can actually believe after this debate, which is that it is likely that countries react with sanctions, and that possibility will make strong economic pressure, which is back to Iran. 
+
+First, our case framing and rebuilding, and then CO and OO. 
+
+So first, our case: look, OG told you there is a lot of risks in this situation due to the possibility of retaliation. What we tell you is that the reaction is massive pressure to Iran’s economy. We told you a number of reasons, but it’s really important to remember two of them. 
+
+First, they believe that they did it once, and it was useful. So they believe there is a useful tool to bend the knee on Iran. They did it, and they believe that is true; they can make it this way. 
+
+Second, they believe this is a way to do it without the tensions, without the invasions. So the most likely thing to happen is that they believe if they have a tool to do it without getting the setbacks, without getting the possibility of those bad things happening to Israel, I don’t know, it is much more likely that they do that because they think it is efficient with no cost. 
+
+Compare here the possibility to sanction someone when you know it’s efficient because you have proof that it is towards the probability of invade them—it's ridiculous. So we think it is much more likely that they sanction them. 
+
+The second thing that we tell you is this is not only true; it is also true that this provokes an irreversible trend to Iran. So Once they go into breaking the deal, it’s really difficult to go back to the deal. Iran's pride is the necessity to justify strength towards the people because it’s the source of legitimacy of the Iran government. 
+
+They are in a weakened position in the Middle East; they do this, so they bent the knee once, and they were fucked up when the knee was bent and then they went down. And Now again, it’s impossible for them—or at least not very possible that Iran accepts again to go to a deal in future negotiations that they claim. 
+
+If they do it in 10 years when they’ve been so fucked up by those sanctions, whereas if they do it now, that doesn’t happen because they are still complying with the EU. The EU is already maintaining the deal because they say there's a Trump idiot thing to do. 
+
+That is the comparative; it is likely that today they can do it. It is not in 10 years when they get to a situation where they were pressured and they continued everything. 
+
+How I told you, why the sanctions are really bad was not contested and all conceded in the debate: the sanctions are really bad. 
+
+No, what is the likely thing that happens? So what is the implicit comparative that CG told you in his speech? The implicit comparative is, A. the European Union and many others don’t sanction you because they promise you to comply with the agreement if you comply with the agreement. 
+
+Hence, okay, maybe the U.S. will somehow sanction, but firstly, the European Union and many others won’t. But Secondly, this is a response to CO’s direct response when they say that this will happen anyhow and it’s not comparative. 
+
+It is probably not true for at least six reasons. 
+
+First, because there won’t be any plausible justification after Trump. Trump’s justification is that they’re not complying. Whenever Trump goes out, if they are complying, there’s no possible justification to keep this trend. 
+
+Second, because many others will want you to do it, so they will press on the U.S. government in the UN and the European Union. 
+
+Thirdly, because the Democrats can actually win. Okay, this is a likely scenario in which Democrats win. Probably they won’t keep their path. Even if the Republicans win, they will want to appear more moderate than Trump because Trump was doing that probably for not justifiable reasons. 
+
+But fifthly, and most importantly, due to the fact that Iran and Iraq, and Afghanistan, are good examples of how not to do things, it’s much more likely that the U.S. electorate can buy into a narrative where we’re doing something about a fatality in Afghanistan or Iraq rather than going into Iran because it’s really harmful to their people and to their army. 
+
+So we think the most likely scenario is that in 10 years, the EU and other countries won’t have sanctioned you. You won’t have stress with the sanctions, but most likely also the U.S. will have lifted the sanctions. That is by far the thing which is more likely in the debate. 
+
+And this is why we win. 
+
+Let’s go to CO, basically; they say one thing, which is you secure when you have nuclear weapons because you have more deterrent power. This is false for at least four reasons. 
+
+First, because you already have massive deterrent power even if you don’t have nuclear weapons; you have a big army. So if Saudi Arabia gets crazy and goes rogue, you have a massive army to respond. 
+
+Secondly, because you have Russia; you have Russia as a hedge to back you up. They already have nuclear weapons in the first place; they already have massive armies in the first place. 
+
+Thirdly, it is untrue that nuclear weapons somehow deter; they do not prevent offenses in your context because it's like an offensive attack weapon, not a defensive weapon. 
+
+So even if you have it, you can still attack them. But precisely for all those reasons, we think that all the deterrence you can get, you’ve already got. Precisely if it’s true what they say, that you can get them in five weeks—okay, so if you can get them in five weeks, you already have the deterrent power because you can always get them in five weeks. 
+
+So if that’s true, there’s no deterrence at all. So we think CO has nothing in the debate. 
+Must run about non-comparatives at all. 
+
+<poi>
+it’s unlikely that sanctions are worse than the status quo where no one is trading with Iran. But if the EU always responds to a threat with sanctions, why do they sign this deal in the first place?
+</poi> 
+
+So first, it is not true that it’s not the status quo. Iran’s economy during the past 10 years was stagnant, and in the past years due to those precise sanctions, Iran could empower. Does that mean it could grow at 10%? No, but when they target your base, most economists say when they target your expectations, the likelihood that you can develop is much less. 
+
+Lastly, on OO, they say, look, this improves your situation to negotiate towards Europe. Most of their battles were won in my speech when I told you that you already have the leverage in negotiations. You already believe that you have a way out. 
+
+But not two more reasons: 
+
+First, it is that the European Union probably won’t think it is a better position to negotiate because if you react harshly, they would also have to react harshly in order to prevent third parties from doing the same. 
+
+There are other countries with not perfect similarities to Iran, but if the European Union seems to concede when others break the deal, that will probably happen Again, but bear in mind when you adjudicate a class with that we gave you a reason why this couldn't happen at all because Iran wouldn't be able to go into the deal in the first place. They could have committed to this PR thing at the end of the debate. We are the only ones to prove something that is absolutely possible, which is that the economy has been struggling for years. Pride on both sides—we think that’s it. We think we win.  
+</gw>
+
+<ow>
+All right, what’s important is that perception oftentimes overlooks reality in international relations, which is why we don’t have to prove that Iran needs to have or develop nuclear weapons for us to act as if they did. From the United States' point of view, this is the status quo. I don’t care if they don’t follow rules and stuff like this. You can Google this Liberation stuff. It was the United States which unilaterally imposed sanctions on Iran under the threat or under the idea that Iran was violating sanctions, even though this was completely internationally disputed. This is similar to what happened in the Iraq War; this is their policy continuously, which then resulted in a lot of different European countries as well imposing sanctions and halting investments and trade with Iran being stopped because there’s a threat that relations are going to deteriorate and stuff like this.  
+
+Which is why closing arms is critical because they ignore our analysis on the idea that it’s the perception of having nuclear weapons that is important. They can’t simultaneously claim that European governments and democracies have the incentive to be moderate towards Iran with the analysis they gave in the member speech, which is why they like to demonize them and why they have a completely different approach towards Iran.  
+ 
+On the legitimacy point, look, this is directly responding to closing government. The idea to regain stability from the perspective of the regime is to prioritize stuff. We would rather have, or as the government, prioritize military power, which is developing your nuclear weapons, than prioritizing economic gains. This is for the reason that we, as a religious autocracy, as pointed out in his speech, are more likely to sell this as a stability mechanism when we are saying that we are fighting against our eternal enemy, the United States, and that we are not backing down to their demands.  
+ 
+The comparative is that Iranians have come to terms with living with sanctions, which yes, do have a huge impact on the Iranian economy. But that means that because they’ve been able to survive and are still a perceived threat to the United States throughout the past ten years, means that they have a huge internal economy that they are trading with alternative partners and stuff like this, that they are finding glucose somewhere. So it's unclear on their side of the house why this time the sanctions would be so detrimental to deal with GL stability comparatively to our side.  
+ 
+It’s huge pressure on the Iranian regime not to back down and not to get anything when they talk about Krot, blah blah blah. What they have to stand for in this debate is that Iran, unilaterally—and this is important—after it started enriching uranium as a response to the UN warranted imposing sanctions by the United States, now reverses its position and still maintains legitimacy in international relations or with its own people because it didn’t get anything. Because Trump is unlikely to, like, de-impose sanctions and stuff like this, right?  
+ 
+So the burden of government here is to show that sanctions don’t exist on their side, and they cannot do so even with the European Union. We talk about why there are secondary sanctions and stuff like this. This is partly because of their analysis towards Iran, but also because—and this is the analysis they respond to in our case—it is not important if Iran develops nuclear weapons as long as countries believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. This is something from the perception to which they react.  
+
+Also, we think that it’s very likely as a response to what comes in the previous speech that Russia is going to stay on board for a couple of reasons, meaning that the geopolitics of the region means that they’re more likely to actually still trade with us, still cooperate with us, because we are the most important ally. But also because of the history of, like, deal-breaking they have, they are likely to accept that we also broke a deal and stuff like this.  
+
+But also that the idea that the U.S. will fight over this—no. So Trump, also when they talk about Trump, is not a problem. It’s a Republican Senate. There’s been this whole narrative in United States politics that this was Obama’s fault and stuff like this. So it’s not that one L is leaving this fight; it’s very likely that whoever comes in his place is either going to face huge Republican opposition if they want to reimpose and stuff like this because the whole deal was perceived by United States politics as broken to start it.  
+ 
+But also, if that’s not true, if a Republican comes, it’s very likely that it’s going to continue the same policy because this is going to support the status quo. Why is opening government completely uncooperative in this debate?  
+ 
+So first of all, because of the chicken versus the egg—it’s already talked about this—because the U.S. unilaterally stopped the deal and started massing forces, implementing sanctions. These are things that happen regardless of what Iran is doing or not doing in this debate because of the narrative of excess evil, because of the narrative that like this was Obama’s thought and the deal was not tight enough to begin with because of the perception of having nuclear weapons. All these things mean that the United States is acting hostile towards Iran and stuff like this.  
+ 
+But secondly, because of their very own analysis of Trump, it does not want the escalation because it’s not in their interest because they are fish, and they build their power based on this. But also, they have intensified the conflict unnecessarily to start off with, which means that in so far as they see—but this is going to cause further escalation from the Iranian perspective—if someone else is de-escalating the conflict to start off with, there’s no reason for you to act in a game theory of de-escalation because appeasement doesn’t work if they are escalating the conflict in this way.  
+ 
+So the only reason for you to fight this is if you show strength, and if the balance of power is recaptured again and stuff like this. These are the same people who sponsored the Iraq War. So their side of the house, the perfect case, I grant you nuclear weapons, is still likely that they are going to portray them as having nuclear weapons and attack them or impose sanctions and stuff like this.  
+  
+<poi>
+Yes, cool, we give you five structural reasons why getting a nuclear weapon will take a long time, and in this period, every actor—not just the U.S.—has the urgency to escalate, the spectrum of tools becoming more hardline in sanctions. So it can get worse than it is in the status quo.
+</poi>  
+
+Yeah, so you gave me reasons that you thought up in your speech, which do not represent reality. We already talked about how North Korea was able to develop the nuclear weapon. They literally did this under sanctions for years, I guess, right?  
+ 
+So the Iranian nuclear deal is not something that was happening in open space, and they were like, "Oh, I need to trade with these people to develop a nuclear reactor," because no one is going to trade with them. Literally, no one wants to have nuclear weapons from the surrounding countries, and they need to go to these countries to get to them, which means that this program from the very start was something that was ready to go dark, develop under sanctions.  
+
+The problem could easily be established, as they literally just did like the last week when they started enriching uranium again and stuff like this, right? On the idea of decentralization of Iranian forces, which is the only me you say, but there are other things that could go wrong, but you never mention what are these things comparatively.  
+ 
+From the Iranian perspective, you say that decentralization of Iranian forces and stuff like this consolidation happened after the draw. It was possibly that this was something that was mandated from the central government and stuff like this. One fanatic who is anti-al, because he feels like we are surrendering to the United States, is enough to push your mechanism through and actually act opposite to what the interests of these conflicts are.  
+ 
+But it’s more likely that damaging weapons are more centralized on their side of the house. So there might be this random guy with the bazooka who can probably do some damage to some extent, but if you have more sophisticated weapons, these weapons are more likely under control of the government, which means at this point it is very weak in its impact on this debate.
+</ow> 

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/d_oxbridge_3_round_3_cvr_cr_box_df_4_vid2txt_Jan-08-2025_-13_full.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+<pm>
+As in every narrative debate, we need to separate two things. What is the scope and the effect that this narrative has? Because people in the debate often time pretend that narrative is everything and it will like shift it one way or the other. The realistic scenario of how this plays out is there are some biological urges that urge you to fight the illness, not fight, but like to combat the illness, try to overcome it anyway because you want to live, you don't want to die, you have family, you have friends, you have all of these things. So the power of the narrative is more subtle and this is what this debate is about. The power of the narrative is how you interact with the illness psychologically and second of all how others interact with your illness influence in your psychology as well in this situation. So let's talk about some other pieces of framing. One, so there are different people, people are different, right? Everybody has their own life philosophy and how they're going to life. 
+Right. And people who have the right philosophy will see the world as a battle generally like I'm a story kind of defeating all of these things there. Regardless of the narrative most likely going to have this narrative because it works for them because that's their, how do you say, life philosophy. Right. What is narrative changes. So that's non-comparative. What is narrative changes particularly is that these pushes people who do not have this life philosophy or this life philosophy does not necessarily suit their psychological needs to adopt this narrative and necessarily
+look at there illness in that way? And that can be horrible because it skews their choices and makes them cope with illness less and makes them psychologically vulnerable. How does this manifest? How does this look like? Usually this manifest in a way when you tell people and when you have the illness, what are these people saying to you? Oh, you will overcome this. You will definitely defeat these fires. You don't worry. Not sure that's the smidgen of pessimism usually around these people. People are usually awkward around people who have terminal illness or illness overall because they also don't want to
+It's a denial process, right? You don't want to cope with the fact that your friend might die, father might die, or somebody like this. But we are saying that this coping, that this pushing under the rug is actually bad for both parties because it pushes conversations away that are necessary to happen for these people to have good psychological states and die in peace, which is in some cases inevitable under their side of the house. So expectations if you're a fighter, right? Like we have association with what does it mean to be a fighter. Your brain, you're not showing weakness. 
+So we don't see that it always manifests in that extreme way, but it definitely pushes you to be more in that line and hide some of the doubts that you have, hide some of the questions. So let's talk about why this has impacted, why is this so important, right? We believe there's a huge, some people might not overcome their illness. A lot of people might not overcome their illness, especially because this notion has the majority of the impact where people are actually worried, which is terminally illness or lost lifetime illness or something because if it's like cold who the fuck cares, doesn't even hold it in the association so we believe that process of coping with the disease or dying potentially from a disease is something that is very like like that you need to go through right but we believe that this narrative is putting you through that process alone because one of the ways to cope with that process is to cope with the possibility that you are mortal you will die and that it will not go good for you in association and this is the thoughts that you 
+already have in your head, right? But the problem is with this narrative, you're pushing these thoughts aside. You're never engaging with these thoughts until it's too late. The problem is you rise your expectation as well of what will happen and how it will happen, which leads to a lot of cases of depression and additional psychological illnesses on top of you having a terminus illness, rather than engaging with the possibility that you are going to die making, to some extent, your peace with it and necessarily leaving the rest of these with less pain and necessarily because psychological pain in this case, I would say it's even worse the dread of one day is coming making like peace but the problem is you are alone in this battle. If other people are awkward around talking uh talking about this sort of situation  and they're telling you all these toxically positive stuff you will overcome definitely don't ever say that you are giving up and all these things because i saw these things in my family, right? this is how, this is how it works in the majority of the families, right? when my grandpa was was dying in the association, they sounds like these people don't understand. it sounds like if you're having these thoughts that these people don't want to face these thoughts with you and it's pushing them aside, which means that you're not having conversations with them against us. Sometimes this conversation is crucial, right? Talking to your family, the possibility that you're going to die. It will be painful. You will cry. It will be horrible, but it will be 10 times more horrible pushing that under the rock and counting that it will become a bit better just the passage of time. So this catharsis and psychological well-being of people is being harmed by their inability to
+talk to these people, to cry with these people, and to have this cathartic experience of coping with something that is so horrible in dissociation. But it also skews you into continuing the fight. The fight is not always good, right? In some cases, you will die no matter what. In some cases, you are going to live with the term, with the illness, your whole life in dissociation. Coping in the fight mechanisms means that you're fighting in any ways necessary to give yourself a chance. Five percent, one percent, ten percent, right? Which means that you're going through something
+very horrible procedures, going through surgery, going, maybe even going to chemotherapy that in some cases where people don't want it, going to alternative medicine, which all have side effects that can make your life in the last couple of years of your life, make it even worse than it is living with the terminal disease, which means at last moments of your Earth and we have only one life are spent trying to combat this, going from hospital to hospital, to hospital in association, going into depth because of it, feeling guilty because you're in depth because your family is in depth. 
+because of it. So you have all of these psychological burden in you. Some people might choose to do this still, right? With or without narrative because they want to fight because this is something, but this is narrative is skewing that choice from them. He's taking that choice away to meaningfully think about the potential, the potential that they might want to give up, that they might want to live the last few days on this earth with their family on a cabin doing nothing or just, just shivering the moment rather than being in bed, shame, then
+a lot of procedures that means fighting the terminally illness are horrible. Are you bringing a lot of pain to that person, to their family, to the people around them? It also brings despair because the more you're doing it and the more you're losing this fight, it brings you to even worse psychological state, which means in the fact that you cannot stop and that you cannot sometimes say, I've had enough, I'm tired, I'm horrible, that you are afraid of this feeling by yourself because the society has ingrained in you that you should be brave, that you should be
+that you should be a fighter because your family told you that you should be brave, that you should be a fighter because you have nobody to confide in. It means that sadly, under their side of the house, these people are usually dying alone, under the physical pain, but also huge emotional and psychological pain that is horrible. In this situation, we believe that biology doesn't change. People will still fight illness, but when it's time to give up, we give them a peaceful and dignified death that these people deserve. That's why you should definitely vote opening government. Thank you very much. 
+</pm>
+
+<lo>
+The narrative that someone can fight and defeat cancer is one that we think opening opposition is deeply empowering because it says that this illness is not something that is internal and intrinsic to you, but it is something that is external to you and something that you can fight and get over. That is a narrative that we want to preserve for individuals to help them get over illnesses, to help them cope with illnesses, and to help society have greater support for people with illnesses. That's why we're going to be so proud to oppose. What I want to do is two things. One, I'm going to talk about how this affects people who are impacted by illnesses as well as their families doing some responsiveness to what we just got out of opening government and second of all I am gonna talk about the societal implications of this narrative. So, before that though i want to do some brief kind of rebuttal and framing against some of stuff that we have heard out of opening government because i think a lot of stuff is about how this is harmful for people who are coping with the illnesses, number one the number one thing that i am gonna say is that I'll give you analysis on how this is actually empowering for people and thinking about themselves in a battle against this illness is actually something that gives them a lots of hope and fulfillment and makes them feel empowered and more happy as they are coping with the illness. Same thing with their family. But the second thing to say is that on weighing in this debate, even if opening government manages to prove that they get a slightly better experience for the people who are going to die, we think that is still less important than preventing people from dying and suffering from a large amount of pain from this illness in the first place. We are fine on opening opposition with instrumentalizing people to an extent. If we have to accept that, if we can mean that less people suffer from this illness and less
+people die. And the reason why we know that this is true and this is something the weighing that you should perform in this debate is because if we just think intuitively, would you rather someone is able to cope with their illness better, but still dies of that illness or doesn't die at all? Obviously, you would rather people don't die at all. So all of our material there is going to outweigh opening government, even if they manage to win on helping people cope with death and die with more dignity. So one, how does this benefit people affected by this illness? The first thing this narrative does is it gives people who are struck
+with this illness, a sense of hope and empowerment. The most substantial thing about this narrative and the notion of illness as a fight and as a battle is about viewing illness as an enemy, something that you are fighting against. And I think there are two key things that I want to remark about that particular view and that particular narrative. The first thing that I want to observe is that this view frames illness as something that is external to you and not core to who you are. And second of all, this narrative frames your life as one in which you have agency
+in which you have the power and the ability to fight back against that illness. And indeed the analysis for Milos would suggest that I am correct. Why is this important? The first reason this is important is because we think that the perils of dealing with an illness are such that it seeps into every aspect of your life. It affects your ability to see your family, to enjoy your everyday life passions, because you're constantly stuck in a hospital bed. You're constantly being given treatments and medications from other people. And it's easy for you to feel like your fate
+the hands of other people, it is not something that you can control. And because you lose all senses of normalcy, it is easy for you to begin to view this illness as intrinsic to you and intrinsic to who you are. But with this narrative, it is something that allows you to feel more empowered because you feel like this illness is external to you. It is something you are fighting against. And crucially, even if you don't end up winning against this illness, this allows you to feel more happy as you fight it for that reason and be more hopeful, which is a huge good
+for these individuals. Because we think psychological harms, as OG has conceded, are some of the greatest harms that illnesses inflict upon individuals. But second of all, and more critically, this gives people a sense, as I've said, a sense of choice and agency and causes people to actively work to combat their illness. I want to fight back here against the framing that we get out of the prime minister, because the framing they give us is that people who want to fight against illness will already do so in the status quo. And what this choice is
+about, what this narrative is about, is it's about boxing in people who do not want to feel like they are fighting against the illness to fight against the illness. But that is not true. The reason why that is not true is because we think in these situations, there is a huge natural tendency for people to become hopeless and despondent for the reasons I've identified, because having this illness being stuck in a hospital changes your life to such a significant extent. And furthermore, just I think it's just intuitively natural for people to be feeling despondent and hopeless in a sense
+situation in which they are told that they only have a couple more years to live, that they have a terrible illness. So I think what this narrative does is it fights back against the natural tendency of people to be hopeless and despondent in a manager that encourages them to fight back against their illness. This is important because you need people to buy into treatments and medication in order for them to work. Medication and treatments are not magical spells that make you better. They are incredibly difficult processes and very arduous journeys. Chemo has hair loss, nausea, general feelings of lethargic
+and it makes it harder for you to enjoy your life. So having a psychological belief that you can fight against this is massively important. But it's not only important for people to feel hope and a degree of happiness during difficult times, but it also keeps them motivated. But also just intrinsically and scientifically, having people who are more motivated to fight against the illness helps during treatment. Studies have shown that complying and cooperating with treatment, having a strong and stable mental game, believing that you can fight against this illness, that you can win,
+in this battle has significant effects on the success of that treatment. Our psychology is not distinct from our physiology and from our physical conditions. And when people believe that they can fight against this illness, they are more likely to defeat this illness that has been proven through studies. But even if they are not, and this is the most critical impact in this debate because of the framing I gave you at the start, but even if people are not likely to fight this to a significant enough extent such that before I move on, I'll take CG.
+
+<poi> 
+What's the mechanism that people are going to believe this just because everybody else tells them they need to be a fighter?
+</poi>
+
+I mean, i think even opening government has bought into this mechanism, that people are influenced by this narrative. so i am not sure what you're getting at. you'd have to prove more that people don't buy into this narrative. and as i told you, there's a natural tendency for these people to feel hopeless. so now this means that people are more likely to fight against this illness, more likely to survive, or even if they don't survive, they're more likely to have less pain, because they comply and buy into these treatments and that makes their life easier.
+Also, all of my analysis here applies to family members as well. Family members are more likely to feel hopeful in this situation. Secondly, on societal impacts. I think that this narrative is not solely individualistic. We also think of ourselves as having a societal fight against breast cancer or societal fight against COVID. But even if that's not true, even to the extent that this is individualistic, when you believe that individuals are fighting against something, you believe that they can defeat it. And thus, as a member of society, you are more likely to support
+ efforts to help them defeat it. And that looks like research funding research into cures and funding research into drugs, etc. that make these people's lives more bearable. So it is deeply unclear that opening government makes life better for people in terms of when they're coping for this illness. And regardless of that, we make it more likely that people survive from this illness. That's the most important thing in this debate. And for that reason, we oppose.
+</lo>
+
+<dpm>
+What we heard from Sharma is bunch of coherent arguments, why people fear hospital? What we heard from the leader of opposition is linguistically in a nice way said words that are not actual arguments, i am going to deal with that but before that just to remind you of some pieces of framing that you already presented in this debate. What do narratives do? We regret most of the narratives that exist in society. Narratives put you into a certain model of behavior that gives you social expectation that you act in a certain way because if you don't act in a certain way, you're not to signal certain virtue that you have. In this debate, to be concrete, you're signaling the virtue of courage, bravery, fighting, and all those things that happen. We say when in some instances, like regarding illness, some narrative is so dominant, it is inherently harmful almost for any narrative that exists because it puts you in this
+And the specificities of life is bad and many have said in Milos speech have not been responded by leader of the opposition. But to tell you if you want to fight two responses, if you want to fight, if you're the person who views life that way, you can view life in nine different ways, you're already going to fight, you're going to tell your parents or your family, or I'm going to fight them and everyone's going to tell you, yeah, you fight this fight. So what we want is one of the reasons why we want is
+to give people more freedom and more choice in how they approach this disease. If you want to approach it in a fight, you don't need narrative to do so. What narrative does is accuse people who do not want to perceive it as a fight into perceiving it as a fight. And this is where the problem and this is where most of the problem arises. What we heard from OP other than this framing, which was very important, we heard that you perceive it as something external. What kind of, I'm sorry, bullshit line of analysis
+disease. If I don't feel bravery, I'm not feeling that cancer is external. I'm feeling that it is somehow part of my identity. Just because you say something is external, it doesn't make any logical sense. Most people want to live healthy lives if they have disease, and they will do everything with the disease that's in their power to help their health get better because of biology, because we're evolutionary condition that we want to live life. And no, you're not going to say, oh, cancer, I myself, it sounds good for some dialectics philosophy and things like that. Not really good for
+not really good for a BP argument. It gives you agency. I told you one, many people will still feel even without this narrative that they are brave. But secondly, it takes away agency from those people who do not want to act to be brave, who want to talk to their friends and to their parents, to tell them how horrible they feel because they got that disease, but they cannot do this. And why? This is really crucial because if everyone signals the virtue, you're so brave, you're so brave, my love you will survive, you will be this. Then when you get all those virtues, you yourself become a inhibited and don't want to talk about problems that you have, because you're getting all those confirmations on how great you are, how they are. And many people, maybe 50% of the people in the world, wasn't like that. Maybe they would like to talk to their husbands and wife and say, I really feel bad about this. I feel bad. And then we have the conversation that Milos tells you, we shall get to certain closure in the cases of terminal ill patients or those who are most likely, or those or those who are most likely, or those who are most likely. 
+Most likely, or those were most likely going to die. So if more if more people are going to survive because of this narrative,
+with all the medicine you wanted to survive, we believe that this statement just doesn't say in this debate. Regarding scientific stuff in debates, we say there are a bunch of other scientific studies that show completely opposite of what our opposition states, this equally valuable argument and this equally good argument in this debate. Let's go a bit further there regarding this hope that is helping us survive. This hope is not actual hope. It is very often a performative hope. Someone telling you hope
+hope that there is hope just for the sake of telling you there is. And then when this starts going on and on, you still miss on those conversations that you still miss your conversation that Milos just told you about. What this causes you, this causes you to be alone and why this causes you to be alone because narrative pushes people to think one dimensionally inside of this narrative and to signal the virtue. So you don't talk about people regarding this and you put it all inside you. So you're going to feel psychologically worse. So if psychology is influencing, then 50% of people are being psychologically
+worse because of it because of this narrative, then they're going to be less healthy and more people are going to die if they really want to run those kinds of impacts. Furthermore, what Milos told you, they completely disregard this, how this narrative is skewing your legitimate choice. Many people who have horrible diseases want and should have the free choice to do things such as assisted suicide or things like that. They're heavily, heavily stigmatized in our society already as it is. So what often happens is that
+People do not cannot rethink that choice because they're so afraid of the social stigma that's going to happen even if they're ill They don't even retain their choice then later for 30 40 years many people may have may feel regret about this, you know, there are many people who even we Who even we will confess to this after years of being After years of being ill that maybe it will be better for someone that they have taken in a dignified way their life away this perfectly legitimate try that it's completely skewed because of this toxic positivity and
+toxic virtue signaling that uh and toxic which is courageously healing hat that occurs in this debate. I want closing if you have POI, please. Then opening.
+
+<poi>
+As i told you in my speech, the natural human tendency for people when they are told that they have six months left to live is to be hopeless. so this narrative actually helps people who want to be hopeful. be hopeful. your framing is incorrect.
+</poi>
+
+No, the natural tendency of people is that they want to survive because of biology. If doctor already tells you you have, you know, you have probably six months to live, what is much better is not to think, Oh, yes, you have, maybe you will beat it. You will beat it as Milos tells you and then not have conversations with your friends, with your family about what may happen if you die, what happens in the after all, and all these other important philosophical questions that I guess, I don't know. I don't have that personal experience. The man who is, you know, soon going to die wishes to have in order to have this closure in the moment before they die. But even without terminal reasons, if you talk about
+multiple sclerosis, other autoimmune diseases, this narrative of bravery, what it does, it pushes people away. Okay, if your friend or family member has autoimmune disease, and you're like, yeah, you're so brave, you're so brave, then and you get all the time this, you know, dopamine rush, because people are telling that you're so brave, you don't want that to be lost. And then you avoid having difficult conversations about how your life, your life tends to be changed. What does this mean? This means this creates a chilling effect with your personal community with other people, just goes deeper and deeper and deeper
+years go by where you never have the appropriate conversations that you wanted to have with these people. As Milos already told you, if this narrative doesn't exist and people want to feel that they want to feel a warrior-like mentality when they're this, they're still going to do this because people are still going to approve of someone fighting for their life. So at the end of this debate, really not much is lost on side government. But those people who are skewed into certain type of social behavior get really bad off, proud to propose. 
+</dpm>
+
+<dlo> 
+Honorable panel, it takes courage to live. It takes courage to live when the only world that you've known for the past few months, for the past few years of your life is pain. It takes courage to say, I want to push through this. I want to go through and I want to be alive. That courage isn't something that comes naturally to people. And it's not something that OG can just assert that
+Oh, you have the biological will to live because biology doesn't give you that courage. What it does is it sends you into despair. It makes you scared of death, makes you scared of the endless abyss of not knowing what happens when you die. We want to give people hope on opening opposition. We want to let them know that they have control over their own lives and that they are able to find a way out. And even if they do end up losing that battle in the end, to give them something to cling onto until their very last breath is something that we find vitally important, incredibly proud to oppose. 
+Three things in the speech. Firstly, I want to talk about the framing of this debate. After that, I want to talk about the individual psychological impacts. And lastly, I want to move on to the larger societal perception and impacts, which we see opening government has completely missed. Firstly, on the framing, who's affected under this debate? Because I think a lot of people in this debate are going to die regardless, right? And I think only centers are case on that. But there's something really important is that a huge majority of those people are diagnosed with a terminal illness several months prior
+to which they will actually die. That's to say that they are forced to face their own reality and which that's when they talk about coping with laws, picking and losing fight, right? They often characterize these as refusing as denying death right up until the day that you die, but that's often not true. In many of the cases that they hinge their case on, people already get their terminal diagnosis many months in advance. Note that this severely mitigates the OG case because a lot of the things that they think they're winning are actually non-mutually exclusive within this debate in which the things that they talk about are going to happen regardless. 
+right? These are not the group of people who think that, oh, I have to fight this battle. It's the people who have a hook of living, who are not diagnosed as terminally ill, but still have a chance to live. These are the people in which the narrative affects most profoundly, right? So what is this narrative? What does it look like in Opp.? And crucially, what is the comparative on-site government? On Opp., we talk about fighting and two very key important aspects of this narrative. But one, that it frames illness as something external to you. And secondly, is that it frames illness as something that you have agency over, that your life, you have agency over. 
+the OG comparative is that you frame illness as an affliction, right? that's the narrative, is that it's something internal to you, and that your life is not as deterministic. it says outcome has already been decided. note that these weren't just assertions that we made. i don't think OG can get away with just being like, oh, this is bullshit biology, right? because tyson gives you a lot of analysis. as to why this is the natural tendency, we're scared of death, and often no matter how religious you are in many circumstances, you don't know what's going to happen to you we are naturally scared of death.
+What that means is it sends us into a pool of anxiety. Similar for viewing illness as something internal to you, Tyson talks about how coping and dealing with treatments is something that consumes your life. It's so easy to view that as something intrinsic to you. These weren't just things that can be talked about. Oh, biologically you have an incentive to survive because biologically a lot of bad things shouldn't happen. We shouldn't develop depression and yet we do. Those are valuable and important things that we all solve for on the side. Right. So we'd say the idea of fearing death of losing heart rate
+and viewing illness as something that is part of you as opposed to something you're fighting is true for almost all people. It contains the entire scope of the debate that we're talking about. And then on opposition, we help everyone to some degree. Even people who are battle-hardy need this confirmation, need the courage, and especially people who are more likely to give up, the people who are riddled with doubts, the people whose anxiety plagues them every single night, unable to sleep, right? It's important that we give those people the hope that they can cling onto. That being said,
+I want to talk about the individual psychological impacts. Firstly, undergoing the process of treatment. I want to talk about the worst case, even in the worst case in which that person is going to die anyways. We prefer that that person can cling onto hope to the day that they die. And their work, what did I write here? I would say that this is really important because in many people and evidently throughout society, in their worst moments and their often most hopeless moments, people want to cling onto something. It gives them a place of mental comfort,
+and you can see this in religion in the sense of luck. People will believe in these things even if they rationally might not completely understand them, even if they can't rationally convince themselves that it's true, they cling onto those things because it gives them comfort. And that's something that we think is inherent to almost every single human being. That's why people don't fall into pits of despair all the time because they cling onto that hope, they cling onto the faith, even if it's maybe not something that they rationally believe in, though, thank you, I'll take a POI from OG, maybe you're in a bit. It's still something that we'll cling onto and it's something that we can all
+bring them comfort. But we also say that this helps their family. It's important for their family to be able to also have hope. Seeing your loved one go through treatment, seeing your loved one go through despair is not something to be taken lightly. And giving your family hope, the idea that things can turn out okay, that this person might survive is also vital. But secondly, the likelihood of success. This is Hella important. This is very important because life, it's beautiful. Life is incredibly beautiful. And I think in a lot of cases, the most important thing in this debate is to preserve that life. 
+Tyson talks about why the likelihood of successive treatment is much higher in our South house, because your psychological well being is actually closely tied with how well you're able to treat right, how accepting you are those treatments, how much you're going to take them regularly, how much you cooperate doctors, but also just your general emotional physical state is something often dependent on whether you have hope. That's because we can increase just the number of people who are able to survive, see another day, spend another month with their loved one, perhaps another year, another decade, building those bonds. So thank you. That's the impact that we think is winning this debate. But I want to deal with their case, because they talk about firstly, coping with loss. I said that this already gets mitigated. No. Thank you. In most cases, people have to cope with loss once beforehand. That's something that they naturally have to accept when faced with it, right? They're unable to dilute. But also say that when they talk about other people, so that people around you, those people are usually also accepting that if you tell them, I don't want to die and hear me out, and if you expose your emotional vulnerability, those people usually don't say, No, fuck off. I don't want to listen to you. They're usually understanding of your pain and where you're coming from,
+and their first instinct is to reach out to you and listen to what you have to say. So I think a lot of the cases in which OG hinges their case on aren't applicable here. People are naturally empathetic and that a lot of people are forced to accept. So let's talk about the worst cases that OG thinks in which what they say is true. I'd say that it's really important, at least even in those cases when you're losing hope, it's important for the people around you to not see that they don't lose hope. That the people around you still believe in you because that affects how you believe in yourself. Talking about difficult fights now, right? This is also mitigated
+significantly, but I want to say the cases, right? The people who are regretting alive versus the people who are glad that they had the courage to live. There's a reason why suicide survivors are often grateful of the fact that they're still alive. It's because when you're in pain, it's easy to forget about all the beautiful moments of life, right? But that doesn't mean that they aren't real, and that doesn't mean that it's not worth living another day. It's on all of those basis because we give those people a shimmer of hope in the last moments or for the rest of their lives, we're incredibly proud to oppose. 
+</dlo>
+
+<mg>
+The particular piece of news that opening opposition misses is that agency is a subjective term or the illness and the grief and denial associated with it are processed over a long period of time and based on different people’s desires, happiness, and personality they create different responses. Some people need a fighters encourager than a pep talk, suddenly, the shoulder to cry on. Notably, the same people may need different things at different points in time, and no team in this debate has the epistemic access to say which one is true in the majority of cases, the most important impact therefore, is you're able to access your support structure based on your definition of the problem, regardless what you need, but you're sure that the people around you, or at least some of them, will confirm that they understand how you feel, and therefore that you can ask type of support that you need. This is where the counterfactual comes in, very handy, and it's interesting that opening government did not provide one know who the counterfactual is. People are naturally diverse in their beliefs within their religious or moral in their experiences and in their views of life which are determined by the sum of those experience which means that if I get cancer, the three of my closest friends, probably naturally will not react in the same way, right? Which grants me some kind of flexibility as to who I want to talk to, I know who my friends and family are, I know the way they react, and therefore based on my needs at a particular point in time, I can just be confined in one or the other and therefore have a toolbox at my disposal to access this support structure. The narrative shifts this artificially because it doesn't just work with the family as opening government says, also goes to the media, right? You're probably going to Google things you want to get some kind of confirmation your friend will live. And you will Google success stories, all of these success stories when they go on Ellen DeGeneres, or when they have long articles in The Guardian talk about people who fought the disease, found positivity in their life, and they prevail. Notice the skew distribution, because you only see the people who survive. Dead people don't talk. But this artificially shifts the belief in the people who surround you, the Connect fighting to survival, and they change the way they react to you, even if they naturally wouldn't, which is the key mechanism to mechanize government in this debate? What is the counterfactual? Then the counter patch is a narrative of free choice, and this is something that's already happening in a lot of other similar areas. For example, in the mental health awareness community, there is a lot of backlash against the term of toxic positivity. So the idea that you should look at everything through like the most rosy sunglasses, you should find it you should focus on the sunny side. They say, No, everyone carries their own cross and their own burden, and given that we cannot fully understand what they are, we need to make the greatest possible effort to understand their definition of the problem. 
+This is a trend that's already happening, not in professional areas like psychology, but particularly also in social media, where people very often go for solace, notes, subreddits, and pages like the Rt Dot. This means that given that this is therefore also a narrative, the most likely counterfactual given the majority of people, particularly like young progressive people who push this narrative, this is then tied to survival. The idea that if we accept the definition of our friends problem, and if you offer them the kind of support they need, they're more likely to get through this easily, which therefore then mechanize with all wants and we get more efficient , also goes to the media, right? You're probably going to Google things you want to get some kind of confirmation your friend will live. And you will Google success stories, all of these success stories when they go on Ellen DeGeneres, or when they have long articles in The Guardian talk about people who fought the disease, found positivity in their life, and they prevail. Notice the skew distribution, because you only see the people who survive. Dead people don't talk. But this artificially shifts the belief in the people who surround you, the Connect fighting to survival, and they change the way they react to you, even if they naturally wouldn't, which is the key mechanism to mechanize government in this debate? What is the counterfactual? Then the counter patch is a narrative of free choice, and this is something that's already happening in a lot of other similar areas. For example, in the mental health awareness community, there is a lot of backlash against the term of toxic positivity. So the idea that you should look at everything through like the most rosy sunglasses, you should find it you should focus on the sunny side. They say, No, everyone carries their own cross and their own burden, and given that we cannot fully understand what they are, we need to make the greatest possible effort to understand their definition of the problem.
+But let's take opening opposition at their best within this debate. Let's say that survival is a benefit in and of itself, although we're unsure like this. The narrative that they're pushing is harmful for health. The idea that you should not seek emotional support because you will burden others, or this will show that you are weak, the idea that you doubt whether or not you are too weak and whether or not you're burdened people around you too much is emotional stress on the body. It makes you uncomfortable to discuss
+your issues. This kind of doubt, this kind of stress has literal physiological reactions in terms of how your body copes with its illness. Stress is one of the primary predictors of survival or death from terminal illnesses insofar as your emotional state is likely to be extremely vulnerable in that situation and you're likely to think that you are not doing enough this harms your capacity to respond to the illness but secondly it affects the decisions you make. You are less likely to want to force your family to like take a credit or whatever
+to pay for your treatment. You're less likely to delegate duties to family and friends, things you would otherwise do, but now you cannot because you have to preserve your strength. You are less likely to be careful in so far as you're going to expose yourself to more risks, to more strain, or even like to more health hazard because sometimes leaving the house is a risk of exposing yourself to infection because you want to show on the outside that you're positive, that you're retaining a positive outlook and that people around you can live their lives normally, shifting that kind of behavior, meaning shifting that type of normalcy. But this means that you deplete your strength, this emotional and physiological strain is what exacerbates your symptoms, makes your body and your mind less able of reacting to that disease. So insofar as they want to prevent harm in the form of people well dying, they are more likely to exacerbate that, but they're also more likely to have a harm, inherently, insofar as the symptoms themselves are worse, and the family also sees this, and it's a harm in the family. The reason why this thing is the debate is because it takes opposition at their highest ground, even if we say that survival is a parent goal in this round. But the last thing I want is guilty, and the mechanism of how guilt works. Before we move on to how that works, opening opposition. 
+
+<poi>
+An inherent part of a fight is struggle. you're allowed to struggle in a fight, and you're allowed to show that struggle this narrative, isn't about strength. it is about struggle inherently?
+</poi>
+
+Yes, if we discuss it theoretically, know that even the strongest people are likely to move towards doubt in these situations, you are facing the strongest existential dread you have ever faced. Everything around you all support structures and feelings of protein are grumbling. This means that the negativity is probably the rational psychological reaction insofar as they're already going through grief and physiological strain so you're less able to rationalize and move towards positivity which means even if what you're saying is rational you're more likely to perceive the situation as if it is a lost cause as if you cannot talk to others as if you are being a burden on them that's the key difference and this also plays very well into how my point works how does guilt work and i explained this earlier when we see representations in the media right people are very often commended for the fact that they fought you are such a fascinating person you are so selfless, you devoted yourself to your family and let them live a normal life, even though you are fighting so hard. This creates a perception or to be a good person, to be selfless. But all of us want you need to be like them. Otherwise, you underachieving. You're not achieving the bar set for being a selfless person in this kind of situation, and it feeds into the doubt you're already feeling. They're very susceptible to this. So even if the people around you are empathetic, as opening opposition says, you're less likely to want to access that empathy insofar as you think that saying that you have a problem, saying that you need someone to do something for you is inherently bad and makes you feel like you're losing the struggle. But secondly, if you survive, and this is very important one, you're very likely to feel survival guilt, because you will feel that every situation where your survival was dependent on others was something you have to repay them for, and you feel a feeling of death rather than being able to enjoy relationships in your life normally. But secondly, you're also likely to feel contempt for people that do not fight this transit into your other relationships, people who need your emotional support, into how you raise your children. You're more likely to push them to be fighters, because you connected that to survival, and you will not give other people the support they need if they're different from you, which is a third party harm in this debate for all of these reasons, we beg to vote for closing.
+</mg>
+
+<mo>
+We are going to close the gap in the opening opposition we're going to explicitly explain you why in absence of this narrative, the alternative narrative that is going to be created, also engaging with CG, is going to be more problematic and worse for people with terminal diseases rather than not. But just before that, let's clarify one thing. There are multiple different types of diseases that aren't like cancer. Like for example, autoimmune diseases also exist that are like threatening, but aren't to the same extent as this. And treatment and early treatment towards these sorts of things can drastically make the life better of different types of people. This is very important when we get to
+impact of the debate. One point of rebuttal towards causing government rest of it is integrated. We think that the choice about you coming out to people isn't as free as they claim to be. It's usually binary. Why? Because when you tell one person, they're likely to tell the other person because they think that this is an important news that many people need to know in this particular moment. So when your thoughts are definitely going to be a hard place. Let's get into framing. I do think that the alternative narrative is likely to be problematic. Three specific reasons. Firstly, notice that these specific diseases are like small portion of society. 
+limited quantity of people are seeing these sorts of things like cancer, autoimmune disease, etc. So it's not something we generally talk about. It's not something that's used on a daily basis, etc. And there is a general, notice this is a regression motion. This is important. This is from the past. Generally there is a feeling that these are specific situations that we're talking about. Second reason, notice that it's very problematic to talk about these subjects. These subjects are in many cases disgusting and associated with biological problems with death. With death, it's usually very hard for people to talk to and usually stay away from these sorts of things. Why?
+people have an inherent mechanism to not want to engage in these sorts of things because they see it as bad, because they see it as problematic to them. So the reason why a narrative will be problematic. Not that people have limited capacity to engage in such sort of things. They have their job, they have their responsibilities, they have their own competing interests, like policy, politics, these sorts of things. So they're not necessarily likely to ground themselves into these places. Let's be clear here. What happens then? Notice that on their side of the house, people do not have cut clear
+cut rules as to what necessarily they'll have to say. They will most likely opt in and drop into the specific of their like versions of these particular of these particular people. What is the likely version than what you're thinking of? This is a dead man walking. This is someone who is likely to going to die in the future, etc. What happens on our side of the house with this narrative? There are specific models of behavior that you're likely that you know subconsciously. We're taking all the other tests in this note. You have subconsciously to do and be supportive of them. Tell them it's going to get better. Do these sorts of things, be positive and
+So, you know, this will be the opening opposition, by the way, because they never put this on the platform. Let's get into again the mechanism. First mechanism. We think it's easier for you to come out with these sorts of diseases and talk with people once we get once we once these sorts of deals. Why is this? Why is this the case? Notice that first people don't want to come out because of fear. Fear that they may receive a bad reaction towards themselves. Fear that they may see some kind of specific thing that will happen to them. They're not wanting to see the truth, etc. But second mechanism. Note that you don't want other people to think that 
+things for your family. So when you come out and say like for example I have cancer or autoimmune diseases etc. People are thinking that we're doing oh shit his family is going to have a hard time, they're going to have problems, they're going to have these sorts of things because they're going to lose someone who is bringing the pet etc. These sorts of things. Note this is proportional because of the reasons that we said people don't necessarily want to come out in this particular moment. Now why does this change the narrative important here? What mechanisms?
+What is the Western civilization in people in the West, etcetera, genre, view heroes and heroic ships and fighting as something very important. It is in great in the society and it's an image that is easily associated with. You have multiple outlets of how you can see these sorts of things, heroes in movies, books, etcetera. And you have positive aspects associated with these sorts of things, charisma, fighting, good narratives and good associations in your circle. When the decision happens, you're likely to click as if this is something positive. The second thing, though, is that people who have, because this now
+has been going to. People who have survived and defeated the disease because we thought there's a white political disease, there's a white political disease of different diseases can capitalize and say, look, I have won. I have did all of these sorts of things. The post is possible for you to do all these things. Well, you can be the disease. I was important because some consciousness tells people that there is hope. There is something to do in these particular cases. It's just the perception that you as someone who has autoimmune disease, cancer, et cetera, know that you may receive positive reaction and help based on this
+particular reason why you will come out earlier or come out in general about these sorts of diseases and give the information as fast as possible. Why is this so important? Three four impacts based on this. Firstly, When you come out and when you tell these sorts of things, it's like an anvil drop from your head. You are more likely to feel good about it. You're more likely to feel confident you can hold the truth and the reverse is also true. When you have not told people, when you have not said that you have these sorts of problems, it's like an extremely bad burden. 
+on yourself. You dwell on this disease progresses and you feel even more bad and more bad. Secondly, strictly part-time. It's new ones here. Also later on the line, but we view this is problematic also because we don't see it as fast enough. You are likely to skip out an important treatment that may be the difference between you being able to continue your life or surviving. Third reason, notice that when this narrative exists, you deciding to fight the disease also is opted out. Why?
+Because usually in the alternative, when this positive narrative doesn't doesn't exist, and when, for example, your your family on both this important frame here, by the way, your family on both sides of the house will want you to fight the disease. Why? Because on both sides of the house, they want equally, for you to survive in these particular moments, because they want you to live. Before I wanna take CG, 
+
+<poi>
+given that people probably naturally want to survive. And as you say, your family also wants you to survive, or at least some members of your family do. Why is the...
+</poi>
+
+No? No? Because, because in these sorts of situations, you're irrational. In the alternative, you don't know how to react in these particular situations. It's not an important issue. It isn't as talked about as possible. You don't have the specific outlines as to what you're supposed to do. this is the this is the comparatively proved you with your authority if it's worse you need contributions to your CO, but why is this important because when you do this particular situation, you're more likely to opt in into the treatment they would likely do not fight with your family should you not like want to engage in these sorts of behavior, and this is important impact because you don't have family infighting you're more likely to be one particular working. Fourth impact and this is probably the most important one
+This isn't like the binary thing, right? Over time, you can specifically engage on your own versions of what this is likely to be. You can see what your version is, how to what extent you're fighting the chemotherapy, etcetera. When you're talking about choice in this debate, there is a metric. You have more choice when you have undergone the treatment and later on in the line, you can make yourself your own version of the world, etcetera, to continue or to not continue, to do specific things or to not do specific things. This is quite possibly the most important thing in this particular debate exclusively for me from closing opposition directly engaging with the CG for all these. Proud to oppose
+</mo>
+
+<gw>
+Greetings in this speech, counterfactual mechanisms and impacts and why we win on all three of this. recognize that i want to ask this in a POI to opening opposition, so that they talk about this a lot more, so that they kind of like win over opening garment, but they didn't want to accept the POI. but we recognize that just because you've done away with not one narrative in the motion that does not say that it's the dominant narrative. That doesn't mean that other narratives, do not remain there, specifically with the narrative of pity, and I think that causing opposition are correct and they recognize this and say that there's a potential problem with OGs and OOs case on that the other narratives could replace the one that we are dealing away with. I think this is why it's important that we are the only team who has the analysis in Dean's extension on why this is not the case. I think there's two levels of dealing with a counterfactual here. One is that OG and OO talk on an internal level. And I think this is largely not comparative in this debate, right? Because your internal motivations do change to some extent based on the narratives influence, but I want to talk about how
+the narratives themselves in the narrative market of ideas shape. And I think this is the most important than second rate impact to how you personally view the world without engaging with this specific part. There, there cannot be impacts that determine whether you're more likely to survive or less likely to survive, which is what both opening government and opening opposition try to do in this debate. That's why when I asked the POI about the mechanism, opposition is like, Oh yeah, OG and OO both consider there's some sort of influence, but that's because they fail to look at the whole
+picture of what is influencing people's survival trip or like against cancer when they talk and when they deal their cases. So this is why it's important that we show you why the narrative will not be replaced by pity or some other coercive narrative. I think opening government also, uh, consists that this is very important in this debate when the DPM, Janko, in his speech says that they hate all narratives. That means without the MEC that we provide, that acknowledges that there's not going to be another narrative, their case is a lot of
+a lot of good content, but it's not comparative because other things are going to happen instead of this. I think that the relationship between fight and PD is a one where the fighter narrative feeds the pity narrative and they are then reinforcing once another. If we move the fighter narrative, that means that we are largely going to remove the pity narrative as well, which is the concern that we get from closing opposition. And here's why. I think that the fighter one is the one which you like show to other people. 
+you are with the family or as I'm going to explain later this is not the most important mechanism as OG assumes but other influences on your on your being such as when listening to other survivors or when listening to the media and all of these other things this is what you get as an influence on you right so the outwards projects towards the influence that there is a narrative that you need to be a fighter but the problematic part of this is that on the other hand when you are not in the room all of these people are talking about how pale you look or how you cannot move
+or how you cannot breathe. And this is a narrative of pity, right? Why does this happen? Because it's important to show that this is not chicken or the argument here, because you feel that the person has a lot of extra things to do because you have applied the fight narrative. You have applied the duty to fight towards the person. And you cleanse your mind in this way by then providing a counter narrative when you talk with other people about how pity you are for the struggle that they have to persist right now, which is why you feel bad for them
+and you're talking with other folks who are also seeing the person, but when you talk to the person, then you are all you need to be so brave and so brave. This is a much more nuanced characterization of how the narratives are actually shaping each other. And this is why in the absence of this, we are left with what team pros is the best option for people who are battling diseases in this case. And this is that they own shape and form their narratives and that people around them are not under the influence of any of these narratives mechanisms. 
+OG relies mostly on your near the near surroundings family. I think when you have cancer, what's probably true for you is that you are in the hospital or any other serious disease, which means that your family can only be with you one hour a day and you cannot have your cell phone all the time, especially if you're old blah blah. Probably what's more important to you is the influence of media is the influence of doctors is the influence of the people who are under the influence of the survivors perspective, right? Which is why when we talk about the idea of survivors being important here, you internalize if you survive,
+fight as part of why you survived. You do not say I was lucky or you do not say I changed my habits. I stopped smoking or stopped eating. But you say I was a fighter. I was in the mindset that my serotonin is going to defeat cancer. This is very detrimental because you then because spread this message to other people. When people go on media generally the whole impression of people who should be fighting a serious disease is that they need to be fighters. But the important thing to recognize here is that this mechanism comes a lot
+less from the immediate family surroundings, or a lot non-comparative in this idea, except for the mixing of the pity versus the fighter narrative, but mostly from people who have much more influence on you in this situation, because probably like people will either way, it's non-comparative that you're not gonna talk about cancer in your family, because this is going to be a difficult topic, even if you are not a fighter and all of this. What does this mean about impact then? And I think we win on this as well. First of all, OG talk a lot about death or near-death experiences,
+and they don't talk about your will. They talk about your will and not doing your will and not confessing or closure, blah, blah, blah. What we prove is that your likelihood of surviving is a lot less under their side of the house. I think this is the most important impact. I'll explain this after I take a POI from all.
+
+<poi>
+The feelings of despair are not a narrative. They're intrinsic to the arduous treatment process. Without the narrative of fight, you're left. You're left at the mercy of those feelings of despair.
+</poi> 
+
+Yeah. I told you are fighting the clash that you fought with OG already and I'm not sure who wins there because humans are biologically, you know what, you know, this is fight or flight. Humans are both biologically, how is it, predisposed to flight as or wants them to believe or OG to fight, which is why you should have both engaged in the narrative clash but you didn't. On surviving, we show you why you are less likely to survive because you are more likely to fight, not be on the defensive let's say and I don't know, stop smoking or start walking. 
+or stop eating fat and all of this shit that you need to do in order to defeat your disease. But this is crucial because it lets people live more than what opening opposition wants to prove in this debate. This actually shows that people are more likely to survive comparatively with the idea on opening opposition that you get more serotonin and you're going to fight cancer on this behalf. I think secondly, this goes above opening government's impacts, especially with young folks who are already feeling superior to the disease. I think this shows them most the willingness to survive or this improves their
+chances, right? Because when the narrative is not that you need to be a fighter or that someone needs to feel pity for you, this is when you can objectively then assess what the best theft over survival is. Sometimes it's very good that you are on a defensive and that you withdraw on the battlefield. The same thing is hypothetically spitting with the disease here that you start shifting your changes and not believe that you can overcome everything. Thank you. 
+</gw>
+
+<ow> 
+While both governments are fighting over who has the right counterfactual we are already winning this debate. Frankly, we did already win this debate. Why though? First of all, it's important to understand that our analysis is not contingent on fighter being replaced by pity. And this is extremely what Rumen's analysis gives you. While this was actually pointed out by the previous question by open, they told you, we're not talking about a counter narrative. We're talking about the feelings of despair. But this is actually where Rumen gives you three analytical
+reasons as to what exactly are going to be the influences over you when you get that information and how you're going to react based on those influence. He talks about having the ability basically to have limited time to make a decision. He talked about how hard it is to talk about this in particular, especially since you just found about it, you don't have a lot of information. But thirdly, and most importantly, and this is something that we need to point out very directly, that Rumen
+explains to you the counterfactual in the context of information. Because he explains to you very directly, this fight mentality pictures the people as heroes, as positive people, which makes them them when they receive that information and they start fighting, prone to talk about it publicly more. This means that there is going to be a very big discrepancy of information that you have on the
+the sides of the house. On their side of the house, there's going to be likely to be much less, less people who have been in your situation in the first place. But secondly, and most importantly, have talked about their own experience, meaning that you get much less of a chance to actually basically get the right information and then make the choices that you believe to do so. This is why we'll win this debate. So the counterfactual that we really establish is no guidelines versus
+some guidelines. And we say on our side of the house, it is far more likely to have certain initial guidelines. Now, how is this important in the long term? It is important because at this particular moment, when you're in that cabinet, when you receive that information, you have extremely emotional, you're impacted by your current previous notions of the world and what is important. And if you're the average individual, you're probably not an intellectual debater. You probably haven't thought about
+What is your concept of life and death what what what is happen or what is happening? You're sick of all of this new information and this basically complete shaking of your world and you're likely to act drastically This is the moment in which you don't you you   do bad things such as take a big bad loan such as Maybe harm somebody else because you don't believe that I think any replications are impactful This is the moment in which you
+you do stupid things such as, for example, fight with some members or not to reconciliation with other people, etcetera, etcetera. This is the moment in which, in some cases, you take your own life because in that particular moment, you feel like that. And this is why we believe at that moment, when you're in that cabinet and you get that code, you get cancer, you get an autoimmune or whatever, it is important for you to have at least a lot
+impact of existing narrative that provides you certain guidelines. And what we say on the comparative is that over time, you still have that choice whether to accept that narrative or not accept it. And we feel that you're in a much better position over time to make that decision than what is in government cases. Now, moving on to a couple of important rebuttals. I think that firstly, let's start with CG,
+I think that CG's case, although they try to prove you certain new narrative is pretty much derivative of opening. They basically talk about free choice of individuals and where you have more ability. It's the same impact. It doesn't really matter. I see, I see you always agree with me right over there. But most importantly is that you need to, you need to understand that what we show you is the discrepancy of media information. And this is where we believe that choice is much more limited of their set of values. 
+reason why number one. Second reason is in terms of you getting more and more information. Because look, ask yourself, which choice is better? The informed one, the one lived to personal experience, or the one which is based on your previous notions of that, which were never, never really that close. And this is what we believe is important. So opening government says, well, you still have biological urges, you're still going to fight. 
+This is fight or flight mechanism. this is not how actually it works. so fight or flight mechanism works on their side. in the case in which somebody is stopping me directly, it doesn't work in terms of me receiving that information and then deciding what to do. so this is completely out of the debate. what's most importantly here? let's talk about agency. two important reasons. Firstly, it is depends on the individuals itself. So really, we can't claim one narrative over the other, how much it impacts individually, what we're seeing here is that this existing narrative provides for the individuals who would rather do drastic stupid shit when they found out this information is that now they have some guidelines as to whether maybe they should at least try to fight and not over time when you're receiving that new information proven why this is much better on our side of the line. Why you meet people who have been in your issues, why you search about survivors which you wouldn't have in their second account. While you talk about this with individuals you start to create your own philosophy and position on what you should do you care about living, or do you not care about is the life you're living worth it, or is it not worth it? this is the moment in which you make the right choice. it's not just about, oh my god. all people are affected by narratives. i can never make decision for me, acted by narratives in the first place, but the more I live through that situation. And I experience new information. This is the more I actually am able to
+have more individual choice. Everything else is debate bullshit about narratives limiting your choices. We're grown up people, we can make our own decisions, especially we have more information. This is how we win this debate. And I think that in these key comparisons, we also prove to you numerous individual impacts, this is how it is easier for you to cooperate and actually talk to your family and how it basically means that it less people coming out helps less
+people make the right decision. And I think that all of this and this particular counterfactual being established brings it over over opening in terms of why exactly despair is going to happen and what despair looks like and what is going to happen when you're in that state. Very happy to maybe become a linear world campus or whatever. Let's see how this goes.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/doxbridge_pre_wu_dc_2022_round_5.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+<pm>
+We're going to be talking about three things in opening government today. Firstly, why this veto is a principally legitimate exercise for these unions and organizations to have. Secondly, why you get more qualified nominees and checks and balances over the policymaking process. And thirdly, why you get better policymaking in terms of a model. The way we imagine this veto would work is as an additional mechanism to complement existing approval measures already in place. So when a president or prime minister appoints a judge to an appellate court, it's still to be confirmed by the corresponding legislature in that region or nationally. When an education minister is appointed, it's still being confirmed by Parliament or Congress. This operates as an additional veto power that goes to the corresponding industry, i. e. a teacher's union, an industrial labor relations union, something like that. Secondly, we envision there are significant degrees of political cost you can incur from using this too often, which means that it is likely that these unions will exercise this veto power sparingly. Firstly, because it can cause degrees of antagonism if you over-veto in policy. Secondly, in many instances, lobbying exists within these groups, which means that there's likely going to be used to this as a first tool in order to influence policy. We think it's relatively likely that this veto is exercised somewhat sparingly. Thirdly, the veto probably can't be overridden in most instances. I suppose theoretically, in some instances, if you get like a two thirds majority in the Senate or something like this, you could get a review and maybe there could be another another corresponding thing. But in most cases, we think the veto is final. Why do we think this is specifically a principally legitimate exercise? I think this argument is probably the most important in the debate, because I think if we can prove that these people deserve to have a mechanism of control over the kinds of people who get appointed in their industry, we win the debate. I think this is a principally legitimate exercise because it rectifies imbalances and representation that exists between specific industries. Note that this motion probably has very little delta in cases where it's like a very big business organization. For example, the Chamber of Commerce in the United States will likely always have a massive amount of exercise over who gets appointed to the ministries of commerce and things like that. It's very unlikely you're going to get a minister of commerce who isn't very pro-business on either side of the house because these lobbying groups have massive amounts of power. Where this debate has a delta is in instances where there is an unbalanced in representation, i. e. in union power, where teachers unions have significantly less ability because they have significantly less financial capital than other interests in order to appoint a teacher's union person who is likely to regulate these things in a manner that is favorable them, i. e. in industrial and labor relations, where you might get very anti-union representatives and unions have no mechanism of control over the state to the same degree. I think this operates as a mechanism of control over state appointments which otherwise would not exist for specific industries, i. e. where organized labor, which is often under assault in many developed capitalist countries, getting a measure of control over who gets appointed. I think this is important on a principle level because the state is extremely coercive insofar as it controls every facet of your life. You have no opt out and is inescapable. And insofar as this is true, we think it's principally legitimate to give these people an additional mechanism of control over that appointment. Why is this needed addition to voting? I think that firstly, voting is always asymmetric, right? You get limited choices over which kind of policymaker that gets appointed, you cannot predict who the person you voted for will choose over each appointment. That is, you can choose Obama as president, but you don't know who Obama is going to appoint. 
+ as education secretary. So this policy operates on a more granular level. Secondly, this is far more specific form of control over the state than voting because it deals with specific regulation that is industry specific. I. e. you don't know what kind of like minister education guidelines are going to be passed like Title IX policy or things like this. But these teachers unions do and have a significantly greater degree of awareness and information about them. Thirdly, these industries are far more asymmetrically affected by the kinds of policy than the general public. So you might be able to vote a ton of people into power and they might be generally a good representative for most people's political interests, but at the point which it functions on a more granular lever. You need to rectify those representational imbalances she's going to degree. Finally, lobbying is always asymmetric because some industries have more power in lobbying over others. If you're a country with a very strong manufacturing sector, i.e. the malaysian rubber industry. That industry is always going to have more power than other industries in malaysia. So what this does is it gives other industries a rectifying thing to rectify that power and balance that exists through lobbying it makes representation comparatively more equal, even if we're not perfect so we are better fulfilling this principle on our side of the house on non-contingent grounds in this debate, even if opposition proves that there is some third order practical harm resulting from this. We already win this debate. But why do we get significantly more qualified nominees for each position? I think the first thing we do is we reduce politicization over the confirmation process significantly. There are three broad ways this happens. Firstly, in status quo, confirmation of nominees with these positions rests with the party in power. I. e. if you have a parliament in the UK with a Tory majority, you can effectively appoint whoever you want. This means you get less vetting comparatively over each political appointment because these people are vetting for specific things like alignment with political interests, for example, I. e. they want to know the education minister is going to pass the education policy that is aligned with the specifically the labor parties, political positions, for example, or the conservative parties, political positions. The comparison is that these political organizations have interests that are orthogonal to that. They probably care far more about what they're going to do for specifically, I don't know, teaching policy or curricula standardization or things that political appointees might not care about to the same degree. So insofar as these interests diverge, that is the political interests and the interests of the union, we get comparatively more ability to have those both those interests taken into account and to veto people who are specifically problamatic.  But secondly, the Bar Association and teachers unions probably want to be able to work with multiple administrations. That is to say they want consistency and regulation because the pendulum swings back and forth when you go from extremely strong anti-union policy to extremely pro-union policy that causes issues with compliance and cost those unions tons of money. What this means is there's likely to be a race to the median in terms of regulation or a more moderate policy being pushed for where they veto particularly extreme nominees on one end of the political spectrum or the other because they don't want to deal with the fallout of those extreme nominees appointing some kind of policy that's incredibly extremist, then that getting rolled back by another successive nominee later on down the line. So this means that the veto gets used in such a way that's more moderate. Thirdly, certain industries have massive asymmetries of power, i. e. in terms of selection. The industries that bank or grow due in the status quo can lobby governments to get appointments. When you chose over these specific policymaking, this operates as a check and balance against that kind of lobbying to a significantly greater degree. I think that's principally legitimate, to see my earlier point, but it's also practically legitimate because now you're likely to get more policy that probably benefits vulnerable groups, probably benefits the working class for a significant greater degree, so it operates as additional mechanisms of control. Finally, bar associations and teachers unions are full of people with a deep level awareness and knowledge about the position because their web education. There's the experience conforming to spirit educational doctrines, specific legal doctrines you compare it is now you get less people with absolutely no knowledge and so on and so forth. I think what this does finally in terms of changing the impact of that final thing is that it's very hard now to appoint someone with absolutely no knowledge. For example, I patronage appointment probably doesn't happen to the same degree on their side of the house. What this means is that you get like in the
+ the absolute worst cases in corrupt states, for example, far fewer patronage appointments because these people aren't seen as unqualified, are seen as unqualified, for example, they get vetoed by that nominee to a significantly greater degree. How does this change policymaking? I think that firstly, the people who get appointed probably get more informed policymaking that's representative of interest. But secondly, during the confirmation process, they have to justify a deep level of awareness and knowledge about that kind of thing to a significantly greater degree because they want to avoid that veto. So even if the veto is never used, we need a preemptive incentive for these people to make better and more informed policy. So what happens is now voters are more aware of those kinds of policy positions that each of these appointees have that each person has. But thirdly, the people who want to appoint these people when they promise to appoint a specific individual that position now make credible commitments to make them make that person appointed in the first place, which means more people have more leverage over the voting process as well. I think you get less antagonistic policymaking as well because the rubber stamp of approval generally means you minimize situations where these policymakers work aggressively against industry interests. You probably get just less antagonism in that policymaking writ large on all of these grounds. Incredibly proud to propose. 
+</pm>
+<lo>
+i'm going to start by outlining what the counterfactual looks like for appointments and then talk about two things. Firstly on representation and just getting good people and then secondly about industry-wide corruption on our alternative. So i think what happens under the status quo is consultation with industry experts with then having a veto power is far too much and the government ends up having the
+final say. I want to respond to the og thing here of like awesome groups of asymmetric lobbying I think that this is a little bit odd like if you're an industrial union i'm kind of unclear why you're going to try and shape the education minister ultimately is, like presumably there's still a checking mechanism for this you're only going to want to invest the most in lobbying. When you're actually approximately affected by something and if you are approximately affected by something I don't think that lobbying for a higher number of groups is actually a bad thing as I'm going to discuss my argumentation. So firstly on representation, I want to deal with their framing about corrupt states and advance positive material, in like corrupt states with those patronage networks if anything this model just makes it worse. The reason for this is that obviously the state still has an incentive to appoint patrons, so they're just going to ensure that the industry experts who are now charged with the appointments and have the veto power
+ are going to be loyalist, whereas they might allow for compare comparatively more meritocracy to get good policy under the status quo. 
+ We tend to not allow the government to go rogue and they monitor each individual appointment that tends to take place. What this means is that there's an inherent feedback mechanism that's created to the state because obviously there's an implicit incentive to appoint people who are going to be aligned with what the public interest ultimately is to avoid creating political backlash in that regard. Secondly, though, even if there's not immediate scrutiny, the dominant party in power is still a reflection of what the majority of people within that state once in coalition government, smaller parties, will also have a say over these things. So by extension, you are representing people who initially voted for that party in some kind of ideological basis. On the comparative, what is the problem with industry experts, are they not representative? Firstly, they have an incentive to campaign with what is best for their industry, rather than what is best for society at large. This is for quite intuitive reasons. So this is where like their own job is being protected. But more importantly, this is where they get their main need of support from people. This is the industry that they've grown up in and they're probably just ideologically are indoctrinated to believe it's the most important industry. When this means that a union leader, for example, you're probably going to prioritize like economic well being, and not having things like factories shut down or outsourcing factories over what is best for the environment because your own people your own ideology tends to side with that particular thing. On the comparative, the state is a far better mechanism to aggregate preferences because you're not just tied to a particular industry, but they are tied to representing people who have a broader diversity of what their preferences ultimately are. So if people on the ground care about environmental policy, you might have an incentive to appoint someone who's going to control a certain group of unions who also has pro-environmental policy, even if the remainder of people within that union don't support that to as large of an extent. OG tries to preempt this by being like, this doesn't matter because people from the industry are most approximately affected, that is not true. Like every single industry has wide sweeping societal implications. Like the education industry is literally about indoctrinating every single child within your state. When it comes to things like economic industry and unions, there's negative externalities. When it comes to like taxation or environmental pollution of all of their policies that impact everyone. So I think that then the most fair thing to do is to defer to the collectivization of preferences. Secondly, though, a lot of these positions just involve very subjective moral trade-offs or any degree of technical knowledge and expertise as one that is broadly relevant. So the question, for example, of the degree to which religion should be incorporated into school curriculums is not really one where I think like any educational kind of ministers any more epistemic access to than people on the ground her wing with their competing priorities and their competing ideologies ultimately are so democratizing this process is substantially more fair. The third observation here is that industry experts don't even represent their entire industries rather it's a very select group of people. The exact same power dynamic issues that opening government talks about just cross apply toward our case. Let's think about who are the people who tend to become like industry experts. They're often older people and they're often privileged.
+ The reason for this is that in order to rise to the top, it requires a lot of connections that tend to take time to be able to cultivate. We need to be likable in order to get people to like you, which often just coalesce around white man with these industries to a massive extent, meaning they're often just older and privileged people to a massive degree. And therefore their ideology is likely to be distorted in favor of that because they have lived experiences that are more approximately related to that in the first place. I don't really think it's about a demographic issue. I also just think that it's like one subset of the industry might be more powerful. So if we're talking about things like teachers unions, just cross-apply ODEs analysis, that might be slightly like religious and the religious teachers union should have substantially more power because they get more funding from like religious bases, they'll have an incentive to have, there'll be industry experts who will afford their own thing, even though for the bottom of the industry, a higher number of people tend to be secular. The end point of this argument is that insofar as policies impact a very, very wide number of people, it is necessary to get policies that are going to be in the best interest of a wider subset of people. 
+<poi>
+Do you think that the most property net capitalized system was acquired justly?
+</poi>
+Sure, I really understand the relevance of that. Okay, on industry-based corruption. I think that industry leaders are always going to have an incentive to push for under-regulation of their own respective sectors. Firstly, just regulation always tends to conflict with the bottom line of their industry to a massive extent, given that they often just get a lot of pink kickbacks, they don't want that. It also tends to be unpopular with people in the industry themselves who will fear that their jobs will be kicked out on the ground, meaning that they're going to broadly have an incentive to veto any degree of political appointment who are going to campaign for higher degree of regulation. 
+ I think that then like the proper response to this is like otherwise you're going to regulate the state. This is substantially more difficult to be able to do. Firstly, there's just a wider number of interest groups who are constantly logging the state. So it's difficult to just store your own policy priority relative to the policy priority of like others, which is like just the main reason in terms of like this is asymmetric in terms of the degree of how easy it is to ultimately be able to regulate people. As a consequence of this, I want to note that these people have a large degree of power in terms of enforcing the amount of regulation that exists, even if this otherwise decided in legislation. Like yes, you can legislate regulation, but it's ultimately often dependent on industry-based enforcement to carry out that regulation, especially because state bureaucracies are often terrible and shit, and therefore they often cooperate with political appointments within the industry to actually be able to grassroots carry out the regulation that's occurring on the ground. I don't think what we're likely to see is insane overregulation, because there's still some incentives to like offset this when it can conflict with bottom lines, but a better balance of what regulation is. This is necessary because constantly under-regulating industries can create a variety of negative externalities. So in the financial sector, for example, having scrutiny over things like accounting cheats and balance cheats to ensure that derivatives are being sold people are just like nonsense instruments are going to lead to some kind of crisis happening in the future. Where social media companies not giving other people the data. Fair of fair rulings when it comes to things like judges, minimum wage laws, rather than just campaigning for things like chronic under taxation and policies are just going to benefit larger corporations. I think that then having some degree of regulations, right, a better balance between offsetting negative externalities that can hurt people on the ground. But secondly here, I think that the world just creates an issue where like the political leaders always have an incentive to suck up to the industry leaders or the industry leaders are not necessarily for their own reappointment creating an additional channel of how corruption works because even if there is sufficient regulation you're not going to comply to that and there's a risk of pissing off industry leaders, but it's just other broad things like personal facts and favors that can conflict with the general interest of your industry. very proud to change the opening opposition.
+</lo>
+<dpm> 
+Before I start, I just want to say I think all the property was justly acquired because you had to work for it. And insert any other reasons if Cg, if CG tries to run it, it's a direct knife of their opening. A little bit of characterization for getting into some rebuttal. I think this debate really matters at the point where the industry and states don't perfectly align. That is to say, if it's a strong industry like banking or steel in some countries, the alternative is in fact called consultation and the minister reflects the interest of the industry anyway. So there's unlikely to really be much of a delta there. Where this debate matters is where the alternative cannot be consult consultation because there's no incentive to that is to say the industry does not have enough power within society to represent its own interests and the state doesn't care if it doesn't represent those interests adequately or efficiently. I want to get into some direct rebuttal in some kind of more balanced way. I want to clarify something Matt didn't say that you're going to as an industrial minister interfere with the education system. What Matt said is that in the status quo some industries have more lobbying powers than others. So Naomi's right that certain interest groups with powerful lobbying will always get people in power. In the respective interest, i. e. business and financial associations in the U. S. , for example. They will always get a pro-business person because the government is very receptive to pro-business interests. But the education industry has substantially less lobbying power. We equalize the power between different interest groups. Now, the interest groups with the most power don't just get their way automatically in their specific sector, while the other groups are not as powerful. Everyone has equal veto, which is comparatively more fair. Second, all of Naomi's material about the state being a better aggregator of preference is true symmetrically because the majority of people in the state still get to select the politicians who do the appointments. The difference is now interest groups which are not currently in power have a mechanism of self-defense and rectify representation and the intuition pump
+here is, for example, we don't do everything via majority decision making where the majority of people get to decide everything else for the minorities, for example, We have like minority protections that exist that represent disproportionate power or disproportionate influence that can affect minorities asymmetrically through the naomi's argument about asymmetric power of industry is true on their side of the house as well. The difference that there are far, far fewer industries that have asymmetric power. On our side, we distribute that balance of power far better. Fourthly, I think underregulation or overregulation happens more on their side. And so far as one, Matt explained why the interests of business unions are to work with multiple administrations. They self-moderate because they don't want to put in radicals on either side. And secondly, underregulation like it happens as a consequence of politicization that Matt told you or Matt analyzed, we get less of it. On corruption, I think you have symmetric incentives to suck up to industry leaders for campaign donations, now you suck up to more of them. So there's more diversity in interest. I want to do two then kind of clashes that on like the principle. On the principle of balanced representation. OPP says that the industry cares only about their own industry and this gives them like a disproportionate power over things that affect everyone else. Note one, yes they prioritize their industry, but to a degree. Why? Because one of large supply chain interactions between different industries, they can't just fuck over another industry or
+ But secondarily, by OG's own analysis, if these are issues that affect everyone else in society, then by definition, they cannot only care about their own industry. But secondarily, I don't think these are really issues that aren't as like a that aren't really asymmetric between everyone. I think these industry reps have disproportionate power over these industries and their members compared to other citizens. Why? Because they impact direct employment standards. The long term implication of that industry is that they're not going to be able to do that. 
+ Now yes, that exists with every policy and every citizen, but this is a question of degree and how isolated these experts are. Now, I don't think democracy is actually one vote and one equal slice of power. Insofar as the implications of this policy have particular effects on people that last longer more than others. The optional implication is that representation is not a binary. It should not be treated as such when the particular decisions are structurally asymmetric by getting the right to be a better person. 
+ But second, we recognize that the industry shouldn't control it. We're not saying the industry gets to make every policy for the country. That would be abhorrent. We recognize that would be like principally on democratic. We recognize the industry should have a balance. That is to say, it should be a balanced representation that recognizes asymmetric influence within those particular groups of people. Now on the power balance and the more pragmatic impact. Opp says that there might be too much power, which means that things like bad policymaking or capital flight. I don't think it's actually too much power but rather a balance why because no emotion says veto it means they don't get to choose them themselves. They only approve they only have ability to participate and approve that process. But secondarily, know that this is critical the person in charge is accountable to both members the state and the industry, i.e the state can remove them if they are being too schmoozy with the industry for example not being optimal with their policy the only abilities that this gives a capacity for the industry to fight back if it is being too abhorrent to them why is this important because the debate hinges on who provides a better balance of power, not who provides a power for one or the other when we recognize that there could be trade-offs and important differences there. This is a balance because these groups have disproportionately less power in the status quo because they're a minority of the population, even if it's a big industry. Unionization has substantially fallen since neoliberalism, and clearly they have substantially less money for lobbying and big financial groups. What is this more balanced approach do that is critical? What it leads to a method of communication and dialogue between the industry to address grievances and have them be listened to as opposed to have it having them entirely shut out and not being able to participate in the voting process because they just don't have enough numbers.
+<poi>
+So as you can see, there will probably be conversations about what exactly you will and what met through. So obviously, this is not a balance. It is the disproportionate effect that is going to be weaponized against everyone. 
+</poi>
+The reason why it's a balance and it can't be a conversation on your side because the conversation only matters when the person has a reasonable voice that you need to listen to. When the industry is one that doesn't have much power. There's no reason to consult them because they have no check back against you. They have no way to get you or compel you to listen. Now they have a mechanism because they can veto that process, but it doesn't give them too much because they don't make the policy. The industry doesn't directly have direct control over the policy of the industry. It doesn't get to choose the person themselves. That's why it's a balance. They get to participate in that process, but don't get to control the actual thing. The second impact of this balance is that this leads to less antagonism between the state and the industry. It's less likely that you have wild
+ catch strikes that come out of nowhere because someone that now acts as a bridge between the state and the industry and an actor critically that represents both interests. That's the key to our case that you need someone in there who doesn't just represent the interests of the majority and everybody in the state, but recognizes the impacts of someone that asymmetrically suffers from that. And thirdly, it leads to critically better time horizons of policies that are more aligned and optimized because there's potentially more information shared because both actors feel comfortable enough to share those with the person in charge, because they have some degree of connection to them and there's a credible commitment. They will care about at least both of their interests to some degree. Voters have substantially more information. Now, policy discussions have been way more at the point in which the PM chooses a person. Never been prouder to propose this motion. It's about striking a balance. 
+</dpm>
+<dlo>
+A huge part of opening government's case relies on one sentence and one particular assertion, which is that currently in the status quo, these corporations are able to essentially have huge lobbying power on both sides of the House to promote certain politicians. So they need that veto power in order to balance the scale and not have to pro-business minister on their side of the House. But I want to ask you the following questions. What are the structural reasons for this to be the truth? Because I will give you five reasons as to why currently in the status quo, it is actually easier for corporations in industries to lobby their own labor unions and organizations compared to actually lobby governments who have much larger interest groups that they need to adhere to. Here is a couple of those reasons. But what, before that, I need you to understand that if I'm able to prove to you that they are going to have a huge ability to actually influence the decisions and the vetoes that these labor unions apply to certain positions, it actually gives them more power on our side of their side of the house to do bad things and pick and choose particular people who promote pro business stuff compared to other policies which are good for multiple industries, but also generally good for multiple people living inside. What are the reasons for this compared to their assertion? Reason number one, direct communication channels between the industry and the corporation and the people in there. It is very easy to have like particular calls, to have particular internal promotion, to generally talk with the influential people in these places. You know them, they work for you,
+ you know what they care about, you know what they talk about, all of these particular things. So to that extent, it's very easy to create an internal narrative. Look guys, right now the company is, let's say pushing for more wages, but the labor union does not want to give you more wages because they care about, let's say our pollution policy or more environmental regulation or these particular things. It's the same in the education industry. They can tell their teachers
+ like tell the teachers, oh my gosh, we want to push for more wages for you, but they want to reform the educational system in terms of other particular students, such as, for example, giving more funding in general for underprivileged schools compared to increasing more of the wages to actual people. Now, why are these things important? Because when you create these internal narratives, you now put people in a position where the workers themselves lobby their own labor unions to push for this particular things that directly benefit them compared to other underprivileged groups in society or society in general, which means that when they do these particular things, they will be to people who actually want to stop pollution policies, but environmental policies that let's say only harm particular vulnerable regions in the country where there's more disease. People don't get access to health care. They get cancer. They get all this particular stuff in the same context of school. 
+ It is literally under previous schools in particular areas that need that extra funding compared to, let's say, general increase for teachers over the particular country. I think that on the comparative, it is much easier for people to actually lobby their own government for these particular policies. But let's give a couple of more reasons. The internal structure within this particular companies. You have internal divisions, you have managers, you have people who believe they will get more money if there is a bonus payment system compared to other particular system. So there is already an internal division that you can take advantage of and actually like lobby disproportionate groups that have bigger voices. So like, like convinced the manager, they will continue go up in the hierarchy and they'll get a big bonus if they convince their people that are working under them to actually push the labor union for this particular policy. It is, they're also able to corrupt such individuals in these particular places. All of this analysis destroys a bunch of the government cases in terms of what are the actual policies that you get in the first place. And it's very easy for collaboration to create the deceptive narrative that they're actually working for your interests and with the politicians who in fact implement a much important policies for particular groups that are important in society. 
+ But also in general policies such as, for example, increasing the minimum wage such as such as, for example, taking place in like huge environmental. Environmental policies, this this means that huge impacts of vulnerable people are actually impacted.
+<poi>
+your case only applies in the narrow subset of instances in which corporations have a massive control over unions. If they're so powerful they likely have a similar mechanism of control over the state, which means they can exercise the same degree of power over lobbying our case applies in all contexts and rectifies imbalances.
+</poi>
+you do not provide reasons for any of these things. I have already provided reasons that there is asymmetric power towards this in terms of lobbying the government you also need to spend a bunch of more money but you also don't have the particular information and governments need to think about multiple different policies that they implement and they can easily be called out in parliament by opposition parties. They can easily be called out in protest on the streets because let's say a vulnerable group is literally suffering and dying in a particular area because a pollution policy has not been implemented or you allow this factory to buy up this property next to the river and push all of its pollution into that particular river. So there is disproportionate impact and it's very hard to completely lobby a particular government. Especially if that government knows that at the end of the day they need they need to get re-elected, they need general support from the populace. All these things are much more happening on our side of this debate and I think that's in in terms of like these particular ministers they they have huge power to do a lot of these particular things because they can they like, can imply certain small subsets of policies that change small things that are very beneficial in terms of the range of a wider build. That is, let's say in general for the industry they can do executive orders they can do like, disproportionately effect the budgeting towards different counties different countries and things like that. So what we have proven you in this debate is that now actually corporations are much stronger on the other side of the house and the ability to have a huge impact on to vulnerable people is much larger. I have never been prouder to oppose.
+</dlo>
+<mg> 
+opening opposition suggests that the lobbying power the increased lobbying power as a consequence of this promotion. It's going to lead to policies which are societally disutile. If you're able to show the opposite we're going to win over top half because opening government says these policies are stable but they did not answer opening opposition's question, as to why these policies are not going to be harmful outside the interest of that specific sector. I'm going to outline a couple of incentives and integrate my rebuttal. What are the incentives for this lobbying to be done well and for the policy to be economically efficient across the board not just for an individual sector. First of all there is an incentive for unions and the representatives to survey public preferences insofar as the public themselves are the are the ones who appoint the political elite this means that they could have an unfavorable regulatory framework in the future. Which is to say there is a potential crackdown on unions, if we have fertile ground for anti-union thought and anti-union politics. Which is to say if the public already feels that the union is working against them. This means that you're creating fertile ground for narratives about unions being perverse organizations that manipulate people but never get anything done to the workers particularly in capitalist countries where we already have on one side a demonization of socialism the idea that unions are reducing economic efficiency and leeching over people's money. But secondly, the glorification of the capitalist narrative which is to say the meritocratic narrativE. Which supposes that you get the amount of money that you deserve as opposed to the amount of money low before you by some kind of state organization or some kind of union, especially because there are historical moments where this has happened after 30 or 40 years of unions being strong got margaret thatcher because one old reagan unions know this has happened historically they want to catch against this. Which is to say if it's too the loud as well because most people who vote for environment are left-wing and young, who are also the voter base is going to vote for pro-union policy and pro-social democratic policy as opposed to pro-business. Secondly, they have the incentive to craft economically viable policies, which is to say to hire experts to create policy drafts, to produce some kind of economic projections before they present their policy, before their lobby. Why is this the case? because in that case they can sell their policy to politicians to co-opt it's easier to get the candidate to say, i'm going to take this policy is going to be my platform. If he can sell his policies economically viable. This is also true because companies are already trying to slam their unions being inefficient So they have an incentive to ensure that they cannot be beaten by statistics, that companies cannot go out and say gdp people go down by this amount of percent if you accept this policy, Which is to say that they have an incentive to create policy which can create economic efficiency across the board. Which is to say have proven that it's both in accordance with preferences. Which is all principle i've also proven why it's going to be good policy as opposed to just stable policy. I think it's actually incentive to the contrary i think unions can be a vector for crafting good policy. Why? First of all because they have information on the ground that allows them to detect problems within companies that create inefficiencies, know that the incentive of unions congrues with economic efficiencies of particular sectors insofar as they want job security down the line, they want the company to expand not to contract they want to get raises and promotions. Which means that the marginal profit of the company has to rise overall so in crafting policy. They have to make the company more efficient and a lot of these things are just incredibly intuitive, which to say increasing break time increases productivitY. Giving people more benefits makes them happier they work better human resource departments do. Yes, the shift is happening currently in companies like google but it's happening incredibly slowly we want to increase that vector now this is also a mechanism as to why nikolai's speech doesn't really make sense because insofar as workers have visceral knowledge of the problems that they face I don't think they can be misled by the industry experts or whatever. But secondly, workers are tend to be skeptical towards their bosses because they very often see them as exploitative and not giving them their money and you just have an incentive to encourage this kept skepticism insofar as that encourages human activity. I don't think the people can be misled that easily but also if they can, there's no comparative to the opening opposition case because the industry can just mislead them to propaganda campaigns but it can be misled by the government. I'm not sure why that's comparative. But secondly, notice a lot of the policies that you want to slander is economically efficient particularly dlo. I know he's very pro-business are actually good for economic efficiency because raising minimum wages, raising benefits, providing people with healthcare, increases the disposable income people have. It creates aggregate demand and never get spending. We're circulating the economy taxable transactions, which are funneled to the state to provide public services but also within the economy, within the local grocery store, within the local fruit shop, and this is the largest delta we have to unlock in terms of spending because poor people have the least amount of disposable income most of their little amount of money goes to things like health care and safety and stuff like this. At the point where we unlock this income we unlock a significant amount of spending that did not exist before it increases economic efficiency. It can, however, only be done through this motion because in a status quo unions can only lobby, companies can out to lobby. Then the comparative now these units can directly impact the regulatory environment that these companies are going to work in they have retaliatory power but the companies cannot stop because they have an effective veto. Which is to say the only way we can unlock the unions and actors of good policy is by providing this motion. I've both linked the impact to the emotion but they've also given you explicit analysis why the policy is going to be actively good. The response we get from all are corruption and privilege first of all unions tend to be structured democratically. Which is to say i don't care if the people at the top are rich and religious, if most people are secular they will vote sacred because unions have democratic structures and muslims are not owned by the state naomi. Secondly, however, corruption is just a mitigatory mechanism. Which is the same so far as all seems to stand for democracy, which is also impacted by corruption. I'm not sure why corruption is a reason to abandon a policy it's mitigation mitigation at best. But lastly, even if people do vote religious in a particular union. This is in congruence with open opposition's own principle if that's the preference that people vote for fine, they need to stand behind us the reason why we weigh over og is because og uh conveniently mitigates their own principle, when ahmed tries to preempt by red herring. He says property is acquired justly, this means he also justifies the imbalance of power created as a consequence so their principle is inconsistent my practical is true regardless.
+<poi>
+Seeing policies are economically viable doesn't mean that they won't be self-interested in the most optimal policy for all, such as teachers pushing for higher pay relative to other public servants or industrial unions pushing for anti-environmental. Policies knockout effects don't work because you're more affected by losing your job than the future of climate change.
+</poi>
+I've given you incentives why they're also going to care about negative externalities but i also think that if i can show that this self-interest congruent economic efficiency i don't care itself interested, I mean it's nice to be altruistic, i'm not sure i care about that. Second extension, we simply get the more union membership note that currently, unit membership is steadily declining mostly to slander campaigns by companies that mostly go along the lines of look, this is incredibly inefficient the benefit of being in a union for four years is about three hundred dollars per year, walmart said to their workers for this money you could have just bought an xbox. Why are you within a union? they will not get things done, they will manipulate you. This is combined with aggressive policies of companies towards workers who try to unionize internal memos that push executives to portray certain workers unintelligent or stupid because they push other students they literally organize seminars on why unions are bad. This now shifts the calculus, because unions literally have a mechanism by which they can affect laws. This is literally the case because they can say we veto this candidate with that particular policy they can no longer be seen as inefficient which means you and I also have the ability to retaliate, companies will be less aggressive towards workers because now unions can veto their pro-business candidate. This shifts the calculus and more people join unions. That's not as good because of lobbying but auxiliary benefits even if you don't lobby successfully unions pay for your healthcare. If it's not provided they give you sick pay, if it don't provide it, they give you job training, they give you health and safety equipment, if your job doesn't give it to you or the equipment is not provided to you. They grant you huge amounts of benefits especially for lower middle class people even if they don't help me successfully so i'm not contingent on either successful or good lobbying. This is the most comparative case in the debate for all of those reasons closing government.
+</mg>
+<mo>
+two contributions from closing opposition. First, we're gonna explain why this is bad for the power of unions, which is both the largest time in the debate and deletes the government ventures benefit in this debate, because if the union in this sector does not exist, they cannot exercise a veto; And second, i'm going to explain why it is that the exercise of this veto would be in fact very bad much better than opening opposition. Let's start with why this is bad for the power of unions.
+ The first thing to explain here is that you now have more of an incentive to do things like union bus that looks like anti-union laws that looks like funding campaigns to convince people not to join them that looks like funding law sets against unions in some parts of the world that looks like literally killing union leaders and now you have to completely eliminate the presence of a union in this sector or make sure that one can never get off the ground in order to make sure they never exercise a veto. So if you're a country that has a nascent teachers union, then you are clearly going to do as much as you possibly can to avoid that union ever again. 
+ are coming to fruition such that they cannot exercise a veto. First of all, because you want to have control of your ministers. And second, because at the point where a union pops up in this particular sector, that union is now is now able to bring your government to a standstill, not allow you to be able to appoint to appoint ministers. That means you are never going to allow the union to exist in the first place or you are going to bust that union. And what that means is that you will not get unions in the first instance. This has two impacts. First, it deletes government benches benefit because if the government never allows an education union to exist in this sector in the first instance, no one can exercise a veto. But second, it means you no longer get all of the other good benefits that we could claim on our side of unions. Things like better conditions, things like better pay. Closing government says, ah, unions will always act in good ways so that they don't get union busted. But obviously, acting in bad ways leading to union busting is something that can exist on either side. And if this claim is just completely a historic throughout history, unions have attempted to enrich themselves as much as they possibly can all right that is for a couple of reasons. It's first, because they have particularly short-term incentives, right. So the particular union leader at the time wants to make sure that their members at the time have democratically elected them can get as much money as possible so they don't necessarily care that much about the future. But secondly, there's a collective action problem here because a single union going too far or trying to get too much power for themselves isn't going to be the tipping point to cause all this anti-union busting but at the point where the, but at the point where all of the unions do it, then that's where you're likely to get much more clamp down on unions and what that means is that and what that means is that you all the unions have the incentives themselves to go as hard as possible because they're not going to make a huge difference. The end of this argument, the unions never pop up in the first instance in the countries that most need them. 
+<poi>
+Yeah, if regulation affects specific sectors in a lot of instances, then your mechanism there just doesn't actually land. Think about how this happens in the real world, Sydney. Why doesn't it land? 
+If you have regulation that can happen towards a specific sector, then you don't have the collective action problem mechanizing as you said, which means an individual industry won't go as far as they have to.
+</poi>
+ 
+Okay. So basically the problem with this is that it runs into the first. So obviously there's like multiple characterization, but I deal with that characterization in the first one where I explained that you will then attack this particular industry or never allow it to that industry developed in this first instance. Second reason it's bad for unions is because now unions have an incentive to keep people out under the status quo, You want to grow because even though your share of power in that union goes down when you grow, the overall power of the union increases and that means that your power increases, however, this form of power is a form of power that isn't contingent on the size of the union and in fact, when the union gets larger your your amount of control over that union is, your control over that union power in fact goes down and no this is the largest power you have because in many parts of the world other forms of union power are systemically in decline because we've seen things like anti-union laws. This now means that the largest power the union has isn't contingent on the union growing and in fact everyone in that union has an incentive to make sure that as few people join that union as possible so they can have as much control over that power in the first instance. Noting this also means you want your particular faction to control that union, noting that unions are deeply political and deeply factionalized. Therefore, you actually have an incentive to keep your union smaller so that your faction is able to exercise this veto power. And that looks like things like the way that they keep people out is doing things like setting higher dues, having more demi- having more bureaucratic barriers to entry, denying people's applications into union, not actively recruiting individuals. And this means that the union is now likely to be smaller because the people in the union don't have an incentive to grow when the key power of the union, actually their power over it dilutes at the point where more people join it. The impact of this is too bold. First, it means that less people get access to how unions work, less protection for their workers rights and less high wages. Secondly, it also kills government ventures benefit because it means it's not everyone in that industry voting, but the particularly most powerful faction in that union that was able to capture it. Right. The government bench might say, well, no, you have other incentives to be larger. I explained why this is the most significant power that the union has, which means it's the largest incentive and therefore you're going to preference your amount of control over that or over all other interests. And therefore you're not going to let people into your union. CIG says more people will join the union because they have an incentive. Clearly, if the people in the union don't want you to join, they won't. At that point, we prove that unions are likely to get nuked by this, deletes their benefit, is the largest impact in the debate. Clear CO1. But let's now explain why it is that you are actually, if it is you, This would actually be catastrophic much better than our. The first thing is we just think in a lot of instances. You are not going to be able to get agreement between the government and the union and that means that you will not have an education minister Right, you will not have a minister for this particular industry that is first because many times particularly where there are conservative governments labor unions view these people as Literally the enemy they will never agree with them and second note that labor unions often very politically embedded They have things like a labor party that directly supports them or at least a political party with which the unions are aligned for instance the Democratic Party in the United States and that
+ That means that where there is a conservative party, they are likely to deliberately nuke their ability to appoint ministers of any kind in order to benefit the political party that they support, which is the biggest harm to their museum. Because it means you get gridlock. It means that governments literally cannot have ministers to be able to function. That is incredibly important. Finally, I'm going to explain why unions have sets of bad incentives, because OO says, oh, there might be underregulation. We're going to explain what they actually do. First, they can cripple your public services. This looks like non-functional hospitals continuing to run because the unions will not allow individuals to be laid off. It looks like education unions that refuse to have any forms of reform. And that is incredibly bad because it means that all of society is harmed by the fact that like public services come to a standstill. Second, it means they can often do things like create monopolies over labor hire. So in many instances, like for instance, the Australian Maritime Union used to not allow you to contract out to particular companies. They used to say, you have to come to work for the union and then we will labor hire you out. And that meant first of all, that prices go up. And secondly, people couldn't get jobs because the union was artificially constraining supply in order to keep the prices high and third note the connection between unions and organized crime and the way in which unions have often been used as a front front for criminality. They can now stop any kind of attacks on these bad things that they're doing first because they are able to veto any minister responsible for them who would regulate it and secondly insofar as the union now has this ability to the government the government will not come after the unions this is a much better explanation than opening opposition of the actual explicit things that unions are going to do that are bad 
+</mo>
+<gw>
+I have a lot of stuff now for a variety of reasons the comparative in this debate is quiteconstraining supply chains. 
+ I'm just going to name the ones that were said in this debate. Firstly, the fact that we explained to you in closing government uniquely the degree to which unions care about public opinion, because regulation can directly affect them and they don't want to swing that from happening negatively. Secondly, the race to the media that open government outlines. Thirdly, OO's idea on industrial culture. Fourthly, the extent to which regulations still exists, OO say that it needs to be enforced, but of course the risk reward calculus for an industry, skirting regulations, eventually losing their license in the business is massive, so this mechanism doesn't land. Fifthly, the fact that you're still choosing from a subset of politicians that are being provided to you by the Conservative Party, if CO wants to talk about them. And sixthly, the fact that it's congruent with economic interests, which is to say that the industries themselves and the workers within it both want positive economic impacts. 
+ And to the degree that the industries are being are lobbying higher than individual people are in terms of voting. Therefore, those lobbying powers are going to be used. And that's the kind of thing that happens. Therefore, there's only three comparatives in this debate. Firstly, where there's on union membership. Secondly, on slight disalignments of preferences. And thirdly, on the principle. So first thing with regards to union, like union membership, let's deal with CO's case here. The first thing they say is that you have a higher incentive for union busting now that they have this degree of power. Firstly, I continue this is a knife to their opening opposition's characterization it says that you can use them as a ventriloquist for your own interest. Secondly, i would say to you that it becomes less effective now because insofar as you can say to people oh you shouldn't join a union you have a decreased capacity to do that well you can't use the techniques that we outlined here in closing government are saying it would not be worth your time and indeed the fact that unions are capable of explaining to you why it's economically beneficial for you as an individual and indeed aligns with public perception as we explain it to you in our extension. I got no response in closing opposition. But secondly, i would contend that there is no increased incentive to the degree that unions are able to do things like union boasting, which is to say, I think under the status quo, if CO are right in the third power, in the second part of their extension about the things that unions can do to an industry, then the industry would already have the maximum incentive and so the comparative is on capacity. And indeed, on the comparative of capacity, we explained to you that now that even nascent unions, even small unions have massive retaliatory power against an industry that wants to undermine it and see CO's own example that they're willing to do things like hospitals within their own characterization being shut down, they're willing to take retaliatory efforts
+ against their own thing means that you must become less effective. Second thing to say is a single union will go really hard because of collective action problem. Again, I POI this and they never give a response to it. Part from flight in the first part that I just responded to. So on face, they've lost that comparative and the explanation that I provided to you is the fact that if you are one individual industry, say, for example, the teachers union, because if you lobby for things that are massively beneficial for just teachers and not the public, that will be negative because you can get directly regulated as a consequence of that. See those cases only true if regulation has to be universal, but you can have industry specific regulation and therefore that
+ case doesn't land. The third thing they say is you want when you want to get a higher degree of control, you want less people within your union because you want to maintain your positional power. This only makes sense if you as one individual person within the industry are more powerful. There's three and four members. We would content you that hierarchy still exists, which is to say, if you are the upper level of a union right now, when new people come in, you maintain your place in the place in the hierarchy. Secondly, you undermine your ability if you want fewer members to do the other good things that unions are able to do as we explained to you in our extension, things like lobbying, but also all the
+ corollary impacts to explain to you your power decreases on net. And thirdly, because you join your trade union for a reason. And this is the thing. If you create a trade union or join a trade union in face of all the harms that CEO outlined in terms of union busting, it flags as an explicit preference that a person wants the betterment of the people within that industry. And therefore, this case is going to be comparative. We're winning on this comparative. That's probably the most important one in the debate, because if the change in regulation is quite speculative, if we're able to provide to you a massive degree to which people are able to access the benefits of unions, health care, worker pay, safety
+ regulations, gloves, masks, etc. that increases the quality of life for individuals within the industry, but also doesn't have the negative externalities that are worth talking about. Second comparative then in the debate is on the disalignment of preferences in and so far as when they exist. Opening government on this are remarkably, like, are not very strong. The reason for this is they firstly outline knowledge, but without explaining why the industry doesn't have the capacity to have that knowledge with regards to the lobbying that they say is the most powerful thing that happens within that context. And secondly, they talk about the ability to undermine lobbying without ever characterizing
+ to you the degree to which that this alignment of preference is happening. We make them weak to OO's response that indeed the kinds of things that the industry will lobby for will be negative. Where do we fall into this in terms of explanation of the kinds of things that change? This is the comparative. We explained to you why in a much stronger way than opening government unions have a massive incentive to align with public preferences. They fear regulation. I'd also contend as a further response to opening opposition that these are the people who are most likely to have the direct experience of harms towards them in their lives. They understand what it looks like when an economy downturns. They understand the harms of environmental regulations not being there when it means that they can't clean their clothes in the river anymore. Because these are the pores within society that was approximately affected by negative externalities outside of their place as a worker and their friends and families are too. I would contend that these people are in a better position to make that decision on the basis of preferences, although I'll explain that later when I deal with the principle. Therefore, the slightest alignment of preferences is where we explain to you in our extension. We explain to you something very simple, which is the kinds of visceral experiences that workers have of working on the ground, something that does not trickle up the corporate ladder. I know, for example, working in my job that if there was
+ a ground mat on the floor rather than just a hard floor that was there, I'd be able to walk quicker later in the day because my legs wouldn't be broken and tired. But the companies, because they're based off of this idea of having an oppositionality between workers and their bosses, and think that the workers are just looking for more and more things like more money for themselves for greedy reasons, means that the way in which they think that you get more economically efficient is by being punitive. This is the reason why very few industries apart from the tech sector have actually updated to be more ergonomic towards their workers, despite the fact that we now have the economic information
+ to provide to us to explain that might in a lot of instances be beneficial towards the economy. The economy being good of course and in terms of general weighing is just good in general insofar as it means you have things like increased tax revenue for the people, increased wages in people's pockets, increased pay overall. 
+<poi>
+Our point wasn't that a lot of teachers being religious is bad but that there are asymmetries if you become an industry leader versus a general demographic of the industry based on privilege leading to things like pushing for more seniority pay and just like more religious funding from external donors distorting priorities. 
+ Also, the debate on the union. 
+</poi>
+
+ problem though is you never explain to us why this privilege actually transfers in a meaningful way as opposed to the way it does within general society when you can get economic privilege. For the reason of my response to closing opposition which you chose not to respond to in that poi people with the most amount of drive within these trade unions tend to be the ones that rise to the top, people that can be most persuasive to the top, people within the union senate those ones that will rise to the top, people have the most degree of you know just like like drive for change those like people's rights that's how in terms of the principle I think we're able to win that overall by reducing it to the practical part. Because note the harms and the principle are practically contingent because they're based off of the idea of coercion and undermining coercion in this state. We were proposed to use that things like not having proper health and safety regulations, not having enough money in your pocket are also coercive, but notably also OG's principle of self-defeating. And we explained why your line of preference is within opening opposition. Therefore, on the way up in terms of this debate, closing government has to win. Because on all strands of the debate, relative to the burdens of proof of those strands, we're able to provide a winning comparison to you on the proposition side of the house, and then conclusively we've won the debate. 
+</gw>
+<ow>
+Closing opposition provides three important contributions to this debate. The first contribution that we provide is to explain why unions are just unlikely to be able to exist and function. And that argument necessarily occurs upstream of anything that opening government or closing government wish to say, because both of them attend to provide a series of reasons of either why this veto power would be used well by unions are to help workers, which is the opening government case. And then the closing government case is why this power would be used well to help people at large. If we prove this first argument, we necessarily beat those two teams and opening opposition by making an argument that actually defeats the government bench, assuming their characterization about unions is still true. The second important contribution that we provide, however, is just explaining why unions get incredibly elitist. And I would weigh this perhaps the most highly in the debate for the reason that there are a series of individuals who often need unions to get important representation. They need things like workers rights, which that CG whip does a bit of impacting. We explain why you're less likely to get that. But finally, we provide a contribution that actually explains how unions have the capacity to implement bad sorts of legislation and policy and do bad things at this speedo as opposed to opening opposition who just say they will. So let's start with closing government. They give us maybe two responses to our extension. Sorry, three. The first is calling it a knife, which it obviously isn't. As I explained in my introduction, we just make an argument that occurs upstream of opening opposition. We do not contradict them directly. No analysis there. The second response that is given is to say that, well, your collective action problem, it doesn't work because you would target specific industries and industries as a whole won't be regulated. The first thing I want to note about this is that it is mitigation because there are still industries that are incredibly important that are likely to be cracked down on. So that is a harm that they still necessarily have to bite in the trade off. But secondly, as they explain, Obviously, a set of corporations and businesses and policymakers have incentive to label these individuals as bad for the reasons that not only do the government makes you agree on, but that they empirically do in the status quo. So obviously, if these incentives still apply, then at the point at which one union starts doing bad things, you want to paint a board brush stroke of audience doing bad things so you can equally all deregulate and fuck over those unions. So to the extent that this only occurs in one instance, they never show why that wouldn't be used to jeopardize and screw over all unions in general. The third response we get
+ get is on our sort of membership part of the extension. They say, well, you're unlikely to, for example, become a leader or kick people out to maintain power because there's already a pre-established hierarchy. But obviously this is untrue for the reason that unions are democratically elected, right? Like new members that have different interests to you for the reason that they occupy different socioeconomic positions, for example, or the younger or in their different parts of their careers, obviously then present a threat to you as someone who is more established when they have, for example, a bigger voting block. But also I would argue that this veto specifically creates this incentive because now being elected comes with so much more direct ability to privilege yourself that now even if this incentive didn't currently exist, it definitely exists on their side of the house. That means our extension stands and for the reasons I outlined in my introduction, it wins the debate. Let's talk about closing government. They really have one extension because their second extension about getting more people is reliant upon unions doing good things in the first place and is entirely contingent and basically just impacting. Their one extension in this debate is unions will do good things. 
+ opening government not taking you. Unions will do good things. And they give a series of general reasons why it might be nice for unions to do good things. They say, maybe it will remove a few narratives. Note, I already respond to why this isn't going to happen. They say, well, maybe you'll capture some voter bases. And the real reason that they whip over and over again is, well, unions are made up of members who are affected by economic outcomes. Therefore, you want to get good economic outcomes for your members. But there are obviously four problems with this extension. And what I'll do now is outline this and explain why this
+ will not be the actual incentive that disproportionately affects people with dingyuns to operate this way. The first thing that I will explain is that you can already vote for things like the government to represent your economic interests. The reason that you specifically join a union is because you want specific work interests advocated for. The point at which unions are no longer doing this and they're considering general sets of, for example, economic outcomes are the point at which you just go, well, why am I even here paying subscription fees? No, things like subscription things do make this a necessary opportunity cost. 
+ that a lot of individuals, for example, particularly poor individuals have to engage in. But the second thing I'll say is that you're often motivated by incredibly short term incentives, right? Because if your country is experiencing recession or if your job is specifically going to be laid off, then obviously you don't care about what other people in the fucking country, you know, want, for example, you care about your job, you care about putting food on your plate. And that is the reason why not only in general, but in specific circumstances where it matters most, obviously these unions are going to care about their own incentives as opposed to general.
+ For those reasons, it's clear that CG never proves why this is the most likely incentive that people will operate on. Now that I'm done with them, CG, go!
+<poi>
+apart from no mechanism as to why unions would lobby generally know specifically up bench has yet to provide a reason as to why states and companies would not already be at maximum incentive to scrub our unions given their own explanations of why unions are bad therefore the comparative is on capacity of unions to retaliate that's where we get more membership.
+</poi>
+yeah so the basic claim being made in this poi is that well you're already screwing over unions to the most extent, So therefore there's no change. I would just say that this is empirically untrue for the reason that unions often do have a lot of collecting bargaining power. People do listen to them, but all that previous speech actually explains like why, sorry, my speech, why narrative gets worse, where there's a greater capacity for things like the screw over. But now I'm also going to explain why policy gets worse, which also occurs upstream of this rebuttal. So let's talk about open government. They have two arguments. First is it is principally legitimate. I'm just going to say, let's assume this is true. This is not a reason why we should do something. It is not positive material. It just says that it's legitimate. So I don't care about this. Let's move on to 
+ the second argument, which is that it will create a balance. Their only mech for this is like, you will have conversations with people and I POI this and I explained that now, obviously companies and people proposing policy come to you in the first place because now they cater their policy specifically to you. So for example, not get fucked over. You don't want to, for example, avoid being vetoed in the Senate and have time to grace. You don't want to have administrative delays. There probably is outside pressure to get your policies through. So that means if opening government are like it creates a balance, obviously it creates a balance in a really bad way that disproportionately favor these
+ They're like, well, no, you're not actually setting the policy, but you might as well be. But even if that's not true, obviously people naturally tend towards these sorts of things, as I already explained. Their only other claim then is that, well, sometimes governments have a majority and they can elect anyone. Our extension explains specifically why you're unlikely to, for example, like you're likely to elect the worst sorts of people because you kick everyone else out of the union now. Briefly on opening opposition. Oh, sorry. Like the takeaway from opening government is just they have to prove why this balance is good or fair. You're just giving it some more power, which is bad. 
+ opening opposition, we beat them in three ways. First of all, we operate, they operate the assumption that unions are probably still good in a lot of instances. We explain why those unions disappear. Secondly, we show you why if unions kick everyone else out, then that actually unlocks their corruption and policy material because it explains why you can specifically lobby for specific interests, why you're not bound by things like a series of other voices. But finally, we make much better explain and unlock their biggest benefit, which is how you can specifically have the capacity to do this. Things like constraining membership, preventing people from joining or fucking over emergencies services.
+ We win on our metric by actually recognizing this and we take the debate. 
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/doxbridge_worlds_2021_west_round_5.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+<pm> 
+Panel, the position of opening government today is very simple. We think tying a movement, a political movement, that is progressivism to particular individuals is bad. We think it is bad both for progressive politics and for broader society. We're going to advance four claims in the speech, first on political polarization,then on policy making and policy passing, why we think that there are constraints that would not exist independent of a situation in which you cast light on particular people, third on individual accountability and finally on mis-prioritisation. Look, I think the stance of open government is quite clear by way of model. We regret the creation of icons like AOC, like Bernie Sanders that are discussed in the chat. We think that often these are not created by say the Democratic Party but emerge out of particular events that lift those people to prominence. So for example for AOC it was winning a
+ an election, a very safe democratic seat for Bernie was living in Vermont and running for president in 2016. I'll take questions, but I think there are none. Let me know if there are. So on the first argument of political polarization. I think this is quite clear. I think that there is significant over weighting that occurs of particular viewpoints at the points at which you have progressive politics assigned to particular groups of people or particular people like AOC and Bernie Sanders. This is problematic for a number of reasons. First, AOC and Bernie and other progressive political ideologues run in electorates that are extremely safe victories for them, that is AOC ran in a district that would never be won by a republican. She will continue to win elections over and over again, the same is true of Bernie Sanders in Vermont. They run in extremely safe districts and overweight the popular discourse with progressive ideals.
+This makes it very easy for competing parties to capture moderates because they can say things like ah Bernie Sanders stands behind socialism, AOC supports things like socialism and we don't like socialism and this echoes and reverberates through elections that do not concern them because their elections in and of themselves are not at risk. People will vote for them independent of their existence as icons. AOC was elected independent of her emergence as an icon, as Bernie Sanders. And the point at which that is true, the question is about the influence that these people have, the undue influence that they have on the movement as a whole and the way that progressivism is cast, because we on open government take a progressivism neutral stance, we think it is a valid political ideology, but we think that to the extent that you think that it is good, It is bad for it to be individually ascribed to people who have very safe elections who are unlikely to do anything but challenge the way that moderates are perceiving things. Right, Like this is why the Trump campaign was so successful by running ads about socialism and communism in Florida, because people are actively scared of the values. The progressive politics is said to stand behind and that they themselves say they stand behind. Things like extreme redistribution is very unpopular in the United States, specifically among the moderate population. That causes a second order harm, which is infighting within the Democratic Party, which means that there are disagreements significantly in the sorts of policy measures that should be passed, which I'll get to in a moment. But fundamentally, it means that the Democratic Party itself fractures. It is unclear what from a big perspective, a big time zoomed out perspective these people are going to campaign for. It is not clear whether they want the more extreme version, which is the progressive ideology subscribed to by few or the more moderate ideology and the Democratic Party itself runs into an issue with marketing both at the same time, it cannot quintessentially be moderate and also extremely progressive simultaneously, meaning that you are always going to upset a range of voters. In most cases, if these icons are as powerful as opposition will want them to be, you're going to upset a lot of moderate voters that are going to push the moderate vote away from progressive candidates. It's going to push them towards more like, you know, conservative candidates. Donald Trump was extremely successful in this election, despite the fact that he is entirely incompetent. And I mean that. So then, thirdly, on impact on turnout, we think that you reduce turnout in the lecture, it's where that election actually matters, and you isolate people from democratic politics in general. Firstly, because people become disenchanted with the democratic party and the left establishment. There are only two parties in the United States, and it's not going to change at any point in the future, presumably unless opposition wants to run a whack job argument that will. To the extent that that is true, we think that the democratic party loses support from individuals who become disenfranchised with the idea that they are not supported by a party. If they themselves subscribe to progressive ideologies. They are fractured away from the Democratic Party because they fail to support candidates that are not as progressive. But for people who oppose progressivism, the Democratic Party fails them also because the existence of icons is an overriding ideology of the party to the extent where people will disagree with the existence of those icons and therefore the fundamental base of the party. Secondly, it is bad for policymaking. That is, AOC now has the mandate not to pass policies that she thinks is anything less than totally redistributive. The Republican Party also has no incentive to pass policy with AOC. Why? Because they hate her, right? Like the right very clearly has a vitriolic hatred for AOC and for Bernie Sanders and for the policies that they stand behind. That means that cross-party negotiation as far less likely to happen at the detriment of a lot of American people. Look to Bernie Sanders intentionally blocking legislation that would help millions of American people because it was not generous enough for them under the presumption that a more generous policy would pass. A sort of idealistic approach to politics is flawed at the point at which you risk the lives of millions of people. When you ascribe that value to those particular politicians because you hold these individuals accountable for that policy changing to the extent that that policy does not change, you become further disenchanted with the efforts of the party. You're far less likely to turn out to vote firstly. But secondly, you're less likely to compromise on policy that is good. 
+<poi> Nicole, with the reference to arguments on disenchantment, fracturing, polarization, just to be clear, are you against progressive politics being practiced in America or are you against progressive icons specifically? </poi>
+ like I already said, we're value neutral and progressive politics. Like I said, it's a value, like it's a valuable ideology as any other is. We think that the assignment of individuals specifically who overweight the discussion with their political narrative is bad. I think that was quite clear. Third though, on, on wrongdoing, the democratic party gets itself into a bit of a double bind at the point at which it puts a lot of value into particular people, into particular individuals, especially those that do not win big ticket elections because AOC is not the president. She is just a member of Congress. 
+ What does that mean? First, it means that the individual accountability of those members becomes kind of thrown up in the air. Two reasons. First, the Democratic establishment can't immediately hold these people accountable because it will make it look bad. It looks like it's cracking down on its own base, on its own party base, right? Secondly, though, these people are less likely, even if they are to be held to account, to hold the party to account because to the extent that they want to hold the Dems to account, either A, the Dems just don't run more candidates that expose things within the Democratic Party or B, that creates more infighting in the party that creates instability in their voter base, which means that elections that need to get won, like the runoffs, do not get won. Finally, the priorities of people are like thrown off. I think people are specifically icons concentrate more on their media image and the distribution of information that concerns them than they do about the distribution of information that concerns the average voter in the average electorate about the moderation of politics that most people in the United States, particularly individualistic state actively subscribe to. To the extent that that is true, I think that there is very clear case to regret the iconoclastic form of politics that is described during the status quo, so incredibly proud to affirm. 
+</pm>
+<lo>
+So we think like a lot of problems, proposition side exists on this side of house comparative world anyway, like polarization, as long as there's like progressive proposals there will always be like defamination will always be accusation of these people anyway, so we don't know like what is the comparative benefits from proposition in that sense so uh but before I move on to my constructive speech several response to that so first of all about like that we reject the characterization of what the political icons look like so we understand sometimes some of their proposals may be extreme but extreme doesn't necessarily mean there's only a minority of people being represented by that proposals. As we see in the past, like how it will say, oh like Bernie Sanders campaign goes well, we see like a lot of people are waiting to take this stance and are willing to support this politicians. So we see like when you kind of like, within the comparative world, when there's no such kind of political icons, what is the alternative? It's more likely to be like more like far right, like Donald Trump, that is the alternative. I believe that both house would prefer not. So, before I move on to my constructive speech, what is the most important thing in today's debate? We're saying like, how exactly, what we want on our side house is first of all, we want those more progressive proposals to be more likely to be passed in Congress and to actually be able to mobilize more voters in the campaign, which could establish a long-term awareness and water base that could further make the campaign and proposals in US politics more progressive in the long run. And secondly, we're saying another house, we could have more representation of the people that couldn't be represented or OG misidentified as extreme group of people another house. So how exactly we can do that? What is the creation of political icons we're talking about? A, we're talking about those people, those politicians, they try to mobilize support with social media or with international media coverage to estabish a quite progressive image overall, and secondly we're saying because they depend their political success upon this sort of image, that means they will be kept being held accountable by their supporters as icons in this particular field. Their proposals will be rechecked whether it's within the line of their proposal, the sayings they gave in the campaigns and people, by checking them that holding them accountable for well and after believing that they will become the political icons in a progressive way, people will tend to have more trust on those individuals in comparison with other politicians. And thirdly, we're also saying that these political icons are more likely to use the very progressive proposals to campaign overall. So, why this is comparatively better? We're seeing two things. First of all, how when we have this creation of progressive political icons, we're more likely to having more progressive campaign process that could in the long term produce more progressive and firm voter base. And secondly, why we'll have a better discussion in the Congress that are more likely to making those progressive policies being passed. So that's the first thing. So we're saying how campaign works. When we have those political icons, they mobilize and they try to mobilize their voter base, trying to sell their progressive proposals. That means what is the comparative here, A, we're saying the audience because they understand these people are sort of political icons and will be held accountable by their supporters. That means they will tend to have more trust towards these proposals that other politicians who the audience will view, more likely to be as a strategy to propose those progressive proposals. That means comparatively speaking, those voters who may more likely to be liberal and who may turn towards those progressive tendencies were more likely to go outside to vote because of the trust. And secondly, what is the comparative here is like when you're trying to mobilize things, mobilize those progressive proposals, you're making like this issue more political size, more politicized. Why that is a good thing. Two reasons, two impacts. First of all, we're saying like making people to vote is the fundamental way that we could actually actualize any impacts in a progressive way. That only when people who are asked to vote hold politicians accountable and making pressure in politicians to actually pass policies, we're saying you could actually have all those impacts in a progressive development for the society. But secondly, we're saying we will politicize these issues as a political icons. You are campaigning around the whole nation. That means you're reaching the group of audience who may not know this otherwise in their daily life, but in campaigns there are overwhelming reports on that and as political icons sticking to this position they will keep talking about that which will also reaching like all these other audience even on the opposite side because opposite side will also like engage with the argument during the process so that's to say when we politicize the problem, when we politicize the issues we want to address, those political, those like progressive proposals in a political way we are reaching more audience more likely to reach, more likely to reach a practical outcome and alongside house 
+<poi> Yes, Bernie Sanders mobilized some young voters to vote for him, but he also mobilized equally if not more of them to vote against Hillary the general election, which got us four years of Trump. 
+</poi>
+Alright, So the comparative in that, in your world here is, those people who vote for, like those people who vote for Donald Trump will vote for them anyway, and as we see like Donald Trump has already won because based on mobilizing those extreme voters. But the comparison here is like without Bernie Sanders, you won't have those proposals being proposed in the very first place, and you won't have the proposals to be negotiated in the Congress and in the Democratic parties without this firm voter base, you get as a like political articles. But secondly, how exactly on the outside house you could actually have a progressive progress in the Congress. We're saying as a political icon, what is unique to you is you have a group of people firmly supporting your voter base. Then you will have more staying in the negotiation within the Congress in the first place. And secondly, because of this voter base, even within the Democratic Party, it's more likely that other candidates, even if, for example, Bernie Sanders wasn't selected as the candidate for the Democratic Party, but other candidates were also trying to integrate these proposals within their own proposals to try to like mobilize more voters in that sense. So only with this creation of progressive political icons we can more likely to truly push forward voters into more progressive way and get actual changes from that house. 
+</lo>
+<dpm>
+opening opposition is correct. Progressive politics is going to exist either way because there are people who want progressive politicians. What we've identified for you though is a lot of reasons as to why the specific idea that you tie the movement to individual livelihoods or individual people or personalities is specifically bad. The main thrust of a response that we've got from allo is just the idea that all the arguments we've given you are not exclusive, they'll happen because there are people who want progressive politics. This is incorrect for a bunch of reasons. The first thing to say is that what Nicole told you in pm, which I don't think was appropriately responded to is the idea that you change the movement in a way that discreaditing individuals becomes dicrediting the same thing that is spreading a policy proposal or discreaditing an entire part of the platform, i.e. the idea that you're able to attack AOC for like her background, for example or educational background or able to attack Bernie Sanders for being a millionaire are taken as the same  things as being attackson their platform. That is, the fact that you're able to say, well you know the progressives aren't really doing anything or like look at all these shady stuff Bernie Sanders did like you wrote a book and made so much money, are taken as the same thing and equally as credible as genuine a tax lien policy proposal itself. The problem with this, however, is two things. One, the policies themselves become tainted by their association with individual actors. That is that I think a lot of people will probably be in favor of things like higher wealth taxation, if it weren't for the fact that Bernie Sanders and AOC were the figureheads at the top of that movement. Secondly, though, it means that even in the case where progressive policies and progressive individuals are good on the local level, they become overridden by the association with a progressive icon that has been vilified in the right wing media. The second reason why this is bad, though, is because it causes an immense amount of vitriol that is not as easy to mobilize against individual movement. That is, in the same way as conservatives are not motivated to vote in elections because they hate Joe Crowley or they hate Harry Reid, they are motivated to vote in elections because they hate AOC, which means that even if they're able to access the increases in turnout, the opening opposition thinks are important. The problem is that it is symmetric, which is that the vitriol you induce on the other side will outweigh the vast majority of the marginal increase in the voter trend, you will get from having maybe a marginally more charismatic candidate on their side. The second thing to say, though, and this is particularly important with regards
+policy change arguments that is advancing, as that becomes far harder to unify or pass on the baton, even within the progressive movement. That is, the easy example of this is that Bernie and Warren, for example, during the 2020 election, while being very ideologically similar, had supporters who were frequently clashing with each other and refused to support the other after one dropped out. The problem with this, then, is that because you tied a specific, you tied your ideology, not to the fact that you are a progressive, but be that you are a Bernie supporter or that you are a Warren supporter, means that it is incompatible for you or it is very difficult for you to support other individuals with similar ideologies just because they are different individuals. The reason why this is particularly harmful is if you care about things like long-term change or if you care about broadly the idea that you can move the populace to the left, it's bad to tie to individuals who are by definition temporary. It's much better to do things that tie to broad-based societal movements. And obviously it is true that you are able to mobilize support without the need for individual icons. There are plenty of movements that are largely not dependent on the charisma of individuals. You see Black Lives Matter movement, it's not clear as to why opening oppositions arguments are necessarily exclusive to what they're telling you about. The third thing to say, however, under this is that they're just a difference in priorities, in the way that you pass policy. This isn't just the argument that we gave you in pm which is the idea that progressiveicons are likely to block legislation for the sake of advancing their own national image. It's also the idea that there's a difference in priorities in terms of campaigning. That is, that AOC sends a ridiculous amount of time trying to primary democrats in like safe districts and not nearly as much time as she could, for example campaigning for people in purple states or in battleground states, places where the election genuinely affects whether their policy will pass or not. The important characterization to remember is this, all of the mobilization that OO wants to talk about happens with largely progressive voters who are already in districts that already will vote for democratic policymakers. This means, one, that they don't have the leverage that they talk about to actually enact new policy because these people are in districts in states that just don't matter during most elections. And two, to the extent that they become more popular, it's not clear that they move the districts or move the national conversation meaningfully more left than they actually care about. Specifically then, some extraneous rebuttal to opening opposition.
+ The broad thrust of the ideas that we get is that you can progressive icons are able to use their image to advance certain ideologies that would otherwise not necessarily be as popular. Obviously, we've told you reasons as to why these images are likely not to be nearly as popular as I think they think they are. But the idea that you're able to mobilize progressives and force individuals to adopt things in the party platform is something that presumably happens naturally over time, i.e. the independence of the rise of progressive political icons like Bernie Sanders or AOC, you still have the Democratic Party moving left and adopting more leftist positions on race relations and climate change. So presumably the sport of the process of evolution is something that likely occurs on either side. The difference, however, is the process of the reaction by individuals on the other side of the movement. Because when you tie movements and tie policies, the identity of individuals, it becomes so much harder to differentiate the two and so much easier to do things in ways that are just so, so much worse for the movement. 
+ 
+<poi> This is a this house that regrets debate, not a this house opposed this debate. Give me the counterfactual so you have a chance. 
+</poi>
+Yes, the counterfactual we envision is a world where progressive politics still exists, but it is not tied to the fate of individual politicians. That is, we are happy for perhaps as politicians to exist on either side. We just think that you should not be like AOC is the progressive movement. Rather, we think it should be that there are progressive politicians who share a common set of ideologies, i.e. we prefer the civil rights movement, for example, that is unified around a common set of policy proposals, not a world where it is tied to individuals that we think is particularly so harmful. Why then is this something that is particularly impactful in this debate? Firstly, to the extent you care about polarization, the problem is that it's easy to immobilize vitriol against individuals for their personal flaws or things they might have done in the past. It's less easy to debate the merits of a policy. This is something opening opposition themselves told you, where they told you that you need rational debate about policy to get things on the table. This only happens in a world where policies are not tied to specific individuals because then they become synonymous with these people and it is far easier to attack them. Secondly, though, to the extent that you care about the ability for individuals to pass policy, presumably you do not want people with outsized influence single-handedly blocking policy, i.e. AOC by herself as an individual person would not be able to block the CARES Act, or Bernie Sanders would not be able to block the stimulus bill, but by virtue of their status as icons, they're able to do so and stall valuable help that helps individuals just because it doesn't align with their personal political goals. This means then that to the extent you care about long-term progressive policy, the analysis is incredibly simple. The fact that politicians are inherently wanting to advance their own interests creates a world where it is actually worse for the progressive movement. That is the fact that you are seen as doing things like blocking things that would help people, the fact that moderates who lost in the 2020 election are blaming AOC and other progressive congress people for losing them that election is something that decreases the willingness to work together within parties, which makes it far harder to pass this legislation, because regardless of what opening opposition wants to think, the simple fact is that in order to pass legislation now or even decades into the future is necessary for you to get cooperation within your party. The fact that you fracture parties, the fact that you make it harder to pass on leadership in the long run is something that makes substantially more difficult. To the extent then that you tie movements, the fate of individuals, the problem is that individual fallibility becomes an excuse for attacking the merits of a policy. We're very, very proud to stand in proposition. 
+</dpm>
+<dlo>
+The first thing we're going to talk about is polarization. What would have changed on both sides and what would have stayed constant because that was the burden opening government needed to win this debate. The second thing we're going to talk about are political barriers where they would have changed and where they would have been beneficial. And then we're going to talk about this idea of deproitization and why that's an actual asset to the Democratic Party. After all of that, I'm going to explain to you explicitly with mechanisms why individuals and focusing these movements around individuals is better than the counterfactual, which would have been policy concerns. Let's talk about polarization. Opening government tell you that you get an overweighting of progressive politics, which means that Democrats can't get like moderate votes But also you get like anti-socialism rhetoric that Trump becomes powerful, the Republicans become powerful, a number of responses. Firstly the Democratic Party needs Progressivism as a check and balance the problem with opening government's case is that they assume that the Democratic Party is this neutral and fair arbiter and therefore the progressive icons have acted like this overweighting force without any contextualization of what the Democratic Party actually looks like. Three mechanisms here, firstly the old guard and the people who pull the strings within the democratic party in 2016 and even up to now although that is changing as a result of this motion, are like red democrats and like more right-leaning democrats. Those are people like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer who get to make the kind of appointments and get, and therefore get to determine like who gets power within the democratic party, what the image of the democratic party is. Secondly the party is funded by many right-leaning interests who fund both sides of the political spectrum which pulls both parties towards this kind of moderate status so people feel as though there is no fucking change in society. But finally, I think the democratic's presidential super delicate system allows these moderate politicians and old God to cement power in a way which means that for the vast majority of people who even vote for the Democrats, but just people on the outside, it doesn't seem like there is any genuine concern for ordinary people. This is one of the biggest reasons that Trump won the election in the first place in 2016, because of this idea of draining the swamp. Then they, then I think the second general comment is that America is changing demographically. We accept their one single example that people who are Hispanic and who live in Florida happen to vote republican. But we think this was a result of a very specific wave of immigrants from socialist leaning countries like Cuba and Venezuela. The general trend, however, is one of four things, for all three things. Firstly, mass urbanization of individuals and a convergence towards cities, which is why, for example, we saw surprising results in the state of Nebraska, which sure didn't turn into a democratic state, but had a ridiculous turnout for Democrats in places like Omaha, which is only growing in number as a percentage of the population of these republican rural areas. Secondly, more college educated people which is filtrating throughto the suburbs which is why biden was able to win massive suburbs, suburbs which the democrats have not won in decades. Thirdly, I think there is an increase as a general percentage of the population of african-american and non-anti-communist hispanic people, people from states of mexico or central america, guatemala, which who are more likely to support likely to have things like political enfranchisement, like well-funded healthcare and education systems. That means the general trend is one towards progressivism in US politics and so we don't regret that the Democrats were getting ahead of the curve. We think they are likely to see results in the future as a result of getting ahead of the curve. The third general comment here is that Republicans engage in polarization on both sides of the house. Trumpism has existed since 2016 and is here to stay. We think that republicans are pushing a polarizing alt-right narrative which is why a lot of the stuff that opening government talk about is uncomparative. So for example a lack of cross-party policy making which note was their mechanism as to why you get less policy points passing a more  disenfranchisement has been a literal reality of the Trump administration because they have been pushing policy so far to the right that no even moderate democrat can support those policies and you've seen like a stasis within the within congress. I think what this means is that moderates have less choice on both sides and have to settle on both sides, which means that you don't necessarily lose them as opening government claim because they also are reluctant to vote for Trump. But more importantly, just on a factual note, moderates voted for Biden despite like this progressive trend existing due to Trumpism and like its abandonment of the norms and rules of how you just engage fairly in politics. If anything, what this should tell you is that moderates have to lean towards the Democrats and therefore, given there's not really a massive harm of losing them, this is a critical juncture between 2016 and 2020 to add progressivism to the agenda. Secondly, let's talk about prioritization. I think the thing about this is even if the Democrats stay moderate on both sides and progressivism is small, the icon status of these people within the progressivism movement is an asset to the national party as a whole because you now have somebody to send to these kind of growing cities in Wisconsin or Omaha in Nebraska to get town out in polarizer swing states. I think the mistake that opening government make is to assume that swing states are ones which are just full of moderate people. No, they are states which are full of polarized people. It's just about who can mobilize their polarized people more than the other side. I think that these guys are a key asset to do that. 
+<poi> The green new deal is expected to cost 10 trillion dollars which is 10 times the average expenditure of the state under the status quo Why are progressive policies good?
+</poi>
+I think this is a check and balance, some people support the green new deal, some people don't vote and most people feel like they're choosing the best of both worlds. We think that progressivism is good in so far as it's giving people options and insofar as it's moving democrats away from the statsis where they agree with modern republicans on things like no healthcare, so sure the green new deal might be a bit problamatic but like on balance we think that progressivismis good for the party. Why is it then that individuals are better centralization points than the counterfactual. I think there are benefits of individuals of the following. Firstly, it has provided hope and mobilization by centralizing a person and a narrative who you can big up and like really make seem like an important person and somebody who can give you that aspiration to go out and vote or to make small scale donations. I think secondly, the essential media interactions just create a level of relatability. Why is this important? This is so important. It means that they don't seem like the swamp which the Trumpists are talking about, which has moved people towards republicanism. 
+ It means that they are more likeable in a post-fact era where people are able to believe in random facts on both sides and random policies. It is trust in politicians which is going to determine who people vote for. That is the comparative. That is why OO is winning top half. </dlo>
+<mg>
+The democratic party is going to be less progressive under our side of the house. That is, one, as per opening oppositions's analysis, that is, you have a presumption for the establishment which has a vast amount of money in the party that can fund people's campaigns and set the agenda that is only checked by icons who get huge amounts of donations, for instance by appearing on twitch. That's also I think necessaryfor og's case make sensebecause what they're saying is that you're far more likely to get people opposing the radical policies of the left under opposition. But notice that if it is the policies that stay exactly the same and just the figures, they're basically only contained to them like the mechanism which says people complain because AOC went to Brown, which probably precludes them from getting the vast majority of their benefits because I'm not sure that genuinely is the reason the Democrats have ever won or lost an election. The first thing I want to do is explain why progressive politics and progressive policies are bad for the Democratic Party. 
+ The thing that is important here is under our side of the House, we will still have progressive people because large numbers of voters will still be relatively progressive and still probably in primaries, pushed for better policies than apparently no healthcare, which I don't think has ever been the standard that the party has gone for. The comparison is that the capacity to be extremely radical is far more possible on the desk at the House when individual icons are not constrained by moderates who predominantly fund the party, but instead are people who get their own independent sources of funding,
+ Most of the time from the most radical college-educated people who haven't really had a job or have any experience of the world, but think that the more radical you are, the more woke you are, and therefore fund these people under their side of the house. Why is advocating for this stuff bad? One, we think that these policies are often extremely expensive or extremely inefficient. That is, they give huge amounts of power to a government bureaucracy which has huge numbers of people working within the system, often receiving jobs which make the private sector anti-competitive and therefore in the long term decrease the capacity for jobs to be provided people and have enormous cost overruns. That's why the US despite spending so much on welfare does so badly on almost all statistics of welfare because it's just so badly run but these policies and never cut because they're always, those cuts are always opposed by the progressive wing, but the second reason that these are bad is that these people as have been pointed out frontline aspirational policies rather than feasible policies. That is the example we give you, they pust for things like the green new deal with nobody that the green new deal could ever be implemented merely because they want to say here is a list of all the things we think is wrong with society. The problem is that when these people are able to advocate for these things, they force the rhetoric of the rest of the parties to start campaigning on the lines of these policies, which is why then these terrible policies are something that the rest of the people are sandbagged with in elections. Why is this important? One, I think we give you reasons why we still get some, like we still get some progressive policies that are side, but not this extremely bad policy that empirically given Democrats do win is likely to be implemented at some point, which means opening opposition. Two, I think this significantly resolves the deadlock in the top half because OO are like, well, we can inform and excite people and see, OG are like, well, this can be radical, it's going to turn away moderates, and in some swing states, apparently moderates important and others. We want to excite people by dividing but, if we can tell you that the policies themselves are so intrinsically unreasonable, then that is good reason to believe that the vast majority of people, even low income people who want help don't believe that these are feasible ways for helping them, which is a significantly better reason they're unlikely to be electable in the future. Second thing, the other thing I'd like to note is that we think that one reason these policies now more likely  to be implemented which is bad for the reason we give you is that these people are now able to hold the democratic party into account and it's significantly harder for the democratic party tp push for moderate policies under their side of the house. OG tells you the AOC doesn't vote for moderate policies. I think they don't tell you why other progressive politicians would be likely to, but given we told you the mechanism which is there beholden to the money from the rest of the party, there's a significantly better reason than where I'd like you to capture these benefits under our side of the House. Next thing I want to talk about in that extension is what campaigns are likely to look like under both sides of the House. 
+<poi> Logically extending your argument on electability and polarization. Do you think the Democrat Center should move further to the right?
+</poi>
+ I'm not sure that's what we're committed to, right? Because what we're not saying is that there is some optimum policy, although plausibly they should move to the right, but that the kinds of policies that icons are going to frontline will be so radical and so extreme that they're unreasonable. Let's talk about campaigning. The fact that these people are able to extract huge amounts of attention means that they affect significantly the way that primaries and presidential elections are run. What happens is that when Biden runs for office, he is unable to take a substantive policy commitment on any particular issue.
+ That is when Trump asks Biden, do you stand behind AOC or not? Biden just doesn't answer the question. Two reasons why this is down to the success of progressive politics and which is down to icons. The first is that these people represent a significant voter base that Biden doesn't want to upset, which means that this often trades off against promoting real legitimate policy that actually could be implemented. So as a fear of avoiding upsetting moderates and progressives, instead, candidates take no commitments. The second, in order to win the primaries, these candidates will often have to have taken more progressive stances, which means that they're therefore unable to go back and say we're not going to be implementing these progressive politics. Instead, what they often do is just not comment on what they're likely to do. Why are these bad things? The first thing is the party is significantly less likely to excite new voters. That is, unlike what OO says, because premises having radical policies is good. We never get any policies frontlined in national elections because it's either toxic to the modical or radical wing of the party. 
+ That means people who genuinely want some hope about some feasible change in their lives never get any sign that the party is going to account for that. That is far more important than the college educated radicals who want extreme party who are to a significant extent already accounts for or moderates who to a large extent are middle class. The second thing is this incites the possibility of personality politics because instead of Republicans being challenged by saying where is the policy you pass that made people better for the people you claim to when there is no policy commitments merely statements about what you stand for. 
+ very easy for Republicans to have the same empty rhetoric and never actually have policies which improve the lives of these people for the foreseeable future under their side of the House. What are the impacts of the arguments? The first is I think we should be relatively agnostic about what policies matter and say that democracy is important in as much as people don't vote for policies under their side of the House, we're significantly better off. Two, we are far more likely to have the least well-off represented because these people are not people that turn out in primaries
+ but instead of people that are neglected by virtue of the fact that in presidential elections, the Democrats never take substantive policy commitments. The third is that whether or not the Democrats win, we're likely to have significantly better policy for the vast majority of people because actually talking about policies is something that will make the Republicans significantly more accountable and less likely just to elect the white person who is better at spinning the narrative about how AOC is terrible. 
+</mg>
+<mo>
+Before moving on to my susbtantive, two points on cg. One, they have clearly knifed the opening government was trying to say. Opening government said, we're going to be morally ambiguous about whether progressive politics is a good or bad idea, cg explicitly comes up and says, progressive politics is a bad idea, they can't run both things on government bench. The second thing I will note is how uncomparative cg has been because notice he logical collateral of the argument that these guys are presenting is, the democrats should try to be as moderate as possible so that they can get either modern moderate policies through but also mobilize support which means that we should become more towards the right. I just want to know that this is the reason why there are so many apathetic voters in the united states of america to begin with so if they want democratic voter turnout in their world, I would suggest that people will think that we need to drain the swamp that the establishment is the same, that the republicans and the Democrats are not different at all, which means there are a lot of people, unlike the present election where you did have the influence of a progressive in the party, a lot of people do not come out to vote. So I'm not sure that the impacts of their arguments flow. About OG before moving on to points of framing though, OG's main claim in this debate is, well, attacking the movement becomes easier because you tethered the movement to like, you know, a single person. I would just note the historicity of this claim is absolute bullshit because notice it's not the problem. The problem isn't that Bernie Sanders is a bad guy. The problem is
+ Bernie Sanders practices progressive politics, which is a bad idea. This is rooted in Cold War era beliefs of, you know, the politics of the Red Scare, McCarthyism, and so on and so forth. So even in their world where the comparative is some decentralized movement of progressive politics, they are similarly going to be facing the same kinds of backlash from the right wing, right wing media, and so on in their world. The question in this debate is not about backlash. The question is backlash remains constant in the status quo against progressive politics. The question is how then do we pass progressive legislation and change this course. The second note about polarization generally and this attacks both og and cg is that negotiating is much more easier in our world, polarization is much less in our world. Why? because instead of trying to bargain with a hundred different progressive politicians, all you need to do as a republican party is bargain with bernie sanders, who's heading the wing withing the senate, right. This reduces polarization, allows you the opportunity to centralize negotiation and bargain much more easily. What am i going to talk to you about in this speech, before moving on to, one, why progressive politics is important and , two, why we get that passed. I just want to point out framing one these people are locally popular within their constituencies because of the fact that they're icons but notice that they are also popular nationally. We do not know the names of all of the senators within the United States Senate but we do know the name of like you know the squad and Bernie Sanders. They are popular nationally as well. The second thing I want to note is they're also internationally popular. I just say that Bernie Sanders etc have a huge following within the developing world especially areas where progressive politics is censored and does not have the room or the space to go, which will become important in my space later on. But lastly, and this clashes directly with what CGS is trying to say, progressive politics is important for a couple of reasons. One, climate change literally fucking threatens the whole human race and its existence. We do need the Green New Deal, even if it doesn't pass by the way, because it costs too much. At the very least, what the Green New Deal allows us to do is shift the overtime window such that Biden now has the most progressive campaign and policy agenda when it comes to environmental politics. Police brutality is a huge fucking issue within the United States of America. ICE does lock up Hispanic kids and the Supreme Court, by the way, does have a majority of conservative people on the bench. So in terms of this, progressive politics is good. It protects minorities, it protects immigrants and so on, but it's also better in terms of foreign policy agendas and developing countries. Now, why do we then get progressive politics too? And over here, I'm going to explicitly point out, OG does not mechanize for jack shit and I'm going to mechanize lots of the things that they're trying to say. 
+ The first thing I want to note is how better messaging happens if you tether the movement to single people, that is icons and specific. One, notice, progressive politics is extremely difficult to explain, especially within red states or states which have lower education or are swing states, etc. , where there you have lots of blue collar workers. Why? Because the language of progressive politics is extremely difficult to understand. It is very difficult to understand gender theory or racial theory or how the environment functions. What you need is people who consistently are able to communicate these ideas to people in the most simple language possible and that becomes much better on our side of the house and Bernie Sanders and AOC etc are able to do so. On the comparative in Gov world, we don't think you have the opportunity to do so anymore because these icons do not exist. The second thing I want to tell you is very specifically, we explain progressive politics much better to people because notice in their world, progressive politics is decentralized. That is to say that the meaning of what progressive politics is, is different according to the person who is forwarding those claims. So one consistency is in New York, for instance, one senator from New York
+ will say very different things to what a senator in say California would say in their world. But in our world what we do is there's one head of the progressive movement or three or four heads and they can actually say well strategically guys we should focus on Medicare for all we should focus on the green new deal and this idea of centralization of the message makes it much more easier to explain to people that is why there's much more buy-in towards progressive policies on our side of the house. The third thing I want to note is messaging in media is much better off. Why? Because Fox News, CNN etc have people that they can pick and choose and say, look, this person is nationally popular. He will boost our ratings or she will boost our ratings that therefore we should have them on our program. So there is much more attention towards progressive politics on our side of the house as opposed to their decentralized world where nobody is the leader. Right. And why is this important? Because you are consistently shown on TV. So your visibility increases the faith that people have in you increases, but also you have more time to explain your message. So on and so forth. The third thing I would note is role model analysis and that this doesn't only affect these people, not only affect mobilization of voters on the ground, they also ensure that you have a constant stream of future progressive politicians also coming up because they want to be the next Bernie Sanders or the next Alexander Ocasio-Cortez. So the movement doesn't die out. The fourth thing I'll note is resources are concentrated . Notice, These people do not accept money from big corporations. They accept money from grassroots like you know grassroots support and so on. So you need to tell people give your money to Bernie Sanders because he is running the present residential campaign. So we get much more resources on our side of the house. These people are better able to campaign and fight elections. The last thing I'll note is legislative change in their world is very difficult to achieve. Why? Because you know, you need bipartisan support. You might need a majority to get progressive legislation passed. However, in our side of the house, we don't need legislation to pass. We only need single electoral victories and constituencies before Fox News, CNN, etc. Just make them into broad fucking issues. Why is this important? Because people have protest fatigue. When legislative agendas or your ability to get legislation passed fails continuously, people don't come out and support progressive movements at all. Why is this important? There are a couple of reasons for this. One, shift the overtime window. Two, we get politics through because we can actually get stuff done. Thirdly, I would note in terms of international politics, these people act as inspirations for people outside your country. Why? Because often not in developing countries where there is censorship role models are not available. You need people from outside to give you hope that this kind of politics is possible. But two, these people often push policy agendas which are beneficial for people within the developing world. Notice Bernie Sanders speech on Kashmir, giving rights to these kinds of people. So these are actually people who can shift foreign policy discourse in favor of these people. For all these reasons we are very proud to oppose.
+</mo>
+<gw>
+ The first extension that Greg gave you is why the kinds of progressive policy that is being proposed by these icons are really bad. This beats the up bench in a couple of ways. First, oh, oh, all of their mechanisms about how you get more progressive policy with no explanation as to why they are good other than the fact that their voters are being given a choice. However, in fact, in so far as their argumentations about how America is naturally becoming more progressive it is unlikely that there will be literally no discussion of any progressive policy, right, so voters will be given a choice on both sides of the house. So almost principled benefit is being satisfied but they don't tell you why in addition to that principle benefit giving people a choice. It is good to have these kinds of progressive policies. Co's entire extention is about how this is good because you create role models for both the developing world but also in th united states right, but again it's predicated on the fact that these policies are good, because if the policies are bad the they're bad role models for people to have and it is bad for there to be more of them. Now I want to deal with this argument, right? Because the response we get is twofold. First, that this is contradictory to our opening. This is not the case. Our opening is agnostic about it, which means they're neutral about it. They don't provide a stance. We're happy to fill in that hole and provide a stance for the debate, purpose of the debate. Right. So, and also it doesn't weaken or directly contradict any of the arguments they've given you, right? If you think they've done a decent job talking about polarization, for instance, right? This doesn't counter that. But second thing that was just very glibly explained is that things like climate change is really bad. Police brutality is really bad. 
+ Right. And we need these kind of policy to solve them. Again, there are many different ways to tackle climate change, right? We can do it with a moderate carbon tax where we can do so with a green new deal. What Greg explained to you is by the progressive iterations of the solutions to these problems are extremely, extremely bad. And there's no contention with that. What does Greg tell you? The first thing Greg tells you is that these icons have an independent base of support. That is because they have direct channels with a lectures with the people. Right. And I think all teams agree that they're fairly very popular to have a direct channel, communicating with people. They are one financially largely independent from the party establishment. That is, they get independent donations from people and they don't really need to depend on the party. Second is they have an independent source of legitimacy, right. That is, if you have a twitter page that's followed by millions of people the what you say actually counts, people tend to have this legitimacy about you, right. That if I'm just a random other representative, I don't get. This is really, really important because it means that if I'm , this is what greg told you to no response,, that if I'm a progressive icon because of my icon status, right. There's no need for me to appease the party whatsoever and I can go for the kinds of aspirational policies that are hugely costly and are largely inefficient, right? Because that's what carries the greatest amount of favor with my millions of followers, right? This means that one, these policies tend to be fairly bad, right? That is they create their inefficient, they're very costly, likely damages the economy structurally. And two, they're infeasible. Like the Green New Deal is 30 pages for something that's supposed to revolutionize the economy, the way that like the economy works, right? This is not something that is actually possible. It is, it's not something that's actually well thought through. So I think this is already a way for us to win the debate.
+ Now let's talk about the top half. First, I think that OG has this issue where a lot of their arguments are about the existence of progressive policy. Insofar as progressive policy exists, then they can get demonized. But there are two things they tell you that isn't contingent on this. The first thing they tell you is that people become less informed on issues because instead of debating the Green New Deal, we debate about AOC's background. And the second thing they tell you that is unique is the fact of gridlock. The AOC will never back down and AOC will never cooperate with the democrats when they're in power, right. This is really important, we're going to give you better versions of both of these arguements, right. The first thing is on informing of issues, og's argument goes to the extent that they're uninformed on specific progressive issues, right. Like, I only because I'm debating about AOC's background. I'm not cognizant of AOC's policies but greg's extentions on campaigning is a reason why voters in general are uninformed about every single issue in the campaigns because there is now an incentive for every politician both on the democratic side and the republician side to be obstructionist and to be obscure about the policies that they support. Right. So this means one, the magnitude is much larger. And two, if you want to take the value neutral stance of top half, then obviously the most important impact, the big picture that people can exercise a democratic will, right, which can rely on the fact that they're actually informed and policies are campaigning based on issues. So how do we get less issue campaigning? What Greg told you is that because these icons have one independent basis of support, where they're independent of their party, two, they're hugely popular. So their endorsements and their primary challenges really matter. And three, this is conceited by closing opposition when they say that these icons create tight control over the progressive caucus, right. Which means if AOC chooses right, so thank you for supplying this mechanism to us. If AOC chooses to not endorse, we're challenging someone the primaries and all the other 1o or 11 progressive politicians who are also really popular with some young people right. They also follow hard lead. This means that if I'm biden if I'm any candidate right. If I'm democratic, I'm being asked in a debate where  if I'm trying to publicize my issues, right. I cannot raise a position, If I am too extreme, then I get skewered by the moderate side of my base. But if I voice anything that is not what these icons want, then I get skewered by that. So I just don't talk about any issues. And instead, it talked about things like general popularity, or like a general popularity, right? Politics. This is really important because it means that the Democrats can't call out the Republicans when they do the same thing. Neither party is talking about issues. This is really important because of what I've just told you about having like informed elections. So we do a better version of OG's argument. For the second, the other thing I want to talk about with OG.
+<poi>
+Unless you are able to prove that the people who would not vote for Biden, who are inspired by AOC, would otherwise settle for Biden, your case has no marginal change. Somewhere between moderate Republicanism and this communist dystopia you are painting, there is a meaningful policy change that we have proven. Please engage. 
+</poi>
+Yeah. So I don't think it's the case that all of AOC supporters are previously non-Democrats, right? That is true to an extent. You've energized some people, right? But a lot of the times you've also attracted a lot of prevvious people who were on like far left the democratic party who would have voted around anyway right . It's just patently false that AOC's entire supporter base are just people who've never voted before or people who are third party right. That's just false. The second things that they want to compare with regards to og is og talked about gridlock, right. Which is that AOC herself will not vote, we're not compromised, right, but they don't tell you why this means there's actual gridlock after all like votes are not tied by a margin of one, right, but what we've told you instead is because aoc is an independent base of support and have independent source legitimacy. It makes having her support, other progressive members of prince's caucus means they too can block those votes, that they too feel confident enough to disobey the democratic party establishment, and when you have 10, 12 representatives, right. Obstructing a democratic vote that's when you actually get the meaningful impact of obstructionism, right. A policy is not being passed. This also beats co because co's basically talking about how you get more progressive policy but progressive policy requires democrats to be one, power and two, even when they're in power be able to legislate, right. which they cannot do. If AOC and the Progressive Caucus because of ICON stat is able to block the kind of legacies of the policymaking machinery. That's really important because if you have like if Democrats are in power but they can't legislate or they can't rule, then not only do you have like lack of policy but you also don't get any of the good progressive policies the CO thinks is really good for these reasons proposed. 
+</gw>
+<ow>
+I don't want to be that sort of person but what is progressive? In America progressive is a to wear a fucking mask. In America, it is progressive to have anything past any market mechanism to resolve climate change. In America, it is progressive for people to have healthcare recognized by the United Nations as a human right. So this Tucker Carlson-esque speech that I just saw in government with painting a communist socialist dystopia is untrue insofar as progressive politics occupies a crucial space and some would say the only rational space within American politics that's why it's important, But they miss the second nuance between progressive politics and centrist politics, which is that when Bernie Sanders says something very left wing, Biden is able to get away with saying something pretty left wing, but short of Bernie Sanders and normalize it as a centrist policy. This is literally how you get progressive agendas passed. For instance, Biden has the most progressive climate change platform in political history. And yet he's still saying a centrist uncle Joe, because there are a bunch of people who are further to his left. This is the political nuance that they missed within our case, in terms of who you interact with centrist politics. Second point of framing, what is the counter factual because if I'm deeply honest I am still unclear on what happens to bernie sanders and aoc types. Do they just vanish into the ether? What would you have rather they done otherwise? what does progressive fractions look like within congress? The only thing we got here was we don't want famous individuals. Let's take that as some sort of substitute for a counterfactuals. Three reasons why individuals are crucial. A, they humanize progressive policy because progressive policy is caught up in elite discourses. Not everyone understands how capitalistic structures influence climate change. Bernie Sanders can put his cold face on and do it for them. Secondly, and directly engaging with opening governments, only valuable responses, What if these people are fallible? What if they lose the election? What if God forbid there's a scandal which comes out? What if they die? These people become martyrs for the movement. The point of which these are people that you look up to and want to be inspired to become the next generation version of. Number three, individuals are important because you allow them to go a less and often disparate faction of progressive individuals, allowing for on opening governments concern, less polarization with the Republican Party on closing government's concern, less fracturing of the Democratic Party because they control the caucus and they control the wing. They attempted to very glibly flip this point by saying on the same note, AOC can also ask people to obstruct. I just want to point out, panel, that I know that debating is the science of logic and not the science of facts for unfortunate reasons. When has this happened? When is Bernie Sanders and AOC, he said, we are going to lose entire elections, but not support like you know, the normal person? This happened in 2016, this happened in 2020. Like every single time that you can think of, the progressives have compromised. So it's unclear to me where this dystopian version of the obstructionist progressive is coming from. But the final thing that I point out, which I think is really important, is what happens to these voters. As opening opposition says, the point at which you don't have individual leaders, do they just vanish into the ether? Opening opposition rapidly points out these people might have potential political apathy. I'm going to be a bit bolder. 
+ I'm going to say that the point at which these people aren't tethered to individual ideologies, they move towards the right. Think about it. There were strangely two people in 2016 who talked about neoliberalism being a horrible thing. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. It's an unfortunate political coincidence within our politics that the far right and far left share an eerily similar economic platform rallied against neoliberalism. So I see that it's not just apathy, but it is zero. There's an active negative here the point of which is a drift towards the right for these disenchanted voters who see anyone who is in any way allied with this establishment as utterly evil. That's why we went on the individual clash. The third thing I want to do in this speech then is talk about why progressive politics are extremely good for Democrats and also generally. Two points here. The first point, which is really important and went completely underbudded by government web is the house point about international politics. A, Bernie Sanders isn't just inspired people in Birmingham, Alabama. He inspires people in Karachi, Pakistan, and New Delhi, India to pursue a progressive politics that is systematically censored by the states that they live in. Secondly, they platform these concerns, the point at which they talk about them in Congress, talk about them in Senate vis-a-vis the Kashmir issue and increasingly the Palestine issue. But thirdly, they contribute towards legislative accountability, re the Congress's or at least the House's passed with Senate's rejected declaration against Israel in terms of building its settlements in Palestine. These are three crucial ways in which they further an international progressive politics that is crucial for people in developing world that it meditate no response from government. Let's talk about the second strand of this, why progressive politics is good. The first thing I just want to point out here is that these people get funding from extremely small organizations. This is a good thing for us because this means according to their own agnostic, democratic norms, people have a much more pluralistic impact on their politics instead of ExxonMobil and Shell crowding out the interests of the poor and the marginalized. Before I deal with the final three reasons between progressive politics domestically. 
+<poi>
+The problem isn't that individuals are fallible. The problem is that supporters of Bernie Sanders literally won't support Elizabeth Warren because of their personal disagreements in places like the presidential primaries. 
+</poi>
+Okay, but that's literally not what happened yesterday. Like, fucking open the newspaper and they're like, I'm sorry, right? Like literally they had a fight because people argue. And then when people argue, they come to a consent. They keep literally saying they argued with each other. Yes, they did. I completely agree with you. And then they did coalesce on a common platform. That's literally what happened. This is the average reasonable voter test. I'm sure I'll be fine. Um, but then the other three reasons that I want to talk about the first reason that I think that's really important is in terms of radical politics, as I said at the top of my speech, progressive politics is extremely crucial to creating a democratic left which is different from the so-called radical left of closing government and opening government. This takes it over opening opposition because we show you a lighted runway apathway towards getting policies from the democrats past by making joe look the sensible guy. While crazy bernie goes off. Secondly, weshowed you that there's a compounding of the impacts in so insofar as the impacts aren't restricted to the contiguous borders of the united states but flow outward towards international politics, and thirdly we showed you that the only way get policies passed in an extremely polarized country is to create humanistic portrayals vis-a-vis individuals and also to allow a coalescing of the left, which prevents polarization and prevents factoring. For those reasons, I'm extremely proud to oppose.
+</ow>

art/debatebench/cleaned_speeches/Cleaned Speeches/lse_open_2023_round_5.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
+<pm>
+I think the burden is kind of clear. I mean, assuming feasibility, presumably we just press a button and then animals have cognitive levels of capacity that have developed their own language or whatever. I think we should debate about the principles here rather than we're practically integrating. Of how this happens there are only two points from opening government; firstly that this is just a good in and of itself to give animals capacity and then they are far better alive themselves but also humans will treat them far better and that has numerous positive impacts. So why are these things good in and of themselves? Here I want to characterize what it is to be cognitive. What is kind of speech and so on; we say that you now have rational thought, you have the capacity as an animal as a bear or something to think about the long term; to go against your basic urges that push you towards the instant needs of things like food, that push you towards sex or whatever and sniff those lags. Instead you can plan things as long term. You can develop higher order goods. You can engage in animal academia if that's what you want. All these sorts of benefits of cognition are the best thing in the long term or to therefore will mean that you're able to plan your own lives far better as an animal because your capacity for utility goes up. It's on that side of the house we're just trapped in things like you know food consumption or whatever, on the constant stresses of that; whereas on our side when you're able to plan things as long term, to access higher order of ability. You're able to genuinely pursue meaningful projects that you have in your lives and so on rather than just being battered around by forces that you don't really control secondly we say the relationships that you have with other animals improve to a massive extent when you have a cognitive internal capacity the capacity in which you reflect on why a relationship that you have with your essentially animal spouse is genuinely meaningful for you. That is something that we think is far better and will give you a lot of value in and of itself rather than just seeing them as an object of sex or whatever which is probably like an evolution thing but the third thing that we'd say in a second is that adding them to probably create better social structures as well; on that side of the house these things have been developed purely by evolutionary means they're probably quite unjust you know like you have an alpha gorilla or whatever and that hurts the other gorillas and that's probably quite a bad thing and now you have gorilla social movements they're able to challenge the alpha gorilla in essence and therefore lead to far better outcomes for them as well so we think this is just good in and of itself. I don't really care about why this is principally extremely important. Essentially their side of the house is denying animals the cognitive capacity, the capacity to be treated as akin to humans. We say this is equivalent to something like denying a child schooling, because essentially the reason why schooling is so important is because it helps develop a child’s cognitive capacity to become an adult, to become a rational creature like us; that is what they are doing, on their side of the house they are denying animals the capacity of itself and just even if it's not a utilitarian thing, we still say that that would be wrong because we think these capacities, they're extremely important as well but we also say you probably have a reciprocal obligation to animals as well given that humans have treated them in such terrible ways over time that means that you probably should like give them this right, to give them a bit to fight back too. 
+<POI>
+Matt, do you think it's morally legitimate to bring a child into the world in the middle of a war zone? 
+</POI>
+ Well, potentially i mean the thing is that essentially we say that like as well like animal conditions are going to improve massively as a result like that's the second argument right okay. So we think that humans are going to treat animals far better on our side of the house than on theirs, because animal rights groups have a pretty deep problem. On their side of the house you need to convince people of a trade off you need to say that they should sacrifice their own welfare for the sake of animals because, you know meat is quite delicious but what happens is, the way you split this is when you push someone who eats meat, the way they defend themselves is by saying of we're separate from animals; we have a cognitive capacity; we think and so on. We're able to engage in language and communication. These are how people separate themselves from animals and therefore justify that they're allowed to eat animals and consume them to the same extent but that defense goes away, because animals have this just by definition of motion. We're pressing the button that gives them that and so the main defense that people have against eating meat massively goes away as a result and that is something that we say is good in and of itself. But maybe opposition will be like aha well on both sides of the house you know that you can press the button and so therefore that will lead to better animal rights in and of itself. I don't think this is true either because we think that the power of giving animals the capacity of speech in and of itself means that their ability to advocate in and of itself increases far more; the reason is very simple; when an animal themselves is able to communicate these things, that means that they're able to like genuinely talk about their life experiences; they're able to do it in an extremely emotive way because you know they realize what works for other people and so on and so they're able to advocate for themselves in a really effective way, in a uniquely effective way with empathy and that can only happen when the animals themselves are doing it as opposed to humans and note, given my first point they probably also collectivise around these goals so you get all chickens who can now talk collectivising and being like fuck you, you’re treating us really badly and then they end up doing far better. But the third thing I would note is that it's probably just pretty haunting in terms of humans to clock what they're actually doing to animals when they're able to describe the terrible-ness of their conditions, while it is objectively quite bad and we probably presume that people have some degree of empathy to get rid of this and the impact are obviously that things like veganism as a trend going up; that you probably paid for animals far more you know in farm conditions and so on you might really send into the wild and so on and so forth. Now government might be able to say well veganism is going up as a trend on both sides of the house, so this is not that big of an impact but we say that it's held back on their side by two things; first it's unnatural whereby people just are settled into eating animals over and over again so they don't care until they keep eating them there are also things like cultural norms that exist that prevent people having meat but now the cultural norms are things like wow i'm basically being accountable according to my cultural norms. It's far easier to combat against it and far more visceral on our set house when animals are able to defend themselves; even if it's true that there's an improvement trend on their side it's far faster on our side of the house so we're literally able to save like two or three generations of animals, that is millions and millions of lives like that is a huge impact in this debate. The last thing I want to just briefly preempt is like if they say something like animals will like engage in war against humans you know the rick and morty case about snowy the dog; we think that this is unlikely because obviously war is Incredibly irrational,it hurts the animals themselves because they will take massive losses as a result; I think it's far easier for them to go towards peaceful means first and we have explained why they are far more likely to work on our side of the house. Now at the end of the day then, I think it's extremely clear we give animals on our side, the capacity to get far more utility and they're probably able to get this both in their own lives and also by appealing to humans. On their side of the house, they deny a lot of this. We say it's akin to denying animals a deep and fundamental right and so we are very proud to propose. 
+</pm>
+<lo>
+I just want to quickly note that most of the funny kid’s principal analysis is very much contingent on him being able to show that granting this right to animals is going to make the quality of life actually better. Right? That’s why this repetitive alteration exists; we want to make our lives better because we’ve done that harm in order to deal with harmony to do them good. I don’t think he shows that you end up good; therefore, the principal analysis fails. That’s also my point; it’s bad. Cool, very simple case. Firstly, that despite this policy, I don’t think humans are ever going to substantially care enough about animals to substantially improve their well-being. So, all that giving this right does is increase their pain and suffering in a way that we find morally and practically unacceptable. Why is this? One, I think there are just structural factors that mean that we really cannot significantly improve animal well-being anymore. Right? This is due to the fact that we’ve already massively destroyed habitats; we’ve already caused some changes to significant and, in some degrees, unreversible extents. 
+What that means is, that you really cannot help animals, even if you somehow develop the political capital to do so. Note that I don’t think they get instantaneous political capital as well, right. At the very least, you presumably need 10 to 15 years at the point at which, like, I don’t even know if climate change is going to be sufficiently reversible. At that point, you’re just causing massive suffering, not necessarily. They’ll talk about more later, but secondly, I want to note that the massive amounts of suffering that tend to exist within animal life forms tend to be broadly invisible. That’s to say that I don’t think it occurs right in front of our eyes, but rather occurs in things like factory farms. It occurs in places like the developing world, which most consumers just cannot invisibly see. 
+No, thank you. What that means is that even if they are right that you do develop this sort of, I don’t know, empathy, it’s going to be triggered when you cannot see the suffering and the suffering does not directly trigger your emotional heartstrings. Right? Think of this as like, uh, probably a believer in the developing world. Right? I think we all are aware of the problem, and yet we see that Western consumers have done practically nothing to deal with the issues of supply chains. Right? We know there are slavery abuses within our supply chains; we still consume products anyways. I failed to see whether it’s going to be any different. Thirdly, though, I want to note that there are massive political interests. That is to say, fine, maybe you believe all of their like, consumers are good, good, I love animals. The issue is that I don’t know why consumers are that powerful of a force in a world where political interest exists. That’s to say, when a trade-off exists between your welfare as a company and the welfare of like, random chickens in Papua New Guinea, I don’t necessarily know why you as a company are going to prioritize the welfare of animals. Rather, you’re probably going to prioritize your own welfare. 
+
+
+Right? What does that look like? The major industries that are dependent on the existence of like the destruction of habitats, right? This is like deforestation and all that sort of stuff. These industries are the ones that are going to be lobbying the government, and they have the most political capital. That means that even if you do care about animals on their side, I don’t know if you care about them to a significant extent to actually change anything in a meaningful way. 
+
+
+I want to win this right because they might come up here and say, “Ah, but at least we change the individual's actions. If you don’t buy some formats, here’s the thing, I don’t know why individual action matters that much.” Right. This is about what companies do, this is about what governments do. They are the biggest actors, the ones with the most power to do things. Right? Like Serena can say no, but I also say no. Right? Like, these are individuals. I don’t know how much day-to-day contact I have with animals, in their best case, maybe I eat less meat; I still don’t know if that’s going to deal with the massive issues like deforestation, like climate change that I just talked about. 
+I think we’re talking about political actors, systemic actors, because they don’t see all this. So, on impacts, right? Because all I’ve done basically is dismitigate our taste. Now I want to increase the impacts here, because what I prove to you is that there’s going to be suffering on both sides, but I’m not going to prove to you that by giving animals some level of cognition, they massively increase their levels of suffering. Why is this? One, because I think there is a psychological level of pain. Right? That’s to say when I see, I as a cow, I am seeing like my mama cow or papa cow going to the slaughterhouse and dying, I think that’s a horrible feeling. Right? This isn’t just trivial. Right. Think of a kid who literally has to see their mom or their dad taken away and murdered, often in front of their own eyes. Imagine how massively painful that trauma is in a way that you could never understand on the side of the government. Secondly, on empathy, right? Because you start to build connections between these animals. But I don’t think those connections can last because, yeah, they are going to go to the slaughterhouse. 
+
+
+Also, I want to note, just trivially, that animals tend to eat each other. And I think that’s a really horrifying experience. Right? I think If I went over and ate Aniket; that’d probably be really traumatic for both of us. Thirdly, though, right? I want to note that humans, I think, are also going to feel sad because there’s going to be, like, we’re going to continue the suffering for the structural reasons I just explained. But at the point that you know that animals are experiencing this hyper-level of suffering, I think humans also feel bad. 
+I don’t think we’re a trivial operating speed, I think we provide there as well. Cool. Note that I, like, there are also social dynamics between animals. Right? That is to say that I do think that certain animals, when we think they are better than each other, and like if you have high levels of cognition, that view is probably going to be advanced. But it’s the same way that like, racism and all that sort of stuff, like tribalism exists in our world. What I think that means is often you’re going to actually get a conflict between these animal groups that are really pernicious way, Right. I think if you just look at human history and the groups that have had this cognition, they tend to go to war with each other, they tend to kill each other, they tend to come into conflict. I think that’s massively harmful because even if they can prove that human agents have more empathy, I don’t know why animal agents are going to use this level of empathy to help each other rather than how this occurs historically and apparently, the harm image and then for moving on, closing.
+<poi>
+In the status quo, animals experience suffering, but it is invisible. The experience of empathy for themselves, why is this in any way asymmetrical? 
+</poi>
+Presumably, you have to believe it is asymmetrical, by anything the opening government says, right. If you can already experience empathy and all these sort of things, then I don't know why any of their Guild mechanisms and stuff are going to work through any asymmetric extent. Right? You can have an opening, you can’t have it both ways. Cool. Second argument on why this creates active friction. Right. This is going to create active goodwill from humans towards animals. I want you to note how massively foreign this phenomenon is going to be. Right? Because this isn’t this house would, none of this house prefers. Which means that we are implementing a new policy. People who are living right now would wake up tomorrow in a world where animals are standing up and talking to you, and you’re going to shit in your pants. Right? It’s terrible. Okay, two issues here. One, I think there’s either going to be actual attacks on humans, or there’s going to be perceived threats of mass human attacks. No, we don’t have to prove that they’re going to get attacked; rather, we just need to prove that people are going to fear that there are going to be attacks. I think that’s just natural. Look at how many humans treat minority racial groups; I think that’s only going to be magnified in a world where there is this terror. Right? 
+I think one, in terms of why this fact is actually likely, animals are going to be resentful to a very understandable extent. We have treated them massively incorrectly. And secondly, like just think some humans, right? I think attacks naturally for, the issue is that as soon as one attack occurs, that’s going to be like disproportionate media coverage, dispersion of fear. What are humans going to do? There’s going to be genuine, meaningful backlash. That means they don’t allow animals to live together. That means you’re probably going to use a lot more brutal techniques of suppressing them, a lot more trying to cause regards, a lot more killing of animals to an unnecessary extent because you fear what’s going to happen. 
+
+
+Secondly, I want to note that like, in terms of Aniket that’s going to be war against humans, I don’t know if that actually is, but I think there’s going to be a fear of revolution to the very least extent. Right? But note that this revolution is always going to be unsuccessful. These humans have technology, the animals don’t. Humans have resources, animals don’t. Which means that they’re just going to be engaged in a failed revolution. There’s only going to increase fear among human populations, it’s only going to get themselves killed. It’s going to function much in the same way like we are scared of AI and all that sort of stuff; we’re going to be scared of animals. 
+To treat them is correlated. for all those reasons, opposed.
+</lo>
+<dpm> 
+Firstly, responses to OO, then the actual non-store online version of our case and why it’s going to win the debate and then the metrics by which you should judge a little bit of soft principle because I know my principles. Firstly, in responses to OO, the first thing to say is that they just assert that things like the environmental damage that we’ve caused, global warming, and all of these various candidable benefits that we could get are, one, at a tipping point, which means that no action could be beneficial. But two, and I think this is really important, they assert that the capacity, if we’re able to prove it for us to move to a greater extent and to a quicker extent towards veganism, also as vegetarianism, could not be a typical point in meaningfully changing this. 
+
+
+The reason they do this is because if we prove this, everyone wins. Humans benefit because we’re not, for example, fucking up the planet with methane and industrial farming. Animals benefit because they’re not in pain, which, by the way, exists on both sides because this debate is about their ability to articulate and have conclusions about that. And this is really important because I think there are several reasons why this is likely to be a tipping point. The first, is think about how much of gas production in the world comes from this level of industrial farming, coming from the fact that the justifications that animals have a lower level of cognition or the lack of haunting in your own mind when an animal is able to articulate that meat grinder and not an animal rights hippie-dippy kind of, liberal animal rights activists are saying it. 
+
+
+And the tipping point that would have for how many people would consume these meats, the fact that they would compare it to cannibalism and the fact that you’ve seen the production of billions of cubic meters of this gas, the impact that, that would then have on our journey to trying to lower even marginally the average temperature in the world and the impact that that would have for humans in terms of marginally less sea levels, some countries that previously wouldn’t exist on the side, existing on our side. I think that that is a clear tipping point because the way the environment works is, yes, things are marginal, but it’s fucking massive, and every marginal change has a huge effect. 
+
+
+Secondly, they say in the status quo the average consumer can see the suffering but they don’t care because, like, you know, try them out for a couple of things. Firstly, this is clearly different to child labor. This is things like cannibalism, which in the vast majority of contexts in almost every context in the world is considered to be abhorrent. And the reason that humans now equate it to this is because they can hear the haunting screams, but they can understand what they mean. They are seeing those visible stories, no thank you, of the actual unimaginable suffering. And here’s why this matters because humans have been able to construct the narrative in their head that by being higher beings, they’re able to not just make rational but also able to make empathetic choices. 
+So the way humans distinguish themselves they're not brutish like animals, they don't just rip heads of things. We have a higher level of ability to have compassion empathy and understanding, so being directly confronted with that and directly confronted with the idea that the very thing that makes you human is wrong because, actually, you are a disgusting animal is something that humans would want to very quickly disassociate from and work very hard to ensure that they are avoiding. Secondly, it is not true that nobody knows about animal suffering. The tipping quick, however, when they talk about capitalist interests and the fact that nobody cares enough about animal suffering or not enough people care enough, I think you have credible reasons why we have a tipping point there. 
+
+
+But finally, I think individual action, even if we prove that, which I don’t think we do, mattered, millions of people have pets,  zoos exist, and the way that humans construct their own personal choices is what feeds into capitalism. We get pushed products, yes, but nobody wants a product if it’s made of cannibalism. Ideally, the tipping point, they're of mass consumption choices is actually going to affect those corporate interests because it affects what they can feasibly sell. Finally, they talk about human backlash. The problem with this is that animals often get killed and euthanized at the point that they harm animals, humans because they are considered to be these wild irrational beings. But on our side, when they’re able to articulate why they did those things, when they’re able to shine a mirror on humans and show that they are just as bad in creating the conditions which led to that, there is far more likely to be empathy. And like, it’s not going to be like if people still are self-interested, people still care about themselves. But the relevant analogy is once, for example, somebody has been disadvantaged, can mix and fine, you’re far likely to see a level of empathy for them in society because we are able to have narratives which understand why those individuals can do those things in the first thing. We don’t just euthanize those individuals, and I think that is the level and scale of impact that we are able to get. 
+Okay, what was our case? Firstly, we get benefits within animal structures in terms of their behaviors and their interactions. The status quo problem is that evolutionary randomness decides the optimal behaviors which are filtered by natural selection with animals, but there are two problems with this. One, humans, and this is like a reciprocal duty, humans have fucked animal evolution, especially in the past 300 years with things like industrialization and urbanization. They’ve endangered animals; they’ve increased global warming, which means that these animals haven’t been able to evolve as they should have instead. 
+
+
+But secondly, this requires a mass death of animals for natural selection to occur because it’s just the ones who happen to randomly have the right attributes to survive, human action, who are able to survive. We avoid that death when animals are aware of what is going on in the world around them. And it’s not just at the point where they’re confronted with death or pain or being driven out of their habitat that they are able to understand things, which means that we get more cumulative knowledge of human activity among animal communities. This is independent of whether we change the behaviors of humans, wins this debate because it gives them the ability of self-defense to be able to, for example, understand the wider world around them, move to certain places where there is a lack of human activity. 
+
+
+It gives them the capacity to be able to organize in a way that is better able to defend themselves, and self-defense is crucial, because on both sides, animals feel pain, but the difference in this debate is the capacity for them to articulate and to do something about it. We think that is imperative. Sure.
+<poi>
+Every single person in this room walked by rows of homeless people freezing on the street to get drinks. I think the light in humanity is quite true.
+</poi>
+It’s imperative to debate. Obviously, comparatively, there are homeless people on either side. I didn’t say that everyone is, every animal is going to be considered equal. We still have certain preferences for animals in the same way that we have preferences for human beings, but that doesn’t mean that human beings get treated to a level that animals do under the status quo.
+Live in the comparative. Secondly, I think the interactions between humans get better ,between animals. It gets better because right now, it’s brutish and short. They have no conception of each other’s feelings, no conception of the deep societal and intimate relationships that they have with each other. I think that they are able to organize in structures which may be like allocate neat quotes or something, something that allows them to have less brutish lives, something that means that you don’t get a random animal getting snapped from a mother or something, which yes, they feel marginally less on their side of the house. 
+But actually, many animals still have the capacity to feel that thing on either side of the house. Finally, just as a point of way, animals feel pain on both sides of the house. The delta is their ability to articulate that, to be able to fight back, even if they aren’t successful in doing that. We think that is a right that they deserve because pain should be alleviated. What it means to be able to be heard.
+</dpm>
+<dlo>
+The destruction of the environment and slaughter of millions of animals does not come from evil or indifference. Rather, it comes from privileging the interests of your own community, much like indigenous people in Canada. The harms that afflict them are distant and far away and far-off reserves, much like they’ll be in factory farms and forests. 
+Thus, it is incredibly easy to turn a blind eye when it comes to our day-to-day necessities and making our own lives better. Consider here, that the extent of us being truly empathetic for animals was significant, it wouldn’t just be about eating meat. It’d be no longer being able to access medicine that comes from animal parts, no longer being able to wear much of the clothing that you are wearing right now, things that by and large we do not believe are optional. And given the fact that the equivalent general community and the arc of human history, I think that the likely outcome of this is just destruction and death. 
+Two things I want to talk about here. First, I want to discuss human empathy, and I want to talk about whether or not the lifestyles of animals are actually going to improve. Second of all, I’m going to talk a little bit about animal society. So first, on human empathy, at the top, I just want to frame this issue of cognition and empathy because they claim that you can have empathy on either side of the house. First of all, in the status quo, a very small number of animals do generally have empathy. Those are higher-developed animals like dolphins or elephants, but the vast majority do not. So, this is just a factually untrue claim, and I think everyone has an average intelligent voter can assess and adjudicate that fact. 
+
+
+But the second thing that we ended up noting, is that being able to rationalize or conceptualize your pain is entirely different. Even if it’s the case that I can feel an instinctive sadness when someone I love or care about disappears, when I can intellectually comprehend how much they mean to me, how much I care about them, the plans that have been created on an intellectual level amplify the degree to which I’m empathetic because I can understand the significance of that relationship. No, thank you. In a far deeper way, moreover, I can understand my own suffering in a far deeper way. But I can instantly, intellectually conceptualize that I’m being oppressed, that I’m disadvantaged, that there’s no hope of getting better and that my life is constantly going to be a pit of despair. They cannot just make some big debate land or analysis to explain why this is symmetric. This is a huge difference in terms of how animals experience the world. So what do we hear from the opening government? They tell you that we’re now going to engage in more veganism. 
+
+
+I have four different responses here. The first thing that I want to point out is that this won’t be seen as cannibalism, as they have noted, because this is a cultural norm that we’ve already inculcated. It is normal for us to eat animals already, and that it’s going to be incredibly easy for us to view this as a normal activity that isn’t cannibalism because they are the other. And the same way that some people can enslave others of different breeds or different backgrounds under the justification that they are lesser or not like us. 
+The second thing that I want to point out is that there is every incentive to cover this up, for large corporations, to ban advertising campaigns that display the suffering of animals. And you will never be able to see an actual animal face to face that has suffered and has experienced these things. Third of all, oftentimes this is going to be based on your own lived experiences. If you do not have similar lived experiences to these animals, you do not conceptually understand the full extent of pain. 
+That is why we are more empathetic to those who are similar to us or approximate to us; they have similar experiences that we can then relate to. But animals will have a completely different set of lived experiences, not just in terms of their oppression but in terms of the day-to-day function that they have in their day-to-day lives, which means it’ll be very difficult for us to become empathetic to them. The fourth thing that I want to point out is that there is a more persuasive way to persuade people, which is perhaps the narrative of, you know, climate change will kill us all or that there is a significant health benefit to yourself. 
+
+
+And here’s the problem, if we can conceptualize that this significantly contributes to our own destruction as humanity through climate change, it is unclear why this distant message that opening government talks about will actually influence anyone’s rationality. But aside from this argument, I also want to point out that there are some inherent reasons why animals are going to suffer, that we’ve already deforested regions, destroying entire habitats. The animals can have to eat each other, which by default means that they have to go through the trauma of eating another sentient being and, of course, being eaten by another sentient being. 
+
+
+The fact that we already have large industries built on this, they had no response to what Drew told you, and this is critical because while some individual consumers may change their behavior, that does not mean that you’re going to get a wide-scale change. Factory farms still exist; suffering still exists, and we have just introduced animals to an immense amount of suffering that is incredibly important. Are we saying that no one will turn to veganism? Absolutely not, maybe it’s a real one, but the problem is the mass, literally hundreds of billions of life forms for the marginal benefit that they will get is just simply not worth it. 
+
+
+I think here then it is very clear that we have introduced a unique and terrible form of suffering to animals, and this outweighs anything because this literally means that we have hundreds of billions of additional beings in the world that are suffering to a huge extent. I think that this by itself is random. Second, on, will animal society be good? I want to engage with each of the individual mechanisms we get from Serena and Adam. Sure.
+<poi>
+Given feasibility, it is symmetric on your side of justification for the box, it shouldn’t be for us.  Must assert human selfishness, which reverses positive trends in veganism and animal welfare.
+</poi>
+Or it could be because you think that animals will have a terrible life, that habitats have already been destroyed. Perhaps our whole case. Okay, second thing, first of all, they claim that animals can access higher-level goods. Two things here, first, it’s not clear that higher-level goods actually matter that much. People can derive pleasure from sensory pleasures, and there’s no reason why that is a worse or better life. They’ve asserted some philosophy from John Stuart Mill; they have not proven it. 
+
+
+But the second thing to point out is that if this is true, you can have higher-level harms, grief  from someone leaving the sadness that you feel from a loved one dying. Those are things that are massively impactful. They need to show that the higher-level benefits they get are outweighed when we show that the world is increasingly going to be terrible to animals. I think on average, you’re going to have more higher-order harms than higher-level pleasures. 
+
+
+Then they say relationships can get better. I just genuinely don’t know why this matters. I don’t know why relationships actually inherently matter, if you do not want to pursue this relationship, and by and large, many of these animals will already form communo bonds; they already have their customs. I want to point out that the more sentient and cognition you have, the more problems you’re going to have too because you’re going to be much more upset about random things. 
+
+
+Like obviously, animals are a lot more chill than humans because they can’t think about like, you know, other people’s behavior, whether or not selfish interpreted in specific ways. So obviously, then the harms got bigger on their side as well. Then they say guerrilla social movements, Zootopia is my response. There will be scarce resources, different animals with different biological capabilities, some of them being stronger than others. 
+
+
+Obviously, we might have an alpha in our side of the house, but you’d have 40 questions, and it’s fine to acquire the scarce resources that exist precisely because of human intervention. Finally, on self-defense, yes, you can move to a forest, but it’s very difficult when you don’t have trains or planes and when people industrialize that forest. Regardless, you are still in a terrible position. 
+
+
+What’s a group? And I tell you we told you about futile resistance; we told you about basically "War of the Planet of the Apes." Because you anticipate the fact that they might be upset, and very realistically, they may indeed be upset and attack you. They’ll obviously be incidents of animal attacks against humans, and the way that we will demonize them is to say that we need to step down on them, tranquilize them. No response from opening government, this is critical because this means that animals are going to be put in a worse-off position. They won’t be even given tools to innovate because we’re afraid of them potentially uprising, and humans are also going to suffer in this intro. 
+
+
+This motion is going to introduce so much suffering for so many people. I’m proud to everything.
+</dlo>
+<mg>
+I want to make pretty brief clarifications, before going to the details. The first which animals vertically experience pain and here's an actual reason it's an evolutionary adaptive mechanism that is to say as Jason himself concedes animals is experience empathy because they are communal creatures and there is a like, a collective incentive for them to adopt in that particular way. Also similarly, they experience intense amounts of pain because it's an Adaptive response, you experience pain if you have to change the source, could it be able to live all together. Secondly, animals are going to be less capable of experiencing pain action on outside because it's much more terrifying for you to experience pain in order to understand where it is coming from and why this is happening. This is why us are so like, us humans are so capable of being able to conceptualize pain and to find coping mechanisms, this is how I cope with being in England, eventually, it is going to end there is a reason for this or I get vocally like I get vocally support from other sorry populations, your great motions, not a great problem. On extensions, I'm going to talk exclusively about dogs, cats and bunnies it's AKA domestic animals. Why is the most important thing within the debate? Firstly, those stakeholders that own Aggregates are largest in quantity or live the longest lives or over the long term are going to be living that's a knowledge. This is so because humans are stadiums considered people sell which incentive only for themselves meaning, no thank you, there exists massive Industries honestly for creating specific species and maintaining them and advertising them to people but secondly, show because they specifically take care of those species, meaning the aggregate amount of those creatures is very large and they live in longer lives because humans take care of them one way or another. Secondly, compared to other animal stakeholders for example, oh this is Industries animals orbiting opposition like charitable uh, argues that those are going to symmetrically exist because of evil selfish human incentives but I would say this is getting phased out gradually for three days. The first which is the general desire to put carbon emissions meaning that you want to reduce the aggregate amount of meat consumption. Secondly, as everyone in this team can see symmetrical reasons foy you to go vegan or go vegetarian, which means you reduce the aggregate quantity that you're consuming or thirdly, the capacity for the industry to become more technologically advanced and efficient. That's to say, we are producing less chickens and pigs because we can pop them with hormones and then extract more meat for the same amount of others. Don't say the certainly compared to animals in the world, I'm going to flip their mechanism for publication. Sure, we don't care about it they're going extinct, almost all like, species are either extinct or on the verge of extinction and secondly, no thank you, cognition is insufficient to rectify the opening oppositions themselves can see,  that selfish humans don't care about them, such as for example, rhinos or whatever. Which means most of the speeches are going to die out, they cannot actively collect device. People opening opposition again concedes an animal like, a competition natural selection is going to continue to exist even if you get like, um, of the competition. Meaning that the most important stakeholders are domestic animals. Now, first of all, why domestic animals who continue like, not prevail, will not create their own kingdoms, why they are likely to continue to stay with humans. Three reasons as to why this is the case. First, of the industry is like, meaning they're likely to indoctrinate them from very small age that they care for the domestic animals for humans. The second reason is that in many cases even if you have cognition, you still want to be a slave to humans because it's just convenient like intuition pump your cats and dogs are not running away or they're running it five percent of the cases, this is so because even though they understand how the world works, they still have more primal desires to find more secure source of food, personal support and to generally speaking to feel comfortable. Thirdly, in many cases the relationships are mostly mutually beneficial, sometimes say you love your dog, it loves you back, so like in many cases it's not likely to run away meaning that there isn't a massive distortion. Now, why is this important, first, on the process of getting an animal, I’m saying that there are some structural problems with getting an animal, not like getting an animal but getting the right animal, because in many cases, firstly, many people don't realize the actual cost commitment that they have to make, this changes because now animals can more actively express their preferences, desires, what they expect out of you, it's a mutual commitment. Which means you can more understand the magnitude of what you're supposed to, for those particular animals it's much more persuasive, coming through them, they're coming from like, other person but I would say that and this is important because if they don't express that, you are likely to abandon them many people massively get cats and dogs and then abandon them after a year or after a few months just massively emotionally scaring for those animals which is a harm on them. but secondly, produces them compatibility partners because they give them like massively emotional discount but secondly, this means that you get a more emotional or intellectually compatible cat or dog, and this is massive because in many cases people just have symbols,”I’m going to retain that cat”,” i’m going to retain that particular dog”.Which means if it's not incompatible, this means you're more likely to not abuse it, but not treat it in the best way possible. Second, This is preferable for you to be able to give up much more meaningful relationship with your animal. The first thing that I would just generally post is, that in many cases the ability to voice out your preferences concerns and everything else, I'll take you in a second, actively means that you are able to save yourself or express or inconveniences and all of money and here I think this point is entirely based in illustrations because there are a lot of examples, in many cases for example, animals cannot actively express if there is something wrong with them, they cannot express their pain, meaning that you fight to pull out that you have a certain condition. Which means they either have shortened lives in disability relationship or you have to pay massive amounts of sums which either is that you're going bankrupt in many cases because you care so much about your pets or secondly, this actively means that you include a massive financial problem or second, you are unable to understand their particular Behavior, which means you're more likely to misfree them or you're more likely to get pissed and get stressed about it. If there are other examples in which your inability to communicate what specifically they want is just guessing on science and you're reading and watching YouTube videos is insufficient for you to be able to understand, if you have a meaningful relation. Considering that first, either able to communicate but also you would like to foster a relationship in which we encourage communication, this is likely to mean that on our side, we have a better relation with those domestic animals.
+<poi>
+Is it humane to own a sentient being and provide them with absolutely no rights other than whatever you want?
+</poi>
+Yes, if it consents it's completely normal in my opinion, like, we have proven it, if they can say it's completely fine and we have given reasons a slightly we can say. If it doesn't consent it can run away, you can just basically say that in the vast majority cases, it's not going to disrupt me in. Second, it depends the emotional connections we have with the animal, people are used to communicating with other people, meaning the primary way to which they get validation express their love is expected to be vocal which means you feel guilt when you're talking to your animal and you feel as though the animal doesn't love you enough or you know that it loves you and afterward appreciates you enough, when you're actually doing this. Meaning, that we are better able to get a deeper communication that is to say they can actually express that they love you, that they appreciate you or at least you're able to talk about specific issues is that actively avoidant. I think it's especially also at the end point of your life because many people of you are a massive emotional drama, if they're unable to say what they want to their animals or are function whether it understood them, in their final passing moment which is very traumatizing for people. Who does it affect? Firstly, a massive amount of people that have animals, that are their only companion because they're also important because the previous relations to problematic people because sometimes in their life they have nobody else because they're socially isolated or because they cannot always rely on friends but they can always rely on animals. Which means that it's a massive Source opportunity for people but those poor animals. On all those grounds, it's the most certain impact the most important thing, all about the member of opposition.
+</mg>
+
+
+<mo>
+Panel, the greatest horror that Franz Kafka ever imagined was waking up one day in a body that was too big for the cage, we think that subjecting every species regardless of their capacity to form an ethic system to rationalize these things on the planet to the same exact word is to inflict on them and pain Beyond cognition. Three points of setup before I deal with the other machines, the first is that opening oppositions reasons for why animals suffer with consciousness are contingent on human beings mistreating or continuing to mistreat animals at the point, which they have human level consciousness to a large extent. Now, opening opposition does a good job of justifying this, but OG can reasonably claim that this does something to close the empty gap at least in some circumstances as Jason concedes among some animals in some communities. Our extension will sidestep this question entirely and explain why even with the best of intentions uh, animals will continue to suffer and this button push wounds with massive amounts of animal. The second piece of framing is that there's somewhat of a tension in the opening opposition case that is unresolved at this point, opening opposition says that animals will feel horrid being another end. This is plausibly true in some instances but possibly animals, particularly animals that have biological necessity to Invasion things like Auto cannibalism or parasitism would likely develop differing moral systems that account for biological necessity, in the same way that for a long time uh, human beings were able to justify you know, things like eating animals for example by The Virtue that they needed meat and they needed nutrients to do so and had no plant substitutes to replace that. It is likely that similar moral systems would develop that means the horror of autocannibalism and things like this probably aren't going to be the largest impact in the debate even when they're true. Finally on CG, I actually couldn't decide if this was a meme but intuitively I think, OG’s entire case in the norms surrounding the mistreatment and animals will probably change massively, so in OG's best case which would radically redefine and probably Outlaw pet ownership. CJ's case cannot work because the system of relationship would be so different but I also think this would likely drive a massive Rift between domestic animals and humans because of an awareness of the Legacy mistreatment.If everything Biser says is true that dogs have been mistreated massively abandoned on the sides of roads, I don't know, grown out in Bulgaria presumably this entire relationship would just not exist or happen and presumably humans would not want to own dogs and rather kill them more because they're afraid of being like their throat clawed out of their sleep, which is entirely viable if you're a good boy of one day, suddenly, I have to push of a button turns into a monster. Why is cognition a curse at a fundamental level and I want to deal with aniket's principle here, because it's continuing on animals being able to access the benefits that human beings are able to derive recognition I.E. collectivization higher order Societal organization Progressive social structure and so on but note that just because you have levels of cognition it doesn't mean the systems of socialization go away because they are biologically dependent, this means that ants to live in Colony structures, where they're entirely subserving to a queen. Thousands of evolves, which means biologically to be intended to be milked on human beings to take care of them and raise them and domesticated animals many types are still read not to live independently. That means that their moral intuitions are not only incredibly unlikely to align with human beings to any extent, meaning they don't get the social movements or change they want to talk about but moreover, they're likely to suffer massively. Why that is not all right? I don't think Memorial life is morally absolute, that is accessing the moral legitimacy of bringing life into the world of balance of the weighing of harms. That is the benefits of cognition versus the hardest experience, in the same way we consider it morally abominable to bring a child into the world like concentration Capital regime domain genocide, where in the world war zone. I think the principal justification brings animals to the world is remarkably poor, so I don't think the principled analysis can stand. So we're gonna assess the sand youth in Asia, it's not it's the difference between choosing to be a child into the world or not if you believe the choice of a woman is morally equivalent to teach that they can win otherwise they cannot. What are the harms then? which is the Practical contingent that we do to animals making aware of Their Own will. The first is that human beings have evolved over many, many generations to deal with existential angst, we have had thousands of years to balance the internal drive that we have and we share with every animal. That is the drive to survive with the knowledge that we cannot ultimately survive and cannot ultimately achieve things like immortality but animals remain presented by the tension forever between the biological versus the inevitability of death on their side at the point which may get aware of it and note, that species experienced this differentially, if your species is biologically dependent on engaging in mating that kills you and that's your drive. No amount of social movement will help you, if your species depend on being a parasite another species with human level cautious to be aware of how horribly trapped you are, you're never going to emerge from that. Proof says that animals are likely to feel horror and angst because the cows get murdered and get sat in pain patients that cannibalism will make them feel fear, sure, plausibly in some cases but it's far, far more fundamental than this. It's about the fact that you understand the meaningless of life, it's about the fact that you understand the inevitability of death, so that you can understand you can never be more than a parasite a flea on a dog, you have every awareness and cognition of a human being to fully articulate the breadth and depth of your suffering and never being able to escape this. On a way, I think this is more certain than opening oppositions arguments because opening opposition is continuing on characterization of animals experiencing specific moral intuitions and moral systems that they may experience or may not. Our burden is lower than that, our burden says that insofar as every animal has an urge to survive, right, that is the final biological urge and every action that every animal takes to perpetuate their species and continue life on Earth, at the point in which they realize that this is futile hypothetically, they can never be more than the system but lack the ability to have developed the be able to comprehend and rationalize those things without the ability to developed social structures and literally developed the like, over time the social structures to rationalize these kind of things. This leaves massive degrees of horror without having involved to develop those kinds of things but firstly, about the world will get necessarily more violent, i’ll take a poi.
+<poi>
+So your initial framing is that Adam was just by their own lives and existence and come up with more information, that mitigates the entirety of your case to be clear.
+</poi>
+they come up with moral codes to justify why they are you know, for example, consuming other animals which mitigates opening opposition, there is no moral system you can come up with in the world to justify the horror of being imprisoned in your own mind and never being able to act upon that, there is no moral system in the world that can mitigate the degree in which you feel at the point which that everything will end as soon as you fulfill your biological urge to make, there is no moral system that can resolve those conflicts; that's the difference, that's the comparative. Why do you make the world more violent? Note that human levels of commission allow for the organization institutionalization of violence the animal kingdom in breeders scale, so the impacts on animals allow for the development of systems of brutality that don't exist on their side. Note, that the animal like this already nasty British sword, CG is right that this mitigates opening opposition but animals cannot wage interest species genocide campaigns against one another because they simply do not have the capacity to organize and systematize that violence at scale. It is uniquely Consciousness that allows that systematization of violence. Ruth says animals will fight each other, this is the state of nature, the reason my version of this argument is comparative is because the systemization of that brutality that is, the ability to engineer Mass cleansing of people on a far larger scale. The ability to develop State systems that institutionalized slavery or capital punishment is vastly worse and vastly more at scale. As I'm giving intuition, human beings have a higher order Consciousness for 10000 years. Not only was one of the first things they did when they gained sentence the genocide of Neanderthals but empirically human beings become vastly more violent towards one another over the past 10000 years. The second claim I want to make here, is why this over the world, this takes up teams at their very best which is that advocacy leads to some tangible benefits for some Human animals. The first is that competition over scarcity, resources necessarily becomes far worse because human level cognition allows for resource exploitation that competes with human beings. So at their very best, competition harms and humans and animals when animal rights becomes a zero-sum trade-off even if human beings want to prioritize this degree it requires more resources than the planet can support the cost benefit trade opportunities means it's necessary that we afford greater privacy for the moral agents that are closer to us. This means it's highly unlikely that these people benefit, which is highly enlightened in a world consumed by climate change, at least people become like Progressive. The second thing I think this doesn't work, because many countries supply chains, many countries are still dependent on eating meat. If they're correct and they stop eating it as a result, they would collapse economically, this suggests they will not stop eating meat so their benefit doesn't like crews. The final thing, I think is that it's backlash is likely to be vastly, animals with cognition will be played on paranoia.
+</mo>
+<gw>
+There's a reason why strong independent women are told that they will die, an old lady with many Cuts because cats and animals can love you and treat you better than anyone could ever could. I am standing for this I'm very proud to propose. Few things on this, and I want to make this very clear writing about firstly on CO. One, they say, ah, this will create hostility, you have a bad relationship, you feel like you're a slave, whatever. Firstly, I want the person there is practical benefits of you living that way like, giving free food, free water, taking on vacations to Egypt, I don't know, where you go, I think most of the time this is something beneficial but secondly, this is better because you can see it as a companionship like, you're a fucking roommate, I don't know, because you can talk and you have a better time. I think it's something inherently that helps you in that regard but secondly, they have a very difficult like, not charitable interpretation of our case because what we run is essentially that there are many people who are deprived of social connections, that are only dependent on their like animals and approximate beings because they love you and they're loyal to you and in the way that this becomes way better, not only can you get Comfort when you cannot otherwise get it from like, robots or any other point but secondly, the most vulnerable people, who are depressed, who need some kind of loyalship and sense of support, like blind people getting some dogs. I think this is on a benefit. Now let's engage with the principle which not both of them and depending on the burden of, oh you feel more pain, before your body is effectively away without even over this. A few things on this, one, not that we essentially have a few things that they say, yes, maybe you'll be able to conceptualize pain a bit more but this is already there is your first season a lot of mitigations as to why you already feel a lot of these emotions, right. So the extent to which their argument is so significant is questionable but let's think about their best, a few ways that you deal better with your emotions without a response. One, you can get comfort from other people, humans get through a depressive episodes into hard pieces of life where they can go, get out with a friend, they can get validation and confirmation that their emotions are valid and that then it is Justified experience those emotions this is the way you get the coverage, this is the way you can move on. Secondly, you are able to, when you conceptualize what is happening when you see, the life again, you can see the goods in the bad situation, right because nothing is white and black, you see the gray moments where you can get some certain validation that, yes, something but it's about maybe you will need something better in the future maybe you'll be able to feel better afterwards but thirdly, I think there's different emotions that they're positive right now, they can get to experience that counterbalance this. Such as, feeling the role like on Netflix, right, you can feel loved more strongly for example, if your companions your kids to your like spouse whatever, where you can just generally feel hope for the future to be able to be better, I think those emotions counterbalances all of the pain that you experience, because look there's something that you're not experience on an everyday basis. It kind of, comes and goes, on the comparison, if you have a net aggregate better positive emotions experience every day, numbers more and can counteract that. Particularly, we flip them on proving why you can do better with pain, even If you experience it more. Now lastly though even if we presume that they have the best case on their side, I'm not sure why we should prioritize animals in Africa because no one your life for thousands of years we prioritize the well-being of humans, I'm not sure why we shouldn't continue to do this so it comes for both things you fear the animals, you're like scared that they will come for you. I would sure, have cognition allows him to like be a better threat for them, even though likely you want to do that I think most of the time you have a same fear of them physically, right, because they can probably jump on you either wa, the reason why this doesn’t happen is because most animals are segregated from humans, you live in the jungle, in the world, oh, you live in like around segregated parts of the world says you will require different needs and happiness, different temperatures, different resources to what you need to defend. Okay, now, last thing on this, even if that's the king, well.
+<poi>
+Animals are loyal because they can't have the disagreement done, from a killing cognition. Now it can be mad at you that you spend too much time with your girlfriend.
+</poi>
+yeah sure every animal inside them both care for them. Now let's then well specifically, with um, CO. I think there are a few things necessarily to wait this out, one, if we prove to you not necessarily there's not a big difference in terms of what pain you feel or even if it is we weighed out why it's better in our side. To practice the another stakeholder that have additional benefits to more actors necessarily outweighing them out, but secondly,not current short term, right. If you are able to cook in the future when you get the button but you know like in 10 years this will not be that big of a hard part.Okay anyways now specifically, on our Channel and what I want to weigh it out. I think both of them depending on the same bird even if one of them proves better, I don't know who, you decide. I think most of the things it's not weighed up properly for a few reasons because i’m not sure why you don't necessarily feel a lot of the pain right now thus making their case not as symmetrical not as broken, but uh closing before do you have anything?
+<poi>
+Yeah the reason my case is comparative is because while animals can develop moral systems to account for biological necessity they cannot develop moral systems that can allow them to rationalize the horror of being a moral agent that lacks the ability to change the world around them. That's the comparative.
+</poi>
+conditions for yourself in the secondary, there is the Tulip. I'm not sure why they have to be those oppressed animals that live within human cells will always be oppressed, not that most people just chill and don't even know human sickness like how the you know in the Amazon, they're all like you're of course that they're humans even, how much are white this is the case. But secondly, I think again this Discounter balance but other emotions but you can't get better in the future or that you could never met their life afterwards. I think this does change it, sometimes like once in 10 years, but I think you'll get the doctor because most students come but maybe you keep changing system, so you just live as best as you could right now, I'm not sure why this isn't like it. Now, let's see my favorite opening government, I think a few things one, while I like the principle and I'll say yeah, I think they never proved it like they can say EPL wanted to solve it but they never proved me why this is an inherent right you should be given, moreover, they never prove like it's depend on the practicality that you live a better life which is questioned alone by your oppositions.
+As opposed to that they haven't really proven, it's not a very different extent but we prove is, that more active surrounding and for a long time, not us.
+</gw>
+<ow>
+Birth is a curse and existence is a prison. The only way to free yourself from the cage is to never enter it in the first place. I want to do a preemptive weighing of our case, where I thought of each team in the round. Firstly note, on scope, this affects every single animal by virtual taking the pill of being like a human, every animal has to suffer this, no matter the coping mechanisms, no matter where they reside domesticated or not secondarily, it's a time frame. This exists over the course of their whole lives yet you might have coping mechanisms but it exists subconsciously in your brain, you dream about it, it exists at every point where you might not think consciously about it but you know what exists in the back of your head. Thirdly, on magnitude, this is the deepest horn because it affects your existence your identity, that is to say you might for example, if I cut my hand I can put a Band-Aid on it, but I don't know how to rationalize that I might die. So, what happens when I go six feet under the ground, what will happen to my family afterwards? Will I see them? These are things that philosophers have said thousands of years, constructing words and still never fulfill the explanation for what they mean and how they affect their lives. Do not let it be lost on you how deep and magnified this impact is and how many animals it impacts. Let's dismantle each team now first Beyond CG, I want to take down their frame rate. Firstly, on their framing that that these pets live the longest lives. Note, this is just untrue in Surprise industry animals have far more profitability and so far there's a bigger meat market so they sell something more than they milk substantially more of them over the course of a long lifetime, lifetime in order to sell their like milk and to like kill them at the end. But also this is just empirically false like, hurdles guys like, having foreign lifespan with elephants and blue whales live for like seven years 80 years, this is ridiculous. Secondarily, and this takes down the CG case, the premise of consent doesn't work, because their subordination is done in a state where they could otherwise not conceive of an alternative. That is to say the logic that they use is, ah, you were a subordin, you were evolutionary designed to be okay with this subordination, right. they give you food, they give you water, they, you become Ben's best friend but the issue is you became men's best friend when you didn't know you could be like a man in the first place. So the logic presupposes the actual analysis afterwards but secondarily, even if you don't buy that the hostility gets substantially worse, why? because of a threat and uncertainty. That is to say the relationship between the human and the pet was that, I am the owner, I am the one who can do things that they cannot, I am the one that can tell them sit down, do not talk back to me take, stay in your leash or I will not feed you. You cannot change this relationship or if you try to change this relationship, the bond breaks down. It ignores the, uh assumption that both parties entered into that bond in the first place, so in other words, I think it's comparatively more likely to be a question where they needed substantial more analysis to justify that. but also if they run away, then you just get all of the harms that oh and also we we have on our side, so our impacts are still like contingent, even if they exist within that state because, even if you're a man's best friend. If you wonder will he love me after I die, what happens, I don't know, the existential harm even exists in their best case. Now, on the responses to us they say that, ah, there's a coping mechanism the same way humans have human beings or like other people to say that they love you or they make you forget about death sometimes. No, it's a code, it is never a solution to the magnified impact that Matt Told You. So at best it is meeting it for you, they never quantify, how much that mitigation is, how often can you have conversations, that is if people get bored of trying to reaffirm you that your existence is fine, if it's temporary. So, I don't know, exactly how large the mitigation is and they never do that to explain it. but also, there is no coping mechanism for the Trap of existence, the death is inescapable, so you have dreams, you don't know if you're going to bridge. It's not just that I want to like make this comment it's the Trap of existence and you not knowing what it means in the universe not knowing what to do with it but also like, if it's true that there's coping mechanisms, there's coping mechanisms on their side too. That is to say if it's true that most pets Don't Run Away, most pets find owners then they'll impact of their own harm is mitigated by their own analysis that those coping mechanisms otherwise exist via biological evolutionary means to allow it to cope with that, If a dog gets hit it forgets about it and then like goes to the owner again so they mitigate their own case we're also on vein, I want to be clear on the vein, the benefit of having a substantially better relationship is marginal and speculative because they lose why their relationship breaks down. I don't know why it's better to be able to talk to your dog than just talk and think he might understand, I don't know, if he actually does versus the actual implication that even if it's on every dog but a lot of dogs will be trapped in the bodies not knowing why they can't walk or be as powerful as human beings that own them CG out, let's take out OG, know what a lot of them, so on OG note, the principle is one of the reciprocal obligation is contingent on the practice. If I just prove the Practical, I just prove that. Secondarily, they say it's wrong to deny them this right, even without utility, they never explain why. That is to say they never explain why it's wrong even if it based on lives worse, they say, firstly, you can have the capacity to defend yourself and move somewhere else so even be in the best cases. Here's the difference, this is not contingent on communication or cognition, it's biological evolutionary means of self-defense. If you're in an area where humans are stepping on the Ant Hill you know to move to a different area, so their mechanism is not unique to the actual emotion, so there only defense self-defense analysis is on advocacy. So being able to build Bridge an empathy Gap that has never been done before. Through their credit, that's this might be done and it's different than 10 existing veganism. why is this unlikely to materialize? but I'll keep them first
+<poi>
+According to your POI the reason cognition is awful is because you have no power to change your position in the world. If true, assuming feasibility would you remove cognition and speech from marginalized groups to continue doubling problems in society?
+</poi>
+No, this is where it might affect opening. I wouldn't move the capacity to cognition for everyone because it's, it's inherently existence that is it, it's not just about knowing what to do in the world. I guess you might get a promotion or a job but the point is it's existential to the point where you can never know the fullest extent of your potential. If really you wonder, I have more, I'm on a hedonic treadmill or what happens you've got hydraulic treadmill ends and I end up dying. It is far more deep what Matt gave you. Let's dismantle their advocacy now, they presume that you collectivize, that is to say that every animal is now on the same page or on the same side, and why do they do this they say, ah, because we're not rational. No, human cognition does not equal rationality because every human would be rational, if humans are not irrational, unless they have different social movements, there's a reason why there's violence versus non-violent movies they have similar experiences. Why is it likely, that is to say, different experiences and identities and the ants that was fed by the queen, might be substantially more or less aggressive. So it's unsure the way they collect their eyes on the same page but she also they presume they're fully rational, why not? One, they haven't had the decades or centuries to develop the skill of rationality, they only have the the town. Secondarily, coordination is hindered by human systems that try to isolate them and thirdly, they have a prisoner's dilemma. I don't know, if the other animals are going to fight against the humans or try to steal their wealth, so I'll do it first and this is what we're struggling under one of the opening oppositions gave you. Matt Warren you weighed against opening up because I don't have to. Don't enter the cage.
+</gw>

art/debatebench/hf_README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+---
+license: mit
+task_categories:
+- feature-extraction
+- text-classification
+- question-answering
+- translation
+- summarization
+pretty_name: DebateBench
+---