text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
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. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.