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