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 ... |
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 ev... |
</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, w... |
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 y... |
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. The... |
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, whe... |
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 ima... |
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 ... |
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... |
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 re... |
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 comment... |
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, ri... |
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... |
</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... |
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 au... |
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 publi... |
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 wil... |
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 ... |
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... |
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... |
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... |
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 even... |
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 the... |
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 answe... |
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 ... |
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 fal... |
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... |
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 kno... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.