text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
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 becaus... |
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 ... |
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 ther... |
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... |
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... |
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... |
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... |
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 ou... |
<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 ... |
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 d... |
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, t... |
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... |
This should be the win from closing opposition voters. |
</CO> |
<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 be... |
<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 objectiv... |
</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... |
<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 produc... |
</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 n... |
<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 t... |
</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... |
<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 argume... |
</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 Unio... |
<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 ... |
</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 ... |
<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> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.