Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

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 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>
<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>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.