text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
Mary will deal with the remainder of that. I don't actually think it's responsive cool. Why is the European Union better one? It gives you a bigger initial offer for opting in, meaning that it also means that at the point where you would be leaving, you would be trading off a significantly larger immediate, short term cost at the point where you leave because you lose more export market and have to short term before you rearrange yourself, just lose significantly more of your present economic functioning, meaning it's harder to leave. But secondly, the rules of the European Union for leaving are also significantly more stringent, meaning it is harder to do so the European Union doesn't immediately fracture in a way that is perceived as a risk for this block, meaning that it is able to provide significantly more economic stability for these countries. Lastly, I want to go into the lives of individuals. I would posit that free movement, and in particular, the ability to work wherever in the European Union and the issues, is actually just an incredible addition to quality of life. By giving people access to a wide array of choices in terms of where they want to work, this means one that jobs become available that otherwise wouldn't have been available in these countries. And so far, is there is free universities that they can go to elsewhere. That is SD to the standards of companies in the west and but crucially, that to now work where it is cheaper, having acquired those skills and those knowledge, but in a standardized way that those companies can rely on. But secondly, people can choose to go work in a country, work elsewhere, as a care worker, and return to see their family. They don't see their family a lot, but at the very least they see them in significantly as after poverty. I think all of those are things that meaningfully help people's quality of life, even to the degree that maybe economic functioning wouldn't work for us, which I think it definitely does give an analysis. We're just winning on individuals. |
</mo> |
<gw> |
let's imagine for a second this was not about Consul, but this was a motion about the different set of countries. Do you think CEO would have even considered running. These are stupid people that will just keep themselves on the head with the rock, and they will not be able to get along, regardless of what happens. Honestly, as part some from the Balkans, this is super scandalous push that comes through positive. I was going to do top cap first, but now I'm going to do closing opposition first, in a certain way, firstly, on the reasons why you would not get free trade. One, they said the East hates the West because there are harmful stereotypes. One, know that we pause it. This is not true. After communism fell in 1989 you began to hate the you began to look more towards the West as new businesses came in, McDonald's, all of these sorts of things. And at the point where communism failed, you began to kind of compare to a better opinion of them in this sort of way. They never analyze that you have a bad opinion on them. We give a reason why we have a good opinion of them when communism has failed you. But secondly, this doesn't matter. Countries do not operate thinking like this. They do not go like, Oh, there are bad stereotypes for that country. Therefore, I will not do trade relations. If you can do trade relations which is good for your country, which generates economic benefits, you will do trade relations in this sort of way. I'm not sure why these sorts of stereo harmful stereotypes are bad in this sort of way. Also. Secondly, they say these eastern European governments are seen as unstable. This is why West will not invest in them. One, this is simply not true. The fact that they were in communism before creates massive economic opportunity, massive markets that are freeing up massive cheap labor and all of these things, even if it looks likely unstable, no, the potential economic benefits are much larger. But also, secondly, if this were true, they would not accept them in the European Union. They accepted them in the European Union. They cannot be that unstable if the incentive happened to be like this anyways, but not them. All of our incentives kick in because at most they rebut some of opening government's reasons. This is why we give different reasons not to, you know, remove credit from opening government. Yes, yes, they do give these reasons. But just to be extra sure what to give, some other reasons to be more insulated to these kinds of responses, reasons like the political push to interact with them, reasons like all of the things Roman talked about. But secondly, and. Want to, I want to stress it so much, it will function bad one, and this is the stupid response, we don't care. Okay, let's say it doesn't function perfectly. We already outlined why the metric should not be the countries that will be in those unions symmetrically, but why the metric should be coming countries that are not in those unions. This is to say, even if the union is not flawless, it's probably still much, much better than no union at all. So in the best case version, they still lose out to us. But also, secondly, this is insane for three reasons. One, democracy happened. They are not autocratic regimes. This is after communism. There were democratic movements. We are not ooga Bucha in this sort of way. Also, secondly, you don't need to bring bad Westerner to come in and to police your corruption. You have internal people, media, all of these sorts of things. But thirdly, you have other actors to regulate you, except for that stupid to each other with the rock. You are still members of NATO. There are still beginners from no conflict in this sort of way. I don't think countries are just going to start fighting for pansies. But finally, I would say that this is symmetrical, because those countries would still disagree in the European Union, unless they're pushes. You can regulate them so much, then I think this is the best, massively uncomparative. Also, finally, let's say in the worst case, this is true, and there are countries that just cannot cooperate with each other. Here is the take. They can now go to the other union. If you are stuck with countries with whom you cannot do business, with whom you cannot have relations, there is another union for you to join. And this is the mechanism, because those countries you cannot have relations, which currently not enter any union, because European Union does not like Macedonia in this, in this sort of way, okay, this is closing opposition case. We outweighed them. We rebutted them. The push is very scandalous onto top half. I want to say that it is largely, probably not a super important clash. Which thing is better? This is for a number of reasons. One, a large part of it is a single opening opposition gives some responses, least like, oh, there is risk. Uh, prisoners dilemma. Other side may make higher taxes here, I would say the incentives for trade out wages. Why? Because you may potentially have bad relations with this country in the future if they raise tariffs, but you will definitely have a better relation if you never begin free trade in the first place. But also, even if it's not about necessarily having those profitable trade you want to limit the risk of economic crisis. You want to limit all of these, all of these sorts of things. What does this then mean that you're likely to get symmetrical trade relations, close to symmetrical trade relations in this sort of way. But more important, you're likely to also get the medical other relations, like freedom of movement, because these unions want to be close to each other, because these unions want to be in this sort of way now, opening up government, or maybe right, that you will get less free movement that how you say, hurts the small states, but you still get a degree of this. Anyways. This is the first reason why this probably not the best flash. The second is it is highly uncertain. Things got up and they lied to you. They don't know what, what if happened. They don't know the conditions that Bucha record in this sort of way, which union, because there are reasons why the union may have succeeded a lot the reasons why it may not have succeeded a lot different historical circumstance would have impacted in a different way. You know, what is certain book, the countries that are in no union are certainly fact, and if we give them a comparatively greater chance to join the union, then they can, they can join this union by either going into a union without the country that is vetoing you. So if Bulgaria is between Macedonia, which is why Macedonia currently cannot enter EU, they can go to the eastern Union. But also the conditions are much likely to be lower, because these two unions are now competing amongst each other to get these sort of new members. So they're going to lower conditions in order to attract each new member before I go on opening opposition, |
<poi> |
Even if both unions are equally integrated, Eastern countries are still denied a greater amount of EU subsidies for public health and bailouts during crises. This is the most important impact, because more people live in Poland than Macedonia and in 2004 these countries were not necessarily registered. |
</poi> |
Look two things. The first is, this is not true, because you still have incentive to bail the amount of crisis because you have trade relations amongst each other. Then if one country gets crisis, you are also fucked. You are also like EU gives money to non EU countries all the time, by the way, in this sort of way. Also, secondly, and very importantly, is, uh, how you say, even if this is the case and there is a comparative harm on more people in Poland, this is much, much less significant, there's a comparative harm on the country it is not in the Union at all because they never get any of these sorts of assistances. They never get all of these things. Now onto other parts of opening government that are not within dispatch personally on the reasons why more countries join. They say Russia is going to stop them from joining the EU, but as opening opposition rightfully describes, they never explain why Russia does not stop them from joining the comparative there is literally zero reasoning. Our reasonings are comparative. They rely on one union versus two unions and this and so we explain why the status quo there's problem, why there wouldn't be problem otherwise. Also second on the push button will be comparatively more leverage. Sure they prove this. But again, I'm uncertain why leverage is that important to countries that are. Already in a union, but entering the union is probably incredibly important in so far as these countries are the most vulnerable actor. So we created this argument for them, but we will argue that our is much more important. |
</gw> |
<ow> |
Then I will start in 321, I will first take out CG in this debate, and I will deal with OG. And then if I have time left, I'll with OO. But I think which I beat governments that should already also beat OO. So Alec, here's the thing, just because I don't break UGC rules and put in my background, which country I come from, doesn't change the fact that I also grew up in one of these countries, and I also know what the fuck this motion should be about. So I can actually call you out on all of the bullshit that you are trying to get away with. But before that, an intuition pump panel, I don't understand why both government teams seem to think that countries who have went through bloody revolutions to try to get rid from under Russian oppression would need incentives to stay away from Russia. I don't see anyone arguing that we need to give Taiwan incentives to not get closer to China. I think Taiwan has a lot of incentives to not want to get close to China and to have someone protect them. I think most of those apply symmetrically to countries that have done everything they possibly could to get rid of Russian oppression when who and I happened to be older than most people in this room, so I actually grew up in the night, is where the the literal best thing that could happen to anyone in our country was to able to travel to the west, not even live there, or have such a lifestyle as most of us actually do right now, but just to be able to travel into the West was seen as the best fucking thing in the world. So cat asks CG a question that goes unresponded to, and I think that already takes down their case in having an A competing union to the European Union for all of these countries who are not in the EU wouldn't itself be really great and give them so many benefits. Why has no one done it? And why has no one even as much as proposed that? The reason for that is presumably because, clearly, it takes a lot more than just nominally being in a union with other countries for the Union to actually give you benefits. That also asks you, Why would a country that has the ability to you and this new Eastern European Union? Why would they ever choose that union over EU, and that also goes completely ignored. We have a lot of reasons that have flown on both sides of the debate on why joining EU does give you a lot of benefits. That probably implies that that new union would be very, very weak and at most, something that you can join only until you get accepted in the EU which means that I don't know how anyone would would take it seriously and give it negotiation leverage and anything like that, right? But like also on the idea that like countries who are not in in the European Union right now are like, which one genuinely, which one like. Let's talk about Serbia, for example. Serbia is doing excellent right now, and it is profiting massively from European Union accession fund right now, Alec tries to tell you, Oh, those countries can't be that unstable, because if they were unstable, they wouldn't have been accepted into you. Here's how being accepted into you works. If you are an unstable country, as most of these countries were, what you what you get is an accession plan that usually takes many, many years to you also gives you a shit ton of money and a shit ton of institutional support like send you experts and people to help you to build up your institutions, to liberalize your institution, to clean up corruption, tons of FDI to help you build up your economy. And at the end of that process, if you meet the criteria, you then join EU. That is the reason why all of these countries join mid to late, 2000s and not in 1989 when the Soviet Union collapsed, the reason for that is because the Soviet Union did collapse. These countries were incredibly unstable. Here's the thing. Up until like early 2000s when they started accession talks with EU, there was very, very little improvement. Because what actually happened in 89 is not a democratic government was installed. And ooh, CO, you can't just try to claim that those governments were blah, blah blah, because I'm telling you that it's NCG, by the way, mocking us doesn't actually come as what we actually saw is that the countries, those countries have no no institutional knowledge of democracy, and what that is like, so that even though technically the governments were nominally democratic, what we saw is that there were disastrous privatizations that were happening where you could buy entire factories, or like, literally half of a town was bought for very little money. And those Privatizations were only offered to people who are close to the people who are in power, who also happen to be people who had also been quite high up in the communist regime. The vast majority of the citizens saw that, and they felt betrayed. They did not trust this new government. But even if that weren't true, they weren't used to be able to trust their government, what they saw were policemen on the street who are taking bribes, and what they what got to reinforce is that they cannot trust the authorities. They cannot trust the institutions. They're just having democracy in name is not sufficient to have a democratic, stable state. And if that were true, then we would have. Have absolutely no problem in like 75% of the countries in the world, which is clearly not the case, right? But here's the thing. DG says, Well, you know they haven't they have advantages because they have cheap labor. So clearly, doesn't matter if they're unstable. But companies obviously carry for countries unstable or not, because if your government can raise taxes at any time, can legislate against its corporations and can see their assets, obviously, whatever you say from cheap labor doesn't pay off. So obviously you also need stable, stable governments can't give you systematic reasons why. That is something that you get, not only from being in the you but also from given the chance to enter the process of joining the EU that goes unresponsive to and that beats both government. Let's now look at opening government. And before that, do you have a POI? |
<poi> |
So again, this presumes little to no trade with the EU. What we argue is not only will they still do this, but that the ability for you to negotiate that is much greater as a block that is an individual |
</poi> |
Look, Here's the problem with that. One countries that are not in the EU can already trade with the EU to the extent that you think they have they would have higher leverage. You need to explain why this new union would actually be stable, actually desirable for you to stay over the EU and actually something that can give you more benefits than the funds the EU gives you, even if you're not in the just trying to succeed to the EU. You do none of those things. You just assume it would work. Even that, I am unsure why they would be better off in that union than they are in a status quo. But not only that, I think just looking at the the fact that cap gives you a lot of analysis on why countries that do join European Union actually do have a lot of power to influence European Union, one of the strongest mechanisms for that is the veto power, which is something that we usually get really pissed at, because then that means that Hungary can go wrong and and like, get concessions within the EU. But here's the thing OG saying, Well, you know, clearly EU promotes a third Korean states, because look, Poland and Hungary exists, ignores two things, one, both of these countries were much, much, much more conservative before joining EU. Two, yes, the EU cannot stop all of the horrible things that governments want to do, but what the EU can do is enforce human rights. It can enforce some sort of, some sort of equality before the law in their institutions, and it can drag their institutions to court if their citizens are mistreated too much. Is that perfect? Clearly, not, but it's much, much, much better than in the alternative, where I genuinely don't think CG can have their cake and eat you and say, like, oh, we have leverage over to you, but at the same time, do you will totally have power to step in and solve your problems and conflicts. Like, clearly, the European Union would not have the ability to enforce human rights or mediation in that separate union, which is something that you get on our side of the house. Obviously it's not perfect, but it's infinitely better than the alternative.Panel There is nothing that has happened to my country. That was better than joining the European Union, just because the poor have become less rich than the middle classes become richer, doesn't mean that they still haven't become a lot richer than they were before. Everyone profits. I'm very proud to oppose. |
</ow> |
<pm> |
The rise of hustle culture and the annoying social media that is LinkedIn has led to more sadness than happiness in the world and that's what, opening government is going to prove today. What we want is very simple. We do not, we oppose the pressure to focus on promoting one's career at the expense of forming a family. This means that in order to counteract that, if there are narratives that promote the idea of family, that provides importance to the concept of family, that promote the importance that you need to go back to your home, spend time with your family, have a good relationship with your kids, and so on and so forth. We are more than happy to promote these that counteract the forces that exist in terms of that. But most importantly, we oppose the narrative that your career needs to take priority at the expense of your family and that's the most important thing within this debate. We stand for a world that does not exist, we stand for a world where it's more normalized in a lot of ways to either prioritize your family. Some people would obviously be prioritizing career over family. We think that's acceptable. But, for the vast majority of individuals, it's important what social narrative exists and so on and so forth. A few things in opening government. Firstly, I'm going to prove to you why it is that our side of the topic gives you more fulfillment generally. Secondly, I'm going to talk about even if it gives an equal level of fulfillment to an equal number of people, why interpersonal fulfillment is better than materialistic fulfillment, something that we promote in our world. And lastly, I'm going to prove why our narrative leads to better work culture within corporations and workplaces more generally for everyone, and that's a net benefit for everyone. So, firstly, assuming that both pursuits give you fulfillment because obviously your career gives you some level of fulfillment. Obviously, your life with your family also gives you fulfillment. Why is it that under our world, more people have access to that fulfillment? Because the framing here is very important. If you create a social narrative where you say that, "Oh, you need to pursue your career at the expense of your family," what you're saying is, someone who is pursuing their career at the expense of their family and getting successful at it deserves a higher status within society more generally, and this is something that we ought to go after. At that particular point in time, someone who then goes for family life, or prioritizes their family life, do not get the same level of fulfillment because of existing social narratives, Which means that there is a trade-off in this particular sense. Why do we think that when it comes to fulfillment it is better for you on our side? Number one, because the nature of the capitalist system means that it is a pyramid structure. So what do I mean by this? Obviously, there are CEOs in companies. Beyond that, you have vice presidents. Beyond that, you have executives, and so on and so forth. As you move up the ladder in any career, it may be something like a McDonald's brand where you start off as a cashier and then move your way up to manager. It can be a big corporation. In any of these structures, numbers get fewer as you go up. Which means that these positions of success, these positions of monetary benefits get restricted to fewer and fewer people by design because that's how capitalism and society works within hierarchical systems. This means that the access to that is barred in a lot of cases. In comparison, access to family is far easier because society has set up generally easier means through which you can access and form families. So, for example, in a lot of societies, there is access to things like marriages that are prioritized to a large extent. But also even in Western societies and stuff, you have dating apps and stuff like that, that allow you to connect with people in one way or the other, finding love and so on and so forth, but also there is a biological and sociological drive to form a family. Which means that it gets easier for you to form a family, in those particular instances. This means that it is far more easily accessible for you to gain fulfillment from this. Number two, because oftentimes when it comes to corporations and so on and so forth, there is an artificial external barrier that keeps you from getting success. So, mind the fact that like, women earn seventy-nine cents to a dollar that a man earns, means that there exist glass ceilings for women but also glass ceilings for particular races and ethnicities depending on whether or not you are a minority and so on and so forth. Subtle racism is still a thing, meaning that in a lot of these cases, the access to that success is often restricted to very few demographic groups because of socio political happenings that are symmetric in both sides. Under our world, under their world you are barred from accessing these successes often times, because of your identity, whereas under our world, you are not barred from accessing these things because in a lot of cases, you can form a family which is more accessible to individuals such as minorities and so on and so forth. Number three, because in a lot of cases, when it comes to capitalist structures, you feel like you're replaceable, right? Because you realize that you can be replaced by someone else. Oftentimes, you are threatened to be fired. Oftentimes, you feel like your work can be done by someone else. Oftentimes, you feel like you are just a cog in a bigger machine. In those circumstances, you feel more replaceable as opposed to your family where you are an integral part regardless, regardless you are a brother, you are regardless a sister, you are regardless someone's wife or husband, or a parent or a child, so as to speak. And these are important positions that you can take, which is not true in the case of corporations or careers more generally, which means that fulfillment is more accessible for people. Before I move on to materialistic stuff, I'll take a OO since I already have one. |
<poi> |
We're defending the status quo, and yet in the status quo, the vast majority of people still get married eventually. Why do you believe that familiar relationships are so impossible on your side of the house to opt into? |
</poi> |
No, no, no, no, no, no, obviously, most people get married, that's not the problem and we agree to that, that's not the problem. The problem is, where do you derive your fulfillment from? Do you derive your fulfillment from the fact that, "Oh, I go back to my house and then I see the face of my partner and then get happiness out of that," or do I derive fulfillment from getting success in a career? What we are saying is that getting success in a career is far harder to get fulfillment from, that is particularly problematic. |
Materialistic fulfillment versus interpersonal. We think in terms of framing, in a world where you prioritize careers on top of family is where you, by default, prioritize materialistic stuff. Because what does a career give you? It gives you money, it gives you access to a lot of privileges and benefits that are attached to careers and so on and so forth. This makes it a more materialistic world than an interpersonal world. The reason this becomes very difficult to access in terms of happiness is because of the simple reason that you judge yourself on a comparative scale. Because money, the CEO has more money than a vice president, the executive has less money than a vice president, and so on and so forth. You keep comparing yourself and it's very difficult to find happiness in those circumstances versus the love of your family members, which is something that is accessible to everyone, it's easier to access for everyone and it's something that is far easier to obtain more generally. Which means that interpersonal fulfillment, A, is more, easier to obtain, but, B, it's easier to fulfill you, because you are not comparing yourself to everyone, anyone all the time. Because you are happy with what you have, you are happy with the fact that you get to meet your kids at night, which means fulfillment of family has no comparison metric with someone else that makes you unhappy, but like, materialistic fulfillment does. Lastly, why it leads to better work culture more generally? Because we think that a world in which there is a hidden expectation for you to prioritize your career on top of your family is a world where corporations get away with not giving you bonus payments for extra work, it is a world where corporations get to enforce nine to seven, nine to eight workers instead of nine to five because that is a norm that is accepted. In our world, it's better for you to have work-life balance. The reason this is then better for groups like women, is because in both worlds, it is symmetric that women have pressure to fulfill things at home and essentially get along with a lot of tasks that are expected out of them. Under our world, careers are more accessible to them because you have better work culture structures that are more conducive to generally women's participation within the economic force. That is something that is proven and something that Sajid will expand upon. Entirely proud to oppose. |
</pm> |
<lo> |
Before I get into instructive and explain why this narrative is better for the individual in society, I want to point out a framing that I think marginalizes most of the opening government case. I don't think this debate is about opting out on the mouse from relationships or even opting out to a great degree. I think on either side of the house, people are likely to settle down eventually. The question is when they do it and if they do it in a manner that is optimized for them to derive all of the benefits from fulfillment that Sajid inserted are considered to be so important. Where does this narrative likely apply? I think this narrative likely applies and is most salient in your early career, when you're starting out, i.e., when you're entry-level or relatively early on in your career, i.e., middle management at the absolute most. The reason why this is the case is because when you reach middle age and are further along in your career, there is tons of pressure and relatively low barrier pressure on you from external and countervailing influences to settle down. This looks like your internal biological clock telling you that it won't last forever and you need to procreate at a certain point in order to do so. This looks like your family and your friends putting pressure on you not to be an old maid or an old bachelor and trying to set you up with different people in your community. This looks like the fact that you see other people in your community settling down societal psychosocial pressure to do so. This looks like the fact that the vast majority of the world is religious and religious texts exist in either the world that tell you, your duty is to procreate. What this means is that there are pressures that exist externally to the motion that eventually push people towards having a family. And it also means the pressure on the opposition side, government side, is to form a family far earlier and opening government 100% consistency in their framing, when they say they amplify that narrative. What our narrative is most salient at doing is telling you, when you are in your early or middle career path, it is important to prioritize the success of your career, working hard, and promoting it, in order to attain stability and derive fulfillment from whatever you like to do. In other words, if you believe familiar fulfillment is more accessible and somehow better, it will be accessible eventually on either side. The difference is, and the comparative in this debate, is incredibly important. You will be in more of a position to enjoy that fulfillment when you have pressure on you to move towards prioritizing your career over prioritizing family in the interim. I have two extensive responses to opening opposition before I get into constructive. |
Firstly, I just contested as hard to get fulfillment from a career. Firstly, just empirically, there are a broad array of options for work and they are diversifying every year as remote work becomes far more available, as provisions become more diversified, and as there are more and more jobs that exist in society as we continue to advance in technology. Secondly, even if you don't make it, success isn't absolute in an absolute sense. I.e., you don't make it to the top of the corporate hierarchy and become Michael Scott. There are tons of annoying middle managers who enjoy their jobs empirically, right? Like, there are so many Karens who love pushing papers on their desk and enjoy every minute of that kind of work. So, you don't need to be at the top of the corporate hierarchy to drive success from that. They're just wrong on that premise. But thirdly, when there is a pressure narrative to promote your career, you have incentives to opt into a career you like, right? Because if you are promoting your career day in and day out and working very hard on it, you are likely to take in the advice from people that you better be promoting something that you enjoy or at least attempt to enjoy it to the best of your degree. But finally, this is dubiously comparative, right, because in so far as you can't thrive pleasure from work because it fluctuates a lot and economically the things are unstable, relationships often have highs and lows, pleasure in them is very subjective and also proven a minute, they can often really suck if you're poor, which is more likely on there from the house. Then they say, when people feel more pressured to work hard, they'll optimize in such a way that means that you don't get family benefits or something like this. This is really silly because if you're optimizing for success, our narrative is necessarily one more of a balance because you feel pressure to promote your career. It's not just a narrative about working, it's a pressure to succeed at work. This means you likely accrue a narrative of balance because the narrative is oriented around work success, i.e., succeeding in your career. You are likely to internalize messaging like breaks are important in order for you to be maximally productive. It's important for you to be doing something you enjoy in order to drive pleasure from that kind of thing. Empirically, women opting into the labor force in a massive amount has just given more benefits in general. I have no idea why that's the case. Why do you make better choices on our side of the house? I'm going to start with the benefits of the individual. No unframing when you are young. You have less dating experience, based on preference aren't fully formed. You have limited travel and exposure to different people, meaning preferences aren't entirely clear yet, and you have limited work experience. You have trouble navigating specific career paths and have a lack of information. But finally, and this is the most critical, you have limited financial funds, right? Because you're starting out. You're working, paying attention to it. And this is critical because it means provision for your significant other family is very hard. What changes on our side at this critical juncture? It's the most important impact in the debate because these are the people who are the most salient in terms of impact. If they fail, then they're fucken, If they succeed, then they're great. If they achieve a medium, then they're better off. Firstly, when you're pressured to promote your career, you're vastly more likely to consider long-term prioritization far more. I.e., what additional education do you need? Like going to law school, opting for a master's degree, where you want to live, or moving into an area with an industry that has jobs for your specific skill set. The comparative is you are likely to feel pressured to settle down faster. Or if you already have a family, to focus less on optimizing to be able to provide for them financially. As an illustration, this looks like you're an entry-level employee. You're more likely to prioritize a promotion that comes with relocation over remaining in the small town you grew up in and swiping it multiple times on Tinder. We're prioritizing a high-earning career with a path to promotion over dedicating that one extra night with your family. It is a small trade-off, but it is a trade-off that insulates you from the worst economic risks significantly and insulates you from a lot of problems. Secondly, you're likely to feel less pressured to settle down early. What the countervailing pressure on the government does is you need to prioritize family over work. This ties you to one location far more and you are far stuck in one place and far more likely to be pressured to settle down faster. Now, the opposition might say, "Ah, you have more time to explore your dating preferences." Even if this is true, you are far better able to know what you truly like when you're a bit older on one hand. So, we preclude that, but secondly, insofar as you are financially stable, this is far more conducive to having a healthy relationship even if you end up marrying the wrong person or something like this. You know, just far likely to be happier with them at the point in which you're financially stable, even if they're not like 100% perfect to be your soulmate or whatever. But thirdly, the pressure incentivizes you to actively seek out information about how to advance your career path, right? When you care a lot about this and you feel pressured to promote yourself, you're significantly more likely to accrue and attract it. What means toward economic stability in a variety of instances? This means, rather than going on a fifth Tinder date, you instead look at and browse LinkedIn for example. Instead of, you know, like doing these kinds of things. But finally, when you do start a family, which you're likely to do on either side, you likely started in a better financial position. I.e., you have sunk a good degree of time into advancing, accruing paychecks, and savings, and also the information about how to save. Which means you are far more likely to, firstly, one, have more financial capital to provide for your children. This is critical, but you have less at the opt-in point to the relationship because you're more financially stable. Before I impact that, closing. |
<poi> |
The pressure to be able to provide for your family always exists. People who ignore this pressure on your side of the debate would probably not be swayed by this pressure either. |
</poi> |
I don't think they ignore that pressure, right. I think what this does is on the margins, make you more likely to prioritize your career in junctures when it is critical in your life when you could be seduced easily by the siren song of your narrative on your side, and I want to make the comparative very, very clear on wing. In either case, people will settle down eventually. The question is whether or not they do it in a financially stable position. Our world sets you a performer's success in terms of being in a position to have a family in the first place. So, we're logically prior to all of those benefits. We also get less unhappy families, right? Because you're more financially stable in general, right. Your family suffers less even if it doesn't exist in the first place. Why is hustle culture good if you believe this is the most important flash. |
Firstly, you're able to find more fulfillment. Interpersonal fulfillment is highly subjective. It's incredibly unclear whether or not you can derive pleasure from it. Many people don't enjoy relationships. Family can be incredibly stressful. The comparative is that the diversity of Greece is giving a lot of different options to opt into even if you don't succeed. But even if you believe family is more fulfilling, you're able to experience that fulfillment to a far greater degree when you insulate yourself from economic shocks and instability, far likely. But finally, access to family is easier, because a happy family is easy because you're really going to be able to provide for your family. It's less of a drain on resources. It takes you down right on their side. And there's less stress because when you're living paycheck to paycheck, it's harder to derive fulfillment from that kind of thing. On the metric of fulfillment, we clearly win by proving you opt in at a better point to family on our side of the house. But we prove for the people who need this narrative the most, it creates the impetus to the social change that is the most important. Incredibly proud to stand opening up. |
</lo> |
<dpm> |
All are very quickly going to go out of this debate. The first thing they base their case on is this narrative being prevalent at early points in time. This is because for some reason you care about your family later on and you don't do this naturally, early on. The first response is, presumably, if they can feel that their natural forces care about their family later on, if we increase that time barrier and accelerate it, if you care about your family early, you would also care about their well-being going forward as well, which would create a natural push for you to earn money now, so you can pay for your family going forward. So if anything, there benefits of having a family later are symmetric because that's also an argument why people would not opt out of working altogether and would think about their families going forward and would want to earn money so they can see their children do well. Number two, it is not true that you can just earn or get a family randomly after 10 years of not talking to them and spending time with them. Relationships often need work, so when you start distancing yourself from your friends or your brothers and your mothers, these relationships are often hard to reverse 10 years down the line because they have a new set of experiences which you can't relate to and vice-versa. Thirdly, assuming that this debate is only about 10 years, their comparative has to be why in those 10 years, the fulfillment of your career is inherently better. We've argued that at any point in time, even if it is for 5 minutes, the access and the inherent fulfillment of capitalistic structures is far worse regardless of how much time this is for. The first reason is because of the nature of the capitalist structure being a zero-sum game. The second reason is because of artificial barriers for specific groups of people like glass ceilings and racism for minorities. The third is that you feel it's an individualized struggle because of the way the narrative works. You need to work hard to get better, so you often ignore structural barriers that are placed onto you. And even when you get a promotion, even though you may feel good for a second about the fact that you got a promotion, when you see that there are 500 other people on your level and there's so many years and so much more hard work to do, you feel exhausted, you feel part of a wheel that is never-ending. So true fulfillment from you feels unheard of because you are replaceable and you are just another person in the wheel. The only response to all of this analysis from the PM is, word is becoming more available; Assertive assertion at best. I would argue work is becoming less available because of the natural trend of technology advancing. With things like automation slowly replacing labor with the dependence on human capital being replaced by artificial technological capital, the need for humans is at an all-time low. The second thing they say is, but you still judge yourself based on the fact that you struggle with no actual analysis of how you judge yourself based on that you always compare. That's why I feel bad about the fact that I haven't won worlds despite the fact that I've still been one of the best debaters in my region. That's why the basis of comparison is always better when you have an individualized, privatized family, where your child is your own and you take ownership over that child, or the fact that your brother is your own and you don't have to share. The fact that humans don't like sharing is an inherent trait of humans that makes capitalistic struggles far worse to derive fulfillment from. The last thing they say is that under this point, there is always a natural incentive to take breaks, like five minutes. Like, guys, this is mitigatory at best. You will only take those five-minute breaks at a point in time where it is a conduit for you to recharge and work. So, in those five minutes, you are always thinking about what to begin with. But like, guys, we should take breaks for like 10 hours a day, not 5 minutes. You only compare yourself to the next person. So, the moment you see that someone else is better than you, you have an incentive to cut this break short. Mental health deteriorates far more than it should. The next thing they say is, you always go to make short-term trade-offs like, long-term trade-offs and make a lot of short-term costs in the process. Like the fact that you'll be stuck in one place, which will harm your career. The first thing I would posit is this norm uniformly applies. So, all people presumably start thinking about their family to a greater degree. At this point in time, your competition for these spots is worsened out or evened out equally. So, even if you think about that one spot less, others think about it less as well. So, your ability to compete for spots is equal on both sides and is symmetric. Number two, I would argue early rushing for success in your career is just objectively bad. The first reason is because it is unclear they have proven that the access to this success exists for most people. So, this argument is only valuable if they prove more people get short-term success. Success is more difficult the moment you make the time span even shorter. Like, how many of us are going to earn a million dollars in five years? Which is presumably what most debaters would get fulfillment from. The second is the artificial barriers to short-term success. Things like age, things like you don't have a degree from Harvard, so you need 10 to 15 years to get that success. Those make short-term success even more difficult. Lastly, even if you get short-term success, best case scenario, you earn a million dollars in five years. I would argue that this success is bad. This is because your success is measured through capitalistic means, i.e., the amount of money you've earned in that short-term span of time within five years. Often, you get locked into specific skill sets and careers that are bad for you in the long run to start that family that you want so very dearly at the age of thirty-five. So, when you become an investment banker and your desired work-life hours are 18 hours a day, the moment you move up to a more senior position within that investment bank, that pressure only increases. You see investment banking as the quickest success mechanism or the quickest way for you to earn money without factoring in your family and the fact that it may have long-term costs on your family. So, career choices that often prioritize short-term success often become the biggest deadlocks to having a family in the long run, which is why short-term success is so very powerful. If anything were to happen to trade this off, because we've again proven with no response that the access to fulfillment is greater and the inherent fulfillment because you don't measure yourself to a common metric of money but through individualized, personalized relationships that other people cannot take ownership over. The ability to get fulfilled is better. Before further positive material, I'll take OO. |
<poi> |
Yeah, look. In the developing world and in minority communities, which often tend to have this narrative far stronger due to the fact of being more conservative, they're often more religious. Things like the patriarchy exist. These narratives are far more salient, which means that women lose their defense mechanisms say, "I'm focusing on my career." |
</poi> |
Why does this get her better for women? Their inherent incentives to include women in the workforce regardless. First, you want to maximize output as an economy. All politicians don't want 50% of their labor force to be completely unused at home. This is the exact reason why the most conservative societies like Bangladesh and Malaysia have included the greatest number of women in the workforce, with things like the garments industry being completely dominated by female labor at a point in time where you needed that labor to make this the most important industry of Bangladesh. At a point in time where there is a natural incentive to include women at work, what becomes perverse for women is when they have to prioritize the work-life culture and the things that men need to do like stay at work till late or not take pregnancy leaves because that's the natural demand. You have to hustle. You have to get the quickest success in the shortest amount of time. The ability to negotiate for things like daycare centers and the ability to have pregnancy leaves happens when family is a prioritized narrative and all of them can collectivize and demand for it. Time's up, that shows women are better served in a world because there is a natural incentive to include them regardless. Very glad to win this debate. |
</dpm> |
<dlo> |
This is the third time I've gone up against Sajid and Soradev at this competition, and I think it's safe to say that the phrase "an old dog can learn new tricks" is fundamentally false. Let's get into dismantling their case and explain to you why I win from the LO. Firstly, a bit of weight. If there's a pressure on either side, why is our kind of pressure better and more fulfilling, and you outweigh for our side? I.e., the pressure to start a career over family? Let's dismantle what OG says first. One that there's a hierarchy in capitalism. So, there are fewer and fewer positions, and you feel like you're part of a wheel. Sure. But they don't respond to my analysis, which is you can still find fulfillment not in the absolute but relatively. That is to say you can find happiness in getting promoted even if you aren't the CEO or the little dopamine hits that actually exist within the job in and of itself. But also note, and this is important, the pressure to focus on a career means the grind feels less shitty because you believe it is something meaningful. On either side, note you have to work. If you are told it is fulfilling, it artificially makes you feel like it is worthwhile. What, and this is critical, what makes you feel fulfillment is socially constructed and malleable. If we tell people the things that they inevitably have to do in the workplace or something they ought to be fulfilled by, it essentially short-circuits the reasons not to feel good about it. But families are more accessible and they make you feel less replaceable. This is particularly why you don't need a pressure to focus on family. Because it's so much more accessible for all of the reasons they give you, and there are low barriers to entry to doing it. So, in other words, it is likely that it is still accessible and they still ground you and provide a good source of euphoria and reinforcement that you otherwise need. But thirdly, they say glass ceilings and it's largely restricted. Note, this pressure counteracts these restrictive narratives and culture, and these structures. The pressure being distributed across all people on our side with this narrative means you create incentives for society to provide information about how to advance. Because our narrative creates a common struggle that now everybody opts into. You get more webinars about how I made it. As an illustration, this looks like minorities telling their children, "You must work very hard to advance or you're fucked." This pushes you to break glass ceilings and get the benefits. Or you have more women going to positions of power that provide more opportunities and information to other women. I.e., previous paths of the girl bosses navigating those tough decisions and trade-offs. I think minorities are likely the ones under most pressure from the government's narrative, right? Because minority communities tend to be more conservative, often more religious, and the narrative is far more salient among them. The same with the pressure on women. What this means is that women and minorities are the most likely to self-select out, on their sides and they work less. When they work less, the white men who experience narratives to differential degrees are likely to take up more of those positions. This means that when there are far fewer women and minorities in the workforce, they cannot collectivize to the same degree. When a company has 40% of its workforce as women, you're obviously far more likely to get better corporate policy. On their side, they can’t see this, people, especially women, are far more likely to opt out of work at the critical junctures where they needed to be working more. But also in the developing world, where the pressure is to settle down and focus on your family is overwhelming. This is the countervailing narrative that women who don't want to settle down as a defense against their conservative parents. They say, "I cannot. I'm focusing on my career right now that everybody in society tells me is valuable and I ought to be doing." The response to their inherent incentives to include women in the economy on either side is yes, but they selectively opt out far more based on the narratives that they consume. And for women who really don't want families, they lose their defense mechanisms that they can otherwise tell their family. This is how you get policies like maternity leave, like anti-discrimination because minorities are formally represented at every stage in the corporate ladder. Secondarily, on pressure, the pressure for success means you create avenues to succeed, which means you create pressure on companies to find more clear paths to success and information about what is needed to succeed. And thirdly, the pressure to form one's career, generally speaking, means when more people are career-oriented, what this does is creates pressure on society to provide things like childcare, etc. because people say, "I need to focus on my career, and I need to have something to make sure my child doesn't starve." So I think at the very least, if you don't buy the flip, you buy everything else that I just gave you. Let me give you some reasons why we outweigh that. If you buy nothing else that I've said. If there's some trade-off on fulfillment, it's better to have this pressure and career that is more likely to gain fulfillment when prioritizing your career. Assuming we don't know everybody's preferences and which choice will maximize their outcomes. One, a career is a clear and measurable criteria. It's clear to know what you have to do to pressure to essentially progress along that line. The comparative is this, there is no clear criteria to get fulfillment out of the family. Every family is different. Secondarily, there are substantially more information. I.e., you can look at previous people in the career and what they did to succeed. It's the same playing field. The comparative is that on everybody's path to a family is different because every human being is different. Whereas careers follow similar structures based on the institutions that form it. But secondarily, it likely fulfills a wider set of preferences because it's oriented around individual passions that everybody has and money, which is a prerequisite to agency and the ability for somebody to exist in a capitalist society. But thirdly, it's comparatively more within your control. I.e. forming a family and dating relies on somebody else's actions and preferences that you cannot control. Yes, it's hard to exist with other people like your boss, but you can control your own actions and the way you improve from the previous point. The impacts of all this is that in the process, we don't know how many people will succeed on either starting the family that they want or the career they want or what their preferences are and if they will be happy with their choices on either side. But it is comparatively more likely when you base your fulfillment on the criteria I just gave you. It is a clearer blueprint to getting that utility and fulfillment because it provides a clear measurable criteria and all of the things that I said before. But even if you buy none of that and you think family is the only way people can be happy, I'm going to explain to you why in this section even if you believe family is just going to be more fulfilling, you are better suited to start a family that is more fulfilling to you on our side. On either side, you likely start a family or are pressured to for the reasons Matt and CG agree with. Now, Bill might say, "Ah, you can maybe experiment more. Dedicate much more time to dating." I don't think this matters that much because you can, to some extent, find out what you like and don't like from dating on our side. But before explaining more of that, I'll take CG quickly. CG, do you have a POI? |
<poi> |
Yeah, Ahmed, could you please explain to me what's more important to a kid? Having their father give them more attention or having $10,000 more dollars when they inherit? |
</poi> |
This is beautiful because this part right now, I'm going to explain to you why the father is more suited to be able to play catch with his kid. Look, on opp, even if you don't buy that, why is a better financial and career position or dedicating more time to your career means you're more likely to get a better family? That gives you a bunch of reasons, but here's why the decision in career matters in particular for creating a happier family that allows it to be more fulfilling. Which responds to this POI. Finances dictate the conditions for love and how much of a family person you can be. Affording the bills, having health insurance, not fighting, creating a divorce for little Timmy, love cannot thrive if the conditions for it do not exist. But secondarily, this is critical. You have more information about what you want out of your career. Do you enjoy it? Do you really want that promotion after spending 10 years in it? Focusing on your career more, means you’ve more security information about how much of your life you want your career to consume, where you want to live, and what trade-offs you want to make for your family. It is better that people prioritize their career up to the age of 30 or 40, before they have to start a family than to change their minds after they've started a family. So we essentially short-circuit all of the government's analysis and take it. I'll fuck all of the dinos including, Matt. |
</dlo> |
<mg> |
Panel, I think there is a great reason behind why kids that are coming from extremely rich, privileged, and career-oriented parents are often the most depressed cohort there are. And I do believe that this narrative pushes parents to behave in awful ways, in the end, harming the kids the most. I think so far, the top half has been about how this affects people who are in the workforce or who are out. However, I don't think they are actually the biggest stakeholders that we should care about because primarily, Ideally, they’re the ones who, to some extent, having the agency to choose whether they want to respect this narrative or not. I don't think kids of these parents, right, have the same agency, and that's why our impacts are going to be solely focused on them, and that's why I do believe we will win this debate. Prior to going into my arguments, I just want to do a bit of weighing points out. Almost all of their benefits are dependent on people not having kids because of this narrative, right? And I think this is just foolish, as all points out, there's still many, many other persons who have kids. And I don't think, I truly do not think that outside of the bank plan, any parent decided to not have kids primarily because of this narrative, right. But mostly to some extent, right. If this premise is not correct, part of their impact does not stand, right. Second level of impact that they have is the workers, right. I do believe this is correct and just fine. However, what happens when the culture of a company is good, right. Notice, in a social circle, a bunch of extremely family-friendly companies exist, and they do it because of selfish interest because they want to keep workers who value family at the workplace, right? So, that's why I don't believe a bunch of OO scams actually occur if these two instances that I mentioned are not fulfilled, right? That's why we'll focus on the internal questions which everyone feels even regardless of the fact, whether the companies, family-friendly houses. Alright. Notice that all of their claims are contingent on the fact that the alternative is people having kids very early. Notice that they almost never provide an explanation for this. They just assert it. Here's why it is very unlikely in the alternative world people will have kids when they're like twenty, right? First of all, let us bond to our culture of the woman. It's incredibly individualistic, right? We want to experience the world for ourselves, right? Like we want to travel, we want to see the world. That is something that is very incompatible with kids. That's why, when the majority of 20-somethings do not have kids at the moment. But secondly, the financial aspect is almost impossible. This is POI, the Josie aspect. If I'm twenty, right. I'm not an idiot and I want my kid to have a good future, right. I see at the moment that that's not something which is financially responsible to do. That's why I will not have kids very, very early. So, to some extent, a bunch of all of us harm just do not occur because their alternative was asserted. Never explained. I think the likely alternative is people still have kids when they're about 25 or 30, like any other start of 30s, right. So, to some extent, I don't believe they are that harmful. Okay, it wasn't actually our case, right. I think we'll have a very simple claim. People are worse parents because of these narratives and kids suffer a lot, right? Because as we said, and I think like, oh, oh, kind of considered, right, people will have kids anyway, and they will need to work anyway because very often it's something which is financially responsible, and because a bunch of us actually do want to fulfill ourselves through work, right. I didn't just completely find to save, right. But what happens when I know the people at my job fundamentally think that to some extent, me having a family is incompatible with me advancing in the workforce? I think, firstly, I get paranoid, right. I get paranoid that my colleagues and my boss will gossip about this. I get paranoid with my boss. We perceive me as someone who is less worthy of promotion exactly because I'm maybe not as loyal to the company, right? Maybe I value my family far more than my job post. To some extent, right. This is a fear which is very internal, right? It can be very irrational, right. Our plane is not contingent on your company actually being treated. But just on the fact that because of this narrative, a bunch of people fundamentally get paranoid because all of us actually want to succeed in other job posts as ourselves, right. And in the moment when I'm paranoid, I will likely to overcompensate it, the impacts related. But second of all, I know that very often when you don't succeed and you have a family, right. You start to think that maybe the reason why you did not succeed or get that promotion was exactly because of your family, right. Exactly because you had a family, which means and shows that you're not maybe dedicated to your job, right. This is something which often is just not true, right. Often, you're not promoted because of one of your other colleagues, right. But people often seek the easiest explanation and push the responsibility away from them, right. And this narrative is just like a perfect mind to basically say, "No, I am like, I was’t looking for it exactly because of my family." What are the impacts of this, right? Firstly, you're internally pressured to fundamentally work more and spend less time with your family, right? Because you want to overcompensate for the fact that you have a family and you're constantly afraid that your boss does not perceive you as good enough, right. This is why very often you will work long hours. You'll miss birthday parties, family trips, right. Very often even when you're on vacation, you'll still be responding to emails, right. But I know this is very often, the biggest impact of this is not fundamentally on you, but it is on the kids. The kids who very often grew up with a bunch of money but are raised by their nannies. They very often grow up thinking that their parents fundamentally do not love them because they did not spend that much time with them. So this is very often a belief that forms in you and basically isn't great when you're like six or seven, right? Exactly because you don't see your parents, right? Your assumption is that they don't think that you're working hard for the family, right. Do they prioritize your job? Is that actually love for their job far more, right? This means that when the kids grow up, this fundamentally creates more tensions, more fighting, and more emotionally unstable kids, right? Because they don't have the fundamental self-confidence that their parents thought that they were working hard and giving them attention. And I do believe the harm of this is just so fucking huge on the psyche of the kids. Secondly, parents also often have a silent resentment towards their own kids, right. Specifically, women, if they don't succeed at their job, right. Like very often, if they don't succeed, they feel the reason why they did not succeed is because of their kids, right. So, they're far more likely to raise tensions with their kids because very often they will perceive that the kids just do not see the amount of sacrifices that they make for them, right? "I sacrificed my promotion at work because I had a family," right. This again creates much more ground for tensions and bad parenting relationships, right, and this also harms kids, right? Because to some extent, you don't feel shame like dirt in your life, right? Because, to some extent, like, you succeed at 45 and become an executive, right. You don't have to just need to spend less time at work, right. But often, when you actually, now at 45 or 50, actually want to engage with your kids, right. They feel alienated from you, right. They very often feel a huge amount of remorse over you, right. This is when all the shame kind of kicks in, right. This is where you basically feel like you are likely to feel, basically age with the father, right, and this is where again the crisis kicks in because I don't want to feel like I'm a bad father, right. I need to come up with other narratives that I will kind of justify to myself and the narrative is I will perceive my kids as ungrateful, right. How can you not be grateful for all the sacrifices and all the money that I give you? Again this creates, I guess, shame also in kids, right? Because they don't feel that their parents actually understand the amount of harm that was done to them because the parent prioritizes work all the time. Look, I don't think the biggest harm if I do this narrative will be on me. It will be on my kids, and that is something that should matter the most in this debate. Very proud to oppose. |
</mg> |
<mo> |
I’m going to first offer two responses to closing government, then go into our constructive. One, the idea that people will massively overwork themselves and never see their kids. Uh, I would posit that the first response to this is a reality check. Most people don't work in management consulting and corporate law. They work in jobs that have upper limits on their time that probably are not easy to combine fully with family but not impossible in the manner that closing government characterizes. Meaning that the issue is significantly less impactful than they flag. The second thing I posit is that to the degree that you still have to work, and presumably have to work at least one parent will have to work a reasonable amount is, the resentment that they flag to is that they draw a lot of the remaining material from is probably status quo and so far as if you on government, go home earlier to spend time with your kids, you still observe that the guy who doesn't have a kid and who therefore stayed longer got promoted over you, and I'm just going to be real with you. I think people are smart enough to observe that distinction and still resent their kids. So, I, unfortunately, I just don't think that claim was comparative. Moreover, though, I think that all of our material will respond directly to the notion of work-life balance and, in particular, making work compatible with having a healthy family life, at which point presumably just on quantity of cases affected, we are also making the decision less urgent for people given that they will still have to engage in the labor market, which is probably more significant than their material. I want to talk about two constructive points, one, about the experience of young women and girls and secondly, about specifically fixing the situation that the current labor situation is just incredibly poorly suited to the demands of working families, particularly with working parents and young women and girls. Matt here says they'll get degrees more, and also says something for the same effect in DLO's speech. I want to actually characterize what the comparative on this looks like. Why it is so much more likely than just getting the degree, but rather becoming the kind of person who could even make like properly evaluated choices on whether a degree is right for you. Framing, having a career isn't the same as having a job, the pressure the opening government wants. |
<poi> |
How does your work-life balance get better? Once women have to balance both home duties and work duties. |
</poi> |
I'll get on to that, but also broadly, I think there's just lots of reasons why this is a universal pressure. I'm genuinely unclear why this pressure, unless it was actually analyzed in either team, doesn't apply to women. Cool. Let's go into why you improve work-life balance. OO for impact here is incredibly individualistic. It is true. Someone who is successful in a career can probably get themselves private childcare and therefore ameliorate their own situation. What we're going to prove to you is why the overall situation on work-family compatibility gets better. Two elements here. One, people desire family. I think babies are cute. I think you see families around yourself, but also they're just present in lots of cultural narratives, etc. And so far as it's incredibly unifying. On proposition, people, your family, and want to prioritize that will not progress to positions of power because they will prioritize family and therefore not get promoted because they're outcompeted on time spent at work. Also, there's a snowball thing, where as you have more people who don't value family as much at the top, that means that they also don't want to hire people who value family very much. I think that means that you have a situation that is badly suited for the modern family situation of having both parents work in Safari as we know, two working parents means in status quo. There's limited ability to ensure childcare if you don't have a lot of money. You can't respond to child emergencies. You can't spend a lot of time around them by having remote work. That means that the vast majority of people, whether they are successful in their careers or not, cannot meaningfully combine their career with a family. On opposition, I think they succeed more because you work and you still prioritize your career even if you still love a family and you would want that because that is something that has been brought into you. But crucially, I think at one point, at least a decent number of those people will still have families and will still want to prioritize them. You care about that because you feel a pain because at the point where you have a kid and you are unable to spend time with them, you miss them and you like the fact that you aren't able to do so. That is something that means that within your own context, once you have actually progressed up a career ladder and you have some power and leverage in a company, and so far as you set policy, you implement that so that it applies to yourself. But secondly, you are aware and understanding of the fact that it is important for other people because you want to have happy employees. You want to be in an attractive workplace. You want to make sure that people are actually happy for you. You understand how important that combine family and work is. That means that this change trickles down even to the people who don't have successful careers, meaning they are able to have and eat it too at the point where work-life structures actually adapt, which they never do on the government side because people get sorted out of progressing. For all those reasons, please vote closing opposition. |
</mg> |
<gw> |
Panel, first summer building, then weighing to top half. And then rebuttal of a closing, then weighing us against top half. Let's, let's first start with revolt, because the rebuttal we hear is basically that the idea that people massively overwork themselves needs to be reality checked because people have upper limits, note a couple of things here. First of all, even people that don't work like the McKenzie type jobs, often in status quo, have to work multiple jobs because they're low-paying, oftentimes, have to work shitty shifts, like nurses, for example, working night shifts, prioritizing their job, etcetera for income. It is up, it not clear to me that it's only these up pressure on jobs that apply to our to our analysis. Presumably, the majority of jobs in today's workforce require some amount of overtime. Notice however that if they don't and you naturally have all this over time to spend on your family then presumably the impact of the narrative itself is also just not that important on either side of the debate. Notice if even, even if it only applies to those highest level jobs it is ultimately that's why those the children of you know, upper middle management not matter in the state. That is not by closing opposition. Note finally that according to opening opposition the whole point of the narrative according to them, people do maximize how much money they have. It is advanced somewhat intention with closing, with opening opposition and at worst potentially in life. I don't think it's actually a knife. But there is some question on what extent that then actually applies and it is you know disagrees with the opening opposition told us. It's the primary thing opposition wants. Next however CO is essentially adds further mechanisms and characterizations to opening oppositions about how this impacts women and girls. Two things on this. First of all, most of those acts are unclear why they act specifically from the Royal Female. It is unclear to us that this narrative only applies to women. Presumably it also applies to men. But even if it applies more to women it is unclear why this is the narrative that does it as opposed to any of the other narratives female empowerment in status quo. It is necessary for closing opposition to actually explain that to us. Maybe in the next speech. I don't know. Hopefully they'll take a POI from us if they engage with that because right now I don't have the chance to. |
However, I'm incredibly happy that kat found fulfillment in mathematics. Really I am. She's a good friend and her happiness is my happiness. That being said it is not clear to me why she wouldn't have found happiness and mathematics on either side regardless of the pressure to work or not. That, while anecdotally very persuasive, it does not inherently stem from from the motion itself. It is necessary for them to link that to us. So far, it hasn't been linked. So, I'm not clear on why I should evaluate that more highly than the significant impact on children that Martella lets you in terms of why it's likely that parents are going to be more abusive to them because you know, they're the, they're to blame for their lack of success in life potentially to them just generally children feel unloved because they're not prioritized and actively feel that prioritize. Third, that because this is something you've internalized overall, you know, 10 years of your career, you're very likely to actually, because you've become, you've gotten used to it, and because you've conditioned yourself to primary, to prioritize work consistently, and because of the, the narrative of this pressure But that also translates into how you how you rear your children. Even if you're doing all of this purely with the intent of being the best parent possible later down in life. It is still likelier that this actually makes you a worse parent down the line. Opening opposition wants to clash on that. |
<poi> |
We are logically prior to every claim your case makes. The time and resource trade off you put in towards attempting to form a family on your side makes it far harder at the point with your family exemption stability by virtue of you working longer on our side and having more time to figure out what trade offs you want. |
</poi> |
No you're not logically prior. Using a fancy words does not make a true math. Let's be very clear. POI to you that highlights that presumably people aren't idiots. People want to, people |
who really care about having families. Presumably want to have you know, the necessary financial means to actually give to their children, you know, food, shelter, clothing, presumably these kinds of mechanisms exist either way. People who actually go through with having children at 18 before they have any financial prospect probably aren't impacted by this narrative on either side of the debate because these people already are great as good. They presumably they make that choice. Regardless, people change on the set of the debate. Most people actually be impacted by this narrative on the side of the debate aren't people that definitely don't want to have children, aren't people that definitely want children. It's the people on the margins in the middle that actually have the impact that you claim they will. They the people that actually make the tangible changes based on this narrative you claim and you don't actually persuade me at any point in your speeches. Why you know you're inherent more likely that you select all these things. Let's then weigh us against opening in general, right? Because I think the first thing to note is that OG's impacts squarely fall under what is good for the people making these choices, right? Our impact swirls on what benefits the children. Oh, OG, RO. I already took y'all taxio later. Uh our impact is therefore more important because note that in top half, I'm not going to say it's a deadlock because probably like, it's probably someone is winning it but there is ultimately both of them have that and both sides will have families, on both sides we'll have jobs. on both sides we'll want to do generally what's best to them. But what we explain in closing government is that the narrative of pushing yourself to prioritize work at the extent of your family is something that trickles down into everyday decision making. That actually makes changes the way we behave towards your children. Both explicitly and implicitly in terms of just your general behavior of deprioritizing your kids at the expense of your work. This kind of narrative harms your child's conceptual makes them lose confidence, less loved, make them feel that they are not really wanted. Before I continue closing. |
<poi> |
So, Kat explains to you why having people who who think families are important, be at the top of the ladder, makes it easier for everyone to have both. With past extension. |
</poi> |
Yeah, that's because people who think that families are important are probably not the most likely to be at the top of the chain. You don't actually prove that to us in your extension. You won't have your side of the debate that the women who makes the top of the of the career ladder are the ones who prioritize families to the extent simultaneously claimed. Presumably those the the women who prioritize family the most will probably have more conservative values, more religious values, dialogue, all the stuff that OO actually ironically explains to you know presumably prioritize that even on top, even if this narrative exists in society. Meaning that at that point, if that's your comparative, I'm just unclear on why those are the most likely. In fact, you're significantly more likely to probably have women who deprioritize family on both sides of the debate and they're then actually less likely to want to promote women who want to create because they themselves also deprioritize that, meaning that they see it as a more acceptable trade-off and therefore are less likely to want to make that trade off. Ultimately, we come over opening over top of specifically because our impact regardless of work happens, the prioritization of family happens, it doesn't matter. Ultimately, the children who otherwise would not have the best possible parenting are fucke up, are more fucked under offset, are less happy, are less fulfilled, have worse attachments to their parents, and are generally less happy. They don't have a choice in being born. Parents have a choice in giving birth, proud to stand in closing government. |
</gw> |
<ow> |
Panel, I will start with an old and radical claim. If a motion does not specifically probably refers to society, then it doesn't only affect 50% of it or 49 or however many men are, but it probably also applies to women. So I actually find it quite offensive. Both government teams for some reason think it's a good rebuttal to say, "Oh, but why does the societal narrative change how women understand being by pretty much all average intelligent voters?", that if family is something that is important, the vast majority of the work falls on women because of childbearing, because of childcare, because men can't really lactate, but also because it's just traditional that women are the ones who keep the house, and also because throughout this debate, it's been thrown around by both sides that, you know, men have to provide for their families. |
No side of the debate has fiat or even attempts to provide to you any analysis on why women would be better off if family is something that was put on them. What we do have, is a lot of empirical evidence of many, many centuries and also a couple of decades of liberalism and progress where that did occur, and we're still significantly more disadvantaged because they were told they were only there because they have to earn a wage. But they should be content with being at the bottom of the ladder. They shouldn't aspire to be more or they shouldn't try to advance, because how they get fulfillment and their role is at home, raising children. That is why having put on people even more pressure to raise children than already exists in both sides of the house is presumptively, is going to result in either women feeling oppressed in some ways or simply, even if the men are the ones who hear it, guess what? It's still their female partners who are probably going to end up bearing the majority of the work. So I actually do think that what Kat explains to you, that if we tell everyone in society they should prioritize career over family, at least in the beginning of their careers, that probably significantly affects some girls. OO already deals with the fact that they will probably go to university, they think they need to get a career after that. But what Kat explains to you, is about your life, when you are in your formative years changes the way you view yourself throughout your life. As a woman, you had to be pretty, you had to be quiet so that men liked you and so that you would have a boyfriend because that was the measure of success. Lucky for me, I was also raised by doctors in a family of intellectuals who pushed me to be smart because otherwise, I don't think I would have done any of the things that I did. Here's the difference here and here's why it's important. On both sides of the house, women will be under pressure to have children and to have a family. On our side of the house, not only do you not add additional pressures that put you under pressure, which acts as a balance. Which Kat explains to you, makes it much easier for you to access all of the other things that could give you fulfillment because you are told, it's okay to access fulfillment from all these other things. And by the way, I do think this also applies to men who don't want children or family. I think this applies to those as well. And Kat also gives you analysis on why there are a lot more diverse options, you are a lot more likely to seek them out if you think it's a fulfilling career. And that is, that's the, and you're probably going to meet a better financial situation, or maybe some people won't. I don't know, however, I think the way that many people who are in their affirmative years and have a lot of time, think about themselves, it is going to change. Now let's look at what government has been telling you because like CG talks a lot about how, you know, just men are never going to be at home and children are going to grow up neglected because their father is never at home. Like, one, I am unsure why more time spent together necessarily means quality time. Like, I'm pretty sure that most people would rather see their parents a bit fewer hours each week if that means that the hours they do spend with their parents are a lot less stressful financially or that those parents aren't coping with alcohol or God knows what else because they don't know how they're going to pay their bills. And they are not just being mean and miserable to each other, blaming themselves. But that's OO. So, I'm not going to get more into that. I think OO also beats these. I think what is also important is what Kat explains to you, that the likelihood of you coming home after dinner in time for dinner is much, much higher if the people who are already who are going to exist on both sides of the house, just like some people are going to prioritize to pursue careers, and they are told it's okay even if you want a family, it's okay to delay it, or it's okay to not prioritize it. It's okay to still go for career, a lot of structural reasons why that means that in some cases some of the positions of power will now be occupied by people who care about family that otherwise wouldn't have. Given that people usually get into positions of power when they're like, in their 40s or 50s, I think that is perfectly comparable to a stage where they already have kids, even if they've delayed it, as opening opposition tells you. And I think the announcement Kat gives you and why that probably means that everyone has more access to work-life balance is something that hasn't been refuted by closing government. So therefore, it needs to step in this debate and needs to be credited. Opening government, do you have a POI? |
<poi> |
You're yet to prove why your side has the most accessible form of fulfillment. Why women succeed in this? And why money is fulfilling? |
</poi> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.