text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
Yeah, look, I'm not saying money is inherently more fulfilling. I think just OG's view of it is flawed because they tell you, "1 million dollars in five years is what most debaters would get." Well, I assume most of the world is not debaters. I, personally. |
</ow> |
<pm> |
Okay. So the motion for the house is this house regrets the decline of tightly integrated families. I'm going to do a bit of work sort of explaining what this means and what we think the unique changes. And I'm going to tell you sort of why we think our world is better than the world. Like, the world that we could have had when we had this tightly integrated families that are more common is better than the world that we have today. Where we sort of see this defined. |
So when we say tightly integrated, right, in terms of a family, what we understand this to mean is essentially sort of like families that, where the default is sort of that you look after each other and that you're sort of less independent of each other, right? So this means that, you know, families where there is like more looking after your other family members, like financially and also personally, like into your adulthood, which entirely integrated here probably means that, you know, for instance, it's more likely that your family is likely to sort of live close together geographically and support each other within that way, right? Which means that you're more likely to, for instance, see people living close to their grandparents or to their siblings sort of, when they grow up and become adults, right? In terms of what we think the decline of a tiny and independent family means, right? We think that this is a shift in the norms of society that has occurred over the last 30, 40 years in terms of families becoming, families, family members becoming more and more independent of each other. There is no longer this norm that you sort of, contribute back to your family financially. There's no longer this norm that you sort of, give personal care to people. There's this norm that in general your grandparents, you might put them in sort of like, aged care and not look after them personally, righ. We think that like, you know, when you don't have this decline, there could have been cases where families might choose to break apart anyway due to conflicts that would have existed within the family or just opportunities that were too good to turn down. But critically, this isn't a norm that exists where people live independently. So basically, we say that in the world that exists today, we have fewer of these tightly integrated families than we would before. So then I'm going to tell you from government side, what we think the world could have looked like, had we not had these tightly integrated families and why we think that would be better. Before I do that, I'll take the POI from OO. |
<poi> |
Doesn't the existence of tightly integrated families create huge taboos for other household structures such as single mothers? |
</poi> |
um no, we don't think so because of the fact that like you know, those those single mothers like they ended up becoming single mothers through like, no fault of their own right and we think that like you know, those single mothers can be supported by like other people within their families such as like their grandparents or their siblings. Which is exactly something which we think is a benefit that exists on our side of the house that you don't get on your side so we don't actually see sort of why we think that's a point that goes to you. Okay, so critically, I think the first unique benefit that you get from this type of integrated families, right, is that like, you know, you have a unique system of support, like financial support and personal support that is more likely to exist, that you may not be able to get from anywhere else in critical stages in your life, right? So for instance, you know, you have other family members which are likely to sort of pitch in for your various |
things that you might need financially or provides you a roof over your head, when you need it. We think this is critically important, especially when you are turning the clock from childhood to adulthood or making transitions in your life to different phases, say for instance you get married or you're saving for a house or something like this. This is particularly important for you to be able to get all the support that you can be because affording those things in life can be very costly and it's something that's very difficult to do when the norm is that you sort of do this on your own and you do it sort of independently, right? We think this like benefits particularly people who are like, you know, likely to be like sort of less well off in the sense, you know, if there is one person who like into that adulthood might benefit like a lot from like further education, like that it's more likely that their family is sort of going to pitch in because they know that like there is sort of a cooling of wealth which is likely to occur as a result of this, right. We think this also like applies the other way sort of in terms |
of people who are like more elderly, right, you know, they're less likely to feel sort of depressed and disconnected from their family because of the fact that, you know, that their family just thought, you know, the norm was just that you had this independence and they like sort of, you know, you don't sort of go and visit your parents and like look after them in the same way that they might look after you in your childhood. We think that there are like three main areas where we're likely to engage with opposition today, right. So the first is this idea of sort of like stigma that happens |
when you don't have a, when you exist outside of a tightly integrated family unit. And the second is freedom and self-actualization and expectations to contribute back. And then going over all of them. So I answered the POI about how this might affect single mothers. We think that if your husband is unable to care for your child, then you have the rest of the family that is able to look after them. We think you're actually in a better position than you would have been otherwise. But even if you have a case where, for instance, there is a dispute |
within the family and you might have to break off from that family, you might have to break off from one part of the family. We don't think this is necessarily going to be so bad for those people because of the fact that when you choose to do this, you already know what you are opting into, you're very sure of your choice, you probably make sure to prepare yourself financially for this. And there are probably other systems that you can rely on as a result of choosing to do this. We think as well like, |
families are quite complicated. So for instance, there might be like one part of a family that is sort of not talking to like that part of the family, but you still have like another part of the family that is willing to support you as well. And we think that it's like important that when you make those big choices, that there is somebody that was likely to have your back. We think that's more likely to happen in cases where you have these tightly integrated families. We think then that like, and again, like, okay, this is going to hurt a little bit for like those people who choose to leave. But we think, you know, when you weigh it off, it's like all the benefits that you get from people who would like, do exist in this highly integrated family support. We think that the majority of those people are more important. I think just briefly in terms of freedom and self-actualization, what I want to say here is that even though it's more likely that you might go and choose to work within the family business or stay within your local area, what choices you think are important in life are shaped through your childhood? So if you feel that you are limited to these local opportunities, then you're going to see that as personally important. And so you're still going to feel self-actualized even |
if you choose not to go to the big city and you choose to save with your local family because you see those things are important and valuable to you. We think that you unlock self-actualization in those ways. There are so many benefits that come with having the support of someone else behind you. My partner is going to talk more about the societal implications of this and the political implications of this. So very, very proud to propose. |
</pm> |
<lo> |
three things in this speech. One, i talk about why individuals are much better off uh because of this trend. Two, I'm going to talk about why children are better socialized and have better opportunities under our world and three, i'm going to talk about |
alternative family structures but before that, just a bit of rebuttal on this idea of old people are screwed because of the decline of traditional family units. I would note two things. One, because in the status quo that is the site that we are supporting old people know that their families are going to be broken down i think this incur, encourages two sorts of responses. One, I think all people in our world, parents, grandparents, are encouraged to impart more care towards say, children or other members of their family because precisely, because the precise fact that they know that these people are people who can leave them at any single point and it won't become a social taboo. So I think this generally means better practices within the family unit and less I don't know force towards the children which I'll talk about later on. But the second thing I'll note is, this isn't a big harm in prop model because if all people know that family units are going to be breaking down I think this encourages things like saving up for their own future etc etc. |
So there are ways to mitigate this. I don't think this is an important part of this debate. Now, in terms of individuals, I just want to characterize how conditional family units operate, why tightly knit units are bad. I think the first note over here is about power. And I think power is concentrated because of three things and dispersed because of three things within family units. One is the simple fact of age. The older you are, the more power you have in a family unit. This can be looked at, like, you know, if you're a grandparent in an Indian family, you will have lots of power and will have the space to negotiate for yourself. |
The second thing I want to note is financial capacity. The people who bring in money to the family are the people who have more say. And third thing I want to know is all of this intersects with gender. That is to say that male patriarchs are likely to have more power within tight-ended families. Why is this then bad for individuals? I say individuals in their world are oftentimes not really able to pursue the lives that they want to live. They are not able to self-actualize. What is the comparative then? I think power is decentralized in our world much more than it is in theirs because of a couple of things. If you don't have tight-ended family, |
I think one reason for why people move abroad or move to a separate city is oftentimes in search of jobs. Why are jobs then crucial? I think one key mechanism here is the fact of financial independence. That is to say that oftentimes if you move away, have your own job, have your own means of, means of earning, you are able to dictate how you want to live your life better as opposed to if you are dependent on a pool of resources that were coming in from your family patriarch. The second one note is the fact of distance. Oftentimes people move apart because you know, they're students, they need to go abroad. |
I think distance gives you lots of room to negotiate things for yourself and live the life that you want to live. I think you have more opportunities in our world because you do not have to face constant scrutiny by the family or in the worst kinds of instances, financial blackmail. The fact that you are away from your family means that you're not communicating with them 24 seven. It becomes easier for you to keep secrets. The fact that you have a boyfriend or girlfriend that you don't want to talk about or hide from your family is much easier. And I would note that the most vulnerable communities, that is women perhaps homosexuals in deeply homophobic societies are the people who enjoy these liberties the most because they are able to keep these secrets to themselves, live their lives without this constant scrutiny. The second thing I will note is with regards to conjugal rules. Now I've already talked about the fact there's a pool of finances with entitlement family units oftentimes, whereby people share their resources but I think in our world what happens is there's more self-reliance economic pressures on family units especially in the developed world things like you know a rising cost of rent rising costs of child care rising cost of goods and services generally means that one person in the family unit, say, a nuclear family household is not able to sustain the whole family unit. Why is this a good thing? I think what this does is it encourages women's participation in the market. Economic pressures mean that it is much more likely for women than to be forced into the labor market and therefore have much more choices available to them because the fact that they have more money, they have more friends, they have a bigger network outside of their home. Notice that this doesn't happen in their world specifically because you have a pool of resources, where male patriarchs, male siblings can get together, have the money and then dictate how these women live their lives. The second thing I want to note is that cultural barriers also disperse. That is to say that because distance is removed, women within finance, even if your husband is an asshole, I'm assuming he's not going to be as big of an asshole as say the grandparents. I think this gives you more distance and allows you to not be seeking to like cultural barriers that limit the kinds of things that you can do, which means that you have greater likelihood of joint conjugation |
relationships where perhaps you share things like household responsibilities and caring responsibilities. And I want to spend some time on caring responsibilities, right? Because in tightly knit family units, the responsibility of women oftentimes is not just to provide emotional labor and sustain their husbands, it is oftentimes to care for the whole fucking family, that is care for the husband's parents, care for other siblings, so on and so forth. I think these sorts of responsibilities disperse and women have much more room to think about what they want and not disperse this emotional labor where they don't want to do so. The second thing i'm going to talk about is children, before that if there's anything from closing,seeing that as there is none i'm just going to go straight into children. I think the first thing that happens for children is socialization and distance from problematic childhood role models increases right. The reason why this is an important thing is oftentimes the oldest members of your family unit are also the people who have the worst kinds of cultural practices ingrained in them. This is because they have not interacted with I guess the new world technology, so on so forth. They're often times patriarchal homophobic so on and so forth. Children spend much more time in their world with these people and are therefore influenced much more by these people because the fact that they are living with them. So i think children are bet, much better socialized in our world where they have more space and are not going to be you know, limited by by these cultural confines. The second thing I'll note is with entitlement family units your family relationship is the most important thing. So oftentimes the people that you end up hanging out with are your cousins or your brothers or your siblings or whatever, this is how how lots of these kids are socialized but i would know that diverse friend networks happen under our world. So you spend much more time with your friends it's much more okay for you to go out and spend time with them as opposed to your family. Why is this crucial? Because I think this negates OG's claim of most adversely affected families. Because oftentimes, note, in the most vulnerable communities, family businesses oftentimes go bust or you have things like financial hardship. In these moments, it is almost always crucial for you to have outside networks that get you access to financial opportunities as opposed to this. So I think having a diversity of friends, so people in CSS or doing other kinds of jobs oftentimes means that you can get financial opportunities by virtue of having these networks and notice that the key mechanism here again, is that you have more time to spend with them and build stronger relationships and therefore, get stronger benefits. The last note on alternative familiar structures, I would note that single parent households exist cohabitation exists under our world and theirs but in their world the space for these alternative households to exist is less why because notice, if there is a trend of traditional family households declining, necessarily there's a numerical rise in other alternative familiar structures rising up why is this important because visibility for these financials, for these familiar household structures increases. This is great because oftentimes note that single mothers are financially discriminated because oftentimes jobs like Boston will ask the question, can these women work and also raise their children? But notice if there are multiple or a plethora of these kinds of households which are much more visible in your friend networks and so on, it becomes much more okay for you to accept them. I think for all these reasons, we beg you to do so. |
</lo> |
<dpm> |
okay, so first a small rebuttal towards our case before, I have two substantive response so I guess with that place so. So first I think like they said that like it would be better because they're all people can care more about young children because they expect that in the future like if they do not care enough the children will get away and do not care for them. I think like this is wrong because at least in, this at least on our side of the house where there are strong integrated families there are always incentives because the quality or come from social norms that everyone inside family need to care about each other it means that in our side of the house |
the old people have a lot of care towards the children, even life spending, sacrifice their finances with their savings for a very long time for their children to be able to get into college in the state side or outside. I think that because the normal relation, it means that old people will not let the children, but it's like that even if the parents or the grandparents give to them a lot, let the children receive that as a gift and they do not have to cut moral obligation to pay back for those gifts. And therefore, no integrated families |
It means that those children, you can easily get away. It's just like all the kind of benefit that the grandparents give them. It means that now, in the old side, there could be lots of connections, like less incentive for old people to care about younger children, and also less incentive for young children to care about grandparents or older people. I will put further our substances on why it's especially harm on poor families. Okay, so my two suggestives in here. The first one about why |
this kind of production in integrated families, structurally, hamper families, and secondly, why on our side of the house there can be much that they will be able to foster the work of social change compared to our side. Okay, so with the first sentence of why it is very harmful for poor families, I think that basically in here we see on their side of the house there will be less people caring financially or support on healthcare for each other, |
It means that, first of all, we see when some old people in families have some kind of cultural, it's less the least that actually going to go directly to support for them, and maybe just spend a little bit money to support for that grandparents to stay in the hospital. It's just that it means that old people maybe suffer a lot more in the case that they do not get like rare people, who they know before to support for them or do not have enough money to care about and solving their health issues. They may die sooner and also having |
must less watching or happy life, right. It's already behind them. But it's a second place to see that it also harm to the children to reduction in investment towards children. Because we see, for instance, I think it's less impactful for middle class or rich families, but actually for poor families. Now if the parents see that, yeah, I will save the money for myself, I will enjoy that in the future. My children, if they want to go to college, they need to take their own debt, I do not pay money for them. It means that now the children need to put in much |
higher risk for season because they need to own like get the debt, a very high debt, and try to buy it later, which means that there are certain places where they could never be able to make if they do not get a workshop or they sacrifice and not go to college at home and take time to a low wage job. It means that for those very many poor families, it's structurally like much more difficult for a lot of children to basically get a way to get to higher income and get into a higher social ladder. It means that now you constantly keep on the skype for family stay in still a low income bracket in in the society and therefore income inequality was i think that is very important in the case that because we see that those people lives will be much better on our side of the house because the children are now able to must be able to get to college. Means that like if the highest income they can get from a good show they much more likely to enjoy their life also able to be spend source money on their children in the future, if they get who's salary instead for their colleagues right. So why in this site is very difficult to change that i think that like they may say that yeah but now the world may care more about poor people. This will not not happen as I said before those kind of impact from from the listening state um families do not affect much for middle class, because like they will get good salary anyway right. There's very little risk for people who are able to vote now to get a to lose central and get uh and lose all their monies right because like we see that at the time about people able to vote right, over 18 years old the future income are quite clear now because like if you will come from middle families or reach a million you see that you can easily get a good police already or the parents who do not want to sacrifice so much financially, but they're still able to spend a lot a ton of money to their children together to police. Means that those who have from middle class originally not have incentive to vote or have any kind of change to government towards making uh, more credit to poor families, if you see that the perfectly in here suffer from themselves and therefore much more likely to lose out uh on their side of the house. But secondly, why this uh doesn't lose in the foster brothers social change I think like a lot of argumentation from O. O. only talk about like, yeah, young people can easier get away from their families and keep secret, make them stay out. Women are more likely to get the job themselves and therefore,they matter for women. |
I think that those cases only restrict to the kind of family which maybe rich family who people like women have advantages, and can stay and like keep growing up the children by their own because like they need to have a lot of support from their families or have a lot of money to do that before. It has to be people who also able to get away with it somewhere else and pick their own job. Who also need to come from an advantage background. Otherwise, radical to break away from those kind of families. But in that case, we see it's only good for those people, at least on outside the house. Now when people stay within the families, most people do so. Like you see that it's already like what happened before. Like there are a lot of activities and changes within society already. It means that now in outside the house a lot more family have connections. It means that the fight will be much better on outside the house because now all the people who have advantage, the woman who have advantage, and peop who have a lot more money, |
They are able to talk with their parents. They need to let, they have much more incentive to change the mindset of parents in that case to make themselves look good. And the parents now also understand a lot because the stake is much higher. They might more likely to change their views on LGBT or women getting jobs or not. And those are people who later on have the ability to change the social society from political, be a source of like many people have their money so they are high rank in the company. They're more likely to hire women if they know that. |
Yeah, that not just a money to need to get a job that takes like that. Of course, what a money to support for entity rights in the case of a clearly see that this benefit of doing so or they understand what every team or so in outside the house at least more people understand about those minority issue rather than the outside. That's why outside impact is much louder if it is not a speech. |
</dpm> |
<dlo> |
The structure of this particular speech is fairly simple. And firstly, when we look at macro impacts, these are impacts which I impinge on every member of the family, then I'm going to look at |
the micro specific people and specific communities which are impacted. Before that, I just want to make two comments. I think debate is a tendency to debatify very human motions and I just want to forward to a human observations of what I think the integrated families look like, which aren't based on like primary socialization or the pooling of resources. You're basically living in a familiar panopticon when you're living in a tightly integrated family. Everyone is watching you all the time. You have no private space to yourself. |
And this is especially true for people who tend to be on the wrong side of the age and gender hierarchy. In this case, female partners and children. This has nothing to do with the argumentation in the debate. I just think it's a terrible thing that happens in tightly integrated family generally. Secondly, just like a very human observation, this entire intuition about, you know, how you can bounce kids around and then they can be cared for by an aunt instead of an uncle or an uncle instead of a mother. This again, in a debate sense, makes sense. But think about how it feels |
is a human being. Think about a kid who grows up who barely gets to see his mother. Sometimes he's his aunt, sometimes he's his uncle, and then sometimes he's his elder cousin, right? Like, again, in a debate sense, yes, children are cared for by pooling resources. But in a very human sense, it's a very terrible experience for a child where there's no continuity in child care development, because most of your socialization is spread out over six different, fairly different and diverse sources. Let's talk about the macro first. I'm going to forward three claims here. The first claim is an economic claim. For better or for worse, |
the economy today is globalized, it is agile, it is flexible. The labor market has to respond appropriately and be flagile, flexible and agile English. What that means then is that you should be allowed to move wherever the economy takes you. This is the difference, for instance, between the difficult decision of coming to London to study an educational degree or as my sister is doing working in Washington because that's where the job was that she got. In their world, what happens is that tightly integrated families create barriers to |
to entry within these situations they make it difficult for you to leave because of the literal definitional meaning of a tightly integrated family which is that they want you to stay back. Note, that if you do take these degrees and scale yourself if you do get these jobs then this leads to economic empowerment for every member of the family, irrespective of who they are. The second claim I want to make within the macro is to do with culture and here's where I directly clash with deputy prime minister's argument about how morals and cultures evolve. I'm going to posit that when you live in a tightly integrated family, A, it tends to have a patriarch so there's problems with command and control but secondly, these tightly integrated families tend to be echo chambers. The same family of 25 people with aunts and uncles thinks the same things and often reinforce their opinions. Clash this panel with the idea of a nuclear family, in which case, if there's five people and your individual who disagrees about LGBT rights, disagrees about voting for Trump, you can make your opinion |
and affirm your opinion in a way that you can't in their work. So if anything, cultures and models stagnate between the tightly integrated families and are much more open to progress and evolution in our world. The final macro claim, I'm going to discuss is to do with care, and they often argue that caring for the elderly, caring for children, caring for those with different needs is better achieved in their world because of the pooling of caring resources. This is the generic claim on government bench. I have two responses. |
One, the reason that tightly integrated families have declined, for instance, in the United States, but not for instance, in Pakistan, is because something was happening there called the socialization of care. What that strange difficult phrase means is that now you have state-based daycares. Now you have state-based elderly homes. Now you have state-based facilities which exist to displace and replace existing facilities and functions which the family traditionally cares about. |
This means that they're forgetting the reason this trend happened in the first place, which is that other people are already fulfilling the role that they want families to fulfill for some reason. Secondly, within care, also realize that this is a bit disingenuous to our side, right? Because we can have communal care networks anyway. So what this would look like, for instance, this is what happened with me if my mom is working and I'm growing up, she doesn't need to have an entire family set up to make sure that I have daycare somewhere. She can talk to our neighbor if she's late at work. She can talk to our friends, because that's because families aren't tightly integrated doesn't mean that they live on eska bank right like they still have friends they still have communal networks that they can utilize to get that sort of care in before in. Before I discuss the micro and the granular detail of how this affects specific communities, I'm very happy to engage with closing government please go ahead |
<poi> |
So recognize the comparative. There's two families with patriarchs in it. One's a nuclear family, one's a larger family. But within that family where you have one patriarch, you have no one else to really access who can talk sense into the patriarch. As opposed to a larger family, where you have like aunts, uncles, grandparents, a lot of people who have control over those patriarchs. Recognize the comparative engagement with it. |
</poi> |
the problem there is that you have patriarchs on both sides. In our world, patriarchs are reaffirmed by all the aunts and uncles. In your world patriarchs are reaffirmed by the two or three other people at the dinner table. Patriarchs are reformed on either side, I completely agree with you, I'm just saying that they have less of an audience on our side and do on yours so you're fighting against four people now instead of 26, micro. Four claims one, we showed you that other households face systematic taboos in their world the point at which single women raising their children do not have any place to go, their responses were strange they said look people understand that these women are living in single-payer households through no fault of their own. Panel I wish that society was just generous but basically what happens is they look at their own communities and say we have a traditional family set up, we have a safe family set up, why is this women at the corner of the neighborhood living alone. This leads to systematic taboo against these women and also for same sex couples because any household structure which deviates from the norm of tightly integrated families faces huge discrimination, both social and economic from these groups. Secondly, we've shown to you that systematically women are much better off in our world, A, because of economic flexibility, two, because it don't face the terrible double shift of both emotional care and childcare within our world. But three, if opening government is correct and families are now under pressure because fewer people have more things to do then isn't that a reason why women will say, the husband also needs to chip in right, because the logical extension of their point is our point, which is, that now women say i have 10 things to do now i have less people to do it, you should probably help out. Thirdly we've shown you that lgbt couples are disentangled from the communal structures and societal discrimination that exists on their world. But finally, we impacted you that children are significantly better off in our world when in their best case they bounce around to different family members and in their worst case they're completely neglected. Panel, the economy and society is flexible and agile. The family has adjusted appropriately. That is the reason that we are very proud to oppose. |
</dlo> |
<mg> |
Right off the bat on CG, I want to do a couple things. The first thing I want to differentiate ourselves very clearly from OG, which is our case on CG will be why it is that families themselves are the most unique actor when it comes to things like, for example, caring for your children or being |
able to access that pool of resources in a different way. Because I think I want to engage right off the bat with what OO said about let's take them at their best. Let's assume that there are things like a shift in the world where you have like more state-sponsored care facilities where it's like you're shifting the way that the norm of how families obligation comes to caring for children, for example, or like the way that women work in families. Even if we take them at their best, I don't think that they're engaging with what this debate should be about, which is why did that families have the most unique role when it comes to passing down values, |
are passing down different cultural things that you otherwise, can't access from anyone else. So it's particularly unique for people who are a diaspora. I think this debate largely takes place for diaspora individuals or immigrants who have to move from the global South. Because a lot of times, the integrated family structure already exists in the global South. Because a lot of times the integrated families because a lot of times the integrated family structure already exists in the global south but it's but the point at which integrated families end up dispersing, is when you have to do things like assimilate or move to the West that has a largely highly individualistic norm. So that's what our case is going to be about. OK, first, we want to explain to you some quick framing |
What's the problem in this debate addresses? Why is there a decline in family values in the first place? First, we want to know that there's pressure in the status quo when it comes to moving away from this integrated approach. Because a lot of times in the West, there's a high emphasis on things like individualism, or buying your own house, or having your own car, or having some kind of working under a company. It's things that are conventional forms of capitalism that oftentimes states want you to participate in, because obviously that's good for things like the economy and that those are norms that exist. That's why you have like nuclear family, like getting your own house, car, a wife, a husband, or whatever, and like two children. The second thing is that a lot of times this norm is successful because it oftentimes connotes that independency is the only means to success. I think that's what OO assumes a lot of times in this case. But I think that the issue with that is that it ignores largely what families have to contribute, especially in an integrated approach. I think OG was incredibly vague in how they define what integrated families look like. So what did that look like? A lot of times integrated families can be two things. First, it can be spatial wise. A lot of times it can be living with you. You can have your grandparents and your extended family living with you in one house and you guys live together. Even if that's one of, and if you're immigrating, a lot of times there's things like green sponsor. So if OO tries to say that they, that integrated families locks you out of economic opportunities, we reject that because a lot of times it means that you're still able to access these economic means, but it looks like like other frameworks being accessed, which looks like things like green card and sponsoring your family to move with you. Oftentimes, even if you don't buy that spatial approach, a lot of times. |
it looks like tightly integrated families are often times emotionally like connected and like there's always like family familial events like holocaust dinners etc. Okay the reason why this is important and I think that family structure specifically and integrated families allows people who otherwise don't have access to things like your language or your cultural background being able to pass those values down and the reason why that's important is for a couple reasons. The first is just looks like things like your ability to access your language especially if you're a person of color because note that most times |
These are racialized individuals. The reason why this is important specifically for people like diaspora or living in the West is you are racialized anyway. Your ability to access economic opportunities, your ability to enter a job is going to be based off of your skin color or like the way you talk or even how you look. But even if you don't want to opt into that culture, you are going to be judged off of anyway because you're racialized and that's like a clear link. So at that point, your ability to access your culture is going to come down to a few choices. One, should you have that choice or not, |
that shouldn't be taken away from you. Your ability to do things like understand why your language or why your culture exists and why you're treated differently only can come from your family bond and you having access to your grandparents and your language. That can only happen if you're living or like highly integrated or like in connection with that family so they can like spread these stories or this culture with you. The second reason why this is important is a lot of times when it comes to like the political environments in these areas, especially if you are living alone or especially if you are like like in the west your ability to understand |
that political environment and how people react to you can only uniquely come from your ability to understand why you're being discriminated in the first place. So you can only take political action or you can only like, like join groups of people within your culture. If you empathize or sympathize with those people and understand why that's happening, that can only happen if you're if, if your approach to like that culture and that access to it significantly widen. The second thing I want to talk about is woman and why this is good for like diaspora. I'll take a POI actually from OO before I do that. |
<poi> |
Okay, I'm terribly sorry, but you seem to be propping the wrong motion. Like ethnic enclaves still exist. Friends still exist. Even if I don't have a huge Chinese extended family, I can live in Chinatown and New York. |
</poi> |
No, that's like, I'm not propping the wrong motion. Because I'm about to get into why that family is the best people to do this. Okay. So when it comes to family, like I feel like, OO like rejects the fact that it comes both ways. If family integratedness means that blood is so important, they have to take you at your best and at your worst. If you are a single mother, for example, it is incredibly taboo in that family. |
It means that your ability to be shunned from that family becomes significantly less because like blood triumphs over any other means because people value that family integratedness so importantly. So your ability to nurse with your own family, for example, if you have kids and you need to and you're single, your ability to pass it off to your grandparents actually becomes better because you're not living alone and putting that economic burden on yourself. The way that you're isolated becomes less because that blood obligation will |
always triumph over any other obligation and that and even if there's bad blood in the first place. The third thing is that when it comes to women's ability to negotiate and enter the economic workspace, your ability to again negotiate with your family and get that connectivity can only exist if you're not isolated. There's like the comparative in this case that my partner put it out in a POI is that nuclear families still exist in the status quo on ops world which means you're probably going to be isolated living with your husband or wife or whatever or with the child even if you're single or not. So |
if you're in a like toxic situation and your husband does abuse you, you're like you can't there's no unique mechanism for you to escape that. And in our world, if you're living with a family and you're in an integrated family that has relatives, your accountability increases because you wouldn't do that in front of your grandparents or like in an abusive toxic household, that ability for people to step in increases. The second thing I want to tell you is that like when it comes to things like economic opportunities and family businesses, like your ability to access that family network, especially |
if you're a diaspora, increases, because usually it means being obligated to a family business off the start because you are going to be racialized or shut out from better economic opportunities compared to white people. We'd rather take that on the world if it looks like accessing a family network and being able to get economic opportunity in that way. And then later being able to get a job or at least being somewhat financially comfortable and living comfortably in that. So CJ takes this debate because we tell you explicitly why families are able to pass down certain values to you that are much more important than any other. |
that you get better economic opportunity. We beg to propose. |
</mg> |
<mo> |
Okay, cool. So I'm going to begin with extraneous rebuttals and then I'm going to get into my case, right? Because like the government, like the closing government have a funny case here. They come in to tell us that like with these strong family bonds, we are able to do political actions and organize around a single issue, right. To give all these examples like Black Americans first, I think that people organize around issues that affect them either way. I don't think that I need like a strong family bond to tell me that i have to organize to fight against racism, if I'm a black person and every day i'm subjected the effect of racism like every day i see how people are being killed through police brutality, if I'm a gay person and I see how he is oppressed within society. I don't, I don't need like my father my mother to tell me that these things actually happen if i think that i'm experiencing and like I need to actually change around them but second they come in they like they say like it's it's more likely to have some negotiation and be able to change things like in my analysis of the motion I would say how this actually does not happen because it's, it clearly misses the poor dynamics which operates within firmness. But then they talk about like family values and how you access cultures right. I will also explain this in in my poems but like which kind of family values are which kind of values are more likely to be passed down through these highly integrated feminists because you have to understand that when you're talking about cultural selection and like how we get to adopt some aspect of a culture. Usually when something is positive we are likely to accept it most of the things which you do not accept is negative aspect within the culture and i'm going i will show you how specifically like these families exist to kind of to be like keeping to reinforce this negative structures like negative cultural values. But also they talk about like financial support, emotional support in both house, like on both sides of the house. I really don't, I feel like this is basic compassion, like even though we already exist, you know, like where most people we are likely to even make fundraiser for, for like friend people where we go to and visit people that we do not even know like where we go to know houses to help old people. We do not even know. I don't understand how we need like this strong family bond. |
So have acts of basic impact. Things that we even do to strangers. I really don't understand why it's necessary that these families can bring those things. OK, cool. In my speech, I'm going to give a social cultural contextualization of families. This means I'm going to talk about the underlying premises or structures on which families operate. I'm going to see how families exist as social functions. I'm going to see how social cultural success determines how families are created and operate. |
And then I'm going to, and then I will elaborate like other things that in which for me is function. First, you have to understand that families exist as like basically what we mean when we say how like underlying premises and how families exist as social cultural functions. Like when we are talking, like I want us to talk about like the biggest part of this world, right? Like let's talk about the mid-day, let's talk about Africa. Let's talk about different, different kinds of societies. Like you have to understand that like the way we come to create families is not just that I wake up and decide to create a family, right? It's usually through, through values that are already shaping them in my society. Like not just patriarchal, like, etonomativity, but even other kind of practices, right? Like when you get into the details of how family are created. So for example, like when I teach young women to endure in their family, like, you remember that every time before, like, actually, like, wedding happens, they're this, like, telling the women how they have to respect their husbands, telling them how they have to endure within their families, like, telling them how they have to preserve their race. For example, like, already to the point when we're talking about integrated families, we have to understand that it is families |
that do not defy the existing social cultural status, but it's families which adhere to this. Because all the all the all the societies and all the cultures in themselves, they have they have this kind of notion of preserving the race or preserving their religion. If it's like religious society telling people to marry within the religions, if it's some sort of cultures or races, teleport to marry within their races, giving advice, like giving women instruction how they have to stay within their family, how they have to be supported into their husbands. Right. So already when you have those |
of narrative around the families and that kind of narrative is actually gatekeeping the kind of families that you can have given that if you want to marry outside your race, outside your religion, it's very unlikely for your family to support you. Most people who want to do this kind of families which the government might want to talk about, they don't get to create these families in the first place. There is the whole society and cultural forces which are pushing against that, which want to preserve it right because you have to understand that families do not exist just to pass down offspring or for emotional, like emotional support, right? |
Family also exists as a function of society and they exist to preserve the social values, right? And this is where we talk about the kind of values which the government is talking about. Because like, if we most more like you have to understand that like most of the this like rebel ideas that we have are relatively new, right? And you have to understand that the way that the family function is that they create this sort of part dynamics where they tell you that, for example, when there is integrated like families, they create this kind of dynamic where like through a array socialization they tell you that you have to respect your father, you have to respect your parents, that the people who give the kind of the most advice and the best advice that it is impossible to to to be able to listen to other things that, for example that changes the task right for example, if I go to my school and the teacher tell me that's like, for example, you have to be like understanding to lgbt people you have to fight against patriarchy, you have to to allow these all people to have the rights even that I was raised in integrated family, I was socialized to believe that what my parents think is better than what any any other other person think, given that I was raised to absorb the values of my parents. And given that already for this family to be integrated for this family to happen in the first place, it's also because they adhere to the values of their grandparents. Then we have a chain which keeps, keeping all values. And this chain keeps like putting itself in a position of power, determining like which kind of values we're supposed to accept or not accept, but also deciding which kind of people we are supposed to listen to and which kind of people we're not supposed to listen to when we have those kind of won't have those kind of system. Then it's more likely, it's very likely that within integrated families we are very unable to change the status quo right we tell you that when we have this kind of detached families then I don't I'm not socialized to risk to to like to respect blind it whatever that my parents are telling me, i'm able to get out of the system, i'm able like to to kind of make my own way and like be able to have my own actualization and be able to advocate for social change. So basically we believe that we believe that like society and families they co-opt to decide who to listen to, the corrupt decide which criteria you have to adhere to as a society, and given that this is some sort of gate keeping, then we have all trends which keep being repeated over and over again, and then we have less change happening on the government side. On our government side, we think that most of the positive things which they are talking about is actually symmetrical, right? It's things which come with basic empathy, right? Even at schools, we learn about basic empathy. I don't need my mother to tell me that I have to help old people or like that I need to help them when they get old. |
These are things which can happen either way, but we tell you specifically that families exist, most integrated families, they exist to be keeper of old values and we are unable to change society for the better on the side of the government. |
</mo> |
<gw> |
Just to very quickly take CO out of the round. When they tell you that you believe what your parents tell you and that it really affects socialization in a way that you are unable to self-actualize, I think they make a similar mistake to OO, which is that they kind of ignore the actual dichotomy in this debate. The dichotomy in this debate is not that you have fully self-actualized individuals able to access all opportunities versus a large strictly like homophobic family. They're giving us the worst case scenario and then arguing just on those grounds but I think that any problems they talk about and understand this framing because this is what I'm going to be using for the entirety of the speech, if they're going to talk about traditional families within sorry, traditional values within families then, all I have to do is prove to you that those values can be much worse in nuclear families as opposed to larger families. That is the only framing that Ii need to knock those teams out of this round having said that, let's move on to the different things that I'm going to be talking to you about. One, I'm going to talk to you about women and children as stakeholders. Two, I'm going to talk to you about preservation of culture, why it's important, why it only happens in our world. And three, if I have time, I'll talk more about economic safety net. I think that kind of died on front half, but we'll still pick it up if I have time. Okay. So let's talk about women and children and why we think that we are the side that uniquely proves to you that you benefit those stakeholders instead. So uniquely on women, OO tells us a bunch of things. They say, well, it's difficult |
for women to leave, they remain stuck in patriarchy, and it's super bad. But the problem here is that when I bring it up in a POI, like I do get a response, but I need to explain further why that POI was important. Because we understand that the thing with larger families is accountability is something that is much more possible. Why is that true? All's own framing about how older people in the family are seen as wiser and you listen to them. What does that mean? That means that like, you're not going to yell at your wife if your father is over there because he's going to be like, what the fuck, dude? You're not going to like, |
you are pushed to evolve yourself, pushed to be on better behaviour towards the rest of your family simply because the rest of your family is there. When Ola talks about audience, they can't just ignore that the audience has no impact. We're telling you that it's because of the fact that your dad is in the room or her parents are in the room that you're not going to do those things and eventually it turns into a pattern where because you stop doing it, due to other people being there, you kind of stop doing it later on entirely. And that's what we're telling you is that |
because of that accountability specifically, we think it's easier. Why is that different in their world in nuclear families? It's different because you have a smaller family. You're not seeing others that often because you're not that tightly knit. You're not very open about your issues. You don't really share what problems you have because you don't want them involved. The problem then is that the woman is then stuck in like a small household where she has very little avenue or any very little like means to speak to a person that can actually get through to her husband and explain what the problems are. Given that we think on that comparative, we take this. |
Two, they talk about single mothers and how it creates a taboo for other alternative types of family arrangements. Here's the problem with that. Sara told you a bunch of things for this. One, she said, actually single mothers most of the times are getting help from like their parents or a lot of the times are getting help from like their ex-husband's families simply because of this idea of like blood is thicker than water and the idea that family sticks together. These are all things Sara told you. This was our mechanism that that's why families are more likely to back you up than anyone else even when times are even when times are tough, |
because they believe that their family also because they don't want to seem like shitty family members. That is also a huge part of it. But two, we told you a lot of the reason for why women were even able to access economic opportunities to begin with was because of things like grandparents. A lot of like my mom negotiated with my dad to get a job simply because she said, oh, the kids can stay with the grandparents. So many women are able to access like jobs and opportunities to self actualize simply because they have like aunts and uncles and parents that are willing to look after the kids when they're not home. That is the, |
that is the only way so many women are able to negotiate with their husbands. And thirdly, it's also because again, older family members are the only ones that these husbands tend to listen to because they can coax them into like understanding those things and like changing their behaviors. That's why we think compared to a nuclear family where it's just you and your husband and the kids, we don't really think you have much of an avenue in that case. And if they want to talk about things like sending your kids to daycare, I think in a lot of cases, it takes money. A lot of people don't trust it. |
It's not a valid alternative. Three, now having talked about women and why we think women exclusively can only gain access to so many other things because of extended families and large integrated families, let's talk to you then about children and why we think we went on that stakeholder as well. They tell us, well children are socialized into problematic values, one. Two, they tell us that a lot of the times children are unable to separate themselves from their families because things like homophobia but also attachment. Okay, I think children are not socialized into problematic values in larger integrated families, simply because they'll have different narratives like, you have a cool ant that may like think like being gay is actually okay. I think it's a lot of the times it's not like families are not homogenous and that's not that's something that opposition doesn't understand is that large families have a diversity of people in them when you have access to those experiences is only when you're able to break out of that cycle when your aunt calls out your mom for like being a bitch towards you that's when you see like oh yeah like that's a viewpoint that I have access to and because it is someone |
within your family, you're likely to like believe them and likely to actually take their word. That's we think it's like education of children is much more better. It's much better done in that case. And as far as things like homophobia, etc, go, I think, again, just the access to other family members and their ability to maybe convince your parents about like things like that. Or even if your parents don't listen to you, just the fact that if you if your parents kick you out of the house because you're gay, at least you might have other family members that are willing to take you in and financially support you to make sure you like you don't like die and that's the thing. And finally, like, as far as like, we talk about this idea of grandparents, we think because they're generally seen as like softer towards kids. That's how you also break a lot of cycle of abuse is when it comes to children that are abused by their parents. Okay. Let's talk to you secondly, and more importantly about this. Like huge case that we gave you about, about diaspora individuals and the indigenous communities. Why is this so important? It's crucial because indigenous languages are dying out. Like when you talk about the Haudenosaunee's that are like, they're dying out. |
that are in Ontario right now, they're fighting against land treaties. They're trying to preserve land and culture. Why is that important? And why does that die? Because of families disintegrating. Because a lot of the times it's only the grandparents that know these languages, only the grandparents that know the histories who can tell you what the land treaties were and how the government is violating them right now. This is important in so many ways because that's what leads to political action within diaspora communities. Because you're able to like understand the language of your people, your culture, your history. You're able to feel angry on behalf of your |
collective issues, that is how you get political action. And secondly, as far as enclaves are concerned, yes, they exist irrespective of family structure, but your access to those enclaves is dependent on things like, oh, like do I speak the language or how close am I to my culture because they might not want to associate with me. I think all of those things are super important and we uniquely bring that stakeholder to you. For all those reasons, we're very proud to propose. |
</gw> |
<ow> |
Dear panel, today, before building my case, I'd really like to start with some rebuttals made to the members of government. So first of all, I'd like the Aspara claim that it's so good, then it's gonna keep you, gonna keep the values and the language and everything that you have within your family, and so on and so forth. First of all, when considering the aspire, you should also consider that you're there, you have migrated to another place, but that doesn't necessarily mean that your entire family is going to be there. So it's not a large portion of your family. But even if there is, and even if you go only through, this is as much good as it is to keep your own values and everything I believe in that, like you keep your own family values, you keep your own language. But you also need to consider that you are also migrating into another place. So it becomes very risky when you only engage within your family within your own language and your community. You only build your everyday life around your community while you migrate it and you you now on another place, on a new place is the different kind of perception on the people, there is this different kind of dynamics in the society which might be very different from, from your values and from what family values you have and then when you go to this community and they have different values from the one you've talked to, it's much harder for you to engage with them and it's much harder for you to actually belong there, feel like belonging there. But it's also for those people on the other side who have found you, if you go and constantly talk about your, constantly talk only your language, how are you going to communicate with them? But even if you learn their language and you communicate with them, if you're just keeping your values and your past with you, how are they going, how are they likely to accept you and to want to engage |
with you and think of the all psychological problems and all the difficulties it brings with you when you're not able to take the place that you're going to spend and you're going to live your whole life there. They've talked about how it's important for a single, for a woman who has problems in her family, how it's important for her to take advices and to talk with her family members. We don't believe that's necessarily the case. Why? Because we have therapists there when they, when those women, where those women can go and can talk to. We don't believe that just because someone is blood, like it's that blood obligation there that someone's necessarily gonna give you the right advice, they are not professional, they're not therapeutic, they're gonna give you an advice on the basis of how they think but that doesn't mean this advice is the right one so just because he is your fam he or she is the family from that there loves you. yes cg, I'll take cg quickly |
<poi> |
So if we're talking about things like you being conditioned by your family, like you're not living in a vacuum, your ability to access other means like education, or other social values exist, but the unique benefit on gov, is your ability to educate your family through things like trust or having discourse of why things like gay is totally okay. So how does that change an ops world? |
</poi> |
Yes, exactly. Before going to the gay thing, it's very important for someone who is gay to come out with them when they have a bigger family, when they have conservatives in there, and they keep in these bubbles of values they've created and constantly keep this language. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.