Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k
</poi>
Market to them directly you know, market on T.V., shows that then currently tend to watch, use marketing tactics that male dominated sports use right now, build more arenas in areas that men happen to live in, not that difficult, cool. So, why is it then that this then creates more infrastructure going on into the future? Ii think it means that because a lot of men when they're deciding things within governing structures which men are disproportionately represented within they have to then decide what sports infrastructure might exist within a park. It means that men in these circumstances are much more likely to consider building the infrastructure. For this specific women sport, means they're more likely to teach this in schools. Which means more people are likely to be involved in teaching this sport. In the long run with this means, is more people than are teaching their children teaching their young girls to play this sport because it is something that they were a fan of, it's why we've seen this particular rise of girls soccer over the last 25 years because of how ubiquitous it has been and how easy it has been to teach your own children this, I'll take the poi from opening by the way.
<poi>
You mentioned something about girls dropping out due to puberty, could you explain that point a bit further.
</poi>
Yeah, because in a lot of circumstances because of sexism once girls start getting their period and a lot of times, there's a lot of pressure to make girls drop out of sports. I think that you destigmatize this to a large extent, once it is that you start normalizing a lot of people playing a sport that is also predominantly and historically record set by girls, cool. Short term incentives, I think in the short term, you start prioritizing men here. You get a massive increase in viewership which you can use to find a lot of the types that we're talking about. Why? Because a lot of sports viewership under status quo is male, right. Which means that a lot of times if you just market this to more men, means you're more likely to see an increase in viewership because the people who watch sports programs already, tends to be male so they're more likely to start viewing your sport in comparison to other programming that's available but it also note that this is the highest impact demographic because these types of leagues have likely already been prioritizing women for a long time in their own market. So, it's unlikely to be the case that you haven't thought of a specific way to market to girls that you know these leagues haven't tried before and you haven't already come close to not maximizing but to very much expanding to the greatest extent possible, how many girls you can get involved into the sport.This is a new demographic of people, who will pass down these sports to their children, who are very, very likely to be girls which means more people watch the sport into the long term which makes it sustainable. We’re proud to propose.
</pm>
<lo>
Two things in this speech, first of all explaining why as a sports organization, you're simply unlikely to succeed and then secondly, explaining the obligations of a major sporting obligation to the people it has already bound itself to. Before that though, two extraneous responses, first, I think they have a good point when they say that a lot of girls drop out during puberty. Which is why we think that there are equal and, there's an equal amount of space for sporting organizations to increase the participation of women in sports by proportionately increasing the amount of support they might have or the salaries that they might have to make it a more viable option for women that now ought not rely on their families or perhaps methods to directly market to women or to their families and making it like less of a weird thing for women to do. We think broadly speaking, the matter of fact is that because of the fact that it's out of school there's not quite that much funding for these women, we think it would be a bit of a shame for you to take away your preexisting, to take away the fuel for your preexisting fan base and instead put it into something that's quite unstable and quite unlikely to succeed. We think this brings me directly to the second response which is that, yes, it might be possible to market the voice but gov does very little the way the likelihood that it will succeed. Simply saying that because we pay, because we tell people to do these things and because we will advertise on television, now people on the ground will start picking it up as a sport because it's more accessible to them. It might be more accessible but that doesn't win against a counterfactual, which is that they still might choose soccer because there's already a preexisting soccer field so they have to prove why the competition and the necessary marketing will lead to an increase in participation as opposed to just saying assuming it by consequence. Okay first argument, so why will this not succeed and to briefly explain this we're going to first set up the trade off so we think a natural trade off is that you're going to be spending money bandwidth on marketing and money and medical bandwidth on marketing and recruitment. You're going to be splitting the amount of hosting events that you have and the time slots that you have between this sport that you have and the other preexisting leagues that you have for women. So, we're fine with not having a lot of men participate in the sport, our main concern with this is simply that you're expanding men’s participation in the sport crowds a lot of spaces particularly, for women as well as reduces the ability for them to participate as well as reduces the ability for the league to participate. We broadly agree that the interest of the major sporting association is money and it may be long term but we first say that this is terrible for the long term but secondly, it also destroys short term which is necessary for us to even reach the long term. Okay bringing to the argument, we have four structural reasons why you will lose out on money and why you will be unlikely to recruit people in a meaningful fashion as well as unlikely to make a profit. First of all, you divert a lot of air time from the personalities and narratives that your fan base already cares about, in that major sporting league whether it be rivalries between teams in the female league whether it be the personalities that are dominant in that league that may lose opportunities for interviews or even competitions that your league runs so this new setup naturally comes at the trade off for mainstay personalities and narratives in your old sport as well as comes intermixed with definite criticism from teams and players that will feel betrayed because of an explicit contradiction with your previous expressed preferences. This means that you now have a lot of criticism internally from the sport players might leave or stop playing out of protest. Additionally, we also make the observation that many fans will simply be turned off because many of the things that they actually do care about in the sport will be given less priority and spotlight. Secondly, note this is a new league, which means they also have to deal with having to build it from the ground up. Which means that they don't have any previously established teams or sponsors because you're breaking new ground in sports and because you're working immediately from the back foot this means that even if it might be the case, that this might be good for the long term. This is a substantially more unstable investment which means that you're competing with sponsors and you're competing with potential people that might want to set up a team with other more stable sports that and since you're already deprioritizing the stable sport that you have, this is likely to massively decrease the total funding and likely to be diverted to other sporting leagues that are substantially more stable. Thirdly, you're also competing with other sports for viewer basis, so in particular, they just kind of assert that you only compete with darts or poker but clearly that's not the case, all sports compete in a similar space first of all because it's an involved physical sport which means that you're debating, you're competing on limited personal time and effort from the players themselves who are choosing between sports as well as limited funding. From the players as well as the families bringing the players into the team as well as individual teams choosing which sports set up in. This means that you are competing with sports like the nba and you do have to be very, very careful about the strategy that you choose for stability. We also make the observation that limited viewers themselves have a limited mental bandwidth so if you have people looking for the pinnacle of athleticism and force they have a limited amount of time to consume things and they're not going to be watching sports all day at some point they're going to have to stop. Fourthly and lastly we also think that you hit natural barriers when it comes to recruiting men, which you don't hit when you're recruiting women first of all because there are lots of internal pressures not to go into the sport. That is getting shamed by your family, such as internal feelings like, this is the girly sport for a male kid to play which makes you feel ashamed of yourself and you'll get bullied by your friends at school because the fact that in the interim period there will be a lot of time where it hasn't been fully accepted yet and i thought she'll be bullied even if it is the case that it's supported by the school but also because of naturally dominant conceptions of masculine sport that go against this which makes you feel ashamed to do it but naturally there's also, naturally no viewer base, which means that there's not even going to be much money you're going to be making in that sport in the beginning. Which means that even if you pour lots of funding into it the amount of value you get per dollar is massively demystified. What does this mean, not multiply, but the opposite of amplify basically, why is this a terrible thing? There are two impacts, the first is the long term considerations directly clashing head on with opening government. All they do, so their considerations assume that they succeed in the long term because they get more people playing the sport in the long term but there's also a disproportionate decrease in the amount of people investing in the other sport that they have which is substantially more stable that is to say the female league. A dip in success directly correlates to the long term reliability and cultivation of a fan base and healthy competition between teams they remove their ability to keep the female sport which they're likely to be the largest league in either side that the major sporting association has, to keep it healthy and competitive beyond that the long term impacts also go away as you're likely to see many long term legacies simply die out due to things like covid because the fact that the short term is the most important period to remain stable because of covid meaning that the league isn't making that much money and because the fact that athletes are feeling awfully uncertain about the career in this league and now you're taking away funding from them and you're taking away the ability for them to sustain their careers, in this league. This means that they're massively likely to pull out and you're massively likely to lose out on short term and long term participation, before I move on, I'll take apoi from cg, go.
<poi>
So, these athletes probably train their entire lives because they really want to be good at it, I don't think they're suddenly going to pull out. Also, presumably, if these sports already so established, you don't just lose like, funds overnight, right, because presumably you need to build demand sector that score from the ground up so it takes some time.
</poi>
First, that's a good reason for why we should have a massive we have a disproportionate obligation to the large amount of women who have trained more for the sport than any other group of people but additionally, we also make the observation that governs og themselves says that there are gigantic social pressures against women to continue participating. We want to alleviate these pressures as opposed to exacerbate them by taking away opportunities for them. Just because they might, it might be harder for them to drop, it doesn't mean they won't drop it. If they can't make money from this, which is why many female athletes are already working a full-time job. So lastly, we also say that this massively fulfills the obligations of a major supporting or organization, in the sense that many of these women are already in the sport signed major contracts with the organization. They did not want to pursue athleticism as a career, they did want to pursue another career but they were shoehorned in these female dominated sports and is the only place for them to go and many of these teams are also wholly reliant on the sporting organization for support and continued subsistence. We say that the major sporting organization cares for these themes comparatively more than the potential male viewer base because they already have an explicit and express obligation to these people as they already signed contracts with them but also because of the fact that these people have been with them for a far longer time and essentially owe that obligation to these people. At the end of the speech, we do two things. The first is we give the first argument which makes us win, and the second thing we do is, we give the second argument which also makes us win. So for these reasons, thanks.
</lo>
<dpm>
OG has set up as clear of a debate as you can get. One, this is a major sporting association, so your incentives are to get viewership, attract attention and then profit. Two, the burdens were incredibly clear, OO says that our competition also extends to the nba, also extends the premier league but what we are trying to clearly make was be very realistic about what the actual short-term and long-term goals of this association was. Netball is not trying to become more popular than the nba, sure, they may be competing against them but their incentive and their main goal is not to be more popular than basketball the goal then, is to try and out compete smaller sports at the level of getting viewership and time slots for actual sports to be portrayed on like media and T.V. in general, right. The comparative is that on opposition world right now, to watch women is netball you need to find a weird stream on reddit to try and even access it. Our goal is that, such that, we can get those weird 2pm-3pm slots time slots away from men’s darts and towards netball in general regardless of the gender or the particular league that is happening. That is why the clear comparative is that. Thirdly, specifically why men’s marketing and recruitment convert short term and long term goals, let's deal with everything OO says and why they're incorrect. One, they have given us many mechanisms on why this does not succeed. First, accessibility does not mean participation, so CO also asked us, how are we going to achieve these aims, right, and it's very similar to how every single other sports league does this, as ethan already tells you but just as the nhl funds hockey arenas for smaller communities, we think that a netball league could fund a creation of a netball court in a smaller community or maybe even a larger community, right. What that means then is sure accessibility goes up but inherently, it also means participation goes up because one of the biggest barriers to entry, for a lot of these sports is the inaccessibility of the equipment necessary for that sport, right. People who want to go into netball gymnastics, figure skating whatever, depending on wherever their communities are, cannot access it because they literally cannot have the means or the resources necessary for it. We think that the initial first investment of having these kinds of resources available means that it's more likely that you do get participation. We don't need to prove 100 participation for the accessibility funding that we put in, we need to just suggest that there is an increase and we believe that this major barrier of lacking resources does lead to the increase. Second, trading off with spaces of women and diverting air time to men that are internally criticizing you, fans getting undermined, right. Three things I'd like to say here first, first is that fans currently like, I said intro, find their own streams in the pockets of the internet and that they can't even add, access their own sports you know, broadcasting so we'd suggest that the death like, the comparative in which these fans are able to access their sports in a more accessible way and also gets more fame and attraction is a good thing too. On the idea of internal criticism, we would suggest that a lot of these athletes would actually welcome an increase in interest within their sporting, within their sports in general but thirdly, even if fans or these athletes get upset in the short term. We think there's a massive long term benefit that are cruised when more individuals are engaging with the sport when the sport is able to actually grow and have more individuals playing it at a younger age and that is why we get those benefits. Fourthly, they also talk about natural barriers why girly sports won't be opted into anyways, right, and here's the best part of our mechanism, right. If you build the netball court and you meant it to be for males or like boys to play in that court. Who says that that is the only way you're able to use those resources, if it’s too girly of a sport and boys don't sign up, you now have all the resources you need to start up a girls league of netball, right. So we think that the initial marketing strategy of trying to appeal to boys works anyways, to get the resources in place and means that it also sets up futures for girls who want to play that sport. Finally major contracts, right. They have a very, very weird trade off of resources. They are suggesting that these sporting leagues are dumb enough to divert so much funding away from their very profitable female league, such that it crumbles, right, like, take this for example, the nba wants to start funding the WNBA, that's great but they will never allow it to crumble or never have so much funding diverted from the nba, such that the nba is going to start losing money for them, right. So the kinds of money transfers or the kinds of marketing that is going to change and the trade offs that exist are not as extreme as opposition team would like you to believe because in reality it's only such that you're trying to grow the sport, so maybe you'll do less marketing of your most like like your famous female icons but it does mean that you absolutely still have a main profit incentive to prioritize your women's leagues quick poi from CO .
<poi>
Do you think any women dominated sport could potentially be in the olympics without increasing participation to men?
</poi>
Okay, so this point is basically to say like, look, simone biles and gymnastics are in the olympics these sports are able to get a lot of fame, right, but the issue with that is that it is very temporarily, a temper, temporary and very, uh, yeah, short-termist as an approach to use the olympics to try and get any kinds of success. So can sports succeed without men? Not to the extent that these leagues want to, that's my answer. So, then in this debate, what is within the realm of possibility? Because this debate does still operate within a world of sexism and male dominance of sport in general, right. The sports that we're talking about and the big question I'm sure, opposition will ask is, what if men start dominating these female sports, right, but one, as Ethan says, they're dominantly female record sets. Which means that like, the fact that you have athletes like simone biles, probably meaning that you have the best gymnast in the world being a woman. Means that it is very difficult for it to become men dominated but secondly, why is men's participation key then, in these, in these instances? We think that in many, in cities, especially smaller ones there's not much pre-existing interest. So, here's what the kinds of investments that exist on opposition are, in the city of calgary canada. I'm sure there are some people who want to learn netball but not many, the current strategy that these institutions have been using for up to 30, 40, 50 years has not been working and that's what opposition misses. They just completely are not comparative because they're saying let's just keep doing what we are doing, what we are doing means that we are not getting any air time, it means that we don't have a single netball court in major cities in most countries, it means that a lot of individuals male or female are not able to access their sport and fourthly, it means that people tune their T.V.’s away even during the olympics because they simply don't know the rules of the sport and do not understand how the sport works and that causes apathy towards that close kind of sports, what do we prove to you in this debate, very mechanistically. One, the fact that we are able to market specifically to boys and also men in general playing the sport, means you get more resources funding. Two, that means you are more likely to access broadcasting and viewership. Three, that means in the long term that also helps your female leagues grow and of course, you're not going to neglect them because they're your main money source and fourthly, this is an absolute win for all individuals who are trying to access these kinds of sports, you beat out men’s darts. Proud to propose.
</dpm>
<dlo>
I agree with one thing from the previous speaker, simone biles is absolutely phenomenal. She deserves that spotlight and she better continue to have it and she deserves every single type of fame that you can get. The thing is, is that what is happening at government side is that they have chosen to defend a significantly minute and marginal benefit that I think has not been proven to be guaranteed, has not been proven to be more important for the league particularly, because they have also not proven or disprove the fact that you are actually going to reduce a lot of the viewership or at least the potential for you to cater to existing female athletes or future female athletes that should be able to exist, because we say simone biles is popular because we're able to inspire future girls, future women, future individuals who at least grow up in a sport because they have been locked out for many others, because now, they are told by society that you cannot go into basketball, you can't go into soccer because you're not physically capable but at least here, we know that many individuals can at least make a dream, many individuals can at least be inspired, many individuals can at least try and be able to get the achievements that people have been continuously saying that they can never have done so. We say we access that and unlock opportunities for a lot more women and that is why these major sports associations have an interest particularly with their existing fan base and that's why they have a special obligation to them. Two things, number one, why this is a principle betrayal to these female athletes and number two, on the even if even if you are successful in attracting more male participation, you are significantly likely to reduce future female sports culture entirely. Firstly, on the response and the principle betrayal to these female athletes and existing female and future athletes, I have two things to point out here. Number one, in the aftermath of several reports and claims by female dominated themes such as the gymnastics teams for the olympics led by simone biles and a lot of other women that have come out recently, to go out and come out against many of their male coaches and perpetrators prioritizing male participation emphasizes a form of masculinity and a form of idealization of trying to change a sport and make it better because the way you have to market this to more and more men and the way you have to market this to society, is that we can improve the sport and allow more men to be able to at least, make it more competitive, to make it more appealing, to make it more fun and the notion of trying to buy into this narrative makes it more and more toxic and buys into the masculinity that allows them to outshine many of these individuals. You make it less of a safer sport to participate in, because you give more welcome or you give more platforms and more voices and screen time to more of these male athletes and more of these team managers. If you don't believe the argument I have a second reason for this, the second reason is this, this is a speculative benefit at best, so david gives you several reasons that are responded to by the previous speaker as to why many of these boys and many of these investments on many of these netball courts or at these other places where you invite more men to participate in, inherently do not work and it will be unlikely to be unsuccessful because the many misogynist reasons that at least the society coerces these individuals and men to not participate in these sports even if you are marketing it, it doesn't fiat it that you're going to be successful in it. You can get a marginal niche of individuals but that's not going to be an incredible significant amount that changes the tipping point of this debate but more than this, I want to say is that future athletes are less important than current athletes because female athletes are more vulnerable because they have less options in general. David also points out that many of these individuals have already been locked out of many other sports and therefore, in a comparison of probability and of moral calculus over importance and obligation as an association you have a special moral obligation to these particular individuals who have invested their time and efforts to give and building themselves in this sport. So, the previous speaker and closing government also points out, you need to spend a lot of time building yourself up because you know, you have to protect your attendance, you shouldn't get an injury, you have to spend many years practicing with a gymnast so that you can be incredible and you have a few years to be able to do so. These individuals are in the prime time of their life and that's why they should be prioritized more, whereas at least if you are a man or if you're a male individual going into the sport you have so many other alternatives to turn into and that is why it is significantly less important for you to prioritize these individuals. Government says they have a growth potential but we proved that the guaranteed cost of you having to at least significantly like, take out screen time and marketing potential for many other women is worse and it's not a trade-off that we cannot accept particularly, because you make the sport less entertaining and less appealing for individuals to watch because of an existing fan base that cannot be less supported. I'll go into the more important argument now, on the even if. This is even if, it's an even if argument, even if you are initially successful in attracting more male participation at younger ages, at a younger level, it's more likely that you will reduce future female sports culture entirely. At a very young age in a school setting, let's remember secondary school, middle level school, elementary school, where you are likely to market this most to many children. Safe spaces are very important to explore sports for the following reasons particularly, for female younger students for the following reasons. Two things, number one, self confidence issues, sport groups are very necessary for female participants at a very young age because they likely over exaggerate their potential and they over exaggerate, It undermines the type of judgments that other individuals have on them such as the judgments that they put in their body, judgments that other social comparisons that are not good enough in this sport, etc. etc. but number two, it's also the social comparisons that you view based on gender because a lot of the time very early on, you're already compared against your male peers because of mansplaining because of social conditioning that you are physically inept compared to other men, in these sports. That is why safe spaces are important particularly, within these particular groups. Male participation at a younger age breaks up this potential for the following reasons for safe spaces. Three things, number one, many of these schools often cannot afford to segregate students by gender because teachers are limited and facilities are limited. So, that is why, it's more likely that you are likely to make it difficult for women to participate in these sports at a very young age. Number two, toxic masculinity is very prevalent at a very young school age and a young school level because of locker room talk because of rough play or bullying tendencies that many of these individuals have. Before the last reason, I'm going to take closing government.
<poi>
presumably like if you're a high schooler you don't train like seven times a week you train like two or three times, so you can probably coordinate and use the gym simultaneously. It's unclear why you just have to force all individuals to interact and play the same sport together at the same time.
</poi>
But most of the time, you have one sports team, most of the time, you have other subjects to go to, you can't say that you're going to make schools do more sports in general and then double the time for everyone that's just significantly unlikely, especially, in these places but because the time for you to be able to invest in this at a very young age for those that are most committed to the sport, they do use these facilities a lot and they do train a lot often like, you have a swimming pool, you use that every morning, you cannot always share that all the time with a lot of individuals and that's why it's very difficult for you to do so and especially, you want to specialize and allow women to participate more and more for a very long period. Like, if you want them to join the varsity team, you need to be able to have a reg, regiment program to get them interested into that, that's why it's likely. The last reason is this, young female students have less room to be able to shine and to be able to at least be emphasized for their achievements because the screen time is also divided between men and women in these sports, for these reasons because you are dividing the resources internally within these schools, the potential for safe spaces and participation for women within these places also reduces and that's why it is a harm endemic to your existing fan base. I am very proud to oppose.
</dlo>
<mg>
It's quite telling, the issue of opening oppositions paradigm, because in their world, there's a sharp binary between the type of sports that young boys can play and a sharp binary between the young sports that girls can play. On closing government, we aim to bridge that gap and make sports all inclusive. I also think, generally speaking, that is probably the biggest obligation you can have and also probably the thing that sports organizations care about the most, given that the vast majority of organizations care about things like equity and care about things like access. I'm going to talk about three things. The first thing I want to do is respond to the argument coming from opening opposition regarding a lot of the harms about obligation, first of all, I just do not really think that obligation exists and so far as there's no written contract for example, for that obligation, also, don't understand why there's an active trade off for that obligation. The second thing I want to flag under the obligation argument is, presumably, if you listen to a lot of their analysis, the obligation also extends to vulnerable individuals who are playing that sport so young boys for example, who are shunned and called gay as a result of, for example, going to figure skating so presumably, that obligation extends to those individuals.If you want to argue about the degree of harm, presumably, those individuals are harmed more because they're forced to for example give up the sport, as a result of all of the bullying that luigi talks about in dlo. So to that, and maybe an obligation extends there as well, i'm gonna prove why you benefit all actors in extension. The second thing I want to flag out about the issue of opening opposition is, I just don't think individuals leave the sport, I don't think the extent of pullout is that significant, like, let's be realistic. DLO tells us these are people who are in the prime of their career, you're still able to win things, you're still able to get reputation that benefits you for example as an athlete. I just don't understand why you suddenly walk away because of this horrible decision, even if the decision is really bad presumably, you're still able to compete, no thank you. We're going to run two things in extension, first of all, i'm going to prove why there is no trade off and i'm going to do a better job than opening governance of actually proving what this policy looks like, this beats opening government because we then do a better job of role fulfilment, this also beats back a lot of the opening opposition argument about trade off because the vast majority of OO claim in this debate is contingent on them playing why there's an active trade off that takes away opportunities for young girls and women leagues, I don't think that's true. First of all, what does this promotion and recruiting actively look like? So OG just kind of goes like, oh well, like, reach out and show you ads like, yeah, I think all is right, that's obviously not enough. I think it's far more than that, it looks like, for example, having posters that show both young girls and boys playing that and having that sent for example in local educational facilities, it looks like, for example, actively promoting subsidies or promoting cash prizes to get individuals incentivize to play that sport for example, looks like, for example, setting up new competitions or setting up like foundational training camps, in which you're able to improve your skill. The reason as to why this is better than opening government is because all of these things tangibly lead to you thinking you can play and tangibly give you opportunities to do so. Why then there is no trade off? Because I think always right in saying that to an extent there might be trade off, I think the issue is that doesn't actually engage in the nuance of athletics in this debate. The first reason as to why there's no trade off is because like, it's just really not mutually exclusive like, I think dlo is right like, if you as a 14 year old play sports eight times a day then maybe there will be a trade off but I just don't think in the vast majority of instances schools are that cash trap. So often times, for example, the junior varsity or the varsity team takes like three or four times a day to that and you're able to often share the gym for example, or often you're able to share like the times in which you use that so like, for example, when someone is doing cardio work outside, the other team can use the gym for example, and you can have that vice versa, you can also do things for example like share coaches or pay them more like presumably the state has the capacity to do so and it's not like significantly a lot of money that you're taking away from like state funding and the athletics department. Also, I just think it's just really impractical to say that there's an active trade off like, there's a reason why most schools can have a boys volleyball team and a girls volleyball team and still be fine. We imagine the way this debate will play, is probably similar. Also note here, this is probably good because if all says there's a massive interim period, it means there's going to be a long period of time in which the guys probably suck for the very reason that the infrastructure of that sport is low. This is important because if all wants to talk about building the confidence of young girls, you probably got that more on our side of the house when there's a comparable metric you're able to use to say we're better than guys we want more awards as a figure skating team than the guy figure skating team, so to that i think it builds more confidence, on our side. The second thing I want posit, under why it's not mutually exclusive is because oftentimes the type of ventures you get in professional leagues that for example, goes into the men’s department, often gets you more money that you can then in turn investigate or like put back into the entirety of the sport. The reason that's the way this is, the case is because the way in which it often works is you have for example, like Manchester united. So the way this motion will work is you have Manchester united and you're like Manchester united guys, Manchester united girls this is important because really die hard fans are likely going to like, buy jerseys for example buy like, like stocks for example or like buy certain merchandises from other teams because they like affiliate and identify with that team and often there's a sense of community. So I think you probably get some degree of investment that's going to come from local fans anyways, I think that's probably important, also like family members will probably like invest as well. So the reason that's why this is important is because I don't think there's an active trade-off that delinks a lot of opening opposition's argument. i'll take you later david, the second thing I want to posit under this is like, I just also don't think there's a trade-off because often sport fields at a young age are relatively multifunctional so to that I don't think you actively take away opportunities I think if anything given ideas are probably going to be done by local teams and local community as well. You end up shelling for more money to build other things that doesn't actively trade off with existing infrastructure because you don't like remove the infrastructure and then like, go like,’hey it's for boys now’. you often build additional infrastructure side by side or you share time so I don't think you actually get rid of a lot of that. This deals with the crux of opening opposition. What then is the second extension? I'm going to prove to you why we revert gender norms and why that's uniquely important, they probably. Go on OO
<poi>
So, to clarify, the active trade off is the very existence and investment of a separate male league which naturally takes away resources from the women's league, which is itself a massive risk for sponsors as opposed to a certain benefit of adding new teams to the women league and promoting them instead.
</poi>
No no no like, you got more money from the guy team so like, if manchester united gets another team, you got money because people buy jerseys from that team that money then goes into the entire enterprise which you can then reinvest into women’s team. Which presumably they will do because your characterization is that women's teams are significantly more popular. Great. Argument, why is it also better for gender stereotypes? The first thing that approve as well OG didn't prove, why you got more guys opting into the sport, there are four reasons why. First of all, I think you just generally will get that because the existing of those promotions oftentimes revert bullying from the very bottom up, so you get a signaling change from the bottom up, that leads to individuals changing incentives. Second of all, there are probably people who suck at soccer, who now will go to figure skating on our side of the house, who are guys. Third of all, I think there are existing athletes who already play for example figure skating or netball, who are not for example girls but fourth of all, usually young kids play multiple sports because often parents don't have time to take care of them, so you throw them into different sports also because as an athletic person you usually want to try new sports and also because it builds community. So that proves why you likely get individuals opting into it. This is important because the comparative you don't get access at all, so even if guys hate the sport, at least you've got some degree of access, which is important because some individuals will choose to stay onto it. Why is this important? This is important for a few reasons. First of all, you get some degree of quantifiable metric in which young girls are able to use to beat out boys, so this probably empowers them to an extent. Second of all, you change stereotypes because over time you get the norm that says, it's okay for young boys to also try and play the sport. This is important not only in empowering women in sports that are male dominated but also allow for some degree of intention for individual guys, who are shunned from figure skating for example, because they're called gay, we give them some degree of safe space, so more individuals who look like them or identify like them are able to play. For all those reasons, you also empower them as well. We're very happy to propose
</mg>
<mo>
Panel, when in school in pe, when we had a gymnastics class that was all for boys, most of the boys there decided to pretend they were sick so that they didn't have to look feminine because they thought being flexible was something that was inherently feminine and something that would be embarrassing, the stereotypes that exist against these sports in particular against men joining these sports is incredibly strong. I think it's insufficient for OG to go, ah, we're just going to market it to them and if you yell it loud enough at them, they're going to join and I think it's an insufficient for cg to go, ah, we're going to have training camps and cash prizes, when these exist for other sports as well. Presumably, if you're athletic, I'm unsure of why you joined the other sports, minus all of the stereotypes with probably more money in those leagues than particularly this. I think first bit of framing, probably looks like, one specifically more airtime to existing male athletes over existing female ones. You want them to be particularly established. You have limited amount of money in your pool. Second, you just market the male leagues more, if you have specific prime times for your own sports, you give those to male leagues rather than female leagues. Three, you take away the focus from more female elements. You make them less things like dancing, you make it less things like importance of costumes or aesthetics and you make it more about like, the grit and risk that exists within the sport itself. Four, you have to be extensive about these because these stereotypes are incredibly incredibly strong. You need to make it less gay and change away, take away the specifically female elements. What all of those mean, is that very, very few men join in the first place. It is already unlikely but also two, you have to make major changes to the support to even get that limited amount of male participation. Are we going to win? One, we're going to show you, why the established participation that exists goes down massively, second, we're going to co opt a lot of OG’s mechanisms as to how they get increased things like, funding and therefore, increased participation and third, we're going to show you why viewership goes down. Firstly, on reduced participation, importantly if you are taking away female, so the useful thing about female sports is that sports generally are seen as quite masculine but female sports are seen as quite feminine, in the sense that you have, you can play into established gender norms, right. In the sense of things like, where you enjoy dressing up, where you enjoy making specific like dance routines, where you enjoy like wearing pretty leotards. All of these things are useful in terms of getting women interested in the first place. Importantly, when you have a smaller focus on these you are, the sport is less about these now the perception of that sport is less about these therefore, women are just less interested in joining in the first place and young girls are less interested in joining in the first place, because they have their established interests, they already exist and probably exist for a while. Importantly, those don't change and therefore, you're less able to play into those and therefore, you are less likely to be able to get that level of participation. Second, there are women’s barriers that exist, so opening tells us the material changes that happen that affect these barriers. We tell you why the perception is so incredibly important. Importantly, this perception is something that government isn't able to mechanize away, in terms of like, oh, we'll have like, different sessions etc. Importantly, when you put yourself as a woman into a specifically, a male sport, a sport where male specifically compete there are a few things that happen, one, you see yourself as entering a masculine space as in the advertising that you're seeing on to this is like, powerful male athletes like doing incredibly like strong and strength bearing routines as in you see the sport itself as masculine. Second, you see yourself as competing against, entering masculine competition and allowing yourself for masculine critique as now it is more men who are doing the things like critique and men who are involved and therefore have their gaze upon you and therefore that is something that you necessarily have to enter into. Importantly these are things that act as significant barriers enough such that people that women generally, don't enter masculine sports despite there being women's leagues, this now just extends to women's sports as well. Next, why? Particularly because you have a focus on, why? currently because there is a focus on women and because of the mechanisms that OG’s tell, given you. You probably believe that it's largely women who follow these sports in the first place. You allow for women themselves to allow the sport to change right, as in now you can make them less sexist because it is less important that men are retained and watched and therefore you allow for things like longer leotards etc. Importantly, when male viewership is increased and you're trying to market yourself to the male viewers as much or more so than the female viewers. It means you allow the sport to get worse, importantly notice fulfilling openings obligation as well as to why you make the sport more comfortable for the women who exist alternatively to, if you try to increase male viewership. Next, why particularly you get why you reduce the amount of arenas and shit you have built. Importantly the Nba doesn't go around building basketball courts, it is governments that do. Few reasons why governments build things like gymnastic gyms and things like netball courts. One, they are, they themselves are interested in increasing women's participation in sport. This is bipartisan, importantly, this doesn't play into making women more masculine that like conservatives are so against but importantly allows for things like women to be more healthy, they get to see their children having particularly fun in specifically space safe spaces, they see it specifically as increasing the competition that women are able to engage and they see it as women being able to have more fun initially there are like feminist pressures that exist in the world, in order to do more of these things. As in fundamentally, if you masculine the sport it is less clear that one, like it's less likely to be bipartisan but also secondly, why specifically, you as a netball association are just less likely to get this funding because it's more likely to go to women is football because that's just the bigger sport and you are now just the smaller sport and you're no longer the female dominated sport but rather the mixed sport rather it's unclear why they should give funding to you, it's unclear why less funding goes to building things like netball courts Which means all of opening governments mechanisms don't actually happen in the world because you aren't the people who are building them, rather it is extra ladders. It is really this fucking expensive to like keep a plot of land and keep maintaining it rather it's governments who do it. Third, why specifically viewership goes down, given the previous mechanisms as to why specifically you are changing the sport, it means the things that attracted the previous viewer base to the sport itself are now less existing as in the previous viewers just don't care about that sport anymore, they can probably go to different athletics that do the specific risk taking etc better than specifically for example gymnastics. Why particularly there are less involved fans who enjoy watching women do it, who don't want to watch it anymore, especially if you think like for example, ben figorsig. Thirdly, if you just start this league, very few people will watch it but it will anger a lot of fans because you are taking the focus away from the things that they particularly love. All of these things mean and understand that it takes a long time to grow a sport as you're doing these investments early, as you're just wasting lots and lots of money and losing all of your initial player base. Please oppose.
</mo>
<gw>
I want to talk about two things, firstly, on why this will succeed in pushing men to participate in the sport and secondly, why this doesn't in fact, push out women in a sport that is already female dominated and therefore, already has traction in supporting fans who are of a certain identity but i want to firstly clear on what og is missing in this debate, because og mainly says a couple of things. They say that you need infrastructure, infrastructure is the biggest and the only barrier to men participating, so if you solve this therefore, you will magically increase male participation, they also say a number of things like men decide for what children play etc, but i think what you have to know about OG and what makes them lose this debate is, just the fact that one, this relies on them proving that more men play which they also have not been able to do in both speeches and two is that infrastructure is not the biggest and the only barrier. So, I think, talking about the next two teams. First thing on why we succeed in pushing men to play and secondly, on why women will not solve play. So firstly on whether we push men to play, so let's look at the mechanisms that were given to us by OO because OO says a couple of things. OO says first, that airtime will be divided into other things that fans don't care about and there will be criticism because you're focusing on male players or there will be a certain trade-off between females fourth and female media versus male media. I think I want to first note that I don't know what CG is saying because that painted a very clear picture of the model and the policies that we're willing to support, we're willing to support sending more of these role models to boys, boys schools or sending for more boys to participate in these sports, we're also supporting things like creating boys only teams or having more boys participate in this local gym or just like three, like, you have ads posters or 30 second ads that includes this I think there's a very minimal trade off between ads as well as forms of participation like this versus like, an entire two hour game or entire performance by someone else, but I think secondly, even if we want to concede the policy that co tries to push on us, which is that one, you will have to like change the sport entirely by making it less dancey or that you'll have to like show more male players in terms of airtime, i think that's still okay. So let's look at the first policy which is that you have to change the sport. I think the first problem with this like making it less dance or less gay for example, is that they drastically overestimate the degree to which these scores are actually feminine because what figure skating literally is, is that you have triple axe spins you jump in the air and you spin two times it's incredibly difficult to do or if you do flips, I think these are things that are not incredibly feminine, i think even in gymnastics you're doing back flips, you're doing many flips in the air. These are things that are pretty like not gendered, even though that modern society has arbitrarily decided this is not masculine enough. I think this is where if you look specifically at what the sport does there is nothing in it that is inherently feminine or supposed to attract more women than men it is simply that the name gymnastics or the name figure scheme is associated with more of one that is feminine. I think the second reason is just like women are going to like the sport regardless of how you change it, i think the reason why a lot of people play gymnastics is because this pushes their physical abilities the fact that you have to do handstands you have to be incredibly badass and do like triple flakes backwards. i think this all means that women are still going to be attracted to the sport because there is already a lot of women who are playing the sport so you have a lot of support structures, a lot of role models, a lot of historical youtube videos they can dig through 30 years of records into, i think this means that people are still likely going to play. The second thing the policy coming from both OO and CO about how you show more male players in airtime. I think one, they also drastically overestimate the degree to which this will there will be a trade off. Of course you will have to divert 30 seconds of trade off or you have to divert a half an hour in terms of showing a male doing men doing gymnastics as opposed to women but it's a comparison between literally thousands of post-sports and thousands of players there's a reason why these leagues have been able to divide between thousands of women players because the trade-off between you showing less like 15 minutes less of an interview of a famous female player is incredibly low. No one is counting the minutes or counting the seconds as long as you show the person doing the interview or you show the female score, it doesn't matter if you cut to the male gymnastics section for like 30 minutes because people will just go and like get a coffee or something like the fact that it's just this just has such a minimal impact in terms of how people view the sport. The third thing is, i think, there's a minimal trade-off in terms of finances because most financial expenditures are local these leagues are focusing attention and money in terms like marketing or expanding access to low end access areas, these are not the people who are funding for school teams or advocating for you to get more boys into your local gym because think about it there are so many women or so many people engaging in these sports, the vast amount of funding that comes from these sports are inherently private. Private coaches, kids paying for their private like, it's like membership cards at their local gym. I think this means there just really isn't a financial trade off in terms of the ground up funding of people playing more of these sports and just like, I think just finally there isn't much of a trade off here. The second thing that we hear is just that you will be competing with other sports and you will be incapable of competing because then you no longer have your advantage, i think one 10 already gives you the rebuttal for the ground level assumption how you can like watch and play many sports as a kid like, i can do i do group sports at the same time just like, casually and leisurely. Second thing, you can also watch different sports like, at the same time, you don't need to engage and dedicate yourself to a single one and three, there are obviously guys who don't fit the jockey stereotype that most people who play soccer or basketball might be, considering that these environments are indeed often toxically masculine, so you're just going to attract more people who don't fit into this traditional stereotype. This is important because there is more buy in of a positive cycle on a ground level but secondly, even if you're talking about funding from like all these people who are you know funding these institutions these are big businesses, i think it's completely fine as well because one, presumably people who are funding these institutions already believed in the idea of having women play more of these sports, they like these sports by themselves, you can also probably persuade them at the board meeting that this is a good investment. I think secondly, just the fact that you're a mixed sport doesn't really matter, it's not the perception of what sport it is but it's the fact, there are a lot of women who are watching the sport and a lot of women who are likely to support the sport that makes people want to invest in it. Fourth and finally, i think the comparative on off is just horrific, right, because it's not a stable investment, let's be clear, there are so many female sports leagues that have died in the past decade because there are not enough people who are watching them, this is your only lifeline. The alternative is, one in which you're a funny woman and you're a funny woman only and you don't have men watching, you don't have the community buying and therefore, people stop watching your score altogether because there are enough people playing. I'll take OO
<poi>
A 30 second trade off seriously cannot be the real trade off in this round, either you will not be successful in setting up a sports league or you will have to spend more time on it which means that you will end up taking away time for the other league.
</poi>
One, your comparative is still bad, no one is watching female sports. Just count the number of female leagues that have died in the past couple of years. I don't think there is a sufficient financial alternative on your side. Secondly, even if it is like a half an hour trade up, you're cutting to a female like, a male athlete like, that's completely fine as well. It's just no one is kind of, as long as you're showing women which are still continue to be able to do it, people will be able to appreciate and watch their most famous players. Let's finally talk about the idea of obligations, right. There is no obligation because of the fact that unless it is in your contract, you're a contracted athlete, if it's not written there, you don't have an obligation to them because these organizations and leagues have to counter a lot of other interests like money survival of the sport etc, you can't just have random obligations to people everywhere. Secondly, you also have an obligation to increase access to those that were structurally prevented from being the accident scores, i think boys who were called horrible names because they wanted to figure skate, also deserve to be able to access this and three, i also just don't think the safe space argument makes any sense because if you buy this argument, you have to divide women and men into different elementary schools, which obviously doesn't prepare themselves well for the sexist world or for a sexism in like literally the rest of society in general, we're very proud to propose.
</gw>
<ow>
Two broad things in the speech first you know, how this is going to change the way in which these leagues generally organize and promote things and then secondly, how this affects the like, the viewership and like the participation of women and what that is the main thing that all of these organizations care about. Starting with the first thing, and i think that the main biggest problem that like the entire gov bench has is, that they are randomly asserting that absolutely no one wants to watch any of these sports, i think that they're completely forgetting how world famous simone biles is, i think they're forgetting how important actually it is for like, how important figure skating is at winter olympics. This is the status quo and this is what they are taking away from, i think that they are trying to fix a problem that isn't essentially there because all of these women that are already famous in those sports are actually feeling great and are feeling empowered and i think that this sport is watched enough, i think i'm unclear firstly, in what the problem is that they are solving it. I think what Areen tells you, in terms of who are the fans and how you're going to lose them, is something that is significantly more important like aspect or dimension to it. I think at a point at which you're forced to do things like, change the nature of the sport in order to attract more male participation that is, when you lose out on things like getting into the olympics or having lots of those fans and i think at that point, that is where the problems of the got bench start, But let's firstly talk about things like funding and like how that is given that, that is probably a prerequisite to getting any of the other types of things you want to achieve especially, like, i think that this is also the first thing that puts us over our opening, given that we provide you a mechanism as to how you're likely to lose out on funding on the gov side of the house, but let's go through the stuff that like got bench tells you. CG tells you that like, ah, don't worry about funding, this is going to come from things like, look manchester united has the male team and has a female team and that is the main way you get funding, that's the first thing they say. i think at a point at which you already don't have an established male league and that is the basis on which they operate, i'm genuinely unclear how in the first 10 years, you're ever going to get enough of a fan base that is going to support that separate male league. So i think that mechanism from cg just simply falls out because it's untrue given that there won't be any fans for it and a small amount of boys will probably join, initially. That means that there's going to be massive trade off in money away from girls, into that male participation, i think that's regrettable. The second thing they say is, ah, look most of the funding is private or it comes from like, i don't know, parents. At a point at which the main funding that you right now get is from girls and their parents buying leotards engaging within the sport, at a point at which you are now focusing all of your marketing efforts on boys then that is the group of people who are no longer joining, you're no longer getting any extra money coming on top of you. So it was out in that private funding that you previously had. At that point, I think it's genuinely unlikely that you're going to be able to sustain your sport in the first place. Additionally, i don't think that private money is the only way in which exists, especially, in areas where you have like, i don't know, less participation in the first place, at that point government funding is something that is just fundamentally crucial and this is something that like cg failed to engage with. Areen really tells you that at a point at which the government is now like, if it has like a general obligation or desire to fund female sport, at a point at which it becomes now cheaper to just fund football stadiums from everyone and you don't really need to fund a separate female sport that is smaller. At that point, I think you're going to lose out on things like, government funding as well. I think overall, what this means is that it's probably already in the interest of the sports league to get as much funding as possible because that makes all of the other goals that they generally have, i think that makes them possible. At that point, if you lose out on that funding and cg has absolutely no mechanism to prove how they're able to sustain any of their change, i think you're going to lose out and you don't fulfill their goals. The second thing cg does is like, look, there isn't really a trade off when we have to do this.At a point in which cg starts their own first speech going like, oh, but the most vulnerable group is the little boys who are getting called gay, i don't think that's a stereotype that you're going to change with a 30-second cameo. The way they characterize themselves of who the most vulnerable actor in this debate is, also shows the way these stereotypes are really, really strong if the focus was previously fundamentally always on women, you need to change it quite massively, in order to change the existing stereotypes, if you don't want to counter doing all of those things, i think that's when you already have the problem and you're not achieving anything that they're doing. At that point they're just taking away the money that they already had in the status quo, they're pushing it into something and not getting any type of change out of it and rather just like pushing more girls away. i think this is the way the characterization that it really provides you, is actually the one that is the most accurate. In order to change the narrative that if you participate in figure skating, you're being called names, you need to change the way the sport looks to the male gaze and you need to change the way it looks like generally, and how you participate into this cg does it like, oh, you can give some access but i'm genuinely unclear how that access comes from. They said that you don't really need to change and make it look less feminine because it's still eventually about like, i don't know, doing back flips look, if the thing that you were trying to achieve is, you get boys to do back flips that have never done back flips before and they don't know how cool and fun it actually feels like, at that point it's the barrier to do that and to compete with that is, you have to look feminine, you have to look, i don't know, pretty put a nice leotard, do makeup, look all of these fancy and funky ways. I think that is the thing that is going to be the turning goal of those boys, that is the thing that you're going to fundamentally be changing and i think that is the most regrettable part because you're going to not only push away the women who would otherwise participate because they do enjoy engaging in those feminine aspects of the sport they do enjoy engaging in, i don't know, the aesthetics of it and getting like graded, the way they present themselves artistically. At that point, i think it's very unlikely that you're going to be able to change the perception for the men, unless you change these aspects. The comparative that we offer is when you keep the support focused on the female participants that you generally have, at that point you allow women to design the sport to be in ways in which they want it to be, i think you allow them to, i don't know, say that we really like the part that we get to, i don't know, experiment with very fun dance routines like, you see in college gymnastics in the U.S. but at the same time you tell them that, oh, you want to wear a long leotards because you don't want to be, i don't know, sexualized, that is something that is okay as wel.l i think that is the thing, the key thing that also fixes the opening government's problem of like girls live within puberty, girls leave at a point where you don't make them, make all of these sports masculine and you make them inaccessible for those girls, i think at that point that is something we're able to fix, if we don't cater to women specifically. But before I move on, I will take opening government.
<poi>
So, even if people like, men do not play this sport. The creation of private and public infrastructure can still be used by girls as june notes but under status quo, governments and private companies have minimal incentive to invest in girls youth sports, so that's a comparative win for OG.
</poi>
Yeah, i think, one, you ignored all of the analysis that it does, as to how we are able to get any of this funding and infrastructure in the first place. Second, your characterization is untrue. I would just posit their own shit on the gymnastics gyms within the US that allowes simone biles to become several times world champion, i think all of those things already exist. What you were doing is, you're taking away that money because governments no longer have the incentive to do it, you're not getting any more airtime, you're not fulfilling these slots of poker. I think those slots existed for women but if you're now introducing a new lead that is probably also worse you're not getting any viewers for that but you're losing up on the participation you previously had for girls you're getting less and less female stars into the sport because they don't want to participate anymore because they're now in a male dominated sport. At that point, I think you're losing out on any funding you get. The reason why we'd be opening opposition is because I think we're better one, able to fulfill the obligation that they talk about. But secondly, the government funding that areen talks about is a prerequisite to all of the mechanisms that opening opposition wants to do at a point at which their main problem is, is that materialistic you need to share the gym, i think if you have government funding we're able to fix for those problems in the first place. Lastly, stuff we have about participation is the prior, most prior interest that all of the, all of the like sports leagues have given that this is the thing that gives them viewership and and like support in the first place vote co. </ow>
<pm>
Through long-distance methods or just like shared interactions of sharing what your day looks like. We think obviously there's like a priority in the minds of a person, in terms of physical companionship. We think communication or just like this care, respect and like an ability to share about your life are just as important, because they create comfort in relationships.We think communication becomes just as important then. We think:
1) Companionship in themselves when it's expanded to these things, notes that, we think then that sharing of spaces is not just the most important thing in the world physically. Which means that sharing spaces through zoom call or sharing spaces through communication or pre-planning dates which will be of physical nature are just as important in this scenario. I think the trade off is obviously that you can't meet each other every day or you do not meet each other every day. But the impact is on three levels:
One, learning to respect choices that individuals make apart from the physical living space that you are forced to share on opps world. That is to say that your prioritization of time might just be different in this world. We think it's a problem on opp, because if you prioritize time even if you're living together, the other individual might feel neglected or the individual is more likely to feel that this other person does not want to spend time with them and they're alone at home. But, Secondly we think spaces to grow individually are just not limited to the spaces of mind and office. But also,[but also] expanded to individuals on how they shape their room or how they want to live or their habits of leaving the towel at a certain place or leaving the toilet seat at a certain place. We think these habits are extremely important for this individual in the way that they have shaped their life and in the way that they want to move forward which means that certain habits might be incompatible with the habits of someone that you're sharing a room with. We think the problem then, in this debate is that when certain habits between two people, who love each other immensely and want each other there physically all the time are extremely incompatible with each other, the chances that their relationship might go sour because of the fights that happen because of this incompatibility are much higher in that scenario. We think, thirdly we're okay with this temporary deprivation of not meeting the person you love so much all the time but we’re okay with that person being forced to learn and love and respect you, eventually. Before I move forward i'll take opening.
<POi> To be clear you think this motion primarily applies to premarital couples, i.e. before marriage and before having children.</POi>
No, I think this debate can be people post marriage also. The fact is, that people post marriage also need to grow, also need to have their own spaces. it essentially becomes a problem. The issue here is that individuals, especially women and developing nations are forced to work around [the] like the culture of what the man puts on the table according to his work culture. Especially in spaces that they're forced to live there. Like i've heard my mother arguing about how she does not have a space to her own in a house so many times. But secondly, why this distance or unshared space is beneficial. We think lives of long term couples are also as much about the relationship but also about their own lives. Which means that non proliferated spaces where they do their own things or where they have their own space to do things are just as important for their own growth and their own path in life. This is true for both premarital and post marital couples these individuals are allowed to, and should have goals where their life shouldn't just become [or just become] what this one relationship. We think, secondly, usually a couple stays together because their trade off is not to make the effort to meet but the problem at that point, is if the meeting becomes toxic at a point of time. The act of being that someone becomes so tough to sustain which harms the relationship we're not okay with that. Thirdly, notice how the primary or goal of your life might just be your professional goals or other goals that you have in life. Which means if you're a lawyer or a painter who spends 12 hours a day teaching or working in the office and you come back home and you want to spend time in your own space, reflecting. The problem is if you continuously do that you're more likely to make the other person alienated or deprived who's living in the same shared space as you, all through time. We think this leads to relationships often suffering. We think this [misinfo- from like] miscommunication or like these things often lead to people feeling, even if you’re in the same space you can't communicate. We think fourthly, things such as shared anxiety and mismanagement also often lead to fights and frivolous issues, which leads to people believing they're incompatible on small issues such as the towel being wet on the bed. Very quickly (asking for a POi from) closing, seeing nothing from them(continuing). What is then important in terms of impacts is the sanctity of moments. Notice when you live with someone throughout every single day. Where you're also having these little things that are nagging you negatively, you're much less likely to care about the moments that you spend together of shared smiles and all that jazz, which means that things such as pre-planning often lead to you caring for those moments much more maybe. We think that dry relationships are just feeling bad in relationships or not feeling excited enough at that point of time is much more likely in opp’s world lastly in terms of how it helps people break the ideals of what ideal relationships looks like in impacts. Not as important for you to prioritize your own both as well [just as like or just] rather than over just this romanticized idea of what shared growth all couples are supposed to have. We think fallouts are just as common, (in fact) you might know more about (them). So in opp’s world they'll say that relationships are more successful because people know more about each other. The problem is, when you know more about each other you're more likely to hate more things about the other person as well. The impact is that when you shape your life and your physical spaces around this one person the chances of your relationship becoming emotionally abusive, because you're so committed to it and you're so caught up in it and because you’ve deprioritized other things, is much more likely. We're here on (the side of the) opening government for a happier relationship. Very very proud to propose.
</pm>
<lo>
Let us right off the bat, (provide) a bit of mitigation to opening government because we think they have a very negative view of what relationships are. We think, in most healthy relationships there also exists a healthy level of respect. insofar as you've spent a large amount of time with a certain person you know what their interests are and you know the specific ways in which you want to exercise those interests.


Presumably if you care about them, you’re also going to communicate ways as to how you're going to give space to each other and you've presumably learned that through your relationship. But there's also secondly, a selfish incentive to do that because, insofar as people do need space apart from each other as conceded by opening government and you have an incentive to get that space you want to give the space to the other partner as far as you have a leverage to request it for yourself. So I think just a lot of opening government is mitigated but it also means this debate probably is most impactful in relationships which are not ideal which is where I think the government case exacerbates harms the most.


i'm going to run a bunch of arguments and rebuttal is going to be integrated.
Let's get right into it:
First of all, we think that the government side of the house encourages people to make bad decisions but also makes them less able to opt out of relationships in the long term. There's a reason why people decide to move in two years before they get married. That's because they want to experience life together because you may love each other and see each other but you've never run a budget together, you've never divided chores, you've never spent so much time together and you've also haven't learned the most intimate behavioural patterns of that person.


The reason why this matters is because we think that still a huge amount of individuals are going to want to move in at some point when they get married or have children. First of all because the majority of society still does that and you've been told by your parents and grandparents that it’s a model you want to follow. Secondly, because there's religiously inculcated ideas that marriage is something you want to live in holy communion together. Thirdly there's this pressure from people around you to do that insofar as people want to see you as a happy family and have their own definition on that. Your family is more likely to pressure you on their side of the house because, like a five years apart, like what the fuck, move in, start building a family and start giving us grandchildren. insofar as a large amount of people are still likely to do that and the government has provided no world as to why they’re not.


We think this is probably going to lead to more failed marriages in the first place because the premise of the opening government is you have certain habits which make you fight. On the government side of the house you've never actually learned to deal with those habits, you've never actually had the experience of communicating, how to temper those habits to not annoy the other person. At the point where you get married then you become codependent on each other, have absolutely no heuristics just to resolve these issues so the respect that the government wants is not learned on their side of the house. And you encounter the same problems in the long term, but you encounter them at a point where the level of commitment is far higher than just having an uncommitted relationship which in which you can can break up at any point. Which is both a harm in and of itself insofar as (it) leads to failed marriages and kids living in unhappy marriages and unhappy families.


But secondly, we see on their side of the house it's just harder to opt out once you do move in. Note that divorce is a very stressful proceeding. it's also costly in terms of having to pay for legal aid but you're also afraid of the consequences of divorce, particularly if you're a woman because you may lose custody over your child, you fear the court is not going to believe your side of the story and so on and so forth.
But secondly, if you do have children you feel the internalized guilt of abandoning these children but you can also be guilted by your spouse by saying, you have to keep this marriage alive for the sake of our kids. Do not be so selfish.
Thirdly, know that you do not want to disappoint your family, who probably has a fantasy that you and your spouse are a happy couple and [you also do] you're also probably going to be pushed by your family to keep the marriage alive as far as they don't want to see you unhappy then they project it on to you and try to tell you you can talk it out. You just have to, you know, push it through. Do not try to end this marriage.
But lastly, the longer you live together the more you're economically co-dependent insofar as, have a shared budget and so on and so forth, which means that on their side of the house insofar as a huge amount of people still decide to opt into marriage and having children.
At the point where they haven't learned who the person that they're going to live is. At the point where they haven't had a chance to opt out before that level of commitment or at least developed ways to cope with that character if they're not going to opt out in the first place.


We say that:
one) people are less likely to leave bad relationships and
two) this produces more bad relationships.


The reason why this is important is because probably the reason why people do this is because of fundamentally different lifestyles, right. The reason why they make this decision is because they probably perceive some elements of their partner's character that make it impossible to cohabitate so these are probably relationships which are likely to be unstable, anyway.


We would like them to break up sooner rather than later. if a couple you know is going to implode because someone leaves a toilet seat up, we think it's healthy for that couple to implode.


But secondly if they can see that this is post marriage it's just so much worse for them because one, I think that your family, your people around you are going to question why you live that way because you don't conform (to) the traditional norms.


You don't get to enjoy it but also, second I think it's horrible for children first of all because I think kids lose time with both of their parents. Secondly, there's an incentive for parents to compete with each other, insofar as you probably share custody over the child you want to compete in terms of being the more fun parent, the more permissive parent which both create envy in terms of who the child likes more.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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