text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
But also conflict in terms of how you raise the child, making the relationship more unstable. But lastly insofar as most families are still traditional things just hard for the kids they're going to be asked questions like, do your parents not love each other? Why are your parents divorced? Having to explain that all t... |
First of all, because I think this encourages people to fear codependency insofar as the rationale behind this is, we want each other's space. Confiding in your partner is breaking those boundaries and becoming codependent this means that people are less likely to confide in their partner. |
But secondly, as far as they're less likely to communicate issues within the relationship they're more likely to be communicated too late or not be communicated at all which means that you are less likely to be able to solve problems once they arise. |
But secondly, I think this engenders doubt because I think for people especially insecure people always ask themselves the question, “why is my partner proposing that we live apart from each other, there has to be a reason.” So it can be either one they genuinely don't enjoy my presence which then fosters feelings of s... |
But secondly, you presume negative intentions as part of your partner. They must be cheating, they must be hiding something from me. |
i think that that makes abusive relationships worse, because what abusers want in relationships is the feeling of control. At the end of the day this person comes home and I have some kind of oversight over them. When they don't have this oversight they're more likely, to be controlling, to aggressively question that p... |
<POi> Do you think your family is more likely to pressure you to live together if you're the only couple they've ever seen living apart or if there's a general trend in society that normalizes this. </POi> |
This trend has to be a huge dominant trend that most people do and that overcomes traditional norms inculcated through tradition, through religion and through culture for decades. in order for this to become as normal as you would want it, otherwise you're still probably mostly surrounded by traditional marriages unles... |
Final argument, why do we think this is economically bad? Most middle class people just cannot afford to own a flat or it’s simply very hard for them to do which has just two consequences: |
One on our side of the house, people are just better able to make economic decisions insofar as they have a shared budget which they discuss but just have a large amount of money to pool together. |
More importantly the space and leisure that the government team wants is more likely to accrue on our side of the house because if you have a shared budget, it's probably more likely to be money left at the end of the month that you can spend a leisure in your hobbies whereas if you're living alone as an average middle... |
</lo> |
<dpm> |
The problem with opening opposition's case is the fact that they're vastly concentrated upon individuals who are long-term couples and are more likely to get married. I really want to point it out at this point in time, is that things of benefits or harms, which accrue to things such as: familial pressure, things such ... |
it's important to understand that, even though there is a trend wherein couples do get married, but in vast amounts of instances, individuals who are [like] in long-term relationships don't get married. it's still a minority of cases wherein individuals don't end up getting married together, and a vast amount of indivi... |
Okay, so first level of rebuttal on opening opposition. Firstly, I think opening opposition says that your ability to [coop-] how do I say, to make yourself a better individual and more adaptable to another individual is important to live together. i'm not really sure where the premise of that comes from, but there are... |
So firstly, habits. Notice that even if there are habits which are incompatible with (the) other person, we are not likely to show that why these habits are likely to lead to acts such as divorce and are likely to lead to things such as breakups. There are smaller habits which are largely incompatible with other [like ... |
But secondly, on the idea of behavior: opening opposition says that this behavior is important for you to [like] make yourself a better individual because you can adjust your behavior to them. That is true, but i’m not really sure (about) adjusting [like] what behavior do you necessarily need to can [what] behavior can... |
So what does opening government give to you in this speech? |
But before that. (POi from) Closing, seeing nothing. (POi from) Opening. |
<POi> So your argument is that you're going to let go of bad habits when you marry, and habits aren't a dealbreaker. PM says that there are some habits that are so salient that you don’t want to live together because those habits just piss you off so much. Which one is it? </POi> |
Yeah, so here’s what we’re saying, right? Vast amounts of couples who decide on marrying will definitely let go of those habits, but the problem is that it’s very few people who actively decide to marry, but [most live into, but] most couples who are in long-term relationships are individuals who just want to live with... |
Well, what’s the premise of opening government’s case? I think the premise of opening government’s case is important to realize that there is individual life that individuals need to consider, but secondly, that there are most relationships who, even if long-term, do fall apart. The problem is that relationships do fal... |
But why do we think it’s far more problematic in this space? I think that love, in vast amounts of instances, blinds individuals and prevents them from making good choices because in vast amounts of instances, it makes sure that the choices that you make are dependent upon each other. Things such as going to college to... |
But secondly, notice that breakups, like, in vast amounts of instances do quite hurt the most, but the reason why we think like toxic relationships and abusive relationships worsen off on our side of the house and are more prevalent on our side of the house is simply because of the fact that you are becoming more [co-d... |
</dpm> |
<dlo> |
Opening government is correct: the majority of one- to two-year couples do not end up together. Much of that is because of lifestyle choices that different people in different relationships have that are different or unpalatable to your partner. This is fantastic because, quite literally, we would much rather prefer a ... |
The thing that I want to talk about is simple: one, I want to talk about what this debate is or is not about. Then I want to talk about new substantive arguments about gender norms, especially in the developing world. I want to talk about what Tim gave you in the LO. Then I want to talk a little bit about these norms a... |
What is this debate not about? This debate is not about the worst forms of relationships. it is not about abuse because the bottom line, as Tim points out, is that abusers will foster emotional codependence regardless. if they cannot select where you live, they will select your friends or their activities. They will pi... |
New substantive argument about gender norms. One, I want to talk about the developing world. Prime minister says that it’s very hard for women to have space because women are expected, and [like] through gender norms, they have all the pressure to do all sorts of housework. That is to say, they have to take care of the... |
On what Tim gave you in the LO, which I think is just frankly winning: there is so much material that Tim gave you about, in and of itself, why there is so much pressure to eventually move in and get married. This is your parents, this is religion, this is family, this is the government that offers tax incentives to co... |
What else did the opening government miss that the closing government should honestly deal with? But I don’t know if they can because they didn’t have [like] seven minutes of un-responded material. Second, this is just terrible for kids because if you buy opening government's standard about who this applies to, it is a... |
Last, I want to talk about economics and norms: why the CG POi was just terrible for their side, but hey, CG, if you want to defend yourselves, go ahead. |
<POi> Why, in the developing world, if norms are so sexist that women have to do the housework in two houses, would women have the ability to live separately altogether? </POi> |
i'm willing to say this happens much less in the developing world but I think it's actually quite frequent. Think about if you're rich in the developing world, you are much more likely to be able to afford two houses in the first place and maybe like the family of the woman is like, "oh we want a separate house." I don... |
</dlo> |
<mg> |
What's missing in this round so far is a real characterization of why couples actually do this, when there are all kinds of emotional reasons that people want to live together, that people want to raise kids together because they love each other, they want to have sex. I think that's missing from the top half. There ar... |
Second, opening opposition, I think it's completely wrong about the idea that people commit to long-term relationships because of purely social pressure. I think on our side of the house, it's more likely that people just have more optionality. That is to say maybe there’s financial reasons that you don’t want to live ... |
So, that said, two extensions for exposing government rebuttal will be integrated: first, why you get less social pressure on our side of the house; and second, why women gain in the long term. |
First rebuttal will be integrated: why do you get less social pressure on our side of the house? I actually think that the opening opposition argument here is a little bit crazy. They say that after like three or four years in a relationship, like when you're living in a long-term relationship and you're very far apart... |
Lastly, I just want to say I think that they say that it's important to know how to divide chores, clearly I think people are going to move in together for some period of time before they get married. They're still going to make reasonable decisions about this. I know the LO gives lots of mechanisms, I just don’t think... |
Why on our side of the house do you get more optionality? I think there are a few reasons, and again I just want to be clear that if this is really bad for women, so for example if like a woman doesn’t want to do the cooking and cleaning in two houses, they can just say no. They can just move in with their partner, lik... |
Second, I think people themselves don’t even think of this option. That is to say, the norm of living together was previously so ingrained that people didn’t even think there was a possibility that they could live apart. So I think you just get more optionality on our side of the house, the way I think you're less lik... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.