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 the time is just horrible for children. I think that generally this is bad for relationships and creates bad relation dynamics. |
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 self-doubt. You're less able to enjoy the relationship, you overthink it rather than enjoy which can also create negative behavioral patterns. |
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 person as to their whereabouts to gaslight them and accuse them of doing something behind their back. To be more controlling and try to get their password to their facebook, to control their communication. Try to control their bank accounts and what they spend on. Generally spy on that person, which engenders conflict but also means more aggression (and) more violence. People get hurt physically and mentally. it's horrible. Before I move on to the last argument i'll take (a poi from) closing government. |
<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 unless you're a hipster in downtown New York. |
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 class person or a student on a student loan you have to work two fucking jobs to be able to pay your condo. You don't have time for yourself, you don't have time for your hobbies, you're unhappy and you're alone. And for all of these reasons, we think that opening opposition clearly takes this debate. |
</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 as budgeting like better budgetary management, or things such as divorce—like the impacts of divorce—are largely contingent to [only like] only couples which are more likely to get married. |
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 individuals who do end up in a long-term relationship, which is, let's say, like one year or two years long, are people who are still trying to understand each other and they don't have a definitive understanding of what their future looks like, which means that if this debate has to be [like] how do I say decided from a vast majority of considerations, how the vast majority of the world looks like, it's less likely that their case becomes the majority to begin with. |
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 two bases on opening opposition that contends: firstly, on the basis of habits, and two, on the basis of behavior. |
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 other] individuals at large, but these are habits which may lead to anxiety, may lead to in-fights, but don’t lead to active, active breakups—[like] like active divorce to begin with. Which means that even in opening opposition, these are [like like] a likely harm, but on our side of the house, when you live together and these habits don’t overlap, that’s a definite harm to begin with. But secondly, habits are easily overwritten, which means that in vast amounts of instances, so even if you have to eventually get married, you will co-opt into those spaces and you will let go of those bad habits anyway, which means that habits are not inherently going to be a dealbreaker and cannot be a primary consideration when we see that whether these individuals are co-opting into each other or not. |
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 only be adjusted when you live in a [like] live in the same house? I think in vast amounts of instances, how you treat another individual, how aggressive you are, or how [like how] toxic you are, vast most amounts of things can be adjusted by simply [like] co-sharing spaces in multiple times, that other individual coming over to your house for a movie night, or things such as like sleeping in together, or things such as going out together, or spending a vast amount of the day together. i’m not really sure that constantly being in touch, being in communication—how does that change in behavior—is so exclusive to living in together and can only happen when you’re like 24 hours around each other, which when in vast amounts of instances, individuals can still explore each other to the best possible extent by not living in together, which means that in opening opposition’s (case their)best damages are still likely outcomes but are not definite outcomes. |
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 one another, which means that in vast amounts of instances, these habits are likely to lead to things such as active anxiety or infighting, which deteriorates your quality of relationship even in a stage when you’re actively exploring another person. This is the problem, because even if it’s true that towards a certain extent, you can let go of them, but in a lot of instances, individuals are not capable of dealing with them. I think habits come on a very lower scale of priorities when you decide when you want to marry another individual, and at a point in time, these individuals are clear that they want to marry. They already are decided that sure, we’ll make certain changes in our character at a point in time, and it becomes necessary to begin 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 fall apart because of a couple of reasons: one, there is infidelity; things such as individuals growing simply out of love; or three, that there is a lack of excitement, and individuals don’t feel like they are [like] being fulfilled by another individual; or fourthly, like individuals always feel that they are being neglected simply because the other person is involved in things such as working for like 16 or 18 hours. We think that these considerations continue to arrive in a vast period of time, [for over a stretching] for extensively stretching over a long period of time, and these boundaries are far easier to be established when you live in separate houses. When you don’t live on the other side of the bed and in the same house, and you don’t give attention to another person, we think that it allows you to generate a far more [like more] healthier level of boundaries to begin with. |
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 together, things such as moving into another city together, or things such as taking a job wherein you want to be together, are choices which may actively harm you on an interpersonal level or your individual growth, because you always think that living with another person gets prioritized over a better paying job or [probably a better or] probably moving into a better city, simply because you think that these considerations will last forever. And this is exactly the problem, (suffered) by vast amounts of individuals who continue to suffer by the consequence of a long-term relationship falling apart because they didn’t think it through. And the reason why I want to make this argument is that i’d also like to argue at this point in time that love makes you a stupid person because [like] it generates dopamine, right? it’s like it's reductive in and of itself, and at a point in time, like the lack of [like] even if [like] when you imagine the lack of dopamine that gets produced by another person initiates anxiety within you, which means you're more likely to take calls which are largely short-term beneficial to you but may not be beneficial to you in the longer term. Which means that vast amounts of individuals who are unable to understand what their relationship will look like [like] coming next one year, are individuals who end up taking huge personal harms before realizing what their life will look like. This is exactly the reason why I think [like] it’s a bad thing to move in together, even if you're a long-term couple to begin with. |
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-dependent and] co-dependent upon another person in a sense that you cannot [like] conceive a life independent of them. Which means that you have always spent the last two or three years living together with them, and at a point in time when you have to think that, okay, it’s time for me to move out, you are always scared because I never have had a house of my own. [i have never allocated,] I have never run a house on my own. I don’t know [like] any other individual or any other friend who [like] exists outside this other individual’s life, which means in vast amounts of instances, you generate a shell for yourself which [like] it’s extremely tough to break off. And this is the reason that vast amounts of toxic and [like] abusive relationships stretch for a very long period of time and don’t implode. They only implode when they have [like] boundaries which can be easily built and they can [like] stick to those boundaries in an office. |
</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 one-year couple breaking up because one person just does not put the toilet seat down or because someone keeps a [towel like the] wet towel on their bed. These are small examples, but I think you get the point. We would much rather that people break up now, based on poor habits, as opposed to getting married and either being forced to give up those habits that you spent 30 years doing, or much worse, have a terrible marriage because you just don’t like the things that your partner is doing. You don’t like the way that you live. You don’t like the choices that you’re making in general, and as a result, you find yourself being placed in worse and worse decisions. Tim tells you that not only are there massive pressures to eventually get married and cohabitate, but that when you do this, it is almost impossible to leave, fostering these same problems with emotional dependence that opening government themselves points out. At that point, we’d much rather that you are cognizant of these stresses, cognizant of these worries, far before you ever opt into the point where this becomes irreversible. |
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 and the stress that you impose on people in general. |
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 pick apartments that are purposely close by because they want you to remain co-dependent on them, whether or not you live apart or together. in fact, it’s actually much worse because, as Tim points out, insecure people on their side of the house are so much more insecure. They think their partner is proposing this because they don’t like their presence, and they feel forced to do more and more to win their partner’s approval. On both sides, controlling people now have an incentive to be more controlling. On our side, it is much worse because you feel more and more pressure because you think your partner just doesn’t care about you and doesn’t fall to the same level of [emotional independence] emotional dependency. |
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 their husbands, they have to take care of their spouse. imagine how much worse it is on their side of the house because these same gender norms still apply, but now you have two apartments or two houses, so you’re to do two times the housework. it is cooking and cleaning, you’re expected to do this for your husband or your significant other still, but you also have to do it for yourself. I think it’s just [like] massively increasing the amount of work and decreasing the free time and other outside opportunities. Opening [like] the second thing to say here is that the opening government wants to [like] change this debate so much, [like] I think the bottom line OG is probably out because of the severe case tensions in their case. Not only because of the case tensions between PM and DPM, but just because of their framing. The Prime Minister can see that this round is about couples that are married, about couples that are very, very long-term, and then the DPM tries to walk it back because they realize it’s obviously terrible for their side—too late, you’ve already accepted it. I think the bottom line is it is much worse for women in general, not just in the developing world, because the lack of emotional intimacy that Tim points out in LO is extraordinarily important. That is to say, Tim points out when you don’t live together, you are much less likely to foster emotional bonds because a consequence of you not living together is that there are some things that you want to keep to yourself. There is some reason why you don’t want to let your shell down around other people, why you want to remain emotionally guarded. Those are the consequences that often come in choosing to live apart. As a result, I think those relationships just tend to have less emotional intimacy, which hurts women far more than men. Like it’s acceptable in society in general for men to be [like] the less emotionally committing or the more [like] philandering part of relationships, i. e. a society is much more permissive of men who cheat/slash roam free than women, so when relationships have less emotional intimacy and are designed to foster less emotional intimacy and commitment, it is actively terrible for women because they are the ones that are most hurt by society’s double standard about who can step out, who can't, who needs to be emotionally intimate, and who doesn’t. |
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 cohabitate or get married. This is the financial pressure to eventually cohabitate. in that vein, one, the argument that OG misses is that these lifestyle choices that people seem to have that are so different, that they have to live together, must be extraordinarily severe if they want to overcome all of the current bias towards living together. Which means that these lifestyle choices endanger you for an unstable relationship in the first place. But the second thing to say here is just that when you eventually cohabitate—because look, all couples, and almost all couples, will eventually want to cohabitate—it is easier to raise a family, it is easier to raise kids, it is easier to make those sorts of decisions when you do that, it is so much worse because you’ve reached the threshold past which there is no return. |
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 absolutely terrible to see kids raised in two separate households. But this creates bad dynamics in the relationship in and of itself regardless of whether or not people get married. The amount of insecurity and lack of trust that you’ve fostered when you tell your partner, “Hey look, I like you but I don’t want to live together. I don’t want to live together for the next two years because there’s just something about you that I do not like living with,” that makes people more insecure, makes them more vulnerable for control, and makes it much, much worse at large. |
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't think it matters. I think the point is that you can have norms that are sexist that encourage women to cook and clean because that's what society wants them to do irrespective of whether or not women are literally allowed to be outside of their own house. Like in America, which is a pretty non sexist country, I think there are still pressures on women to cook and clean, and [like] it’s also totally fine for [like] women to live in separate apartments, so I think the CG POi is crazy. The other CG POi about norms in general: if closing government is right that this motion supports norms, and that norms impose pressure on lots of people, this is terrible because right now, i’d say, [like] couples that [like] live apart is [like] probably [like] maybe 8–9 percent of total couples that are in long-term romantic relationships. So, thinking about how massive the change has to be in order for them to correctly normalize it, it impacts kids much worse because, as Tim points out, most couples that stay together and most couples that live together are the ones that have kids. So, if you want to affect it, you need to affect all those relationships. it also imposes undue financial pressures on the average person. Like, look, the average person cannot sustain two households. They can’t sustain two apartments, even. it is much easier to make financial decisions. You are more able to make financial decisions when you make them together as a couple, and you live together as a couple, rather than making them separately. All of those things become much worse on low-income couples, if closing government is correct and this becomes normalized. Very proud to oppose. |
</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 are two misconceptions. First, I think opening government's misconception is that there are lifelong habits that don’t coalesce, and people just don’t want to live together because we don’t point the toilet seat up or down. Maybe this is true in the minority of cases, and we think their arguments are persuasive in those cases. I think what's vastly more likely is that women increasingly want the ability to forge their own career about being subordinate to their male partners and having to subordinate their financial decisions and their financial stability to their male partners. So, I think what that means, I think on our side of the house, we're going to talk about why this trend is crucial for giving women more freedom to do what they want, both in terms, financially and in the long term. |
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 together, at least temporarily. Maybe you want to see your family, maybe you want to take care of your dying parent for a year and a half before you move in with your significant other. We think on our side of the house, there’s significantly less social pressure forcing you to move in together because there are so many other examples of it in society. |
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 from each other, your family is gonna force you to get married because you've been dating for so long. There are at least two problems with this. First, your family is much less likely to force you to get married if there are lots of other examples of people who have lived apart and don't get married for long periods of time because that's the norm. And to be clear, we're not saying that this is going to be a super wide-spread thing that every couple is going to raise children from different halves of the country, but we think that when there’s even a few examples, it’s going to be easier. (To POi) i'll recognize that in a second. But second, I just don’t think, but I think on our side of the house, it's much easier to break up with someone. That is to say, if you're living far apart from them, there’s going to be less of a reason to actually do it, that you have to stay together in the long term. So maybe they don’t even reach this point where you’ve been dating long-term for like four or five years, and your family pressured you to finally move in together. |
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 they're very good. I don’t think they're going to get their argument. |
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, like this is really just more options for people and only makes their relationships better and more easily accessible. I think a few reasons we get more options. Optionality: First, because I think you're vastly more likely to be stigmatized by friends and family if there are no other examples of people in long-term relationships not living together. So if you want to take care of your dying parent but your family or you want to, or sorry I guess if you want to be in a different part of the country for economic reasons, then your family is going to say I know you shouldn't do that, clearly that's crazy. Whereas at least on our side, you can point and say, “Hey, look at these people in your social circle who’ve done it. it’s not everyone, but we can do it for two years and it’s going to be fine.” |
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 likely to be dismissed in discussions. That is to say, your male partner may not say, “You don’t love me unless you live with me,” because they’ve seen other examples of this happening, and maybe it’s even happened to them before in their life. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.