Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k


i want to be clear that this flips almost the entirety of opening opposition's analysis, whether it's about gender norms, whether it's about the pressure to eventually move in and get married, everything that Aditya says is the most important part of their contribution, is completely flipped. I don’t know why they made this argument. I think it’s completely counterintuitive. I think this trend can only give people more optionality. Opening save yourself (by asking your POi).


<POi> This is a crazy argument, not only does closing government strawman us by saying I just don't believe their reasons, which guys, come on, it's a debate, like actually respond to them. But the bigger problem is it has to be so massive. Like think about how small the current trend is in order to convince everyone that this is normal. You have to have like 80 percent of couples doing this. </POi>


i’ve already answered this, so Plum and I are dating, we’re going to be living in a long-distance relationship for the next few years, and Aditya, you can tell your parents about that, even though all of your friends may not be doing it. So I think you only need a few examples for these conversations to make sense, and look, maybe we're not going to change the most conservative people's minds, we'll bite that bullet. You already agree that that’s likely not the delta in the debate at the end of your DLO.


Second extension: Why do women get significantly more freedom, both in terms of their career and in the long term? I think first, this normalizes the idea that women don’t have to be subordinate to their husbands. That is to say, there's massive social pressure on the status quo for actually women to live with men in the short term. And I think on our side of the house, I think this is less likely to be their social pressure, which means that women can prioritize their careers. I think second, this is a particularly effective trend because it's so visible. That is to say, if a woman is prioritizing a career, but like in some other way, it's not obvious that she’s doing it, but if she's explicitly not living with someone else, like, you know, maybe she’s not living with her husband, even in the most extreme example, although we do think that's probably a minority of examples, then it’s easy for you, as a young girl, or even as one of her friends, to see that she's prioritizing a career and you feel more empowered to do that too.


Finally, I think that this also means that even in the long term within relationships, men are more likely to see it as like— for example, if a woman has the option to live apart from the man and the man knows that, and it may be in a slightly conservative part of the world for example, then the man is more likely to try to be nice, more flexibility within the current arrangement so they don’t move away from them. So even if you don’t live in long-term relationships, I think women get substantially more flexibility because it’s an option that's on the table. This means all of opening opposition's harms, because you don’t actually have to live long distance to get the benefits here, it actually just improves equality in the relationship. I want to talk about why this is actually more important even if you believe everything that opening opposition says.


First, I think that this is probably the most important way to reduce pressure on women in the long term. The primary pressure on women isn’t just social, it’s financial. it’s that if you sacrifice your career to live with your boyfriend for three years, even if you don’t want to marry them, and even if your family is not pressuring you to marry them, if you don’t have any financial prospects, you feel that you have to do so because you have given up all of your financial alternatives to live with him. I think on our side of the house, it’s much less likely that that’s going to happen.


Second, I don’t think this is necessarily going to continue into marriage. So, for example, like after you’ve been dating for four or five years or six years or something, maybe you’re able to figure out a way to reconcile both your interests and live together, but even if it does, I actually think this is probably good for kids because: A) I think it means that there’s more sources of financial stability for the children, which means that, for example, if the husband is abusive, or even if the wife is being abusive, that they can live with the other one because everyone is not in the same household. I think it means that there’s more financial stability, so if one partner loses their job, the kid doesn’t have to get pulled out of school and be moved to a different location. it means that the kid is more able to access their quality of life.


We also just think it’s a good role model for daughters. That is to say, it’s nice, it’s good for them to see that their mothers are working, they’re not sacrificing for their careers. This literally liberates half of the population. With that, very proud to propose.
</mg>
<mo>
One point of framing, two points of rebuttal, then extension.
in terms of framing, I think the reasonable way to read this phase is that it is probably most impactful for those couples that actually consider this to be a viable long-term option for themselves i.e. at the point where you don't, then you probably reverse engineer that to indicate that you shouldn't be living like that early either. I think that means that the most relevant couples are the ones that actually perceive this as being relevant for themselves into the future. I think we'll also be reasonable and take opp at their best and say that like probably those people exist like I agree it will probably be more the hipsters in New York than the people who live in super conservative communities. But i'm also unsure why the people in super conservative communities are then negatively impacted in the way that other people are claiming in this debate.


Two points of rebuttal: A) On opening government, kind of also on closing government that you make worse choices because you don't maximize your career and therefore you don't find values, like, I just think that this requires a massive, like, intuition cap for you to buy, which is that people otherwise make great choices about their career? Like, reality check, most people are deceived into what is good for them in terms of their career. Most jobs kind of really, really suck and require that you get emotional support or alcohol at the end of the day. They are frustrating, they’re annoying. You believing that moving to “insert big city” instead of staying with your relationships is better for you, I have no idea why that actually is. i'm pretty sure gov teams would have to actually analyze that prior to gov whip in order to actually get anything like meaningful mileage out of it. They literally just assert it. I have no idea why oh I will go to like, other city for a better paying job is good for me if that job is also emotional—you said like what the fuck?


Secondly, presumably, that I think it’s actually relatively likely that I make vaguely okay decisions about the relationship that I stay with. And so far as I have already got some experience with that relationship as is, i’ve already interacted with my partner and presumably know how they make me feel, etc. At which point, if anything, you're making a slightly more informed decision to stay than to leave.


Secondly, with regard to freedom for women from closing government, i'm sure Lucy has more structural rebuttal to this. i'm just going to intuition pump that for the husbands that are probably, like, most affected by this norm and who are most willing to take it at face value and believe that it doesn't mean that the wife doesn’t love them less. I just think that they're pretty good support to have around. Like, let me intuition pump this: when I came home from debating tournaments where I was treated like trash because I was the you know, sounding screechy, having my ex-boyfriend actually, like, be willing to listen to me and comfort me was pretty good. if we hadn’t been living together at that point, what I would have done is go home by myself and not talk to him about it, because I would have felt like a complaining little bitch and like, he wouldn’t like me anymore if I did that. Because that would have been the easier option. Being that we live together, he saw me crying about it, he checked in, and he tried to make sure that I was okay. That is a positive mechanism that helps people deal with and confront the bad things in their life or effectively.


Why do you ultimately make better choices on the opposition side? A) With regard to worst communication, I think opening opposition, being reasonable to Tim. They explain why you don't bring up problems effectively and therefore you don't effectively resolve them within your relationship. On gov bench, however, it is relatively unclear within them why you do effectively resolve them at the point where you live together. We're going to give you three broad headlines in terms of why you do so. The first is that you are forced by the fact that there is a norm of moving in together on opposition, that you see everyone actually doing it relatively early to confront differences in expectations about your relationship, i.e. if after two or three years your partner is not proposing that you’ve been together and you aren’t feeling like you can propose it easily, you will know that there is actually an issue in your relationship, that there’s a difference in expectation, which will prompt you to effectively communicate about that. That means that it is relatively significantly easier for you to make decisions about whether you want to commit further to this relationship. if there is not something that is as clear an indicator that makes it harder for you to make those decisions, then it means that you're more likely to be caught off-guard.


Note that most other forms of relationship commitment are ultimately about words and they are even at the point where you are getting married, at the point where you don’t live together, getting married is a much lower level commitment. it means that you're less certain about whether your partner is just doing this out of conflict avoidance or because it's convenient or because they haven’t gotten around to replacing you in a relationship yet. That means that on our side, you have much more certainty that is able to confirm to you what is going on.


Secondly, communication at low points. That means that at the point where you are not living together, there’s a couple of things that make this difficult. The first is that it’s just hard to be the first mover to be vulnerable in any given relationship because you feel like it's unclear whether the other person is actually as serious about it. But there's also just the insecurity about being a bother that I flagged earlier in my intuition pump, and you don’t necessarily understand why something makes you feel bad, and you don’t necessarily fully follow what is going on.


At the point where you live together, there is a default that at some stage, while you're feeling bad, you will be in the same place. The fact that your partner cares about you—they have empathy—meaning that when they see you feel bad, they feel bad in a similar way and they want to resolve it out of impulse to no longer feel bad. Because [you just] it’s much harder for you to practice avoidance, and avoidance in itself is a signal that something is wrong, meaning they will actively check up on you because they realize something is wrong. As opposed to, you know, your home in your own home the way you are every night being separate, meaning it is much less likely that you actually confront what is going on, meaning that you actually resolve this. That is something that is likely responded to by providing support to you by allowing you to sort of like, explain yourself and explain what is going on in your mind to your partner, meaning that they will effectively respond to you.


This is more important than the stuff on falling out of love with someone that we get from opening government or like stuff on excitement, because I think excitement is just ultimately much less important than you feeling like your partner cares about you and is effectively providing you emotional support. Even if my partner excites me, if they don’t provide that, I am sad. I am heartbroken. I don’t want to be around them, even if I am the reason, my avoidance is the reason that they’re not providing that.


OG, 15 seconds, go.<POi> in a world where you’re all very extremely vulnerable and tired yourself. What is this obligation of being forced to interact at all points of times without any personal space?</POi>
Like, i’m sorry OG, I have no idea why the fuck you think that being alone when you are tired and sad is actually good for you. it’s likelier to lead to you going to bed over a bottle of wine and being equally sadder in the morning. I have no idea why that's good.


Secondly, why you make better relationship choices ultimately about things. I think the first thing is you are likely to oh well say that you see habits that will break up relationships. There's a question though which is why you act on most things correctly. There's two reasons for this: A) you are likely to experience urgency, i.e. the thing that annoys you repeatedly and at some point overflows to the point that you think there’s a concrete reason to take on the short-term costs of a social conflict with your partner, where they will frown at you and be sad. This means that you communicate. if the communication fails, it escalates into a fight, and it gives you the emotional legitimation that you need in order to leave. Meaning that you take the correct response to unresolvable problems.


The second layer is that, given how big of a materially important step moving in together is, you're likely to have scrutiny by others: your parents, your friends, etc., at that step because they think it is important to do so. This is significantly likely to be avoided if it's just an over-time gradual process. if there is a single step that is materially significant, you're likely to get that advice and therefore be more able to confront necessary information. For all of those reasons.
</mo>
<gw>
I think it is outrageous that it took until closing government, aside from a half-hearted attempt from the DLO to give a real argument about the people who are benefited most by this trend.
That is women who feel that they cannot prioritize their careers because they feel that they must stay in the same place as their husband as his career for their children or for a host of other social reasons. I think that we gave you two extensions of the closing government neither of which got adequate engagement from closing opposition, i'm going to talk about them each in turn, then I'm going to talk about direct comparisons to other teams. First extension on optionality, the first actually gives you a number of reasons why aside from this the ambiguous stuff about having incompatible habits from opening government. why I think it might actually be a good choice for some couples to be long distance that is, A, you want to have a financial, it might be a matter of financial necessity maybe one, what, maybe one partner has a really good financial opportunity in another city and has to go move there, B, you have to move in with your parents to take care of them or that sort of thing or maybe you want to have your parents help out raise your kids or C, and most importantly what i'm going to talk about later, maybe you're a woman who doesn't want to give up their career for their superstar husband. Now, asher gives you a bunch of reasons why all the arguments that oo gives you about social pressures actually flow in our direction. That is, if you believe that right now there is massive social stigma against this, I think OO is correct, you're not going to get rid of 100% of the stigma, so I don't think you're going to trigger the worst case scenario outlined, in the bottom of the deal below about ever all the, about all the households living like this but I do think that you're going to give a subset of people who might feel that this is the right choice for them but it might not feel that they have the ability to do so because social stigma the ability to engage its behavior actually gives you a number of reasons. At first, it you know, it's the sort of thing that feels more present to your mind it seems like an option versus it doesn't that your partner will be less upset if they don't do this, that it reduces the stigma if you don't see any examples. Note, that we don't need to win that this is a large social trend in order to win this impact that is you only need a couple of examples of a friend of a friend doing this in order to feel like, oh, that is an option that people do, and I think you're likely to hear about it. People talk about it, there's really no responses from from CO. Second extension is about women, actually gives you a number nice mechanisms here about how you need to normalize the idea that women can prioritize their career and second, that even if women do not as a result, live in another house that they might still feel because of the example the other women are set because that example is so visible, it's different, you don't know if women are prioritizing for their husband, unless they're literally in different cities because that's the most visible way to do it and this is why we think that it's like that women in general feel more okay prioritizing their careers. Now, to this CO does give a few responses, they say that first the husbands are likely to support you and so it's actually good for women. One, it's like it's true I think women most likely know that they can take into their calculus especially if co is correct as they say, that it's if you make a more informed decision and have more information about your relationship, if that's still true and you still don't want to do this clearly that you figure that's something you've considered but second, I think that if you have a reasonably healthy relationship with your husband, you can simply call them when you need support, I don't think this is that big a deal. The other thing, the only other thing that co says in response is that it's bad to move for a job because a job might stop. One, I think women can consider the fact that their jobs suck like, maybe they'll have total information about their new job but they've had an old job before so they understand what that's like, but two, I think that even if that's true it's less restrictive that if you take a new job, if you are more financially independent it's easier to leave that new job. First, it is harder to leave your husband so it's comparatively better, the impacts of fear. One, your financial independence about marriage which means all OO’s impacts about you know, having social pressure to commit, get less bad in our world and second, it's good for kids for the whole list of reasons that uh, ash are giving you. I want to do now correct comparison to everyone else, on opening government, three reasons why we take it over them. One, og doesn't understand why this trend exists in the first place, they talk about you know incompatible habits as I think the main source of this our arguments about necessity matter more, about economic necessity, about necessity to carry parents, about women, that's the first part of the first extension. Second, I think our impacts about women are just much better than they're sort of half-hearted treatment here that they hand wave a woman needing quote-unquote space. what actually is important for a moment is not having space, to have your own house, what matters is being able to move cities to have your own career and not sacrifice for your husband. this is more important than there are other impacts for two reasons. one, is it more likely than any of their arguments about abuse because I think if you're an abusive relationship, it's hard to move in the first place, but B, I think it's more, it's a better argument better mechanism for the argument about breakups, it's not about like you know more about your person, your SO, so you like them less. your argument is, if you have better social circles, if you're more financially independent as a woman, that is what means, cushions the impact of breakup. Final reason why we take it over o.g, I think we fall in the hole that is identified by a willing opposition that is it's not true that like couples are 100% apart in different addresses or 100% together for the entirety of the relationship in fact, it's a mix and I think we've identified why that mix increases the optionality, given by people. Sex on closing opposition, a couple of responses here, their argument is basically your long-term, worst long-term relationships because it's hard to communicate, you don't check up on your spouse etc. One, I think this is actually a good simulation of long-term relationships that is, I think in the long term, you lose the excitement you like either the sexual attraction or the examination of a new relationship, I think that's simulated by long distance so it's actually good practice for long-term relationships, when their sort of initial excitement resolved. but second, I think it teaches you to prioritize and communicate appropriately, that is you learn, you have to prioritize, you have to actively prioritize taking care of your husband, you have to actually prioritize communicating with them, so that actually builds important skills and if it doesn't then you just break up which I think means that bites into all of OO’s arms. Finally, I think that you get in healthier relationships because you have a more of a social circle if you're not spending all of your time with your SO, that means that then the fact that you can offload some of the emotional burdens onto your friends, instead of your significant other, means that you depend less than you significant other, which then means that if they are not sort of unavailable for whatever reasons, that they're not required to do as much work so it's more sustainable. opening opposition.
<poi>
the vast majority of people don't like distance and are going to live close by regardless long distance is just not the debate, given that cg fails to show why living 15 minutes away versus in the same apartment magically grants you a better career, be realistic.
</poi>
for the reasons you identified about financial reasons by social pressures, the vast majority of cases in which this happens, is long distance between cities i.e that's exactly, i.e having to take different jobs, having to live separately because your parents for exactly the reasons you gave. OO well quickly why would you take it over them. one, I think your argument the core argument is just crazy, if there's lots of pressure to move in, it's really not clear why that pressure only kicks in only after you're married that is, if they're correct about that then it's likely that you move in together given the social pressures before marriage. you spend two years living apart and then two years coming together and then maybe a year living apartment and maybe living together which mitigates the vast majority of their impacts about breaking up sooner. Second I think that if the thing you care about is the pressure to commit to relationships, about being pressured into relationships the main pressure to commit is financial. it's being 30 and needing a tax break, it's being 30 and thinking that you need to have, um, and needing like a source of financial disability, it's not social because I think that predominantly you know, most people can't resist social pressures, financial pressures feel more acute. so the thing you care about then is that then we are the ones who increase it because we give a woman increased financial independence, which then means that you mitigate a lot of the pressures on marriage. The opening of opposition talks about, happy to propose.
</gw>
<ow>
I'm going to do things in the speech: number one - on scrutiny about how we're preventing bad relationships, secondly - the positive case for why living together is regionally good, makes people happier, that's a good thing. First thing is just in terms of framing who this debate applies to and how norms and pressure actually work. The first thing I would note, in terms of weighing, is that this is probably going to matter to people who which is realistically viable, right, i.e like if I'm a very poor couple who really needs the resource polling, that opening opera opposition currently identifies can occur, will likely perceive it as something a trend that doesn't really apply to them, right. Like I can just see oh that's like another rich people trend, I clearly can't do it, meaning that will not follow that trend. The reason why this matters and what is a framing is so important because, A, all the opening opposition material on financial resource pooling is probably quite unimpactful, given that we are mostly talking about couples who are going to be financially fine either way, if they are capable to follow that trend in the first place. What this means is that the most impactful bit on the debate and how we should weigh in terms of the bench is the uh the quality of the relationship and I'm going to explain later how we weigh over them in that. Similarly, I think the financial dependency material that happens, that comes from opening and closing off, is also marginal, right. Because, A, most couples that will be dependent on like a bit dependent on each other would not follow on their side follow that trend on their side or if they would, they would be dependent regardless, because like one of them would probably be just like spending money on sustaining the others club, etc, etc, like for that reason like for the same like basic logistics that wouldn't happen. Second thing in terms of the optionality thing on CG dealing with couple of things they say, number one, they say that it is good because people who want to like take care of their sick parents like are going to be able to do it. I would just know that like just reality check, like there is no pressure preventing people from doing that status quo, like I just realistically like if someone says like I've never heard anyone saying you are a really bad person because you are taking care of your sick parent, you should be living with your partner. Like this is literally a normal thing that people generally do and it's completely accepted. Second, like moving for your job, right. Either you're going to have a partner who is supportive, meaning that you can do it move with them slash just do it like without the trend regardless or, B, if they are not supportive on our side they're not going to be supportive on their side either, neither they are more likely to be pressuring you or you're going to feel the pressure to stay like in a residential address that is very close to like to the address of your partner. Like I think opening opposition script and the poi the wonder is probably not long distance, it doesn't matter. Clarifying that let's talk about scrutiny and preventing bad relationship. Talking about, oh I just know that opening makes that case largely dependent on the idea that you will move in together eventually because societal pressure. Like I would know that the trend would likely remove a lot of that pressure, right. Like we're going to be charitable to golf that they'd be probably able to use the trend to do this long term without pressure. Like I think the thing is that the trend is probably going to happen like apply to certain communities and it's not going to apply to others. Like for example, like the hipsters in New York it's probably going to become normalized, right? Like the 80 percent of those people are gonna do it then the normalization is going to happen. When it comes to religious people Alabama none of them are probably going to do it, I don't think we're talking about those in this debate either. But in the groups that we are talking about the pressure actually is going to get removed, it's actually going to get normalized. Because of that I think that opening opposition is very little left if the pressure to move in together eventually it's not going to occur. The last thing that they just say is that you can't learn things about each other but just notice under x under explained, right. Like if I like I probably would notice if my partner does with the toilet seat if I go to that flat and I see what they're doing with best toilet seat. Like I just don't think they explain at all about why you need to live together to have that. Given that, what does cut give you about why this is crucially important in terms of preventing bad relationship to live together? The point is that moving together is a massive and huge decision that is that works as a signaling effect. That is you know that there will be a huge codependency and both I am going to be aware and my surroundings are going to be aware of this. What this means is that huge scrutiny occurs, right. It is not about like habits like toilet seats, etc. It's about like general behavior patterns like toxic red flags. The thing is that what happens on our side, my family, myself, my friends are going to scrutinize and discuss that decision, right. They will sit me down because there's a clear mark when the relationship is becoming serious and they will be like okay, you're moving in with this person like what, you know, what about this thing, what about that thing. I'm going to think about it very clearly like, what is it, I'm going to be clearly thinking about what all the problems that might potentially occur. What happens on their side is that that scrutinization doesn't happen at any point because there is no clear marker that would actually make it work. What this means is that the dependency occurs anyway, right. Like it just happens slowly and it happens unchecked, like financially you're still gonna get kind of together, like you're still gonna have common friends, common groups, like isolation from other friends, etc. This can happen the problem is there's never a point of scrutiny. What this means is that you're going to, like on our side we are significantly better in preventing bad relationship and creating relationships that are healthier. We do this better in opening opposition because we are not dependent on the idea that like oh it's gonna be bad because you're moving eventually, even especially if you don't move it eventually we're just proving that you're going to be stuck in relationships that are going to long term become horrible, as opposed to on our side when you're able to escape from them significantly quicker. Second thing then about why living together is good. Just from the sort of positive way in terms of emotional intimacy. Opening government has like the big thing about like you're going to get sick of each other because you don't have any separate space. Just to challenge that like number one you probably have separate space at home, like you don't live in a studio you're probably going to have like two different rooms, one office or whatever, something like that. You can not like you don't have to interact with your partner all the fucking time. Second, you probably have jobs, you probably have separate hobbies, friends, you go to pubs, you go to your friends places. I think the thing is then that you get physical space on our side. On their side this becomes bad, right. Because when I come home from work I have to go and accomplish to my partner, I'm less likely to do it because I'm gonna be tired, I don't want to do it, it's much bigger commitment. On our side you then have physical space but you also have proximity of your partner. Take opening right now.
<poi>
Often when people are sad or tired they might also need space for themselves just as much to reflect, communication not being a foundation why the debate is more of.
</poi>
I get it okay if I'm sad and I want to have space for myself, I'm going to go and sit in my bedroom, in my office, I'm going to go outside and sit in a park or I'm going to go and sit in the bathroom on the toilet. The point is that I can do that if I live with someone, the problem is I can't do it if I want to not to be alone, I can't do it as effectively on your side, right. I'm going to have too much space, I'm going to have space when I don't want to have it. The thing then is, now I have the capacity to be close to my partner when I need it, right. I come home someone is there is close. I don't have to reach out and text them "can I come over," the communication is normalized, right. Like I feel sad in the evening and I want my girlfriend to be close to me. I can immediately ask and reach out there. That is not an option on their side, right. Because like there is a coercion, there is going to be insecurity to ask about that commitment from that person because it's no longer a normal thing. This is small and it sounds like a soft impact, right. But note that it is a day-to-day massive thing, right, the happiness and the little things that happen to individuals on the ground matters to most, right. Like this is the what I'm thinking about that makes me happy, that makes my life overall good. What this means is that it is even that small impact is still better than the huge unproven stuff that other things say for all those both reasons. Closing off.
</ow>
<pm>
Panel, religious extremism is rising in the west, it can look like lone wolf attacks from those inspired by isis or other islamic terrorist groups, it can also look like christian fundamentalism on the rise and attacks on things like blm, for instance, or other kinds of protest movements. It is generally on the rise and we think alternatives to battling this kind of religious extremism have failed. But before I get into argumentation, let's make it very clear what is the kind of model that we are supporting. I think the first thing that we need to talk about is, that we have a panel of experts and clerics who are obviously going to be representatives. So this looks like people from within the Islamic community, from different kinds of races, different genders collaborating together, assessing the syllabi of these schools, perhaps also giving recommendations on what the syllabi should be for these schools to go forward and therefore advising the government on which schools to invest in and which schools to not invest in. The second thing that we're looking for obviously is whenever the government is coming up with syllabi they have anti-racism and sexism guidelines which are used in setting up curricula. We obviously want to use that over here as well. The third thing that we just find with is that the government can either set up new schools which teach this sort of curriculum or give funding to additional existing schools which already teach this sort of curricula. The fourth thing I want to emphasize is in terms of the curricula, we already use these kinds of hermeneutical devices when we're talking about progressive religious texts and interpretations. What are we talking about over here? I think there are two things that religious communities which are progressive oftentimes do. One is, there's a selective interpretation of events that gears towards more progressive ideals. What does this mean? This looks like, for instance, us telling Muslim kids that Hazrat Aisha was allowed to go on the battlefield and it was okay for women to not only fight others but also help actively so their role is not in the home. The second thing is there's a selective ignorance of events and also other kinds of things in scripture. So for instance, not teaching kids about verses in the Quran which support sexual slavery or slavery of any kind. I think these are the kinds of things that already happen within the status quo which we are absolutely fine with doing.
What is the problem in the status quo? I think the existing alternatives to fighting religious extremism are already failing. These are failing in two respects and we just need to look at what the kinds of responses from governmental authorities are over here. The first kind of response is retrospective or after the fact. This looks like maybe a bombing has happened and now the government is on the hunt for who the terrorists are or who this terrorist organization is. The problem there then is that the harm has already been incurred and this is merely retrospective.
You're only trying to bring people to justice as opposed to preventing the harm to begin with. The second thing is you're often aggressive and reactive when you're trying to preempt harm. So this looks like more securitization and more policing of communities. This looks like what happens in France, for instance, where Muslim communities have more police involved within their respective areas and zones. Or this looks like brown people at airports being stranded for hours that end because they're suspected as terrorists without any sort of knowledge for whether they are or not.
Why is this harmful then? Because I think in the first instance, this is useless because this is happening after the fact. But secondly, this is oftentimes counterproductive. That is to say that you perpetuate cycles of violence because these people specifically feel discriminated against from things like the police or from events that happen at the airports. And the problem with this is even people who are moderate within these communities because of feelings of otherization and discrimination go towards more radical forms of action against a society that they feel is discriminating against them. Arguments then, on this side of the house. Firstly, I just want to point out, we have more buy-in for these schools. What is the existing problem within these communities? I think ethnic and religious enclaves have formed within the West. This looks like Muslims, for instance, sending their kids to only Muslim high schools, which oftentimes have very radical interpretations of what the Quran says or what Islam says. This also looks like, Christian community sending kids to, you know, Christian schools and so on and so forth. So you only either go to schools within your own communities or religious schools or secondly, even in the instance where you go to public high schools, which don't have religious texts as part of their discourse, the problem then is the socialization that happens at home. That is, parents who are oftentimes either radical in terms of their beliefs or are first generation or second generation immigrants who have carried on those beliefs from the countries that they came from oftentimes are the only source of information that kids have for their socialization and their interpretation of Islam. This is what we stand to change. Why are parents likely to send their kids to these schools? but before that I'll take a point from CEO.
<poi>
this is a clarification there are different educational systems in the west some of which allow parents to opt for their kids to go to certain schools others of which force kids to go to certain schools would this be part of a system which forces kids to go to specific types of schools you set up
</poi>
I mean in in areas where you're forced to go to school we're happy with including some part of you know religious education within your syllabi like, an extra class for muslim students, I don't care. Okay, in terms of buy-in, two reasons for why we have nuy-in, one, clerics and religious authorities have said that this is the right syllabus. So within these religious communities, these authorities have a lot of power because they are literally your conduit to God. They're telling you what God said, but also your only way of speaking to God. So I think that's one reason for why there's bind within these schools. But secondly, these schools are getting investment from Western governments. This means that they have more resources, more facilities. Your kids have better life chances if they go to these schools. Their education is much better off. Parents are incentivized to send their kids to these schools. Now, what are the impacts of this? The first impact that I have is you battle the us versus them mentality. So right now the problem for these people is they feel otherwise because even when Joe Biden is trying to solve the problem of Islamophobia, what he says is we must talk to Muslim communities as Americans or Americans need to deal with this Muslim problem. This obviously misses the fact that Muslims are also part of America and are Americans themselves. So they are otherize. What we do is we make them feel included and cared for crucially because the messaging now is we care for your religion and we're going to help teach it to you and we're going to give you access to discourses within your religion. So that's the first thing. The second thing I'll note is that kids are much better off because oftentimes note kids oftentimes lock themselves out of opportunities. So for instance, Muslim kids who don't want to get into the banking sector because interest is in haram in Islam, for instance, or more crucially, girls within these communities who are told, don't go for jobs in the future or don't go for extracurricular activities because this is un-Islamic or irreligious. We prevent this sort of locking out of opportunities because what we are doing is equipping the next generation with the ability to obviously interact with these sorts of discourses which are much more liberal and tell them, please access these kinds of opportunities. So in their lives, they're much better off. The third thing we do is we battle media discourse. So regardless of whether we actually get kids or communities to be much better off, what we are doing is we are changing interpretation of say Islam within media in the Western discourse, where Islam is only noticed as this extremist sort of religion where the Afghan-Taliban interpretation dominates Fox user and evenCNN and what we are now forcing these sorts of because the messaging of the government policy and that sort of tech will be forcing these communities to do is realize what Islam actually is. And we are therefore reducing discrimination against these communities for all these reasons. Very proud to propose.
</pm>
<lo>
The problem with opening government is that they assert they're going to get imams and religious scholars to work with them but they at no point explain why this in their interest or why this is something that's likely to happen. We pose that the interest of these religious authorities is to maintain control and maintain the religious interpretations in the way that that they currently exist. So the likely way that this policy is going to work is one where the state is imposing on these communities and creating like a specific progressive interpretation that goes against a lot of what these people are preaching. Two things in opening up. One, why even the progressive schools that you get are bad and are limited in their ability to help these people clashing with opening government. And second, why this doesn't actually solve the root of radicalization and why you likely get worse backlash from these communities. First, I think the counterfactual on our side is pretty simple. I think what we will do is we'll do things like support mosques and we'll support other avenues of religious authority and show that we are supporting these communities because oftentimes the reason why radicalization happens is because people feel that the state neglects their communities and they don't get support or they're not accepted in the mainstream. Second, we'll also support secular schools in these communities. And I think this is far better and I'll explain why this is true. Because what opening government wants is for these people to have more opportunities and to have more more freedom. I think the fundamental problem is that when you have religion at the forefront of your education, this crowds out the access for you to get opportunities or other things. So first, then why is religious schools in particular bad, even if they're progressive? I want to know there are a few key aspects of religion that make it so that it guides your education and is likely to be the guiding doctrine of prioritizing other things like prioritizing over other things. One is I think that because of how religion is preached to you, it is very hard for you to question these doctrines. So because it is authority from God, because you have, like these people have authority in these communities, and because this is preached to you in other areas as well, it is very hard for you to question these specific things, even if they're progressive. So I think the problem then is that there are some cases where your religious authority or your religious teaching is going to contradict with other things that you see in school, or is going to contradict things in like science classes or other things like that. So I think in those cases, what happens in your religious schools is you deprioritize teaching them things like reproduction or like women's rights or like safe sex and things like that. And a lot of these things get deprioritized because you are trying to propose religion. The second thing is I think when you have religious schools, you also deepen and strengthen the authority of these communities. And I think it makes it harder for these people to escape the kinds of problems that opening government talks about. Because opening government says that a lot of these people limit, like artificially limit their choice because they are brought up in religious communities. I think when you have progressive schools this makes it worse. One is because I think you reinforce the other avenues of authority from a young age. So now it's no longer just your parents telling you that religion is good or that this is something that you're brought up in. It's also in school where you spend most of your time and most of your time is dominated. So this is this becomes like becomes like far more like involved in your life. Second, I think there's just far more religious authorities that you interact with when people in your school are also religious authorities. So when you have an imam at school, instead of just at the mosque, your religious identity is no longer something that something that's spatial, that's just when you're in the mosque or when you're in that particular zone. It's something that is all-encompassing because you spend most of your time in school and you interact with more religious people. So I think this means, one, you're going to feel more obligated to this community and it's going to be harder for you to break away from these values. So I think even if you want to do things like break away from religion or you feel like this isn't meaningful to you anymore, it's harder for you to break away from this. Second, I think you're more likely to feel obligated to these authorities because these are people that are going to help you with like your tests, like help you like understand math and science and all these different things and you're going to feel a greater obligation to them. So they tell you to do certain things or they tell you like oh you shouldn't be acting this way or you shouldn't do certain things. You're likely to listen to them and you're likely to have greater control over your life because you interact with them more. I think generally this means a few things. One, I think it just means that a lot of the restrictions to like people's rights, that opening government wants to talk about, doesn't actually change. So even though you may have like some like more progressive interpretations of these religions, you still get restrictions, these people's rights and you still get restrictions to these people's freedoms. Second is I think crucially, you crowd out other types of investments because a lot of the times in places where you have religious investments or religious schools, you don't have other actors moving in to have secular or like non-religious like schools. So instead of the state setting up like a secular school where you can prioritize things like sexual education or science and things like that, you now have this progressive school and you no longer have the ability to build the secular one. So I think for that reason, like these progressive schools are still bad. Second, then why do we think this is counterproductive to solving radicalization? Before that, I'll take CG. Sure.
<poi>
Based on your logic, would you then oppose the existence of Sunday school for Catholics or is there something different about that?
</poi>
Yeah, we are fine opposing that as well. What is the root of radicalization? I think the main reason why people are radical in these states is because they feel like the state has failed them or the state doesn't support the identity and they're isolated. I think the other major problem is that you have religious authorities that have the ability to interpret scriptures in a way, that like goes against the interests of the state. There's other key thing to note is that this doesn't just happen in schools. These religious authorities also exist in mosques and other avenues in these communities. So given this, why is this bad for radicalization? I think one, it means that even if you are progressive interpretations in your school it's unclear why you are going to get those progressive interpretations in the mosque. Given that, the mosque is like a greater religious authority than your classroom. I think it's easier for these people to just reinterpret things or say: "no, no, actually what you are learning in school is actually more in line with like the traditional type of islam that we teach." And it's unclear why these interpretations actually change. The second thing is that they have an incentive to do this and they are unlikely to want to change their thing. So I think one is because like the collective memory of these people in these communities is one of more conservative or more radical teachings. So it's unlikely that these people are going to change. But second is there's no incentive for these people to change because it helps them maintain their authority when they have more radical forms of religious teachings. Why then is this a bad thing? One, I think when you have the West intervening in these places, it's likely to be seen as an imposition. So it's not the West trying to help these people. It's the West trying to change their culture and change their identities and shift it away from what is tied to their homeland and tied to their identity. So I think this is more likely to receive backlash and people are going to feel threatened in these areas. Second, I think it's unlikely that you change authorities in other avenues that are more powerful. Third, I think the comparative is just better because one, you can just create avenues where these people are more skeptical of religion by teaching them science or logic or other things. And two, I think you just create less spaces for these people to interact with religion. So religion is less powerful in their lives when you have secular schools. Very proud to oppose.
</lo>
<dpm>
Opening opposition's policy is like the Spiderman meme where they're basically doing the same thing we are except stupider. Their policy, secular schools and supporting liberal mosques. Somehow our policy doesn't have a efficacy where why would their parents send their children to religious schools but their policy of sending them to secular schools definitely gonna work out. Somehow our policy about entrenching, you know, alternative progressive interpretations in the school is going to lead to backlash but their policy of doing it in the fucking mosque is not going to lead to backlash. Not only is their policy simultaneously contradictory, it's also completely incoherent. It's almost argumentatively impressive. Two points on opening opposition side. Firstly, I want to talk about efficacy, showing to you that Taha did talk about efficacy, although in an ESL accent, so I'll try to use my British one. And then secondly, I'm going to look at how this changes mentality. Let's talk about efficacy first. Four reasons for why we have efficacy. Number one, you finally look like you care about Muslim communities. Taha has clearly showed to you that even within progressive politics, there's a tendency to use an us versus them language. The point at which you say, here's a billion dollars from the Department of Education, where we're going to look at alternative interpretations of Islam. By the way, we're going to use the British Muslim Association and the Association of Muslim Americans as part of our independent panel of experts. I'm going to intuit Muslims will say, finally someone cares about us and have buy in into this policy. In the country where they have been systematically neglected politically and socially. Secondly, just the economics of it. If you're putting money into good school, then school is better school. So kids send it, parents send their kids to better school. Like it just trivially speaking, if you're leveraging the schools with more resources, it's unclear to me why these people don't change. The third reason that these Muslim communities will favor this policy is the reasons that Taha gave, which is, for instance, that current policies are really bad. They're bad in two ways. One, they are retrospective. They look at things after the fact, after the bombing, after the shooting, all of that stuff. But for Muslim communities specifically, they're bad because they're reactive. I have to fucking stand at the airport for five hours in security and miss my plight. I would much rather prefer studying progressive Islam 10 fucking years ago. So again, it's a comparative debate, right? Where existing policies are so inherently reactive that Muslim communities would exponentially prefer this sort of policy, which tends to be much less inclusive than the sort of policies that exist within status quo, which opening opposition on some level had to defend. Number four, and I'm really sorry I'm saying this but we have to have some efficacy, right? Like it's just like fiat, like realistically speaking we are going to have some efficacy, some change in our policy. It's not going to be like "there's going to be no change." But the final point I want to make, this is the second contradiction this really confused me, is on one hand they say: "no one will listen to anything on school", when on the other hand they say: "this is going to strengthen the legitimacy of religion in this communities." Only one of those things can be true because if they're not listening then none of the strengthening of legitimacy stuff happens. If they are listening I'm happy to rebut the strengthen of legitimacy point which I'm going to do now. Two reasons why strengthening the legitimacy of religion is not a bad thing. First, and this isn't some sort of progressive call out but I do think this is important, this argument implies that religion is a priori bad. Why? Like if you're strengthening the legitimacy of progressive religion why on earth is that a bad thing? If anything I just think that doubles our impacts because we get a lot of more progressive Muslims, a lot of more progressive Christians because the argument implies that more religion is bad. No, we say extreme religion is bad. Progressive religion is good. Show to me why that's not the case. But secondly, again, deal with the competitive. We're systematically either these kids are funneled into schools where they're taught much worse things, funneled into mosques where they are taught much worse things and live in communities where they are taught much worse things. So at least on the competitive side. We're getting some incremental change the final point then that they had here was to do with this idea of like, you know, there will always be some restrictions. There's still other means of socializing these communities all of that stuff. Two or three responses here? Yes, there will be some restrictions. This policy is not perfect I'm happy to lose the debate on that. Two, now these kids have something that's really crucial. They have a language in which to push for progressive change. Now I'll give you an example from Pakistan where if my feminist friends say something like: "we want rights for women because Judith Butler said so" the mosque tells them to fuck off. But if they say: "we want rights because Hazrat Aisha in 710 AD fought a war on the battlefield and you know, it's in the Quran," they're like: "okay, now I'm willing to have a discussion with you." These progressive kids and these progressive generations finally have a language with which to debate religion now because they're using their own weapons against them. They're using the text, they're using the pedagogy of all of this stuff, which I think really helps out. The final point that they had again was crowding out, which is you can put this money somewhere else. I've shown to you why the places they're putting money in is a bit stupid. Let's talk about two additional claims that I'm going to make. The first claim is to do with the idea of remittances. And this is really important because as Taha said, a lot of these people are first generation and second generation immigrants. Now, what that means then is that when they're sending money back home, they're not just sending money, they're also sending ideas. These people, the point at which they have the occasional Skype call, with the family back home in India or travel back home to Bangladesh, talk about these progressive interpretations, the point at which they've learned about them in school. This means that you're creating discursive change not only within these communities but also outside these communities. The second part of this claim I'm going to discuss but before that I'm happy to take closing opposition for engagement purposes. Serena, go ahead.
<poi>
Sure. So, the comparative clearly isn't one where unfortunately Muslim people aren't going to stop being stopped at airports or for example, going to continue to not have these reactionary policies. So in that context, do you really think this motion is beneficial?
</poi>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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