text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
Wait, this was brilliant. I want you to think about this poi for a second in the meta way. She asserted thing something about the policy being bad and then said it's bad. No, I'm going to counter assert, we're not going to stop people at airports anymore. Did you notice that she just said we're still going to stop peop... |
</dpm> |
<dlo> |
There are a couple of things I want to talk about in this speech. The first thing I want to talk about is the idea coming out of the DPM, that you look better in the eyes of the Muslim community for some reason when you put your thumb on the scale to influence their religion. And then I'm going to talk about three othe... |
That is something we fundamentally disagree with on our side of the house. We think that makes problems worse and instead entrenches the exact causes of radicalism. We're fine with funding communities unconditionally and stop like leaving them behind in the way that actually foments radicalism in the status quo. Now I... |
<poi> |
In the next 15 years, what is the demographic data of the West going to look like? |
</poi> |
I don't know, but you can tell me in your extension, I guess, but it doesn't really change my argumentation at all. And I still think that it's like, my argumentation is going to stand relevant regardless of demographic change. What is the cause then of radicalism? We think generally it's a disenchantment with the stat... |
of contests of conservative scripture, which means that even if you're like, going to be taught something like certain secular values within a progressive Islamic context and then and they say things like oh, like, you're able to like use their words against them and use the faith against them. It doesn't matter becau... |
</dlo> |
<mg> |
okay OO takes the doughnut in this round, i'm sorry guys, you're losing the linear championship right now and the reason for it is very simple. It is because they want you, they're claiming that og is like horribly bad for muslim people because they're telling muslim people what to believe and what your religion should... |
That goes to our side of the debate. The second that schools that cater to individuals that allow you to feel comfortable sending your kids to a school now applies significantly greater to our side of the debate. That doesn't necessarily work for their side of the debate. Also, they have this really fictitious idea of... |
They had to engage with this in the world that exists. I want to first extend by talking about Islam, I then want to talk about the other radical group mentioned by PM But that has been missed in this debate, which is evangelical Christians who are the biggest terror group in the United States other than actual Nazis ... |
That's why right now within the West, both Canada and the United States need to take in literally to the tune of millions of immigrants per year if they want to be able to continue the amount of economic growth that they have. And one of the primary regions in the world that is trying to immigrate to the West are peop... |
who have access to capital who are more likely to be listened to by their politicians, who are more likely to fund political campaigns and be involved in the campaign trails because they have a rather large conception of Islamophobia that exists within them, right, and as a result, they advocate for two kinds of polic... |
Means that you're not going to be able to deal with that in any meaningful fashion. The second kind of thing that they end up arguing for, is the actual comparative, which is what's happening in Quebec right now, where you're not allowed to display your religion in any meaningful sense in public, especially if you're ... |
which I think is much more likely to alienate people. The reason they start supporting those types of policies is precisely because they want to do preventative measures to make sure that people don't feel that they're able to be radical to a large extent. I think that those policies end up being significantly more da... |
</mg> |
<mo> |
In order to win this debate, I think it's quite obvious that we have to beat OG. We're going to run them close. We think we're going to do it. But before that, I just want to kick CG out of this round. I think their extension can be split into two parts. Part one, with their attempt to be derivative of OG by using the ... |
Part two, their stuff off on evangelical Christianity. I want to note two things. One, no mechanism given as to how this actually acts as a countervailing narrative to evangelical churches. Many of whom have millions of dollars in funding who post and bombard you on your adverts, on your TV screens, who also have thei... |
If you don't like evangelicalism, go to another sex. But crucially, evangelical individuals are never going to opt out of that and therefore they get no marginal change on their side of the house. This means, at best, they are wasting state funding at the point that you could literally just encourage another sex to ch... |
in this case. I think OG realized that they had to support something quite bad to try to pretend that there was a trade-off to be made for like them alleviating something worse. What they tell you is that the problem under the status quo is we have to be reactionary. We have to do things like stop people at airports. ... |
existing status quo, narratives, existing xenophobia with existing anti-Muslim sentiment. That is what I wanted the DPM to engage with. The fact they didn't do this is going to lose them the debate. Why? They then say that they have, like the problem is that we have ethnic enclaves in the West, which means people go t... |
education in these schools, even in comparison to secular schools. The reason for this is because extreme parents or radical parents are far more likely to think that the devil is in the moderate version of their own religion than in like, secular education. This is for two reasons. Firstly, because of the fact that l... |
</mo> |
<gw> |
Closing opposition has two downfalls in this debate. The first is that their entire extension speech is based around reputation on opening government. The second is that they did not understand our extension and those two things will be their downfall. I'm not going to defend opening government, but we're going to take... |
refuting OG, but they still have constructive material, I guess. The first is trying to prove to us that these parents would rather seek secular education over a more moderate version of their own religious education. The second part is suggesting a bunch of impacts on to how that might be harmful. First of all, we ca... |
<poi> |
Yeah, so most parents can't homeschool. So if the only option is secular, you just send them there. If your churches have so much funding, this proves the authority is powerful, then why won't these authorities just, who feel threatened by these progressive interpretations just double down, especially when you don't eq... |
</poi> |
Okay, this is why the state is doing it, right? Because the state is out offering new options for individuals who are religious, but might not necessarily be in line with the particular majority religion in the area. |
Okay, two ways we still win on front half's own material on Islam. Ethan's extension was twofold on Islam specifically. First, more than OG's impacting on Muslims feeling more cared for, they say you defeat the us versus them mentality, kids are better off and better media discourse. The deeper impact is why this can ... |
is similar to what quebec or france is doing islamophobic policy. Refuting OO here then, right. Progressive schools are bad is what they say. OG is pretty accurate to say that their own refutation undercuts their own mechanisms. The solutions unique to religious schooling by introducing more public schooling actively ... |
</gw> |
<ow> |
So, first of all, about the comparative between propositions model and other overlay alternative, the difference the most significant difference is kind of like vague by proposition side and that is there's a direct challenge of those conservative ideas in religions from proposition side and we tell you this direct cha... |
much stronger and will lead to backlash that bad and leads to their so-called conclusion that there will be more radicalization in the open world. Open opposition also tells you that there will be like alternative secular schools, but they never give you the detailed characterization of the comparative and the compara... |
</ow> |
<pm> |
I want to begin this debate by answering what a right to justice is. I think generally, this is right again, giving each third do its right to uphold from society. It's a right to fairness in relation to laws. I feel like that should be relatively uncontroversial, But justice is but what is a right to justice practical... |
<poi> |
Yeah, rovers was also passed because of a right to privacy that was in kind? |
</poi> |
No, it was passed. It wasn't passed through the right privacy that was enshrined. The right to privacy is an unofficial part of the US Constitution that doesn't exist because it's based upon the Fourth Amendment, which is no unreasonable searches and seizures. The right privacy could be struck down by the Supreme Court... |
</pm> |
<lo> |
It is this debate to show that Supreme Courts are impartial, or at least significantly more impartial the governments are. I will show that this is not the case, and in doing that, it will integrate variable and take opening government, and consequently closing government out of this debate. You have to realize, in a v... |
<poi> |
Why would the constitution to begin with, the progress? |
</poi> |
So first of all, I already explained why most countries, comparative, it's progressive insofar as it's rewritten from other previous examples. But it doesn't have to be just post government societies, insofar as countries tend to want to join the international community as a country being created in the first place, ri... |
</lo> |
<dpm> |
Okay, so firstly, some rebuttal for the opening opposition about whether the Constitution constitutes something to pull back on for, like oppressed minorities in unprogressive societies. And then onto my pace, which is probably like, which is a direct clash, which is essentially that even if it is a higher burden for p... |
<poi> |
If you see that in situations of urgency, people will default to defining concepts based on their tradition, doesn't it also apply to how they will define justice, as per the theory. |
</poi> |
theory? Yeah, but we think, we think fundamentally, once you've kind of established you're likely to move away from that tradition. You're likely to be more open to progressive values once those grassroots movements in your country tracks come about. The comparative is that even if you start with traditional values on ... |
</dpm> |
<dlo> |
I find it interesting that opening government seems to think that the fact that on our side of the house a judge is going to have to be the one trading off various rights is somehow an argument for their side of the house. I do not think tin could have been any clearer that in situations where it is very obvious which ... |
<poi> |
uh, most of the basic rights you're talking about are something you can't influence most people to agree with that? Why is it like? |
</poi> |
Yeah, look, Dana's made it clear that if something is super intuitive and uncontested, it's probably going to be uncontested on both sides of the house, however, things like, Do we care about whistleblowers, or is it something that endangered national security? Is something that comes up relatively often, every few yea... |
</dlo> |
<mg> |
constitutional rights are a measure of last resort when the state and steroid oppress you, meaning, for you to be able to challenge them, to defend yourself, you have to go outside the compliance of the state. You cannot use that on individual rights are the qualified way in which the state perceives for running. I wan... |
<poi> |
Maria SPI to Miri explicitly suggest that the values we converge upon are quite intuitive, which makes your principle relatively uncomparative, but it's also very good mechanism. Is why the Bill of Rights will be reasonable. Of Rights will be reasonable on our side, then what becomes comparative are the five mechanisms... |
</poi> |
In your site, in some case, in your site. In all cases, judges don't defer to subjective interpretations of morality because they care for their legal COVID In our side, even if they're engraved social rights. At least you can make one argument that could persuade some justice that asymmetry is not huge, because, let's... |
</mg> |
<mo> |
Okay one point of miscellaneous extra bubble to closing government, and then I'm going to spend the vast majority of my speech on the extension. So first they say that effectively, we don't have enough political capital to implement rights. And then they give a lot of mechanism as to why it's difficult to amend these t... |
</mo> |
<gw> |
I think what their argument essentially says is, oh, this society will not perceive this as an actual protection of rights. Therefore people distrust the government or not feel represented. I want to close in a few things. Firstly, not that they already say, but it's, oh, basically, it's hard to amend those constitutio... |
<poi> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.