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 people at airports and hence it's bad. No, I'm not going to stop people at airports, I don't know why you said that. Like, I've given you reasons for why we're shifting the funding towards funding of liberal schools as opposed to stopping people at airports. Unclear why that was a valuable point of information. The final thing that I wanted to talk about then, which I think is really really important, isn't just the remittances going towards other places but the generational change and I think this is really important. Let's assume according to opening opposition, I'm sorry Serena, our policy has 10 percent efficacy, why not. This 10 percent of people will grow up probably have families if climate change doesn't kill us all. And what that does then it creates a positive feedback loop. These people will become parents who would teach these children progressive interpretations, go to the mosque and discuss these progressive interpretations leading to a much bigger ideological multiplier than just the short term effects of our policy. Tanal, I've shown to you that there's a terrible relationship between the West and its minority communities. The discourse is the best way to solve it. And discourses within school are the best means within that. I am so proud to propose. |
</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 other overarching points, how this fails to root out radicalism and makes it worse, and then interacting with the government's best case of when education moves the needle in these people's minds and why secular education, we think, is a far better solution. Starting with the idea of how you look better in Muslim community's eyes. First of all, it's an absolute straw man in the DPM that we're trying to influence like thought at the mosque. What Amar said specifically is that we are fine with unconditionally funding these communities to support them. That is something that's fundamentally different between us and Gov because we are the ones that are not trying to influence people's religion and trying to have Western governments put their thumb on the scale in people's faith and trying to change thought within their lives. This is a pretty overt policy on their side of the bench. Even in their best scenario where they're like trying to cherry pick like different Muslim scholars to be the ones that check off like, what's okay to teach and what's going to be in the syllabus. Recognize at the end of the day, it's still beholden to the authority of western governments as to how this is being chosen. And it doesn't even matter practically if it's out of their hands, it still be perceptually portrayed as such. And that's all that matters because it's not that you care so much about the community. So you want to change their actual way of thought. |
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 want to like, talk about how this fails to solve and root out radicalism and makes it worse. I want to make a couple observations here on radicalism because if you look at the top of the PM, it's a discussion of things like Christian fundamentalism and like the rise of terror bombings that have occurred across the world. What does this context tell you? It does not tell you that these are individuals who are homegrown fundamentalists who went to private schools and were taught conservative teachings. This is not the relevant stakeholder that is the one perpetuating these kinds of attacks. Their solution fundamentally leaves out Christian fundamentalism, other forms of religious fundamentalism, and focuses on specifically on homegrown Islamic terrorism. That's what it focuses on. But secondly, most of those terror attacks, at least in recent years, have been related to Islamic fundamentalism, haven't even been homegrown. And that makes sense intuitively, because people born in the West are probably less susceptible to these narratives anyways, even if they're, as opposed to being born abroad. The scope of this solution, then, is incredibly limited, and it trades off with public secular schooling that we think is a far more expansive solution. but then recognized as another observation. The teachers only have so much control over student thought, and this isn't me trying to say that God has no fear to influence people. It's just simply saying that the way that radicalism actually happens is like a lot of the influence on these students and individuals is out of the school's purview and they have limited ability to actually influence or be the authority in their thought. Like, I'd say like 75% of like the influence of students, like in terms of their thought probably comes from the home, probably comes from like outside the school contact with mosques with religious institutions. Like, students are the ones that select which schools they go to and which thought that they're okay with. Ones that are probably going to be radicalized aren't going to be okay with schools that take an aggressive stance on attacking conservative portions of the faith. It means that their solution is unlikely to be effective in challenging the authority of the religious figures that people already ascribe to. That's the nuance in this legitimacy point that like the DPM tries to brush off and saying, oh well you can't have both of people not listening to things at school and also increasing legitimacy of religious authorities outside of school. That is absolutely not the case. You can have both. It is one in which like they literally do what they say in Gov bench where they say, for example, that you just like, to like, try to filter out some of the like conservative teachings in Islam. But those gaps are then picked up and taught to you like outside in mosque teachings, right. And like that authority remains and that authority is strengthened in those individuals lives. What then is the cause of radicalism? And how do we think we better deal with it on our side of the house? Before that, I'll take a POI from CG. Go ahead. |
<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 state when people and communities are left behind. This is the gap we feel on our side of the house and we don't try to pretend like we're like, so generous to these communities so as to influence their faith and teachings like government says. I think generally it's also what I, what, what Gov bench identifies but it's otherization, discrimination that occurs. If they get to stop like stopping people at airports for no reason then we get to do that as well. We just don't need to fund progressive Islamic schools. Like I think this is a pretty reasonable thing that we're arguing as like a counter prop. Like finally it's a lack of interfaith dialogue and contact between communities. This is something that we strengthen on our side of the house and something they fundamentally do not access on their side of the house. It's unique to solutions of public schooling and to solutions that actually bring communities together and like no longer otherize or keep them separate in their own different bubbles. Why then like interacting with the best of gov case, where they're actually can influence these people, is it not effective in reducing radicalism? Like, progressive Islamic teachings are likely to only have a soft contact |
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 because the authority that you're ascribing to is not one that is secular. It is one that is still in your mosque that is a dictator of like the thought that's going to be like, occurring outside of that school within your family, within your community, within that context. You strengthen the role of faith in their lives that like leaves the gap of actually having ties with like other communities, like having friends at school that aren't the same religion as you, like having people, like having ties to a greater national community that you like, no longer have to, like, that would otherwise not drive you to like, have those kind of like radical thoughts or to be like, otherized against the state. This is the reason why we think secular education is far better. The goal here is fostering ties across communities to break echo chambers, for students to be able to have friends at school that they care about that aren't within their own religious communities. This is the way that you're able to introduce secular values into people's lives, not by continuing to ascribe to an authority that at the end of the day is going to have the final say on that kind of thought and those religious teachings. Those reasons we're very proud to oppose. |
</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 bem but the stance of opening opposition, if you listen to them carefully is they want people to only go to their own like religious ceremonies once a week. They want you to not be able to learn religion within schools. They want you to not be a large part of your own community They want to effectively whitewash all religious people and for some unknown fictitious fucking reason that's something that Religious communities would prefer my take is that's not probably the case. So, here's the reason why they're bad, because the reality is is that when kids are going to schools. The kids aren't the ones making the decision about what their education is going to be. What we've seen, for example, like here in Canada, is that when you didn't have a lot of like Muslim schools, like schools specifically for Muslim people that would have people who are Muslim teaching, who would have, you know, readings of the Quran after school and stuff like that, who would still be a part of like the provincial-wide curriculum, before you had the introduction of that, a lot of Muslim like immigrants, especially first generations, would not send their kids to school, opting instead to like homeschool their children, right. So for every argument that they want to suggest about the necessity of learning science and logic and sex-ed and having white friends, because for some reason that's a good thing, I'm not that great of a friend, that goes better for our side of the debate. The seconds that you start providing alternative options, right. For every argument they want to make about how people need to be able to make a decision about whether or not they want to be a part of their own religious community. |
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 how institutions should work, about how often you should be engaging with your religion. But that's not really how status quo works. People are going to be trying to make sure their kids are religious, are going to make sure that people are involved in their religious community. So you can't let them run away by just fiating that, that shouldn't happen. |
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 in terms of just number of atrocities Committed in their name by domestic terrorists. So first on Islam the debate in the front half is primarily centered around would Muslim people support this but I asked this poi to the DPM sorry to the DLO, in the West, there's a very big problem of like, we're getting entirely too old and don't have enough young people to replace the amount of elderly people that are going to be a drain on the system in the next 15 years. The reason for this is because basically, we've had so many people stay in their careers for a very long time, who have had very limited amounts of children. And as a result, what that means is that we're going to have very overrun state run healthcare systems, because of the amount of people who are going to be retiring, state funding is going to be limited because of a lot of people taking out their pensions simultaneously. And the problem that this creates is twofold. One, you have large scale harms on the economy because government resources are massively drained for all of the money that they're going to be spending on the elderly. But you're not recouping that money and status quo because you don't have a lot of young people entering into the workforce. And especially given that people have been taking a long time to be able to retire, the people who are entering into the workforce aren't particularly good at the jobs that they're doing, meaning they're less likely to be productive, less likely to be able to contribute in taxes. |
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 people from the Muslim world, right. Are people who come from majority Muslim countries. So, what currently happens in the status quo is that you get a large amount of backlash by people in positions of power, predominantly white people. |
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 policies. The first is restrictions on immigration from the Islamic world. This being a bad thing because it means that the future problem that they aren't willing to assess because people generally do not want to talk about consequences that happen in the long term. |
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 a public officer, which to a large extent is much greater of a form of whitewashing and telling people what to do in regards to their own religion. This has looked like bans on burkas. This has looked like bans on other religious headgear throughout government buildings and throughout government schools. |
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 damaging to Islamic communities because they're not able to engage in their own religion and to a large extent because you're enforcing that specifically religious people be committing sin. On our side of the debate, I think that you're much more able to limit the extent to which people are going to want to be able to like restrict immigration and restrict those kinds of like uh, legislation. insofar as they see that there's a valid alternative that is going to be able to limit the amount of radicalization that exists. So I think that it means everyone, no guys, so I think that it means that on a comparative basis, you do a significantly better job for these people and are allowing them to get access to like educational institutions financial institutions job markets that exist within the west the second thing i want to talk about is the evangelical community. I want to emphasize why they're important, right. A lot of mass shootings have happened on mosques and on synagogues by radicalized evangelicals, but also the evangelical church does a lot of elderly abuse by like, taking a bunch of their money and like idealized forms of like future benefit, right? But the problem that ends up happening in status quo is that there isn't an ability to challenge them because the way that evangelicals work is by having such a massive amount of megachurches that you aren't able to establish your own religious institution nearby a mega church because of how much capital they have, to out-compete other churches that exist that the church isn't able to exist in perpetuity, right. The second that you can integrate business schools, it means that you have a challenge to the hajiman that is the mega church while providing a countervailing narrative specifically, to children which does two things, right. The first is that in the long run the ways that they mistreat the elderly are not likely to be perpetuated insofar as you know you're just not likely to believe them because you've heard cultures but two, debate gets more like, discursive on the, on our side of the debate and insofar as you're coming from within the institution as opposed to an outsider. We're proud to propose. |
</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 same analysis but adding the words financial opportunities in regards to Islamic communities. |
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 their own institutions and schools which they set up and which parents opt into. Number two, and I think more importantly, I don't know how many sects of Christianity there are in America, but I think there are like 150 or something crazy like that. |
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 challenge evangelicalism. I just think this kills the extension. If I'm being honest, I didn't really understand it. Cool. Let's talk about opening government. I think the first thing was there was a massive problem solution gap. |
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. We have to do things like pander to anti-immigration sentiment after a terrorist attack. I think if this was to be a trade-off in the debate where they can focus on one over the other, then they would have to prove that to a significant extent, this policy is going to eradicate the prevalence of terrorist attacks and therefore eradicate the moral panic which leads to these policies being implemented in the first place. But more importantly, that the kind of security measures which make people like, the Islamic community feel discriminated against, would not exist on the comparative. They can't do this because they don't have fiat power to just add the abolishment of a completely different policy to trade it off with their own. Otherwise I could prop this house would like, punch me like, my partner in the face by saying the alternative is me like, not punching the Dean. Here's the trade off. That doesn't make any sense. I think this is important because this policy is in addition to other policies which are also discriminatory to these communities as opposed to directly being traded off against it. Note how this damages a lot of their case because a lot of their cases are that this is better than the alternative. But if the alternative still exists, you actually have to consider the impact of this policy in conjunction with |
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 to homogenous schools. Sure, people might set up a Muslim school if they have money. That's probably a minority of people. The alternative is probably secular education, which the vast majority of people go to. We don't actually hear why this is worse beyond them telling us that home radicalization also exists, which is just mythicry. What was the actual solution? The first thing they say, is that clerics are going to support this school and therefore you're going to have massive amounts of community support. I think this relies on communities where the cleric is moderate and therefore is likely to espouse the views of both the government and the communities with what, which means there'll be no marginal change in opening government's case if it is these extreme interpretations which they need to change the minds of. Secondly, they say it builds trust with the state. I think this is wrong because the way that this is going to be messaged, especially if they think that there is a trade-off between this policy and things like stopping Muslims at airports, is that these schools are being set up to protect the wider community from these very problematic communities. So from the get-go, your perception as a Muslim is that these schools are being set up because you are a pariah and you need to change. That doesn't really build trust in the state, just intuitively. The third thing that I say is that you now, cannot opt out of alternative opportunities. Two points that you need to weigh this up against. The first thing is, I think that your parents are far more likely to make you reject certain classes and do things like truant and engage in lesser aspects of your |
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 like, they have more knowledge of the moderate faction in their community. There's just more of a history of hate, like even when like, if for example, first generation, that would have been the argument that they grew up hearing between moderates and conservatives. Whereas this is like a devil, like the secular education and Western values are like a devil unknown, which I think means that you have a greater history of hating them. I think the second thing to say here though, is that these schools often will need to negotiate more conservative values, which means that on the comparative many kids miss out on opportunities of secular education, such as like LGBT classes, which I'm assuming you couldn't just fiat in, if you wanted these parents to opt into these schools in the first place. That is a trade off for those group of kids. The final thing or the penultimate thing they say is that funding for these schools will make parents engage in these schools. That is uncomparative at the point that we can fund secular schools better. But the last thing, I think this is most important, which came out in the DPM, is that moderate young people now have religious language to challenge more extreme interpretations. Four responses. Firstly, in order for these schools to have the most buy-in, moderates need to have the power in religion under the status quo. Secondly, why do you need the community to understand your view, given that if you are able to on either side and like make a critical mass of young people believe that extreme interpretations aren't the best way, that they are the future of that religion. Thirdly, I think that clerics are more likely to know anti-moderator arguments because that is what they grew up with, like opposing the previous instruction before them. But finally, and this is really important, the PM said there already exists a history of moderate interpretations and narratives which are accessible, which is how these schools are able to be set up in the first place. So it's not clear what the marginal change is. What then is the marginal change in this debate? Two things. Firstly, I think that for the most liberal parents, the comparative was genuinely sending their kids to secular education because they were just that way inclined. But there is a trade off in two ways. Firstly, there is a limited choice of schools. That is to say you can only place like, really one public school in an area because governments are broke, it's kind of sad. But secondly, if the community actually does agree with these schools and negotiations are made in a conservative sense, then there's pressure on liberal parents to send their children there over secular schools. If it is true that moderates make up even a significant proportion of those populations, that means all of those kids get a less liberal education than they otherwise would have. Not only does that not fulfill the preferences of those parents, but if we think that moderation is the key to these kids changing their views, then it also means that those kids are getting a comparatively worse education. But more importantly, the very conflation of conservative Islam with radicalism is likely to isolate these communities further and lead them towards a path of radicalization. This is a stupid policy, oppose. |
</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 the closest semblance to an extension that they actually had in terms of constructive material, take all of that down and then explain why our actual extension does play against the rest of this round that CO should respond to in at least their whip. First, the semblance of the constructive. There's two real parts they have in, I guess, |
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 can have a quibble day after day about what these religious parents are likely to do. Some religious parents, sure, will say, oh, the secular option is better for us. Some will say that, oh, maybe we should send our kids to the more progressive. But even as the one, the most likely actual comparative that exists and has existed in many parts of the West is homeschooling, where individuals believe that already the education system has no viable options for them, which means the radicalization that CO is failing doesn't get solved in the secular schools, but rather gets continued to grow at the home. But more importantly than this, why is it the case that secular schools probably actually aren't the alternative that parents are going to turn to? Two reasons here. First, I would suggest that a lot of parents, especially when they're religious, do care about holding a religious education. Even if they are parents who believe that a more moderate version of their religion may be something that is harmful to their children, they still understand that they can send their children to Sunday school. They can bring their children to the mosque. At the very least, the perception and the knowledge that they and also the people who are viewing them in their community know that their children are going to a religious school is something that these parents likely care about. But the second thing, the funding and creation of progressive religion schools is what is being debated here, right? In either world of the house, secular public schools are going to exist anyways. The policy being proposed is should we have the inclusion of other religious schools that might be more progressive in nature in terms of religion. Three impacts on why it's good that the existence of these new progressive schools exist. Number one, note that these are literal children. CO's refutation to our entire case was just hop over to another sect. If you’re not in line with the evangelists, right. These children cannot simply hop over to another sect. It is up to what their parents are going to choose from them. But the second thing is note, that kids bring teachings from school to heart and can resist radicalization. And this is the mechanism Ethan provides to you. That's why a ton of university kids currently are quite progressive despite having very conservative parents. It is very possible that these children can take these learnings to heart and resist that radicalization. All that needs to happen is that they need to select these schools to go to. Finally, then, why is it the case that these schools are going to be preferable to these parents? One, if the comparative truly is homeschooling, note that the time gap that this sort of the time sink that creates means that parents are very unlikely to be willing to do homeschooling when they know that a viable option of a religious school exists. Secondly, the fact that you're able to send your child to a school that still has your religion is probably good. But the third thing, and this is the most important thing for white evangelists, sorry, white Christians in the United States note, that there are not actually that many different types of religious schools. There isn't a religious school for every sect of Christianity. There's a religious school for the largest and most well-funded Evangelist church within America. Which means the options for religious schooling in America is actually woefully awful. Meaning, white Christians who want to send their kids to a Christian school don't really have the option of choosing between sects. Meaning, the actual funding of progressive schools is going to be something that is chosen by a massive majority of individuals who care about those kinds of teaching. Finally, responses to our case. Ethan tells you that deep rooted influence over the population generation after generation is why the Evangelist church can abuse the elderly. This is why we have to actually make it an option so that these children are able to have some kind of teaching that is going to oppose the Evangelist church and whatnot. Okay, let's deal with both teams of the church on opening half by talking about the theme of central focus of radicalization. This is a notion that probably could be done for Islam, but not necessarily the focus of the round. For three reasons. One, religious radicalization in the West actually is most severe among the evangelical church, as Ethan tells you, and Islam radicalization is not occurring as much domestically. A lot of foreign terror attacks that are connected to Islam are happening abroad, not necessarily domestically. Two, the widespread narrative of Islam as dangerous is not in line with the terrorism in the West. Even opening opposition points this out, meaning that terrorism in the US is most often done by white evangelists as Ethan tells you. Third though, note that the white evangelist population in America is a majority population, but also are being able to get away with silent radicalization that is happening. Therefore, Islam is where this motion may apply, but in deliberation, you ought to prioritize the material brought to you on the evangelical church because this is where the impacts grant deepest. OO, quickly. |
<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 equip kids with the tools to be skeptical or religious authority and you make religion more pervasive in their lives? |
</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 make immigration policy much better. One, greater invitation of refugees in Europe, but two, combating the aging population problem in the US. This is a much deeper impact than OG gives you. Second, the likely response that they're comparing |
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 avoids the religious context. Ethan tells you a lack of Muslim schools mean more homeschooling, some people are deeply rooted within religion, and a policy of secularization will actually create much more division. If our trite's slight trade-off is deprioritization of maybe sexual education, of providing alternatives for religious people, we can stop the next generation of indoctrination, look to the kids analysis, right. The comparative then, is suggesting that this is the kind of policy of secularization on opening opposition that actually makes and leads to Islamophobic policy. This is much worse in the comparative, so proud to propose. |
</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 challenge will have more backlash that make the radicalization even worse on said house. So two things I'm going to talk about in my speech and rebuttals to other houses will be integrated in that. First of all, how exactly this policy implemented in reality. So, the whole premise of proposition bench is that like somehow they will like, they will let a lot of representatives who have the authority to determine the syllabus and the content teaching and therefore, that somehow the religious parents and the the kids will believe this is quite like suitable for them and believe in and buy in the ideas but the problem here is as both opposition teams tell you like, those representatives in the religions can more about solidarity and it's like, dubious, why they would actually agree and choose to be the representative and like be part of this process in the very first place? Especially considering you're directly challenging the conservative religious beliefs, that's questionable. Like why those, well, there will actually be some representation of conservative ideas in the syllabus. That's to say, like the syllabus and teaching isn't like what proposition like ideally portray to you that somehow the teacher, the kids and parents will be happy about that. And somehow they will get the sense of being catered to because their original, more conservative and radicalized ideas are not included, but rather are directly and strongly challenged in the sense. So, why this is important? This means like CG’s argument based on the idea, somehow like those people could feel being more catered for will just collapse here and all this impact should be largely mitigated in the sense. And also we're saying like, both propositions team meets the nuance in terms who are these stakeholders in those religious groups and how exactly they will be influenced in the debate. So that leads to the second the, I'm going to talk about here so how exactly this policies what works our religious groups and what is the what is comparative better so at this point, what opening opposition talking about well somehow there will be outscored influence and we agree but the problem here is opening opposition didn't tell you, why this else will influence is much stronger |
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 comparative benefits on outside house. So first, so we're saying that in what, who are the actors that will be even worse off on the outside house? Zarina told you that A, for those conservative people, for those parents already very conservative, you're making them even more radicalized and more isolated in the society. So two reasons for that. First of all, as we already mentioned to you, there's a direct challenge to their ideas. When they communicate with their kids, they say, okay, the schools, the teachers in these schools are teaching in this particular way that they do not like and they do not want their kids to be socialized in such kind of environment. That means this conservative, this radical and conservative parents will be much less willing to send their kids into the schools in proposition side in comparison with alongside like this, you're more likely who that they send the kids to secular schools, because even if those schools are secular, there is at least less challenge towards their ideas, towards their religious beliefs, which is quite important in their belief believing systems. But secondly, we're saying those conservative parents will feel like, there will be more stigmatization of their religious belief. So, CG tried to challenge us to say, okay, like we're teaching them doesn't mean we're making them, making this religion seem to be like terrorism or dangerous in the society. But that's just a claim, the problem is, you have this policy in the very first place to contact the radicalism and the very action that government take this policy suggests to the public and make public believe that there is some danger in this belief and this sort of stigmatization will be even more to those conservative religious believers who are already sensitive to others' perception towards their religions. So at this point, they were much, even much less likely to send their kids to those schools. Why that is important? That is important because that means, the most important stakeholder proposition side tries to change here won't even be engaged in the very first place and won't have the impact proposition claims they will have in their way. But secondly, let's see the other stakeholder liberal parents. So there's still a possibility that they will less likely to go to this course. Why that is the case? First of all, we tell, Zarina tells you why there'd be less choices and that is inherently hard to them. But secondly, what's a significant impact here is, when the society, when the religious groups see as a community that these goals are challenging their beliefs. There will be a pressure within the groups to force those liberal parents, not to send the keys to the schools in the very first place. And we're telling you that we think like in this debate, all houses already assume that religious groups are somewhat conservative, somewhat like a conservative and less liberal. And also secondly, we're telling you that religious groups as a community has a very strong coherence here. So that pressure is very like, it's very important strong towards those liberal parents which will lead to less liberal parents sending kids to, uh, sorry um, didn't have time to take pois, um, sending kids to the today like the school's proposition trying to talk about here so comparatively speaking, the comparitive here is even taking pop at their best case scenario for those liberal parents the parent here on on other side house those liberal parents well send kids to secular schools anyway and all those benefits og identifies like, language and knowledge and more facilities and more liberal ideas will happen anyway on outside house. But like what is comparatively worse here is, in OG's world, there is more possibility that those liberal parents will be even coerced out of this liberalization process. So let's see the comparative overall. So the propositions, most important stakeholder, they never given any mechanism what exactly those conservative and radical religious people will be engaged, will be willing to step into those schools in the very first place and we tell you why this backlash is likely to happen and we'll also give you the reason why the alternative can cover most of the benefits proposition identifies and will even like, more likely to engage those conservative parties and liberal parents based on their reproach. |
</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 practically? I think it's three things. One, it's not just bias. It's an evolving right that's integrated into the general fabric of the society. This means that probably has a degree of precedent, even if it isn't entirely beholden to preference. I'm going to look towards like working conception of a chain novel here in terms of law, where it's an evolving story told by various legal rulings. A ruling might not deviate, they might deviate from precedent, but it still exists in relation to precedent. It should also exist in relation to a general right second, I think it's like somewhat integrated into society, and like, the interest of the law, and like what society holds right, like, society's understanding of justice obviously varies over time. The right justice probably varies. It's different now than it was in like, the 1800s However, it's still in the context of that Preston. Third, and finally, I think this exists in relation to constitutional rights. I don't want to hear some, like, dumb arguments about how, like, there's not going to be, like, trade laws in the economy. About this. There's probably still laws in, like, other parts of the world, even if there's some controversial disputes. I think the principle, like, there's still present that exists. It's just flexible to a degree. I'll take a PO composing now. No, I'll take one for you later. Okay, so I think, like, just principally, I think, like, the core sort of Clash of this debate is going to be a comparative, because I'm sure ops gonna argue like, Ah, this right to justice could be literally every anything you could just pass, like, arbitrary laws to get stuff. I know that's the argument, but I think equally you have to answer the question of, like, how constitutional laws are not just going to be so specific and so individually tailored as prevent the application of justice in a society. And what we're going to show you is that based on how the Constitution is written, it can equally be entirely arbitrary. But why is a right to justice general better as a general principle? I think one appeals to justice are just more likely to succeed in protecting the interests of citizens because they can operate in relation to preference precedent, but also like a social understanding, for example, like police brutality laws in the US that are technically constitutional via qualified immunity, but obviously do not accord with society's gender understanding from justice. So thank you. The second is, I think that the system disincentivizes arbitrariness ops. Worst case portrayal is going to be like, Ah, this is ridiculous, because there could be, like, literally anything. But I think that you have to understand how this would work in like, the real world, like courts would want to maintain a some amount of objectivity and precedent to allow things to work. That precedent is just going to be flexible in relation to society's understanding of Justice and the value that we accord to that preference precedent will be existed in relation to both the precedent and the general theory of justice. Now, what are the substantive arguments as why constitutional rights is bad? Because I'm sure lots to stand up here and promote like a very rosy picture of constitutional rights, that it's like the freedoms of minorities are being trampled upon, but this part of the law says they have freedom of speech or whatever. I think it's not always the case for a few reasons. The first is that rights are fundamentally inflexible. They don't change over time. You can look at this in like gun laws in the US that are, frankly, absolutely ridiculous because they were written in the 1700s this prevents society moved from moving on and, like, adopting logical things. But equally, I think it can also institutionalize historical oppression. Because if you believe that people can like, like, engage in like, have like, terrible views, and you think that might be arbitrary in our current society, you have to recognize that constitutions like internalize and integrate into law the terrible views of people 300 years ago, which are comparatively net worse than the views we hold today. And not only that, those views can't change, they are literally written into the law. I think, like, like, yeah, like, a race, status quo, people, racist press, which is what creates the Constitution. But second, I think fundamentally that rights do not provide enough protection. Why is this the case? I think that rights are generally very inflexible. What this means is they apply to very specific things, and they're very tailored. This allows gratuitous violations of these rights, given that the violation falls slightly outside the principle. For example, Jim Crow like was obviously like, very wrong, but did was technically legal be the specifics of the US Constitution, or another example, like burning draft cards, the way the First Amendment is written is like, very specific that like that does not count as freedom of speech in all specific cases. It was only when it was revised and understanding the theory of justice that did happen, but from the particular President which was used to disqualify it, and the constitutional ruling in that case, which still exists today, no thank you, is that if it incites violence like burning draft cards, does it is not allowed under freedom of speech. I think the third reason, finally, is that rights lend themselves to sort of overly technical interpretation that is restrictive. Why is this the case? I think you have to recognize that the writing of constitutions doesn't occur in a vacuum. It's shaped by like political influence, like lobbying the people like the Supreme Court justices who get like applied to interpret these rights are like come from a law firm that have corporate interests exist in relation to political parties. Why does this case the powerful applicants an active incentive to, like, make sure these rights are not accountable to the general population? If an active incentive to shape these rights, they're very inflexible and very textual, so that they don't protect the things that they should protect. You can see this and like specifics like Roe versus Wade, which got overturned. Not because the Supreme Court decided they liked abortion, but because of a cause of interstate commerce and primary privacy, and like states ability to regulate that because the federal restrictions are so hard, I think comparatively, this makes the poor much harder and makes the blind social justice much harder, because these systems get so esoteric. Is this closing? |
<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 tomorrow because it doesn't accord by the text of the Constitution. It is only based on the full arbitrariness that the Constitution COVID, which I'm going to get to later, because your arguments collapse to a theory of justice. But equally, this means that all the symmetrical parts of like the oppression exist on their side, because the Constitution can simply be tailored, be as oppressive as possible or to be as not restrictive as possible. We check back. It's either. It's easier to get general influence in our society. It's easier to change general ideas in society. It's easier to shape our conception of justice that exists in relation to precedent. The final thing I want to deal with here is the comparative because ops going to be like, Ah, you can just change everything at will. There are a couple of reasons why a constitution won't change. Either. One, bigoted courts that interpret it, that internalize the same kind of bigotry to bigotry that would have been applied to theory of justice. Second, a bigoted government, they'll find ways around it to certain event it like happens all the time of the constitutions. Third, all their mechanisms about society being racist and doing racist stuff applies in either world. If it's not going to be solved by a theory of justice, it won't be solved by rights. Five, those rates have to be interpreted by someone, but that begs the question of their interpretation, and that begs if they're actually written in a way that lends itself favorable participation. Six, and most importantly, the threshold for change, and the threshold for changing constitutional rights is far higher than the threshold for changing society's version of justice, which means you can't remove equally messed up constitutional rights that take rights away from minorities because it's much harder to amend the Constitution. The fact that it can be changed proves that there's some overarching principle in society, which proves the other arguments, kind of constitution being a dead document or complete Yes, because we only change what's convenient for us, which shows that we Should just adopt over our should principal justice. |
</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 vast range of countries, pretty much all of them, Supreme Courts are heavily politicized. We're not talking just about Poland, where the war on Justice Party staff the Supreme Court. Supreme Court directly. We're also talking about a United States of America where supreme court offices are directly appointed for political preferences and survive as activisms of administrations 30 years after that administration has been voted out of office. This means that on either side of the house, we have a direct government influence on how this court is going to judge. So it could be more later, but secondly, not a principal harm before I move on to any of my other arguments. This means that in so far as right to justice is easier to interpret, insofar as it's wider, I a different ideology interpret justice differently. This means that there is a fundamental political injustice being dealt with citizens who go in front of the Supreme Court insofar as their arbitrarily prefaced or disprefaced based on the accordance of their ideology, with the ideology of the particular judge of court, is not perfect on either side of the house, but the wider the scope of interpretation, the wider the arbitrary preference. Therefore, in support all citizens should have equal recourse to the state in support of the reciprocally give the right to the state. There's a fundamental principle and justice which already makes us win this debate. But secondly, on context, though, this debate is not about amazing, lovely countries where the arc of history bends towards justice, because probably people vote in good governments in those countries, and we don't need constitutional oversight. This debate is the more relevant, the more we go into problematic countries. The more problematic the country is, the more people need something to fall back on. In countries where there is corruption, where there are human rights abuses, where there are laws that exclude ethnic groups, where local district courts are corrupt and bribed by local mafia bosses. This is where you need the highest epilotor as a way to challenge the government. Disputes about rights are only relevant when rights are contentious. This is not about me being able to say, I love me as a friend in this room, because nobody disputes that. It's about me being able to say I love a man in a country advanced homosexuality in those countries, the status quo, it's already heavily tip towards the government, and this is where you need a counter balancing mechanism. Here's the comparative. In the comparative, we have at least some form of limitation in the sense in which the Constitution is worded, even in the worst case scenario for us, probably the USA is the SD country. We have right to self defense enshrined in the Constitution. Write the speech in. Identity, constitution, right to say, fair trial and events, corpus, etcetera, etcetera, as opposed to just rebate and broad right to justice. How does this work and why? What are the mechanisms as to why it's going to provide better protection to citizens on our on our side of the house, which we believe is a principle right in so far as the state has disproportion power over us to legislate and force us to be legislated upon, because we cannot present the state, therefore mechanisms to the legal system are the only thing and the only recourse we have. Firstly, a constitution, which directly gives you, say, freedom of speech, provides you elicitation for a particular act, regardless of the people around you. Think about that. IE, if the Constitution says I have the right opinion of speech, the current societal atmosphere might be that people don't want me to speak, but there's a paper that tells me that I can, which means it's the burden of group of the government to take away this right for me, whereas on their side of the house, we have an amorphous sense of justice which is dependent on cultural context or this general moral relativity, because either opening government is right, and the right of justice is going to be based on some concrete principles, concrete theories of jobs, because presumably the government of all reached organ on opening government side of the house. If that's correct, then we both agree and we just have more specific rules. Or that's not actually the comparative debate and the way countries shape their constitutions and their sense of justice. It's based on the particular cultural context at that point in time. The real point is just in Afghanistan and Iran vastly differs from what is dropped in this rule, and this word becomes problematic, the justices amorphous whistleblowers. For example, whistleblowers can appeal to the right to freedom of speech has been taken away from me. I spoke, and there's a paper that says, I can person because they can, because the state can say, for the greater good, we think we should ban this, or we think this is not within our definition of justice. Secondly, this course of inalienability, Bill of Rights do very often directly quote the idea that human rights are inalienable cannot be taken from the individual, not even by the government, which is a very literalist approach to law that lawyers can only take underserved house. Thirdly, though, the process of writing constitutions, the majority of this debate happens in post COVID societies, young countries, post colonial countries, due to the urgency of establishing the legal systems and institutions within these countries, what they most often do is they rewrite Western constitutions and build up right based upon Enlightenment principles, which means there is inherently a more a more progressive constitution in place than the current cultural context in countries where this debate is comparative on their side of house, that doesn't happen because they don't have a bill of rights in the first place. The Constitution creation process on their side of the house is a direct transposition of the current cultural norms. If those norms are good and the debate is uncomparative, but where they're problematic, the citizens of the rigorous courts, the state. Fourthly, it's easier on our side, for an international community to oversee these things. There's an incentive for them to do that, firstly, because they want to have stable and democratic partners, but also the verge signal to their own citizens they're protecting democracy. There's also an incentive for countries that are less developed to try to follow these rules and follow these principles, because they won't have good relations with more developed countries. However, build the bar in the status quo. When the Law and Justice Party stacks the Supreme Court, the EU can say, this is a very clear violation of your own constitution, and therefore we can activate the nuclear option on their side of the house. They don't even have to stab the Supreme Court. They only have to depend on the high likelihood that the random Polish judge appointed to the court is not going to be progressive, but basically it's likely is not, which means there is a less incentive for the for the governments to behave by an arsenal of the house, and they have a higher bar. They have to directly stack the court. They can be challenged for that, not just internally, but also, but external community. Before we move on, i take your proposal. |
<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, right? You want to be recognized by other countries, by international institutions, because you won't have to establish diplomacy. This means you are likely to at least try to pretend, optically, that you subscribe to their principles. Which is why are going to take inspiration from US Constitution? I don't know. It won't take inspiration from the constitution of like, I mean, Croatia, for example. Lastly, President is clear on our side of the house because it's tied to a particular case in the case of freedom of speech, which shot and this or that way, whereas on their side of the house, we cannot point What the What element of justice, what part of job is exactly about it for either for judges to interpret. So President is less clear. But also president, here's how this works. Rulers would wait, would be repealed on either side of the house, because the justice is defined by the people and by the context of society. And people vote on governments that stack courts, then the people that voted for Trump would have, at some point in the last 50 years, defined justice as being not killing a pre board baby. It's an uncomparative debate in the side of the house, what is comparative it's an art of the house. Government undertake less egregious abuse because they know it's less likely they can get away with it. There's going to be well reasoned NGOs challenging them with that, and in five years time, they're going to have to deal with the optical problem of having a Constitutional Court take down their law, which can be instrumentalized by the opposition at the point where they can appeal to justice to avoid that they're more likely to undertake egregious abuse and harm their citizens rights. I think opening up concerns already won and. We still have another set of minutes of speaking. |
</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 people to bring this, bring this case to court, because they have to show like, it's a specific right against right of justice, rather than just like, some specific right, I think that once they have successfully brought that case in front of the government, it is much harder for the government to then, to then, To then, like put down, to put down that case, they are much more likely to agree. You're much more likely to get change and progression. But firstly, on to for my rebuttal. Okay? Firstly is presuppose, as was pointed out, that the Constitution is necessarily liberal. The only reason it really we got for this is that people who people in developing countries, who are bored, people in post conflict societies are likely to want to copy the West. Okay, a few responses. Firstly, if they want to copy the West, I'm unclear why they wouldn't also want to copy the West when they're, like, giving judgements in Supreme Court and creating that kind of press in IE, people who are writing Constitution are going to be largely similar, have similar motivation to the first people on the Supreme Court of that country. So if they want to, like, emulate the West, they're going to do this on, like on from side of the Supreme Court as well, right? Secondly, we think that this motivation is large, is not, is not necessary or likely, right? We think that very often, like democratical liberal values are associated with the West, are associated with Imperial values. And so in case times of conflict, in times where there's a lot of uncertainty, in times, especially where there's a lot of urgency and people are scared and people want to hang on to something, they are much more likely to revert back to traditional values than just to just go with the west, to get, like, to get some kind of sport from a from someone they see who doesn't want to support them anyway, right? And then, yeah, so that's why the Constitution is unlikely to be present, right? Okay? Secondly, even if the Constitution is progressive, we think fundamentally that it still depends on interpretation. Right? We don't think there is a qualitative like difference on either side of the house on like on interpretation. It is simply like the amount of amount of interpretation freedom that judges have, and this specifically where it comes from, right? We think on our on our side of the house, they have more intact freedom up like first right. But in so far, as it has been shown that that this specific right to justice has been violated, they have no choice but to rule in favor of the person bringing their kids. Whereas what's the comparative right? We think rights very often conflict, and constitutional rights very often conflict. And at that point it is much more down to the free, again, the free, the interpretation of the judge, right? It's much more down to that, like, two precedents, right? So safe, like, someone's right to privacy and someone's right to, like, I don't know, freedom of speech, conflict. At that point, it's very much down to the interpretation of the judge, which one's more important, right? But on the but on our side of the house. If you can prove that your right to justice has been, has been in COVID, there is nothing that judge can weigh against. We take the burden that it is harder to prove that your right to justice has been, has been like, has been like has been has been violated, right? We take that burden, but we think fundamentally, that's a better world than one where the judge had the power to, like, weigh off the different rights in the Constitution. Why? Why is this? Um,... |
<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 both sides of house, at least on our side of the house, they're not enshrined in your constitution for like, the next 300 years. You can develop, you can change. That is this flexibility. Okay, so on to my case. Yes. Why do we prefer? Well, in which where the people bringing the case have, like, the burden to prove it, rather than the judges having the freedom to decide? Okay, firstly, we think that is much easier to to access, like, greater support at the point of, like, bringing that case. We think there is a lot of there is a lot of international support at the case of which, like, there is fair, strong, international, particularly Western liberal, support for a certain case, right? What? What does this look like? This means there is likely to be like when someone's human rights, say, say, a journalist in the rhino shop, we think there's, there's generally a fair amount of a national support, international support and grants. Well, i.e., there's a lot of backing. So this type of like resources, you need to prove this case. This looks like things like funding. This looks like things like research. This looks like things like lots and lots of journalists going about and asking the right questions and getting that evidence. And moreover, it isn't just about like funding and hard resources. It is simply it is also about the kind of like moral spirit and like and motivation behind it, right? You don't feel like it on your own, when you have this kind of groundswell of opinion. Secondly, we think it's much more sympathetic. You're going to have a lot more support domestically improving your claim, even if, if you're like so say you're like a minority, and most of the kind of elites and middle class aren't going to particularly feel sympathetic. They're going to be fairly detached from your claim, like you're bringing against the court, right? What's the comparative? Hymn? Okay, on their side, there are competing rights that the government that people have to weigh off. IE, it's much easier for like, the people who may support the minority or may go the government's way, to go the government's way, when they are faced with excessive propaganda and funding against that right, because they have their thing to oh, I'm moral. I think there's like this other right, which I think is more important, right? But what's the comparative here? Right? Um, if, if there, if you don't have this competing rights, if you have this recognition of right to justice, that things conflict, but that means that there is, there is generally a right answer, but you just have to prove it. At the point at which you can prove it, then you're much more likely to get that sympathy problem, you're much more likely to get that grandchild of support, but you wouldn't otherwise, because those people who are more like people are ambivalent, are much more likely to feel sympathetic to your cause. And why is this so important? Right? Because we think in many countries, many countries, many, many countries with like, bigoted governments, with oppressive governments, we think that they they want to co op that middle class or that upper middle class, right? And we don't think that those those people are necessarily absolutely in support of the government. We think they are often fairly reasonably self interested. We think they like care about keeping themselves. They see keeping themselves like keeping themselves in a good position, like economically and politically. They care about keeping that country like fairly running quite well. So if they think that the government is like able to squash something, if they think it's probably reasonably morally right and they are able to ignore it, they are likely to go that way. But if they don't think so, if they are, if they think that, if they, if they if they think it is wrong, they are much more likely to be persuaded to start vocalizing support for such movements, right? And what does this mean? This doesn't have to be a lot, because we think that oppressive governments generally will, will kind of will make concessions, because it's quite expensive to like, oppress people. It's quite hard. So if you have this kind of support group molding, then you're much likely to get this change. Thank you. I'd like To my speech there. |
</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 party is wrong and which party is in the right, which party has a claim and which one does not, on both sides of that laws, the process is going to look quite similar. Tina has been also crystal clear that the reason why we believe the Bill of Rights is important is because the rights. Should be upheld and should be irrelevant, even in cases where that does not turn out to be the most important right. And I think this is the crux of the debate, because yes, opening government is right on our side of the house. What happens is the judge trades off two different rights on their side of the on our side of the house, the verdict is going to be something along the lines of, in this particular case, one right trumps the other, because you have to decide one way or the other. However, that does not eliminate the fact that the right that does not come out on top is still a right that exists and should be respected in practice that's most often going to look like some things, like if you have to pay damages, maybe you pay less damages if you still get convicted for manslaughter, maybe we'll know what you do with self defense, and even though you technically did still kill someone, we want people to feel moving forward, still feel comfortable to act in self defense, because that is something that they have the right to, even if the right does not protect them from all consequences in all cases, what happens is that moving forward, you can keep relying on that right, even if that right is not a get out of Get Out of Jail Free card. But secondly, it also probably means, in practice, you get some sort of reparations, minimize punishment, whatever. On site government, what they have to stand for is that you don't have a verdict that acknowledges two sides both have the right to something, but someone has to come out on top. There is one sense of justice that has to be defined, and one thing has to be just and the other one has to be unjust, because otherwise it doesn't make a difference whether you appeal to justice or to rights, right. So if the problem of government is that whites are too unspecific, that's just ridiculous, because they want to rely on precedent entirely. It's so much easier to argue that whatever precedents have been set all do not apply to this case on what is justice, because there is one detail that maybe matters that changes the understanding of justice, that changes the nuance of the social context in which this happens, that then might mean the Justice might look differently in this case versus the others. It's much easier to rely on rights that are inalienable, that have very Salish precedents where those rights are something you can rely on, even in cases where maybe they're not the most important thing. So to the extent that we care about protecting people, we should care about giving them one the avenue in which they can rely they most reliably can have rights that will be acknowledged in courts as valuable regardless of the outcome, but also to where they feel that those have the rights. And I'm going to deal with that later in more depth, right? But also like, Oh, gee. Said, like, ah, but courts want to maintain objectivity. Like, if that is the case, that's going to be the case on both sides of the house, and there's no point in changing, right? Because if courts want to maintain objectivity and be fair to everyone, they're also uphold to the Bill of Rights in a fair way. But also, here's the thing, gun rights are upheld in the US, not because of, you know, it's a right that's inalienable. You can still change a Bill of Rights right, probably you would even be able to do that. The problem is that you have very, powerful gun lobbies. And then everything that is up for debate in the US, rather than something that is enshrined, is politicized as fuck to the point of becoming dysfunctional, right? So on the idea of like, institutionalizing oppression, which is somehow something that OG thinks goes for them, I'm unsure how having a very, very clear view that is very like I think everyone in the US knows what is in the Bill of Rights. I think if something really ridiculous would be in there, they would that would probably end up being changed, because society would not stand for it, right? Good luck scrutinizing every single president that a court might rely on from the last, I don't know how many, at least 300 years, right? And good luck having most citizens join like most citizens don't even know the majority of cases in front of the Supreme Court. I'm unsure why, at the moment where the majority of the decisions in force in the legal courts are going to be to things like amorphous, vague precedents that are being set, where someone is going to be able to scrutinize that what is the burden of proof? Because OG seems to think it's easier to change society. It's not about what society thinks, because we don't have, I hate to go for the buzz word, but we don't have epistemic access of an aggregated view of the entirety of society, and not just their their general view, but also the nuances in each specific situation of the what they would prefer, which means that what we go on is not like the general what society wants and society teams toward, tends to being progressive, but how society expresses that, but does it express it through things like whoever has the strongest and the loudest lobby is going to win? There's probably a majority of society in the US who wants abortion rights and things that probably women should have autonomy of their over their body. It's just that the people trying to to get rid of abortion are louder, have much money, have much political power. The more things are up for debate in this way, the worse the race to the bottom of politicizing everything, grabbing power, disenfranchising minorities from voting all of the things get. Because the more you have to gain if you do those things, the more you have this incentive the more money gets into politics, so the harder it is for you to reach the threshold where you can pump enough money into the liberal causes for you to be able to match the Koch brothers or Elon Musk or whoever the puck is pushing dumb right? I've already talked about how people can't be expected to follow every single case that is going to happen. So whatever Reliance you want to have on public scrutiny gets a million times worse when it relies entirely on precedence, where you might have to know 100 precedents to decide which one of them is going to be more likely this particular interpretation of justice than just. This right is inalienable. How do we trade it on with something closing, |
<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 years, right? That's the kind of thing where I'm unsure why courts and the government would give a shit about the Justice right of one individual to be able to spill state secrets so they claim are horrendous, unless there is something that forces them to acknowledge that no matter the situation you have, the right whistleblower free speech or whatever it is, second process matters. I've already touched upon why how things are perceived definitely influences the amount of scrutiny that can exist, right? I come from a vaguely functional democracy in Romania, and still, because of the fact that there's an expectation that policemen are going to be corrupt and that courts are going to be corrupt if you go against someone with money, you don't even bother with it, right? We see that happening even in the US, where women don't really bother going after sexual assault cases if they don't think they can win on their side of the house. Not only do you have the problem that in the contested things where people of color already don't trust police don't trust putting the decision in the hands of the state, but on top of the fact that you have a hybrid of proof, you not only need to prove what happened, you also need to prove that is justice that makes it harder for everyone. It makes it worse for all human rights. Proud to close. |
</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 want to talk about three things. Firstly, qualifications from why a lot of all these out this debate. Secondly, why institutions like constitutions are not progressive, not changing the principle now, pre qualifications that take opening COVID out of this bill. First, constitutions are constitutional. Courts are a major request result. They're not local courts and they're not local legislations about not stealing, not killing people, not including their private poverty. They're taken in ways in which, firstly, some affluence, you are very humanity, or Secondly, quasars in which the whole society is affected, for example, rights of minority communities that can be systematically disopressed. Secondly, there's a massive difference between a case in the Constitutional Court and in local courts. Like firstly, very few are cases not so much time pressure, and you have much more time to make a decision. This is why decisions take multiple weeks. Secondly, you have to do an extensive report on why you have done this, and you have to justify every single day that you've actively done. Thirdly, it's not a random Polish judge that is taking that decision. It is multiple constitutional judges that, firstly, supposedly the most qualified within society. Secondly, give much more public pressure, and certainly because. Is also class action lawsuits. There's a massive pressure for them to be objective. Or, thirdly, they have different biases which cancel themselves are or this just is necessity for them to justify themselves to one another. Meaning, there's massive difference between random Polish bias judges in cases, in constitutional judges, constitutional judges, that they a few decisions a year at most. Are extensive amounts of time to do them and have massive public scrutiny outside of this now, later. Now, what is the constitution? Why is the constitution, firstly, inherently wrong in many cases, I would say there are a lot of issues that are supposedly that are supposed to be individual rights that are currently not qualified in many countries, this is abortion, gay rights, reparative rights for indigenous communities, or, for example, positive, positive rights, for example, the right to UBI the right to social welfare, the right to education, like there isn't, by the way, an individual right to food in America, even though this is supposedly very progressive, this is so because, firstly, previously, there was a bigger asymmetry between the people in The state and the state wanted to perpetuate its power. Perpetuate its power. But secondly, because certain social issues that exist today just didn't exist or were massively oppressed previously, for example, women, I would say that less than us, in some cases, they exist to some way, but are presented to the lens of the previous people that are dominating society. For example, in Bulgaria, you have the right to manage right, but the right to manage is qualified as the right between a man and a woman to marry, meaning they either don't exist or are qualified in specific ways that necessarily oppress. Secondly, why, even if society is changing something that OG doesn't prove the qualification within the Constitution doesn't change our legal fight. So multiple reasons as well. This is the case. The first which in many cases, those are minority issues, which means that, if parties are negative, monitarian just not a pressing issue for them. The second reason is that in many cases, there is an insufficient amount of political capital for you to do this. Why is that the case? Because many, in many parliaments, in liberal democracy, for example, or in developing issues, there is a lot of polarization. You don't have a secure majority. Secondly, you have a finite amount of political favors, which means you want to prioritize other things. Or third, in many cases, there are much more pressing things for you to have to extensively do. For example, the fixing the economy, legislation on healthcare or education, instead of focusing on constitutional rights, which means in the vast majority of cases, it is complete. But second, it is very problematic for you to change the constitution, because, firstly, in many cases, the Constitution is massively qualified. Let's say, for example, the American Constitution, in which whenever you want to change something, it triggers right wing arguments about it being a slippery slope. They're going to change this right. They're going to change the second right or second. It triggers the psychological Fauci of people to be riskable, to be resistant, to be resisted, to change, which generally means that you have insufficient sovereign political capital, even if it doesn't say this is why this policy is necessary. Finally, let's get to the point. Let's talk about the principle we completely agree with opening opposition in that there are different moral and cultural contexts. They say that they exist. They never just they never justify as to why we have to actually ignore them all together. I want to positive two claims, the first which is that morality is inherently subjective. Not only does it change over time, but it changes on the cultural to cultural basis and on individual to individual basis. Why is this trivially true? Because people have different moral intuitions. People have different lived experiences. People live in different environments, which generally means that if we don't have like, what was the fantasy, paperwork, epistemic acts, the preferences of other people, and we all have our own moral individual perceptions. This necessarily means that morality is inherently subjective. Sure, we leave some conclusions and qualify them, but they're necessarily qualified but by people with their own irrational, subjective perceptions of what morality ought to be. I'll take you later on, meaning that in some cases, some people believe the right to chemical is a right to self defense. Other belief it is not right because it includes other consent of people not people not to be violent attacked. Secondly, many people believe that taxation is dead. Other people actively believe that they entitled to that because the prerequisite polish, and this is why they should have UBI and social welfare, which means cautious on rights are inherently subjective. What is the issue in the status quo? The state mandates what is not right and what isn't a right, which means that, firstly, it is a blanket policy that is homogenized as morality, or whatever the physical world is, again, and secondly, it is a top down approach. It's not a bottom up approach, meaning what the state imposes a right is retained as a right. We massively change this, because every single person is you have a different conception of what morality is, if it is crucial to their self flourishing, for example, capacity to collect rights to other people, to protect their indigenous rights, necessarily means they can exercise the right to what a good life is, but also to defend themselves against the state. Before I continue I will take both openings. |
<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 where it's easier to make your case on our side therefore fulfilling your more prerogative. |
</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 be fair, this debate is about two cases a year, but at least it exists. But secondly, I don't care the principles. It exists, irregardless of practical considerations. And this is why it's important. Secondly, let's talk about state power like this is favorite document if we believe that the right to change the government and to control the government is prior to everything else because you don't consent to the government, because it has asymmetrically more power to you. That this necessarily means that we must give you the tools to control that state. The problem is in the status quo, the two the tools to which you control it are state defined right the state defined what morality is and what individual rights exist. Meaning, irrespective of practical considerations, you should give you the tools to defend yourself, to defend your own perception of morality. And here I want to give a very, very like, okay, intuition. Any you in the status quo, you cannot. You can vote for whatever candidate you want, right? You can just write up an empty ballot. Can write for whatever policy you want. You will not confine a specific economic and political policies by specific candidates, meaning you're given the freedom, even if it's Not necessary on all those grounds, i propose. |
</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 types of Bill of Rights over time, etc. The first observation I make is that if the population doesn't have the political capital to amend something in the Bill of Rights, then probably it isn't a strong enough democratic belief of that population to actually implement it in the Bill of Rights. It's totally unclear on what values they're saying, like, why you're going to get, like, all of these really, really nice changes. And B speaking of really nice changes, I don't think they've proven that justices are going to be changing good things on net, other than saying that, like elite judges in Poland are particularly well educated, and that seems nice, I don't think they respond to the characterization that these judges are not Democratic, that they might be subject to regulatory or to capture from political parties like in the United States, where you have super conservative judges passing Awesome like terrible things, right? I think that's the main point. And then, like all of the other things I have in terms of democracy, are going to clash with that relatively directly. The first thing I want to extend on is trust in institutions, and why this is so important, and why a right to justice would erode the trust in the institutions, as opposed to a codified Bill of Rights. Why is that? The first thing to note here is that people are going to perceive this right to justice as less democratic than a Bill of Rights. Why is that the case a they literally just are right like note that when you have a bill of rights that was voted on by like a large body of people when they were making this type of constitution right, these are people that are more accurately reflecting the democratic will. You can vote on the individual laws. You can vote to amend these types of laws, as opposed to in the other type of system, you don't have influence over those judges beyond like a very highly removed democratic process where maybe you can nominate those judges over time, it's significantly less democratic in actuality, and as a result, people have the ability to see that. But secondly, note that rights enshrined in the Supreme Court are inscrutable and unclear when they are under one umbrella of justice. For example, in a public conversation, I can point to the right, the fact that I have the freedom of speech or the right to bear arms versus if we only have the right to justice, then I say actually a Johnson versus Ferguson 1932 the Supreme Court justices enshrined this as an interpretation of our right to justice. And thereby, I think I have access to this thing, right? It's far less tangible for the average person in order to grip it when they're having these types of conversations, and then see it's less representative, right? So we are you picking out the most educated elite people in power of society and giving them comparatively more democratic power? Okay? Note, these aren't minor concerns, right? So if you say, oh, like a court changes, does this really like fundamentally, radically view people's change and how they perceive themselves their states in accessing their rights. Yes, we're talking about fundamental rights, which people are talking about here. We're talking about in every single political debate. When you go on TV and they say freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, this dominates your political discourse and informs conception of yourself as a citizen and what types of things are possible in the realm of. Public Discourse. One final thing to say about this point, even if they say, Ah, but we're doing this as a wood motion, and probably, like in weird meta debate rules, that means that there's probably some sort of like debate, like society wide context. When you go into this, even if you have wood Fiat right now, you don't have it into the future, and it's unclear why you're going to have it into the future. Giving these mechanisms that I've just given you, what are the impacts of this that happens in a few main respects, the first of which is political polarization and radicalization that occurs when people don't believe that they are represented by their states. So first of all, note that we already have seen trends of this in the status quo with things like Italy, France, etc. It's totally unclear that we are going to like be able to avoid this long terms. But note that these types of like, especially right wing narratives, but also left wing narratives, are uniquely empowered by elite capture narratives which are only further supported by this type of motion. The impact of this is that that's obviously bad for the implementation of rights, or like, like radical, bad, extremist policy which tramples over the rights of minorities, right, which, by the way, can happen independent of things, like outside of the court, right? So you can not only pass laws which are particularly restrictive, but also in terms of people's overall perception towards minorities, but also, like, independent of actual conception, independent of actual conceptions. We think it's like, not not democratic right. But also note that it's like much slower to act if there's a political disagreement at the point where you have a higher amount of polarization and disagreement in society. IE, a lot of situations are kind of like value neutral, in the sense that if you just need to build growth and build healthcare relatively quickly, or respond to a type of crisis or respond to a war, we have more effective on the comparative political machinery at the point where you have buy in. But B note that this isn't just like super developed countries. We're also talking about nascent states where, like democracy as a whole, and faith in democratic institutions is really, really, really important, and you want to get people to buy into these and it's extraordinarily risky at the point where you don't have buy in into that political project. And we could get authoritarian backsliding in these type of states. That's another massive impact. They're potentially disenfranchising people if there's authoritarian backsliding. But see, finally, trust in society to begin with. That is to say you need to believe in your institutions. In the court, you're more likely to pay taxes, you're less likely to be corrupt, you get more civil engagement. This is good for society as a whole. Right note that that empowers the rights of democracies and make it so that people have better lives. Secondly, I want to expand on democracy as a principle, because I think tin gives this nice state power principle, and I think it's valid and fair in the room, but it's unclear by like the courts specifically, are insufficient to protect your rights against the state, right? What we actually need in this debate is a prioritization of why we need to maximize democratic participation in the court system, right? And so it doesn't go far enough, right? It's valid. But what you need to do is actually show why democracy in itself is good. Why is that a because people express their preferences their best, and everyone has their own conception of what they're good, of what the good life is, right? We don't know that, but B and we can't judge between the value of people, right? So we have to assume that everyone is roughly equal, because everyone has their own unique experiences and life events that they're drawing from. And given the fact that we can't meaningfully decide between those two, we should prioritize to giving everyone a vote and expressing their own preferences, and when we do that, it's much better that we prioritize a system where people have more direct control over the types of rights which are made as opposed to a highly arbitrary right to justice system, which is actually what CEO is arguing for, despite knocking finally, at this point about like The long arc of history, right? So we get this point from Oh, where they say these are nice because they're modeled after Western constitutions and, like, post conflict states. Here's additional analysis, a when constitutions are made, there are unique historical circumstances of constitute and like, it's a constitutional movement. That is to say you need buy in from all parties, right? So even if your country is relatively new and has a majority group. You still don't want to have a separatist group, particularly like regional separatist groups, which is why we often have a huge amount of concessions and overall, like fine treatment of everyone in society in order to get the buy in and order to get the first level of the Constitution to happen. B, you have some sense of political unity and optimism of making an equitable new society right. And no, if you can't just brush this off by saying, like, narratives aren't important. Aren't important, narratives are incredibly important in terms of influencing action. See every single school curriculum debate in post conflict societies, because the beliefs that people have inform what they do. But C, even if it's not objectively good, they are minimally democratic enough that they reflect the will of the people in order to get enough buy in at the time that they are created. D finally, we say that rights, most of the times, are protection from what the governments can do. They are not actively oppressive. They guarantee freedoms, and that's worth protecting. Please, I oppose. |
</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 constitutions. It's like, if people are not strong enough to change those laws, then the laws probably should not exist. But this is fucking ridiculous. We already proved to you there are literal constraints in terms of the bureaucracy that occurs for you to be able to change those laws? Okay? Firstly, there are a lot of requirements for you to be able to call the Supreme Court to be able to change a certain constitution. The reason for this is exactly because of what they close it. Constitutions are glorified to an extent that it's believed that they shouldn't be meant that. Secondly, though people not very regularly stick to the text in particular. Why? Because they glorify, for example, the founding fathers that created their country and protected their liberty, and it all those things. And so they're inherently very like, protect the text, the same way religious people are stick to the text of like the Bible. But why is this extremely harmful? Is the reason that people are very risk averse in changing those constitutions, because they deem it as something that will change the worlds of their whole country or generally, that they seem as something that's morally wrong, since you believe those founding fathers that what society should exhibit in most part, however, though I think the last thing that we need to look is that in here, very litigations, very lengthy processes that are overlooked for 1000s of years, societal opinion supported the reason why God people are not able to walk it was because of the litigation that you have to vote for and all, for example, for you the previous constitution and improve the legitimacy of the new thing that you want to support. I think this is inherently more accessible to most people in a change that you believe but few represent. I would say only two things. One, if all people and all their rights are presented by this notion, there's always people who presume to be believing as true. It's not as if some people are just going to have the right to justice and other one have the basic cool rights that opposition won't stop about. I think this generally shifts the perception that people have rights in the status quo. But secondly, though I am not sure why this is something more important than what previously grew, because what we do essentially say is that the moral society change over time. The reason why we are okay with having a state limiting our individual rights is because we supposedly have a state like power to recourse against them or not generally, we can express what we believe to be morally true. Laws are created to create to follow the current moral views of society, and if no moral views are sending that, we are able to change more effectively. That is prison policy is more important as it allows more people to access the dignity of controlling what happens in their life on an everyday basis. This is far more important than a few people not distracting the government in a way that I'm not sure what will actually happen, opening opposition. I want to pause a few things here. Firstly, what constitution be done? Well, I think what they're only announced is saying, Oh, you follow the West because you want to join our international organization. This simply that you do well, not those constitutions most of the time, are followed by very versions of the Western institution. But they won't that the West has continued to change in constitution. The Balkans and all of the regions come because they're very risk averse and are likely to have problematic virtues, particularly tissues are very vague, and if judges are out, but they want to prove to you, the judges can interpret the debates in a way that support them. I think this is fairly symmetrical on early though. What I asked, in my view, is that some rights are whether this might be you should have right to privacy or you should have control over your life. However, these debates about the rights of their not important to most people and that are dependent on the kind of moral relativity that you talk about not make yourself safe in university, presumably, we are okay with not supporting... Meeting that you allow, right now something very important view beast for you go into the court and act by people to be something that you do not deserve, such as to be excused of murder because you have to act. It's now dependent. It's something that's extremely important for the most important to have any protection in that regard. |
<poi> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.