Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k
The first thing I'll note is the reason that windfall taxes are likely to harm companies for free fall. The first reason, of course, was that the contracts that companies use, which would allow them to make record profits where they negotiated prices two years before the war in Ukraine and then sold prices relative to current market rates, have expired and therefore they are unlikely to make that spread into the future.

The second reason that they invested in various good things would come with the increased operating costs. And the final thing that these companies—no, thank you—and the final thing that the market rate going down means that there is less scoping countries where the prices are decided by the market rate for them to make that profit.

The reasons that we gave as to why this is likely to be done badly then was separable. The first reason is the demonization which has come from the fact that people are struggling due to higher inflation. The fact that the perception is that these companies did make high profits, and this is objectively true or well-reported. The fact that some states, like what nationalize their energy industries, and therefore mitigate the price increase.

So governments themselves have a pressure to prove that they are increasingly—the fact that governments have high interest rates, increasing tax burdens, and need cash for things like their pensions obligations. The fact that this just becomes normalized as a political tool to promise to fund stuff in the same way that closing tax loopholes was invoked and led to bad tax loopholes being implemented because it's in vogue.

I want to weigh this against the councils that we bought in the government speech. The first thing we hear is that pension funds are invested in, and they've impairedly invest in the world, so governments are unlikely to set the price and the tax in a high way. The problem is this ignores several things. The first is the volume of recognization that we gave you as to widely likely comparative is one where they set things about ways and be president for that.

But the second and more important thing that this ignores is the fact that just that is it—the fact that the investment that these companies have or that these potential funds have does not is not the predominant thing which affects government decision-making. It is how easy it is to sell the narrative. It is how angry people would be if their policy that they have in their head, the obvious easy policy of windfall taxes, are not implemented.

It is the harm of losing the election if you don't implement it. It is the comparisons which constantly occur. Wait, what is the most likely conception of this policy? It is the one that we explain because it is not disruptable consideration, but predominantly thinking of these politicians and the short term incentives that Aniket tells About are the reasons why they are likely to trend towards this, and the actual impacts can become the next government's problem, and you could demonize them, before I explain what the implication of this is for the round I'll take closing,

<poi>
If you list the reasons as to why you think they made a lot of profit and the government's invested, and it is true, and the wording of the motion is true as they made high profit. Do you think your other point is true that somebody's invested so much in green profit, green energy, that they are now at risk at defaulting only half of your case can...
</poi>

Okay, stop. The same thing about this idea of defaulting so with this debate we don't need to prove that mom and pop shop default. We don't need to prove that that like oil companies go fast. This is about the profit in and of itself, being a good thing, because we demonstrated that structurally, they invested it in good things, and we would like them to continue to use their more normalized to invest in good things.

So the impact that we're proving in this debate is not that these companies are going bust. It's not as reliant on consolidation as open opposition mechanisms work. It is that they use their fuck off record profits to do good things. We support that they have higher costs into the future as a result of that. That is unfortunate, but we also support that trade off, and it is bad that the culture which is likely to occur on their side of the house will prohibit them from using their future normal profits to be able to invest further in the things that we treat us they are structurally likely to do which are good.

I think that weighing all of this up is easy to see when doing this debate for a number of reasons. Firstly, competitive, prison. Government's duty to recoup. One thing to say is that most companies didn't just grow money and energy companies. Lisa said, No, this isn't true. One Lisa trust did this. She wasn't a member of the oil lobby too. The USA did nothing because they have other streams of oil revenue and income, so they don't bother to, like, try and fix market prices. Two, Many countries just implemented price caps free, many customers just gave cash directly to individuals, right? Because other costs were going up as well. I just don't get where the duty to recoup exists in every situation, even if they're able to free work in the context that they want to talk about they do.

But secondly, this seems that you get exactly the same amount back as you tax, but if you believe operant on the culture of taxation and how this is likely to be used in the future. This is not true. So they're not fulfilling the tax obligation that these companies were given via subsidies by taxing them by this wireless mechanism. But finally, as a group, if companies money on objectively good things like investment into green energy, we think that matters more than the duties do, because that's for me, why governments can even shift prove that they do good things versus opening government People need their friends for them we should just have these people 100% I think we proven that this is far more realistic that we be an open opposition...
</ow>
<pm>
Western liberal democracies, we don't have separate legal systems for different religious groups, we don't have different public services for different religious groups, we think it is absurd that we still have faith-based education where people can simply opt out of the education. We think that all people in a Western liberal democracy deserve to have access to. Firstly, I just want to quickly preempt something the opposition might say. Obviously, it's like the government. We're not trying to destroy religion or religious communities. I think that in the context of Western liberal democracies, there are likely to be things like anti-discrimination protections in place for religious minorities if you're concerned about those groups in mainstream schools. So, for example, with pisces in the United Kingdom, even in public secular education, there are protections in place and measures in place to stop discrimination from happening against those groups. So we don't think that is likely to be a big harm. Two arguments then from the Prime Minister, firstly, why this increases agency for those religious communities and secondly, why this decreases bigotry. Firstly, on why this increases agency, the thesis of this argument is essentially that secular education increases the amount of options available to children, whereas religious education constraints those options. The comparative here is on the curriculum that is taught. Of course, in religious education, there is some secular education, there is some stuff that is being taught in line with national education standards. But obviously, the comparative is that in secular education, 100% of it is stuff that's being taught in line with state standards. Firstly, I'm going to prove why religious education has incentives to be particularly restrictive in terms of things that teachers teach. That is to say, there's an incentive to close off other ideas that might come into conflict with those religious norms. Firstly, because religious education and the churches and religious bodies that typically fund and give power to these educational bodies want to retain followers and perpetuate control over their community. That is to say, they want to instill fear in the children that if they go against the teachings of the community, they will go to hell. They want to instill in that community the ideas that mainstream science and things like evolution are wrong and that people are out to get them in order to keep them loyal to that community. But secondly, because there are just a lot of ideas that are inherent to many religious doctrines that are antithetical to an opening up of options. That is to say, if you go to a particularly religious school that is anti-science, that has a religious doctrine that is inherently opposed to certain scientific ideas, it is impossible to reconcile those two unless you're Spinoza or something and you do some mental gymnastics to try and make those things reconcilable. So what is the delta here? Obviously, you are still part of a religious family, oftentimes you will still go to church, and you will still go to Sunday school. But firstly, this is a matter of extent. If it is the case that you're no longer spending 24 hours in a religious context but only some of or maybe a weekend in a religious context, but five of those days in a week you are being exposed to new ideas, you are being challenged, and having your ideas critiqued, then on the comparative you're more likely to be exposed to new ideas on the outside. But secondly, it is just important that there is a unique availability of countervailing information. That is to say, you think it is valuable in itself to be able to be exposed, at least in some areas of your life, to ideas that might come into conflict with your pre-existing ideas that chip away at your theoretical assumptions and things like that. That ability of countervailing information that otherwise would not exist is extraordinarily important. What is the impact of this? Firstly, choice maximizes utility. That is to say, when you have more autonomy and are more exposed to information, you are able to maximize utility. And this isn't just the option of leaving or challenging the community, although that is extraordinarily important. That is to say, if you are from a religious community but you come into contact with ideas that challenge those ideas, it means you're more likely to actually have the autonomy to leave that religion. But it's also just exposure to other things in general. It means that you are more likely to pursue a career that you're genuinely interested in, you're more likely to join new societies and new communities that you might not have had exposure to before. But secondly, on a principal level, we believe that in a Western liberal democracy, we should try to minimize the amount of inequalities that are generated by luck. That is to say, the quality of education you get, your ability to be exposed to information, should not be predetermined by the community in which you are born or the geographical region or the town in which you happen to be born. You should have the same quality of education and the same exposure to new ideas as everyone else living in that society, as is your right as a citizen. The weighing of this on the government bench is essentially that many other bad things about religious education can be remedied to a certain extent, and that's totally what the opposition is going to talk about. But the stuff that I talked about, that is to say the inherent ideas and religious curricula that are antithetical to other ideas and particularly restrictive, but because they have incentives to be so, are things that you cannot fix.
But secondly, this impacts everything about the lives of students. It impacts the ways in which they see the world, it impacts their ability to break out of their communities and meet people from different walks of life and actually be the masters of their own destiny. That is extraordinarily important.
This debate, uh, closing, you have anything? Yeah, opening,
<poi>
If you go home and tell your parents they're gods that actually created the world, will they just say, "Yes, son, you're correct. Your teacher is actually correct"?
</poi>
Uh, firstly, I think that if you are talking about religious nutjobs, that is probably symmetric under both sides of the house. There is a large section of people in the middle who are typically kind of moderate and will be in like, you know, have this kind of discourse. Secondly, it is unclear why you even need to, like, why you can't just bypass your parents. That is to say, if you go to a new secular school and you learn about new ideas that you otherwise wouldn't have, you don't necessarily report everything back to your parents. You just use that information yourself to join your societies or to pursue a career going into the future without the constraint of your parents. But yeah, anyway, um, also, if their impact is going to be like your parents like, take you out of school, in most Western liberal democracies, you can't leave school before your age 16. So anyway, second argument, why bigotry decreases. This essentially is a contact theory argument, but I'm going to run it properly. The contact of this argument is extraordinarily important. These are the most formative years in your life, where your brain is malleable, where you're most likely to have your views on other people shifted. That is to say that maybe once you're older, your bigotry is going to be cemented, but when you're younger, you're far more likely to converse with other people, to try and empathize with other people, and make friends with new people. That is extraordinarily important in the instances where religions tend to be fairly insular and where you tend to have fairly bigoted views about other people, firstly, you are unlikely to have significant amounts of contact with people from other religions. That is to say that if you're into a Catholic community and you go to a Catholic school, you are unlikely to meet students from other backgrounds. This breaks down those barriers insofar as you're more likely to meet people from other religious backgrounds in your new secular school. But secondly, you're more likely to come into contact with people from disadvantaged groups. You're more likely to talk to gay people, you're more likely to talk to trans people if you have been broken out of that, like, insulant Catholic community. You are actually likely to try and empathize with people who are different from you, people who are, in the comparative, your religious leaders and your religious teachers have been sent to tell you that you should be afraid of and shun as people that are different from you. I think that is extraordinarily harmful, and actually breaking you out of the restrictive context is extraordinarily important.
</pm>
<lo>
I need to be particularly clear. What this motion does is that it states tell somebody the god to which you have dedicated your life, the god in whose name you have baptized your child into. You are not allowed to teach them about that, you're not allowed to take your child to an institution that serves and teaches them something of, something that is given by a god that you trust, that you have trusted your whole life, that have built your whole life around. I think it's a principal break of somebody's agency which we would not do for other kinds of beliefs. I think it is unjust to do it for religious people. I also think that the alternatives for the actual people who follow these religious institutions would be worse. So I want to do some framing here because there's none from OG. When do the schools actually exist? I want to do a reality check. They usually don't exist in New York City or where there are a massive amount of, like, religious people who wouldn't get their children into religious schools anyway, right? Or there are, but in very ethnically religious neighborhoods such as Muslim neighborhoods, or I know Catholic neighborhoods, a lot of these schools actually exist and are heavily religious communities such as Alabama, Texas or Catholic-heavy areas in Italy or Protestant areas in Edinburgh. That is to say, these are areas where these children would be 90% surrounded by religious communities and by religious teachings anyway when they go to church with the children that are playing with their neighborhood. So I don't see what the data of OG is because 90% of those communities are already people who are extremely religious. Second point of OG, what of people actually access these schools? Even if you don't buy my first. One, it is religious people who’d otherwise pull their children out of school or ensure that they are heavily taught into their religious teachings in church on Sunday or at school or at home. Why is that true? I want to do some characterization of these facts. One, they follow the rules of this religion, they have followed them throughout their lives. So the fact that their child follows them as well, the fact that their child prayed at the correct time in the day, the fact that their child obeyed by the laws of God, is very important. Secondly, they want their children to be taught these rules because otherwise, there’s a threat of eternal damnation of your child seeing before marriage or of you not fulfilling your duty as a parent to instill these values into your child. This means that you have a personal incentive as well as an emotional incentive because you're not your child and you wholeheartedly believe this is the best way for him or her to live her life to teach them these things, which means that if you ban these schools, they will heavily push for these values at home. They will heavily allow for the imams to take them to religious camp during the summer or to take them to religious camps on Sunday because there is a direct threat to the way of life to consider you should have been instilling in your child. So you not just let him be exposed to other things. But the second point, non-religious people who live in the Catholic communities, for example, but are very poor and who wouldn't afford good education otherwise, see, for example, an immigrant family in Alabama or in Texas. Why is this true? Because a lot of these schools have scholarships which none of the other schools do. Why is that true? Because they're trying to do good by the word of God because they want to do outreach to the community. They also have a lot of hot meals, for example, because they're connected to religious figures. They're also aware of the realities of that. What does this tell you? This is exclusive access that poor people would get, which is the net benefit. I am happy to understand the fact that there may be abstinence until marriage if they get a good education, get into a better university that they have gotten otherwise. And two, the alternative for the religious people is actually being homeschooled or exposed to just as much religious teachings anyway. This is the first party which heavily mitigates og. But the second argument is that they're better than alternatives and that we can and we do have a lot of regulation on this. But I think it is incredibly uncharitable to this right. What are the actual fundamental differences? Yes, maybe the morality they teach is slightly different. Do abstain until you get married, they teach creationism instead of evolutionism sometimes. Sometimes they have universe, but crucially, they still have to pass the same exams at the end of their years. They still abide by the broad curriculum that the state has to follow. It's not like Protestant schools could just take out biology or chemistry from their curricula, right? So they're reasonably regulated. But I'm going to give you five systemic reasons why that is true. One, they have educational boards and inspections that are obviously well done because they're heavily watched by non-religious people and also because they are the center of our cultural worlds currently. So they know that journalists have an incentive to look for irregularities, so they have all the more effective measures to make teachers not be abusive, not be highly ideologicalized, because they know they're watched out, which means that the boards and educational boards want to make teachers behave okay and abide by good educational standards. Second, they are supervised by religious leaders who want to make their investment not be canceled by the government because they're indoctrinating the children, which means that there's also an incentive from the religious leaders to make teachers behave correctly. The third reason is that people who are alumni, obviously want to legitimize their educational background, which means that they will make sure they don't go wrong and don't radicalize children and get a bad name as Islamic schools. Yes.
<poi>
Okay so, your difference is that in religious communities that are very religious, they get more religious and try to impose more religion. Our difference is more unique in so far as at least now you have some countervailing information and some countervailing education.
</poi>
It doesn't matter if you have some principle because your parents will go tell you at home, "No, no, no, God created the world." You will trust your parents more than you will trust your teacher anyway, because they take care of you, because they love you, because they're the ones that have been there since the beginning of your life. So I don't care if your teacher tells you evolutionism you will trust your parent anyway. Fourth mechanism, why are they well regulated? Given the info slide, they have some public funding, which means that the states are directly responsible and they don't want to appear like they lost control over the religious schools. So they will also supervise and ensure that broad strokes of education are done correctly.
What are the impacts? The worst successes that the government will try to claim do not happen and are heavily mitigated by the fact that they are in educational institutions. Secondly, there's more checks and balances than if they were at home because there are more teachers there, more students, which means that there's an increased chance of irregularities coming out. And fourthly, I think this means that we have increased accessibility for poor people in those communities. I do not care if they have sex later on in their lives.
</lo>
<dpm>
First, pushing back on the characterization, then on new beliefs to encounter, and then on regulation. Firstly, on framing, I think Anna just tells you an extremely a factual picture of the world by telling you that religious communities only really exist in cities like Alabama or states that are really religious anyway because if you just lived in any major city in your life, you know that there are often large religious enclaves in them anyway. For example, in cities like Sydney, which have large Arab and Jewish migrating populations, often entire suburbs have a lot of these people in them which then have religious schools built around these communities. So I just don't think it is true because people migrate to various areas anyway. But secondly, even if what Anna tells you is largely true to an extent, there's obviously a scale of how religious people are. People in Alabama, like there's a subsect of them that are obviously going to be far more religious than most, but there are also probably people in Alabama who just like culturally Christian. If you are someone who's getting sent to a religious school in Alabama, you are far more likely to be just with people who are also at the same amount of religiousness as you rather than people who are like maybe just like, you know, their parents are Catholic and they're kind of not religious people. So I just don't think that her claiming that we don't get much change in meeting new people is actually true. Secondly, then on religious people teaching their children religious beliefs anyway. The first thing I tell you is that people are likely to feel very threatened by this, so it means they're more likely to pull their child out of school or be more controlling. Firstly, I think people are religious communities and religious parents who are at this level of controlling are likely to want to pull their child out of school anyway because if you're so concerned about the fact that your child is not getting taught things in your proper religion, things like homeschooling are probably something that you're going to try to do anyway. But secondly, I actually think that the lack of religious schools provides an impetus for governments to be far more strict about regulating things like homeschooling and being more proper about the things people are teaching in these schools because it likely shows that these people are people who are from religious schools. So I actually think that the amount of people and thirdly also in most countries this is often like really hard to be illegal. A lot of people just don't have the time and money to homeschool their children at all. Like some countries don't even have like a level of like great homeschool regulation. So I actually think the amount of change on this is very small, but I don't think that many people are actually going to get pulled out of school. The second thing Anna then tells you is that even if you are in a school, which is really secular and you're meeting a lot of people and they're teaching you new ideas, it means that your parents are likely to send you to more things like summer camps for your religion or at home are going to tell you that the things you have taught are true. Firstly, I think honestly this is fine if they want to send you to Sunday school. Like if your parents are super religious and they want you to have a religious upbringing, that's totally okay for them to do in their spare time. What we tell you at Aiden is that the difference that we are able to get is you are not exposed to religion 24/7. This is not the only idea that you are actually exposed to. It is totally fine on our world if on Sunday you are taught religious teachings, but you at least are given the option of being able to be exposed to other ideas at your school. So we think this is a totally fine thing. But secondly, of all, with trusting your parents and just believing them, I think it's ridiculous to act like you can't bypass your parents' beliefs. People lie to their parents all the time or hide things from them. If someone is necessarily struggling with their religion and feels like they can't tell their parents about it, I think it is unlikely these children are going to feel any less unsafe. But thirdly, even if these children do not believe what their school is telling them and come home and tell their parents, and their parents are able to reconvince them about God, I don't know, like evolution not being real, we still think it is still important and still a benefit that we give you that this option exists in the first place because in the open opposition's world, this option doesn't exist at all. This is the only view that they are ever exposed to, and there is absolutely no change. The third thing they tell you is like rich religious schools will give out scholarships. I just do not understand this. Like state schools exist. The government can set up selective schools and provide more scholarships to other schools. There's a huge intent for other private schools who are also similarly rich to do this, so I don't think there is any benefit. So at the end of this, it is totally unclear to me how many people are getting pulled out of school. I don't think people are becoming any less religious even if you believe we're only able to get a slight change; it's far better than the world that the opening opposition gives, where there is totally no option.
<poi>
But I think it's like I said, they are taught common curriculum as well. They're not taught religion 24/7. They have everything else, but also religion.
</poi>
Okay, on to regulation and the curriculum. The first thing I told you is that the curriculum is largely to be the same. Firstly, I think and it's still going to be checked. The first thing I think the mechanism she gives you about these people having a large incentive to check these world is wrong because oftentimes, governments have a huge interest in making sure these religious groups are actually going to vote for them. Like in America, Christian evangelicals are a huge voting block of the Republican Party. Even in countries like Australia, in religious schools in Australia you are allowed to fire teachers if they're gay, and the liberal government that was in power for 10 years had a massive incentive in keeping those anti-discrimination laws going because religious people in Australia are such a large voting block. These are really important for governments. Secondly, on national curriculums being the same, firstly, national curriculums are often set at a really low level because it has to set a baseline for what everyone is being taught. So yes, these people are probably still learning things like how to do maths and how to analyze text, but the things they probably are not learning are things like a religion that are just conveniently left out, like evolution. But even if you believe that they are taught like exactly the same things, there's still options that are often not allowed. Firstly, because things like school counselors, etc., because of the norms religions often set up for things like women in their communities, often don't just like allow or like teach you about other options. Like for example, a woman in Catholic school maybe isn't taught about how to get into a very prestigious university or apply to law school because this is just not a norm for women in her community to do so. This is just not an idea that she is exposed to while she's in school there is something that she could achieve. Secondly, the sort of teachers, that these religious schools hire, are often just like kind of weird religious nutjobs half of the time, or the principal, because like the people who want to work at these schools have an incentive to keep their religion going. So oftentimes these schools are maximally conservative as possible. So oftentimes these options are just not even shown. So even if everything has been told the same, and we've shown you already, there are options that are often not taught to you or thrown to you that you can achieve when you graduate school that these people are likely to get a secular school focus on education. Further on, things like people who are alumni want to legitimize like as I've already explained often time like, I don't know, you could go to prove them actually if your school is legitimized. But like secondly of all, often times like the people who are like interested in legitimizing the school often like prestigious like select school private, anyway. I think regulation gets much worse and life gets much worse.
</dpm>
<dlo>
This might have its stop for the opening government of this around but there are religious people that are gay that are queer, there are religious people that are tolerant, there are religious people that are welcoming and there are religious people that are not. We do not understand this very very narrow portrayal in which they they're depicting these people as being evil and being an outcast of the society. We think this completely unfair and most of the important part, I think religious people religious people have agency and have capacity to choose, right? There are many things that are influencing us. Religion is just one of them, but is part of the identity of the people do not portray let them get away with this portrayal. Let's engage with what they have told us to say. I think it's this this whole part about how you increasing the agency by basically offering a lot of alternative information. I think we live in an era where we are exposed to a lot of information and it didn't actually change a lot of opinion if you look at any internet any Tik Tok it actually uh works the other way around, it actually creates more sedimented ideas in your mark. But on this on this motion specifically I think this exposure to more multiple information, exactly as Anna told you, will be served precisely will be seen as an attack to those for these religious people to actually push back the narrative. The DPM just explained you how there are a lot of Christian people in so many areas and there are a lot of Voters how they will react by taking the schools away from them. I think the backlash will actually be significant if you look at any if reality check if you look at Western democracies, whatever, right now, you are actually increase see an increasing trend of conservatism, you're actually seeing a lot of people that are more like leaning and are actually going further to actually expose those beliefs, right? And they're going and pushing for those Christian values look at the changing overall in waiting in the US. Look at increasing voting for Lepenance and so on and so forth. This is a major block that you are alienating and these people will take it very personally because the government, no thank you, it's actually going against them. There will be repercussions even if you're because now. Let's take this on the case, right, if you remove this, if you remove the chance of them being homeschooled because they they're not as wealthy, which we think that's not necessarily true, but there will still be an enough block that that if it goes to the public school those parents will put pressure on the actual School Board to push for the religious value that they already have, right? Because these kids that were put in the religious schools now they have to go and fill those places. That means that there are the same parents that were so indoctrinating that we have to take the kids away from them, right? We are creating a situation in which we put a lot of pressure on the news schools to do the same thing. I think when it comes to if we're weighing this on certainty that there is less evidence to uphold this idea that these kids will change their opinion, right? Because this is the whole point on the government's side. We're exposing them to new ideas that means that you will have new kids that are not indoctrinated. I don't think it necessarily works like that. People are can be convinced of things in various moments in their life or we have already explained how the communities are very strong. But what do I actually certain on our side, is the fact that there is a net benefit for some communities that are poor and do not have other access to education that now are able to access it specifically because of the religious schools. This something that they haven't tackled with and that is something that is unchangeable regardless because schools are expensive because there are less opportunity when it comes to, I don't know school supplies, which are quite expensive, right, and food and so on and so forth. Those are that the category of people is a vulnerable category that they are not accounting for and it is quite crucial. I'm going to take a POI from closing if they have any. Opening then.
<poi>
So obviously not all religious people are bigoted maybe there will be some backlash, etc. We can believe all of this mitigation is true our very simple claim was just, that on the comparative you are more likely to be taught in school a book about a queer couple or exposed to new scientific ideas. That is the marginal change on opening government.
</poi>
But on this, in the best case scenario if you have this possible marginal change it's still very uncertain, right? You the and you have certain controls for which you can actually account for those to actually be taught good lessons, right? You have exams you have Board control you have all of these that are actually contributing to make sure that you're going to be taught well and when it comes to specific exposure to queer couples in books, I think that also it's as unlikely to happen in a normal in a public school as well because there is we do not want to go against the wave precisely, because there will be backlash outside and parents will come back afterwards. On this principial thing about what parents should be doing with their kids I think it's important to realize that we leave a lot of room for parents to decide what to do with their kids. We leave them to we give them the possibility to have Beauty pensions for their kids, we leave them the possibility to have them higher child actors, which are both questionable things to do with your kids, you give them the options to monetize their kids on Tik Tok because it's fun nowadays and but they also think this is in the best child or in the best interest of their child. I think it's quite it comes down to the parents think they have the best interest, the government tell them to do so and along the lines they're doing regulation in order to make sure that they're not messing things up. At the end of the day, what the government is suggesting is going against everything just for a marginal possibility that you have two kids that are changing their opinion at the cost of poor people that are no longer having the same access to the quality of Education, are the cost of anchoring parent and alienating communities, minority religions or just like the entire increasing wave of Christian people that are in the West.
</dlo>
<mg>
Okay so I think we've heard a lot about like people might change their minds, people might, like we've had a lot of impacts that are great. But I think the corrupts of this issue isn't about whether like minority religions are like going to not allow their like not be allowed to like celebrate their religion or like whether people will change their minds. I think it brought of the issue with the culture in schools, mainly because I think we can probably agree that on both sides it's likely that we have similar impact, because people can go to Sunday school or religious school, or like people can people have the ability to change their mind either way. So I think the main issue is going to be the culture of the schools. So I think I'm going to characterize who goes to religious schools and like generally people that go to religious schools are likely to be either people who are religious or people that live in the area and agree that these schools are generally like have good funding on as seen as good schools, so then therefore other people also go to these school. Now this leads like two very distinct demographics of people that go to schools, which are people that are religious and people that aren't religious, and I think in a religious setting like when you have the emphasis on religion in a school, it's likely that like there's going to be more of a division between people that are religious and people that are non-religious within religious settings, rather than like people that are religious and people that are non-religious in non-religious settings. Mainly because you have like access to like different beliefs in a non-religious setting and, not right now, but in a non-religious like secular setting you have access to like multitudes of different beliefs and religions, which means that people will generally accept that other people have different beliefs and allow this to occur. Whereas when you're in a religious setting, like at school, like I went to a religious school, and I think generally like often non-religious like people are likely to get like treated differently by teachers mainly because the teachers are likely to be from that religion, and therefore people that don't subscribe to those values are like although they will be treated like similarly. It's likely that teachers may have implicit biases against them even if it's not like explicit, it could be like a minor bias that occurs, whereas like um also like characterizing children. Children generally see differences in people and are likely to like jump on that because like, generally children are likely to like dislike other people for differences mainly because they've heard stuff that their parents say or like stuff that other people say and they're just likely to repeat it, and therefore I think in religious schools it's likely like children are going to like have issues of bullying on regards of like differences in religion, mainly like so non-religious students who like, if you're in a religious school and there's a lot of non-religious students in this school and you've brought a massive highlighted like issue of like religion in this school, it means that there's likely to be like clicks, which means that you're less likely to like integrate people that are religious and non-religious in society. Whereas in like a normal school where there's like less likelihood of like being impact like there's less likelihood of the religion being like a major issue, it's more like people can practice their religion, not right now thank you, but people can practice their religion within like the school and it's likely that like people still have the ability to like actualize and have religion. So I think the main impact of this is that like children will have a better culture in schools, because I think it's still likely that people are taught ethics and morals like in any school there's a curriculum in any school. So I think the main thing is that, given there would be a less of a highlight to religion, it means that like generally anyone can like access their own religion and anyone can like do whatever they want with regards to religion and people will still like have that access because like people will still go to Sunday school and stuff like that. So I think it's likely that generally there will be a better culture and it will be like less clicks and less like issues within the school.
<poi>
As Western liberal democracy, would you also ban French School in the UK or Japanese school in the US?
</poi>
I don't think it's particularly to do with like nationality, it's just to do with religion. Like it's not about where you come from, it's about what religious belief you are and it's about like inflicting like those specific values to like everyone in the school. Like I think the values can generally be seen as good, but I think like generally when you like enforce it like some people are like nice and yeah.
<poi>
So if they chose the Dynamics then most religious children to usual schools who mean the religious people are a minority and thus discriminated, you just reverse the balance I'm unclear.
</poi>
Thank you, so I think it's likely that when you like put religious like children. Because obviously some religious children are going to go to non-religious schools anyway. So I think it would improve life for them firstly, because like they would have more religious school like children in those schools and they would be more integrated into the Society. And also when you like shift it, it just means there's more of a balance of people that are religious and non-religious in all schools which generally means that there's going to be lack diversion in society, religion or advert to like secularism. I think it just basically means that it's more likely that people are going to work together despite their differences in religion, and therefore it's going to be up like inherent benefit because everyone can work together, with like with less discrimination on religion and less emphasis on it. Because although religion is your personal beliefs and that's great, I think it's more important that people focus on like society as a whole and how we interact with each other and general models, rather than specifically this is like my religion and everyone needs to follow this, which I think in a lot of religious settings can be like this case that's imposed on people. so I think like generally um it's better for like the children, especially as like. So I understand that there can be like gay people who are religious, but I think like there is an inherent like stakeholder of people that are religious from Minority like sexualities and other like groups and I think it benefits like people who are a part of these groups mainly, because when you are exposed to like other things, you can self-actualize and you're not inherently being told by literally everyone that like it is inherently bad for you to be yourself. And when you're told this in like some religious settings not all but some religious schools like explicitly state that it's not okay to like be gay or something like that. And so I think when you don't inherently like only have access to like this beliefs, it's likely that like people don't then have to deal with like internalized homophobia and internalized trauma, because they have like inherently being told and are telling themselves due to their own beliefs that they can't be themselves. And this means that it's going to likely benefit people because they're likely to then um be exposed to these other views and say "okay well I believe this and I can have access to these religious beliefs without having a crisis of identity because I can access both and that's okay." And I think generally this should means that there's an inherent benefit for like minority like sexualities within religion and like religious people in general being interacted in society. Thank you.
</mg>
<mo>
We believe that School provide for much better integration and opalization of people who come from of people who come from religious families and we also believe that these schools provide like much greater choice and Agency for people to decide what they want to do in life, rather than if you don't allow people to let kids to exercise their religion in religious schools. Like let me do some characterization of the debate because I think this is important. We are talking about Western liberal democracy which is like very likely those parents of those kids who we are talking about, they are not some like zealous or radicals they already live in a western country, they already like probably themselves have a conflict between values which they find themselves in and those religious like Origins they come from. That is why like it's probably not very like will take kids out of school but we need to ask a question here, in which scenario those kids and those families as a whole are more likely to integrate into that society, and become members of that society, and like take jobs get well jobs become successful in the society. And you say that it's when you allow kids to socialize and become members of the society and not expel this. I think the point which closing government raised about culture is very important here, exactly we create such a culture in school that those kids feel comfortable to study and they don't feel oppressed in school on an everyday basis. So let's talk about first OG. They told us basically we provide more Choice when kids are exposed to other information. No, we provide no choice because as we said we still teach General curriculum in the lesson of biology you will not say this is like this is everything Evolution like don't believe anything of that, you will have to take an exam and if you write your exam like everything happen because of like God, you will fail that exam. Leaders of those schools teachers of those schools, teachers of those schools, they will be interested to teach you the best information because they will be interested to promote their religion. If people of your religion become members of your Society like doctors like lawyers, this will make the school more popular and that's why like if all everyone fails the exams after like 10 years of school, then no one will go to the school anymore and popularity of religion will decrease. That's why we say that those leaders still want to teach all those subjects. What is the difference here? The difference here you have like additional classes like when you talk talk about culture of religion, when you talk about history, probably yes some religious like counts as well, but the thing is like curriculum stays the same like but you are given additional choice to study in more comfort environment, when you have access both to religion, but also you can study what's already like in the curriculum. What also like we can see one point here, probably those schools will be less diverse in terms of like you probably not have minorities. People like teachers probably won't talk about LGBT rights or like everything like that, but we think that this is probably a clash here, but we win this clash why? Because the alternative here is that those like religious kids go to like another school and then like in that in that other school they become minorities themselves and they become oppressed because they look different, they speak different, like they think differently and that is the crash here. Even if they are not exposed to all those like LGBT ideas that you can be like a minority and everything like within that school, we believe that they have other part of their life as I said because this is there is a conflict here, like some they live in a western liberal democracy, they are exposed to the those ideas through the internet, they are exposed those ideas through like Society in general when they go somewhere with friends, etc. But here we say that like within school they must have a more comfortable and environment to feel like they belong there so that they can study and then they and don't be oppressed on the basis of the religion. We also say that, like in general LGBT like if you if you think about our West liberal democracies, they much more exception of LGBT rights at this point so like you have LGBT pride parades and everything. This probably as a group, yes, still a minority on many aspects but like Society uh generally is very favorable towards those views, but everyone like you never see like Muslim parades, when people can just Express their religion or like Pakistani parades because people many people are still hostile towards them. We have accepted we are inclusive enough to accept LGBT but we are not inclusive enough to accept religion. That's why this discrimination in schools is much more perverse and much more strong, that's why we want to defend those kids by allowing them to study in a comfortable environment. Please.
<poi>
So you're right eventually these kids will grow up and have to work, live and love alongside people from different backgrounds. That's why it's so important for them to meet a diverse range of people face to face while they are young and still impressionable.
</poi>
Why can't they make them outside school like somewhere else, yes, because uh you have two environments like we create for them two realities which they can compare, you create them one reality they have to conform to, they don't have a choice. Because like I think the closing governance said they can exercise religion outside school, but the thing is for kids school is like 100% of their lives this is why a social life like you go to school, you do your homework, you go to school like you don't do anything else. That's why it's very important that those kids are like can exercise their identity like in those schools because this is an important part of like of their like personal identity. Like when those kids go to school they already have some religion like teachings like they already know something about religion and everything that they haven't analyzed certain values, which parents gave them. When they go to school they feel this they feel this conflict of Realties and then they may become hostile either to their parents, because their parents aren't fever enough, or hostile to school because they think the school betrays their parents and it teaches them something parents didn't tell them. So you create this hostility and you exacerbate this conflict between Western liberal democracy they live in and religious identity which they have had. That's why they don't feel comfortable in the school, for instance, a Muslim boy in Birmingham and I go to like secular school I need to, for instance, pray five times a day, but then if I do this, other kids will ridicule me because I'm of a different religion and I'm a minority and I'm oppressed, I will not be like respected the same like the same way as everyone else, what does it mean? It means that I don't I feel much more inferior, it means my great is likely to suffer because now I feel that I don't belong here, like I will not become a doctor because I'm probably my like I study less hard and this leads to radicalization and in general. When people are bullied they become more excluded and this that second generation of immigrants are very hard to integrate exactly for this reason. They feel they don't belong here but they also don't have any vision. That's why they lose their identity, they don't know where they belong and that's why it's very hard for them to integrate in Society, become doctors and that's why we are very proud of all, thank you.
</mo>
<gw>
Okay so first let's look at who the most important stakeholders in this debate are and why we care about them. Check in this debate the most important stakeholders are religious kids in religious schools and non-religious kids in religious schools as well the two biggest demographics and demographics in religious schools and why do we care about them. Because it's a kid, they're going to take all their learning in high school or in Primary School into society later on and that have real life implications on how our society is run in the future. Now the our alternate both sides they tend to make very very bold claims that this contingent on extremities, contingent of like oh schools will absolutely lie about scientific beliefs if it goes against the religion it could be true. And then they also say that "no schools won't lie, they will they will stick to whatever National curriculum is out there," again could be true, but what has my partner done here. My partner has taken a very very strip down approach. What my partner has done is give you substantives that stand irrespective of how extreme the uh characters the actors uh in this motion and are incent contingent on the very very simple nature of kids, the school itself and uh the parents of these kids. Now before I go on to analyze why my partners points uh are the best in this debate, I would like to rebutt some points about uh the integration. Closing opposition brings talk a lot about how uh the government side very negatively hampered integration and their side somehow promoted, but afraid of this I strongly believe that integration is much much worse on their side because by their own Point by their own characterization people who value religion, people who are very religious are much more likely to spend their kids to religious schools, right? So what are they essentially doing by that, taking these kids, taking these these religious thoughts away from public forums like public schools or public high schools and instead moving them into schools that are religious, right, school that prioritize religion. So what is it doing? This is taking this is secluding this is secluding religion into a very religion only space, right? How is that integration, my partner on the other hand, clearly talks about how if you're banning religious schools all these liberal democracy it is most more often than not it is legal that kids go to school and they're not it is considered illegal that to not send your kids to school, right? So uh all these kids that are in religious school now move to public schools. What is that doing? It is bringing this religion into these public forums, public schools, these public schools in the best Liberal democracy they're not anti-religious, right, these schools they just don't prioritize religion in their academic life. Extracurricular rights unlike religious schools. And this major divide, this major characterization of what these two different types of school prioritize, actually brings us to the major clash uh major difference on this debate, the exclusivity of our points, right? So again already in uh integration is much much better on our side because now religion is only public forum, in public schools kids who are secular have more religious friends, right. They can talk about it, they're free to talk about it. Religion now is in a much more explicitly public space. Now um let's talk about these religious schools, right. Okay I agree these schools could have facilities all kind of facilities that are there, right. And but the real question is are these schools encouraging kids to use these and if they do, are these kids even supported to do that? Because like I said, religion it goes beyond just education, right. Religion it also includes very heavily on how someone conducts themselves. So a religious school, a school that prioritizes religion is much more likely to reward these types of behavior, right, and encourage those kinds of behavior. So even if these facilities say sports or horse riding or whatever exists, if a religion uh is traditional, right, traditionally if a certain gender doesn't engagement sports, uh doesn't grow like grow their hair or doesn't have very short hair or something, right, this could be okay there, which would allow them to buy part regulation that are opening would be talk about. But as my partner talked about, the implicit advices that these uh that these schools could have, that the teachers and the people in power, the people of authority in these could have, could uh will create like a reward system, whereas children who explicitly sort of have these characteristics are uh rewarded uh even though they have these all kinds of facilities there, right. So what this does is that, it creates intense divide among students religious kids who are like explicit or who confined with traditional religious values are more likely to be favored by their teachers, they are more likely to gain help from their teachers, right. Because again that is what the school does, the school prioritize the religion, right, so they're going to hire people who also prioritize these values. So these kids are more likely to gain the favor of their teachers, what does that do? Nonreligious kids or religious who don't confined to these traditional external religious values are more likely to alienate. We see that in everywhere, right? We can see that because when a students gain extra favor from their teacher, they their fellow peers are more likely to know they are suck up or something like that and to alienate them. This negatively happens the religion here as well. They think that because of they because they are confined to traditional religious value they are being discriminated against. This simply would not exist on our side because in public schools that is not the priority, it doesn't matter in what way you conduct yourself as far as religion goes, right. So uh let's talk about non-religious uh kids or kids who don't externally are confined to the uh traditional religious values, right, they're less likely to be favored by the teachers, so in that case these kids are less likely to gain uh favors or extra help from their teachers, simply because they do not confined to this. So uh uh so basically these points that my partner put forward, read some very very basic nature of power dynamics in school and because of these power imbalances how uh it can create a lot of enmity, animosity between kids, right. So uh to close up my uh uh partner points, that we a very version something that's very likely to happen while every demographic create there an animosity against and why our side has better integration and that is exclusive to our side. Thank you.
</gw>
<ow>
Ladies and gentlemen to today's classes I want to give us several rebuttal I think composition never engaged in the worst case scenario on what happens if parents choose to homeschool their kids. OG told you that the government can just regulate homeschooling. No, you cannot. Western liberal democracy cannot helicopter over what you're doing at home in private space. Under our Paradigm though schools can be directly regulated by government if there's abuse on certain kids because of their identity, because of their like certain practice in public schools. Overall it's easier to check and regulate in public space than in private. For instance, if the state thinks sex education must Intel this score on Career they can make it mandatory in those schools but under their Paradigm it's impossible. And then secondly proposition did not engage in the points on academic excellence, on who gets better education. They only tell you that okay kids will have more choices that's why they'll be better. No like more often than not kids with less choices do better at school, than other kids but jokes aside, I think that religious kids definitely get better schooling under our Paradigm. OO told you that faith-based schools get more funding but Daniel tell you that religious communities is more often than not the largest funnel for charity/donation. So fact the biggest nation in the United States is Charity based and it's donate billion every year. More importantly, Daniel told you that kids will have better schooling on Paradigm because the reason why this uh religious people donate, the reason why these religious people set up the school because they have a huge incentive to empower their Community, to make their Community look great in a society because they want to get integrate to it. That's why like kids are more often than not um getting better like fundings and resources for schooling and become like you know better adults or whatever uh in future life. And thirdly, principally they did not engage to my POI on why it is legitimate for Western Liberal democracy to ban schooling for certain identity. They're not like engaging on like why we don't ban French school in in the UK even though like they spend a lot of time on studying French which is not necessarily like you know um necessarily like better for better use of time like if you just take like a level standard. But they're banning religious schools just because they think that it's not good um but principally they did not even substantiate why uh religion in and ourself should be banned, right. So that's why I think like they lack a simple argument there. Clash is today, sorry later, um so CG the first Clash is I think which is most important, CG talks about integration of the kids into the society later in life on which side uh gives like kids better integration. I think, firstly, it's a western liberal democracy where more often than not people are later on judged based on their merits, i.e their academic excellence because like they practice capitalism. And that's why like we have argued to you that kids tend to get better education in religious school because of more access to funding and so on and so forth. And for instance, like we don't like marginalize as adults a good doctor just because they're a Muslim, we don't like marginalize a scientist just because they practice certain like religion, and but we do judge people based on their you know academic excellence, their you know like uh their knowledge so on and so forth. So that's why we think that we actually integrate the kids better and make them. And even more importantly, our team has told you that kids can grow up in a more supportive and comfortable culture in a faith-based schools because they have more confidence in their identity is more it's more downplayed, they are surrounded by people who are like so under their Paradigm kids are surrounded by people who are different from them, more often than not they feel marginalized when they have to pray, when they have to like dress or Diet in a certain Manner and in mixed school your brain would just be occupied by such unnecessary stress, uh by feeling like different. I think it's very important to highlight uh the difference between kids and adults and why it's very important for kids to um you know like study in a comfortable environment. As an adults uh we tend to be like more like people tend to be like more emotional mature, responsible or just occupied by other stuffs like work and mortgage and they tend not to like pay too much attentions to things like how you dress, etc. And more importantly, they're more bonded by laws, you cannot commit hate crimes or you know judge people on the street because otherwise be fired, you will be like imprisoned um hence marginalization will unlikely happen at in at of life, because like for us you're just colleague regardless of your you know religion. However kids in school are not bound by these laws or conduct because they have uh and also they have like more time and less emotional um like maturity so that they tend to be like uh insulted or marginalized their you know like classmates. And conceptually it's very important that kids grow up in these like destroyed environment, they tend to have less confidence, they tend to feel have more childhood trauma. On their own Paradigm kids feel like they're a normal human being they don't have to worry about like how they dress, how they diet and they just focus on academic Excellence. I'll take OG.
<poi>
So you say that kids will now become oppressed minorities, however we provide the analysis that children aren't born bigoted, they become bigoted through a lack of exposure and so under our side, other children in the same school are more likely to become accepted religious minority.
</poi>
In our school have the incentive to be less bigoted and more integrated to society because it's in their best interest to prepare their kids to be more successful in the society, right. So and then also um I think like the kids grew up in a mixed School tend to have less confidence when they have all these like insult or mental stress uh on their on themselves. And that's why it's less likely for them to get integrated into the society because all these people who don't practice religion would just feed their childhood trauma. And how can you know work in an environment and feeling self-conscious about your you know how you dress and how you diet. And I think that's it's just like not good for their mental health, it's not good for their mental health for the rest of their lives. And I do think that the proposition should take the burden of proof uh to tell. I think it's important to highlight is in a western liberal democracy and hence, that is why like that is why like after these kids join the society they are less likely to be you know attacked or marginalized whatever. I think like kids on our Paradigm will have like better academic excellence, they will have like better mental health and they will have more confidence and hence, I think the schools, which is very important in this debate, it's about schooling, the schools on our Paradigm are much better than their Paradigm. Very proud.
</ow>
<pm>
After years of complex, two years of sound and fury, meaningless and pointless slaughter, all Putin has to show for it is going from controlling most of the Donbass to all of the Donbass, and I think what that shows clearly is something that is obviously not in interest, it's not something that's going to help him. He would have been better off without going into war. I think to be very clear, they're about retaining power and centralized control within Russia and they're about pursuing Russian interests in foreign policy of Wars. I want to be very, very clear about what the counterside is likely to be, that's pretty important in this debate. You know, by 2022, well, Russia already controlled Crimea and parts of the Donbass and had it captured. What that means is obviously that Ukraine is unable to join the EU and NATO on our side of the house because those organizations only admit people who have settled borders within them. And If that wasn't the case, they were never going to join, even though that was a commitment. Crucially, Putin, despite controlling Crimea, actually had relatively good relations with the West. Things like Nord Stream 2 were going to be developed, he was not facing high levels of individual sanctions, so that relationship would continue, you get economic benefits from that, and you really gain some foreign advantage in the Middle East, but you don't upset the upper part to success.
Now, I want to start explaining why Putin is weakened on a number of different levels as a result of this conflict. First of all, I think that the conflict has made Putin more reliant on individual warlords, people like Kadyrov in Chechen, for example, who are a crucial source of troops for Putin. The reason is, obviously, he's unwilling to engage in mass expression without a very unpopular outcome, and that's terrible because you are now empowering a bunch of people within Russia with their own private militaries, and you always give them the capacity to act against you. Putin obviously did that, and you can have that continue with all of these future wars as well in a takeover. It also makes you more reliant on individual oligarchs and so on within Russia for the reason that you need those people to get around the sanctions that exist. So you can continue maintaining your alliance on that group, you're more reliant on countries like China, who can dictate your policy and crucially, Putin's self-image is crumbling because, remember, in 2022, Putin was at the peak of his power. He had successfully secured Assad's retention of power, he successfully annexed Crimea. That image of himself as a defender of the Russian people, or so on, and this genius foreign policy is now gone because the guy thought he could take over Kyiv in ten days, and he clearly has failed.


The next thing I want to note is that increasingly, more and more over time, as the conflict continues, the cost of food gets higher and higher. He has to engage in more and more repression as people protest after the killing of civilians. More and more body bags all regarding people that come home, and more and more as this continually happens, as Russian tactics continually remain sending men to the front to die, there will be far more support that crystallized against him. They will say, "Aha! Western support for Ukraine is extraordinarily contingent," and so maybe you will actually succeed in taking over Ukraine. I don't think that's actually false because even though Putin has managed to find some workarounds to sanctions and so on that have been implemented, those workarounds are closing. The West is increasingly substituting Russian energy; the loopholes are being closed more and more over time. Even if Putin does take over Ukraine as a result of the conflict, there has still been the flight of citizens, of actual wealthy people in Russia, who have tried to leave and pull out of the country and the pulling out of expertise, and so he is massively weakened for an extraordinarily unclear benefit.
Even that the likely comparative anyway is Putin retaining some control over Ukraine. Now, I'm not even sure the West is the likely alternative on their side of the house. Yes, maybe if Trump gets into power, then he'll try and get Ukraine to see a negotiation, but that's not really bad for Putin, right? Because obviously then, as a result of the two or three years of conflict, he would have achieved essentially more or less than nothing. I want to be very clear about the fast changes that we get on our side of the house. There are a number of different ways in which Putin might lose power. There might be a popular revolution as more and more people are galvanized against ordinary Russian people dying on the streets, and as repression that Putin enacts necessarily gets stronger and stronger. You only need one spark to start a fire in Moscow, that is sufficient to depose him. But secondly, he might lose the support of elites over time as it becomes clearer and clearer that Putin is not going to win this conflict or that it is going to end in some kind of stalemate. And so, those people become more dependent upon him, which is sufficient for him to remain in power.
Even if you view this as a marginal thing, it's still really sufficient to win in the debate because the risk of the paranoia that you probably feel as an individual level is much higher, when you realize the possibility of genuine actions against you. Before I continue, I want a poi.
<poi>
Putin decided to invade ukraine in 2014, west pulled out.[inaudible]
</poi>
Why was one of the most strange arguments I've ever had? It's like, yes, the West pulled out in 2014; that is now recognized as a mistake by the West. That is why support for Ukraine has been much higher. The current position is literally that Americans send $80 billion in aid, and crucially, even if America cuts off aid tomorrow, it's still genuinely not clear, this is about the problem itself, it's still genuinely not clear that Putin would be able to actually take over Ukraine, right? Because yes, America might send aid tomorrow, but that still means Ukraine has the most advanced weapon systems in America and crucially, this is exactly what the war in Ukraine has shown, engaging in offensive conflict is extraordinarily difficult because the Ukrainians have dug in entrenched successful military positions. They've got an extraordinary army that is battle-hardened.
So yes, Western support for Ukraine is extraordinarily contingent, but even then, it's not entirely clear that Putin can successfully take over Ukraine, that is unlikely. Which means the most likely endpoints are having to fight this. Maybe cg can try and prove Ukraine all territory, but even if not, even if it remains a stalemate, that's still a massive harm for Putin because essentially he is now forced to recognize Ukraine as a state. This is where the counter becomes incredibly crucial. Putin's foreign interests are about maintaining a sphere of influence around Russia, that is gone now because the Ukraine that survives this conflict will join NATO instantly. There is a huge desire from both Ukrainians and the West to have this happen because the defense of Russia and the heritage of Ukrainians has occurred. Which means the counter on our side of the house is far better for Ukraine's foreign interests, Putin's foreign interests, sorry, because he can continually destabilize Ukraine from afar, he can continually meddle in elections, and he can install puppet presidents in Crimea and the Donbass. That is sufficient in order to ensure that Ukraine is unable to join the organizations that Putin has invaded. Which means Putin's foreign interests are protected on our side of the house or also, on their side of the house as par to be replaced which obviously is the most important interest.
</pm>
<lo>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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