text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
This is a leverage that is purely unique. We tell you that this group cohesion that you push and pushing on a singular identity is able to get these forms of people to buy in the first place. But secondly, then, just the ability to have your strategic polarization when you do the shame in the first place. At the point of which you draw a clear boundary between us and them is when you actually want people to join you in the first place. I think at the point of which you have a binary framing is when you want to have more people on your side because people's ability is just to want to feel inclusive within groups; they want to feel included, right? |
I think at this point is when you shift the identity of the movement of being much more hip and cool. So sure, maybe your perception is elitist and is buying into and taking out Umar, but joining in makes you look cool. The prerequisite to join this cliché land is extremely low, and the ability to want to buy into something that is able to overcome the threshold is because the prerequisite then is to have the ability to do sustainable environmental practices. |
The prerequisite is to support other females to join your feminist movement. I think especially for people on the top who have the capacity to do all of these things, joining into these specific pleasures are things that they, one, automatically want, but two, are things that they feel inclusive in joining because this is something that caters towards the majority of the population. So if you join, your current moral calculus or what people perceive you to be is someone who is good and righteous. This is automatically a factor that attracts people to buy into you. |
This is where we knock out LO as well because his framing and assertion is these elitist movements are people who invalidate feelings. So if a female comes to you and has been abused, the feminist movement is going to reject you. We tell you this is probably going to be untrue; there is still going to be a fundamental basis of humanity that all of the social movements operate on. I don't think you're going to be acting in benevolence and telling them to fuck you write off. |
I'll take you in a bit, man. I'll take you after five. The second question that I want to answer in my speech is why is moral judgment impactful and not as harmful as the other teams posit. The first question is it unlikely that you're going to be reported or depressed? I think the point at which you shame is you cut, but you're not cutting deep enough for you to affect other people's lives. This, as well, knocks out a huge amount of the speech because it tells you the mental detriment is going to be bad. |
I think this is when you it's easy to isolate yourself from change because most people have the ability to make this change in first place therefore You can isolate and cut yourself off from shame completely at the point at which you just overcome this low threshold of joining into these perceived elite pleasures. But how do we OO's counterfactual Then is they make more money, and they can educate people on more ways than one. We tell you that this is extremely problematic. I'll respond to this in four ways. |
Firstly, education already does not work. I have a lot of speakers within this house already positive to you that, but secondly, people just do things that are approximate towards them. Meaning, if littering is something that is easy for them to do, these are probably things that they are going to do. Secondly, it’s the immediate thought process of people; therefore, if the unsustainable development goals are things that they are likely going to indulge in, this is the immediate thought process of the way that they were brought up. These are going to be things that they're going to do as well. |
But thirdly, it is simply that they lack the epistemic access to the outcome. I think you can probably know the outcome from education, but you are still likely going to be increasingly lacking towards the full extent of the outcome. Even if it is true that they want education and you redirect funding to education, I don't see where the state incentive to help is on their side as well because their OO's idea is a negative case in which you rechannel funding towards education—a sector that is already not working—and expect to have some level of change. The point at which they fail to make their case is the point they lose. |
But thirdly, I also want to flag out what the movement looks like on the opposition as a whole because CO run an extremely negative case, and the structures and institutions are very, very hard to change. At the point at which you do this, you greenlight behaviors that are against the movement. You sit complacent and watch individuals get oppressed. You sit complacent and watch your environment be destroyed. The very principles of your movement are things that you’re willing to sub out on because you want to do something that is negative. I really don't know what they want to do because they didn't tell us in the speech. Before I move on, OO. |
<poi> |
This is support motion based on the world manual. Opposition just needs to prove the attempt to make it worse than the status quo instead of proving change suddenly happens. Hence CG is wrong, but our CO is also wrong because bad social movement extension. Regardless of the movement, the motion forces us to show where shame is a catalyst for change or not. Please engage. |
</poi> |
Okay, even if you do want to say that the movement on your side is still something that is bad because you still greenlight behaviors that are against the movement, this is the point at which you should pivot or probably change some principles within your movement at the point where you want to have a better perception of your movement. This is uniquely the point where you lose on buy-in as well because people think your movement is useless. People think your movement is probably not going to be a support for them as well because you're really not doing anything other than telling, "Hey guys, don’t litter." |
But fourthly then, why is it hostile and judgmental, and why is rash extension debate-winning? Because they tell you that as precedents of loss and success, shame is a personalized perception as to how you should feel and change as an individual. Therefore, weighing on the certainty that we have past precedents of success, this is something that is likely definitely going to happen because this is one that is extremely individualized. This is one that is extremely easy for you to overcome because it's just changing certain small actions within your day. |
How does your case lose out? Their case loses out as well. Their negative case is extremely simple to take out. They tell you that oppression is extremely hard to change. They tell you that the structures at the top are very hard because of capacity. I think this is very simple at the point at which we make out to you why people want to join these groups. Inclusivity is something that is big. All of those reasons, CG, |
</gw> |
<ow> |
Beginning my speech in three, two, one. One point of clarification: we're not a negative case; we're a harms case. We're showing you that at the point where social justice movements are allowed to actually create and use shaming as a mechanism, they'll use it for bad things because we take a much more nuanced approach. Not all social justice movements are good; some are bad. |
Think of how for every Black Lives Matter movement, which is a social justice movement, there is a counter-movement that is to say a right-wing answer. For example, think of Black Lives Matter: you have All Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter. These are all social justice movements. Why? The reason why there are infinitely more harmful is because they have a lot more power. |
I'll get into that in a minute. One free-floating rebuttal: they tell us on CG that you need to get some level of buy-in; you need to make it as accessible as possible so people feel like they're part of the social justice movement. This is good because then you get momentum or something. This is bad because, one, you create a smokescreen effect. A lot of the time, if CG wants to say that, oh, you get some level of buy-in, I don't really see why this buy-in is actually important. I think it's just going to look like activism, like someone posting on their Instagram story, "Oh my God, please boycott Starbucks," or like shame R. Weinstein. They feel good about it, and they don't actually ever do anything more. |
Further, they just take the small wins, like Rohan told you, where we just care about one rotten apple that’s being pushed out by the narrative by the state as a scapegoat, and then we forget all about it. Or thirdly, you just don’t actually donate; you don’t actually throw up a protest. You just feel like you’re part of the social justice movement, and you never actually do anything about it. |
Three things that we gave you from the CEO: Why are these winning? First, we explain to you that shame doesn’t work on a fundamental level. Rohan gave you three strong structural reasons. One, it's incredibly hard to monitor these people; it's hard for the social justice movement to have eyes everywhere, right? Second, it's hard to police this. You need to mobilize every social justice person to be there, and you have to actually shame each individual. |
What if a million people are going to drink Starbucks? Are you going to go have a long post that says "Ah XYZ bye"? It's just not going to be as effective as they really want to say. Third, likely, they’re just going to push out rotten apples, have a scapegoat, call it a day, and say that they won—not going to be really effective. |
Second, we explained to you that buy-in is relatively symmetric. We told you that it's probably going to be likely that people are still going to go in or out based on swings of popularity rather than everything else that both opening houses talk about. But we’ll give you another mechanism here later when we talk about moral high ground. |
Third, bad social justice movement. This is the most important and game-winning extension because we tell you that social justice movements are a double-edged sword. That is to say, if you want to say that these social justice movements are effective in shaming, we think that this can be used in a bad way by shaming individuals who want to be part of social justice movements and calling them subversives. |
We think that this is going to look like the state or churches or whatever other strong political powers that want to ensure that they're stronger for structural reasons. Why is it actually worse off? They have stronger incentives to do this. First, they're more persuasive. People think that the state is an authority; therefore, they have the moral high ground. Whatever they say is probably going to be true rather than a small niche social justice movement, which is relatively newer and hasn't given them benefits like the state has given them benefits of welfare or benefits of infrastructure. |
All these things are unclear; why do they believe one over the other? Second, it’s easier to buy in because it’s something that’s bought in by the collective, i.e., people consensus voted in the president, consensus believe in the church; therefore, they’re willing to buy into something that’s more bought into than a social justice movement that might be more niche and only has a minority of people. |
Third, it’s easy to say that these guys are subversive to the state. You can create, if CG wants to say something about binaries or whatever, I think that the state can easily do this by saying that these people are against the state; they are against you; we need to shame them; they are horrible individuals. |
Fourth, this is an incredibly high-impact thing in so far as this actually creates on-the-ground discrimination. It allows for things; it justifies programs that lead to job hiring discrimination that actually harms people on the ground. Even if the government is correct and you're going to be able to—like, we’re not really sure why Taylor Swift or all these influential actors that they want to say on their side are going to change; we think on our side of the world we can more guarantee that these people are going to be out of a job. |
You might have another question, which is to say, why are these movements going to have a lot more strength? Why are social justice movements going to be stronger for structural reasons? First, they’re able to access more capital. That is to say, these things are usually things like churches, schools, or politicians. That means they’ve been in power longer; they needed to have some level of capital in order to actually gain that position. We think that it is incredibly useful. |
Think of like scoops; think of troll farms. You’re able to change and shift the narrative because you’re able to control things like the media. That’s a second structural reason to make sure that these things seem more normalized. You’re able to flood social media with troll accounts that say that XYZ should be shamed. We’re able to do things like shut down networks in case this is actually bad. |
Third, you can divide and conquer. You can say that these social justice warriors are crazy. Think of all the feminists that are being lambasted as incredibly unreasonable or as Karens or whatever. These are methods that these bad social justice movements can use to actually weaponize it and divide and conquer. OG, okay, yeah, go ahead. |
<poi> |
One, all your harms suggest criticism that it's not perfect, but there's still positive utility. But number two, even if you're right that all these opponents against this movement have higher moral ground and higher political capital, then public shaming is the best way for smaller movements to counteract against them. |
</poi> |
Okay, I get you. I get you. First, we’re not saying that it’s ineffective; we’re saying that bad actors are going to use and weaponize social justice movement methods in a bad way. Second, I’m going to go explain moral high ground right now. |
That earlier I said by, oh, the third or fourth thing I want to go out before I finish is that, uh, they said that, oh, they use COVID a lot again. I'm not really sure if this is really true. First off, I think a lot of the times these people don't use this as a facility because it's imperceptible. They don't know that COVID is real or not. That's why there's a whole backlash against it, or like they don't understand why you need to protect women in the workplace to a great degree. So it's not really clear why you're going to actually get, like, smart buy-in. As for their mechanism, for the last thing I want to do is use moral high ground in a more weaponized manner than what we did, right? We tell you that at the point where you actually shame people, like Timmy on the ground, is the point where you look hysterical. At the point you look bloodthirsty, it's the point where you look like you're turning families against each other. You're making your daughter, like, shame your father and, like, creating incredibly large gaps within them. You make it seem like you don't want to be part of this, and we actually mechanize how this hostility manifests and how it actually looks like and why people wouldn't want to buy into it because you lose that moral high ground at the point where you're dividing and conquering all these individuals. For all these reasons, CG; CO. |
</ow> |
<pm> |
Probably worked like this for most of the time. I think people are fine; they go to university, they have jobs, they learn quite well in the traditional sense, OO need to support radical alternatives. Cool. Three things in my speech: first, why teachers on our side of the house have the capacity to do this well; second, why 14 to 18-year-olds make poor choices or should make that choice later; and thirdly, why progressive education doesn't work well. Cool. |
So, on teachers and their capacity to teach well, note that probably incentives exist on our side of the house to share materials and tactics and to share what works with their students. This happens because probably there are teacher assessments, right? There are school assessments—things like, "Okay, how many of your students have passed the final exams? What's the rate of success?" and whatnot. But also—no, thank you—probably there is pressure from parents, because if the kids come back and they're really unsatisfied with the teacher, probably they will go to the principal and complain about this, right? Incentives to perform well exist. |
Note, fourthly, that even if you have textbooks and you teach from textbooks, you can still teach in a fun way. Why is that? Because you want the kids to be receptive; you want your grades to go well. But also, secondly, because probably you're passionate about your field, right? Note that most teachers work in public schools; only a few of them work in private schools, right? This means that probably the public sector cannot afford to pay you as well as a job in the private sector, right? Meaning that there has to be some other reason why you choose to be a teacher—because you like teaching. Think of you panel teaching debaters and giving them feedback when you get bad IA funding, right? You do this because you care about what you're teaching and you care about learning; you like spending time with kids, right? So they have all of the incentives to go bad, to go good. Of course, there will be some instances where we have bad teachers, but those are probably symmetric. We think on our side of the house you have more incentives to do this. |
Now, secondly, on the kids themselves and why they're likely to make better choices on our side of the house. Note that when you're 14, you don't really know how life goes, kind of, right? You're not sure what choices you have. On their side of the house, you have to choose a thematic theme, right? So, if you want to learn about space, right, but if you later decide to, like, I don't know, learn about i don't know political science, that's going to be a lot worse on their side of the house. Why? Because you have spent some years getting educated in one field, and then you have to switch, right? Why do they do this? A, because they are kids; their neo frontal cortex is not developed enough just simply by biology. But second, also because they might be lazy; they might have distractions around them. They might have, like, I don't know, there's this girl in class that I really like, and I want to go in her class and whatnot because I have a crush on her. But also, because they want to, I don't know, spend time outside, they can be lazy and whatnot. But, like, they're also influenceable by other people, specifically by parents. |
And I think this is worse on their side of the house. Why, or in what ways are they influenceable by parents? I think, A, there are certain norms in societies about certain professions that are more successful than others because they are paid more. So, for example, you're told, "Oh, be a doctor, be a lawyer, do this," so you can end up in school. This might lead a kid to choose a subject at 14 that they don't really like, right? That's bad. On the comparative, on our side of the house, what happens is that if you really like, you study other subjects, right? You study math, chemistry, physics, but you also study literature, and if you decide at 18—you have more autonomy to actually go against that parent pressure. This is crucial, panel, because the kid who actually wants to go to art school is more likely to go to art school on our side of the house and be happier in the long term, even if they don't receive, like, a lawyer salary, right? |
But also, secondly, there's also a lot of pressure from parents to, like, you know, be self-sufficient, right? To leave the house, to earn your salary, to not depend on them anymore financially because they will grow old or whatnot. And in some countries, even to support them financially later on, right? This is bad because probably this will lead them to make decisions influenced by their parents on their side of the house. On our side of the house, sure, maybe they will have math and chemistry too, but they can still take that literature course, and even if they don't ultimately pursue that literature study, at least their time in high school is better off because they get one hour to talk about Shakespeare, whereas on their side of the house there's no such time, meaning that their educational experience overall is of greater quality. Cool. |
Then, why does progressive education work worse? First, because of the choice you make in the student psychology, as I said. Secondly, I think the lack of supervision— I think the quality of your education gets worse the moment that the teacher only facilitates, right? So you do peer learning if you're—somebody does a PowerPoint with things they Googled about Iraq versus somebody who does a—no, thank you—who does a teacher who does a presentation about Iraq that has actually studied that. Obviously, you're better off because they have deeper knowledge. Closing, you can engage. |
<poi> |
So if I don't want to do that. |
</poi> |
Lastly, I think you have more quality education because the teacher now has the ability to give you lectures and to have studied that subject in detail versus your peers probably are not well educated in that topic. |
Okay, why is this the most important thing in the debate? First, it's about how you learn, right? So if you get more information and if you get clearer information the earlier in your life, it's good because it's at the age where you can orient yourself, right? So it's easier to make choices once you have more information, right? That's the time where you have the ability to explore all of these options on our side of the house. Secondly, note that this is a secure impact. Why? Because it's about other things in life later on, like Uni admissions. Probably, if you don't study math, it's very difficult to take a Uni exam in math if you did experimental learning for four years in something like literature, for instance, right? So you have more capacity to go to Uni. This impacts you passing your exam, but also access to careers later on, social mobility, and the things that I explained are important to you. |
</pm> |
<lo> |
Clarification at the top of my speech: the choice is not going to be absolute for the kids. Still, there are going to be topics that are going to be decided by the school curriculum, be at the general school assembly or whatever. This is true for a couple of reasons. One, you still need to cover basic topics in order for students to understand a more holistic approach, and this probably means that they're still going to learn some form of math; they're just not going to learn it in any specific type of one-course math, etc. The second reason why this is so is because you need—ex still exists on our side of the house likely because people still need to have some form of connection. Therefore, probably people still want to cater to that to some degree, and also parents want their kids to be generally educated. That being said, I'll have a bit of engagement to OG. They say that they have teachers that are unable to do these things. Three reasons why this isn't true: first is the point about being more expensive and things like that. I'm not exactly sure this is true because every single thing is quite expensive. The textbooks that you have are always going to adapt, and things like that are also true when you have traditional learning. But also, on the point about how kids' teachers are capable and things like that, I think that |
They are capable, but also these specific topics, if they decide on a symmetric level, they're still able to learn about them and be more engaged. Also, in our side of the house, I'll have that more in the future. Lastly, if you have a radical change, as looks likely, there's going to be pedagogical faculties that also account for that and teach the teachers how to teach in this specific way. So, the ability for teachers to actually do this is likely the same. |
On the point about kids, I don't think that kids have absolute choice in the topics that they have because of the exact announcement they had previously. But also, let's say they do; the comparison is the school curriculum. I still, as a kid, choose not to listen to the school curriculum if I don't find it interesting. The exact same analysis coming from OG about how I'm unable to decide what is interesting to me applies. The difference here is that the system on our side of the house supports my choice and enables me to actually listen to it in a more engaging way. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.