Datasets:
utkarsh2105
/
DebateBench

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
9.69k
Not on weighing, even if they prove all of their benefits, it's still morally third party also proven when you don't get a benefit and actively split. That is the first you already flip it in opening opposition, closing opposition is going to do; I have to do a lot of help of weighing in order to win over us in this debate. Before I move on to a very sexy principle argument to engage with the metaphysics coming from Ana's prime minister. I'll take closing government,
<poi>
I thought that they were being held at gunpoint with their families in a room being forced to stay in the gang. But now the priest tells them, "Son, don't be violent," and they leave. Pick a characterization.
</poi>
Yeah, sorry, I don't have to pick because in top rooms there is nuance. For some people, there is no choice. For people for whom there is choice, the church facilitates that choice. This is very simple, and the judges will understand this.
Lastly, I want to comment on metaphysics. We have no evidence that the metaphysical world exists, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no degree of probability to conclude that heaven and hell do not exist. with any probability Here's the thing about the impacts of the afterlife: they're infinite and extra-temporal. It's either infinity at the side of God or infinity in the powers of Inferno. These impacts therefore outweigh every utility in the material world. This means that any slight probability of the metaphysical world existing makes it problematic for you to knowingly deny summon the path to salvation. Assuming revelation is true and assuming the sacred texts are true, the church is the closest to the truth about God and therefore the truth as to whether you're going to reach heaven or not. This is not the case about whether people are likely to engage or not. This is a case about what is moral for the church to do, at the point where you know the path of salvation and actively denies to summon, therefore potentially condemning them to an infinity of hell. The slightest possibility of the metaphysical world existing makes it incredibly immoral. It supports infinite disability, and infra-disability is not proportional to any crime in the material world because no crime is infinitely this utile. but also deny people the path to salvation damage their own soul because you're condemning them to apostasy, the worst sin in all of the Abrahamic religions. So the church priests themselves are damning themselves, not knowing that they're doing that to save the people but to save the souls as well.
We beg you to vote for opening opposition.
</lo>
<dpm>
Hello, professional churchgoer here. I think that importantly, if my grandma found out that I was part of a gang and was killing people, she would maybe be okay with it, but if she found out I got excommunicated from the church, I would prefer hell. And I think that this is quite important because what OO tries to do is essentially say nobody gives a shit about the church. This isn't a massive deterrence. But also, they're literally going to die, and how bad they're going to feel about killing people now that they're out of the church. This is the most contradictory thing that can be solved by, oh no, I have new ones. There is no new ones there. either they do care or they don't. Some people will, some people won't, but the same mechanisms apply for each individual group of people.
So firstly, I want to take out the principle because it's very pretty, and I really want to interact with it. If it is a sin and it is the worst moral thing to do to deny somebody the path to salvation, then God is terrible, because God decides that at some point after your actions you're going to be punished. Punishment is not bad within any religion necessarily because it is a natural repercussion of your actions.
So does that mean that it is unjust to ever punish somebody? Because then you send them down a path where they are not going to receive salvation anymore. That obviously is not the case. So the principle doesn't stand, but it also flips it because it says that you have the moral obligation as a religious person and also as the church to punish the people that are going against the word of God, because otherwise you let them continue in sin.
So, you know, principle, if you want to debate on that. But let's talk about the realistic things here. Firstly, I want to explain the idea of, like, you are not going to be changed by the fact that you're excommunicated from the church, but also you are more likely on their side to be changed by the narratives of the church telling you you're going to be a good boy and you're going to get salvation eventually, and you're going to get out if you can.
Let's take the people who can get out and also are really influenced by the church. In order for OO to win this, they need to prove that hope is more important than fear. Here I'm going to call the mechanisms. If the fear of being shot or your family being threatened is the most primal thing in history and you can't break out of it, they need to literally mean that the fear of Hell or being excommunicated is more important than all of the other narratives that the church is going to give to you. Thus, you should weigh this higher than the argumentation.
But even if we believe that hope can somehow help, I think that these people, when they know they're going to get excommunicated by the church, have two options. They can choose to live, and this is a perfect opportunity for them to decide, "It is the time for me to end this." Thus, I'm going through one because I fear that I'm going to get out of church, and that means eternal damnation. But also, secondarily, because I want to hold on to the hope that as long as I take this one particular action of leaving now, maybe I can repent for all of the things I have done in the past.
This also interacts with the ideas that churches can help out, because note, I can't just keep going to the church and parading about how badly it is to be a gang member and how much I want to get out without getting shot in the head. So realistically, benefits are always talking about. To actually prove what you have to do is tell the people of the church, likely the priests, that you want to get out, which literally means betraying the mafia. If you are at that point, you're already on your way out.
This is going to be the tipping point to push you over. This co-ops the mechanism of OO and shows you why the fear is actually going to be important. The only thing that they realistically say is that fear doesn't matter, but note it does, as per the mechanization of you are afraid of the police or you are afraid of getting threatened.
So I think you are more likely to be afraid of Hell if you're a religious person. So for that category of people, this is what is going to happen. But for the people that don't care and they generally don't give a about the church, all of the mechanization and the argumentation also work. It doesn't work because I don't get any solids and I don't get any benefit out of the church.
So yes, this is restricted on the number of people who actually care about their church and care about their congregation. But I think it can even be expanded upon all the people that care about their families, and this is quite crucial because they see that it is immoral to punish people because they didn't opt into this. But when they choose to remain in the gang, even when they're betraying their families, and they can't justify it and rationalize it as, "I'm trying to get money in order to save my family. I'm trying to protect them," that is the moment that this is a rational decision that can be actively punished by being excommunicated from the church.
This happens the moment that you are going to be kicked out. You are aware of this, and you still choose to be part of the gang. Note the motion says active members, or what's the exact... Ah, yeah, current gang members. This means that if I leave, I'm not getting excommunicated; I'm not being punished for my mistakes. So when this applies, it means I can just leave and I can repent for my sins, thus giving the opportunity for them to be out.
Now let's analyze the impacts here. Firstly, whether or not you're likely to write people out—I already flipped most of OO's analysis here by telling you why fear is not going to be the most important thing. But note there is prior resentment for what you have done or what other people have made you do, which means that it is justified for you to try to write them out as long as you don't believe that they are fighting the good fight or they are the only way to go about it.
Secondarily, you are likely to take the perception of who these people are and make that into your mental calculus. So if you believe that they are still good people, you are less likely to write them out. And even if OO or CO tries to prove that you are still afraid of them, I think you're more likely that somebody in the village is going to write them out for three reasons: One, you feel protected by numbers. The moment that this is a massive thing that has happened in your village, you feel like anyone could have done it, so they don't know that it's you necessarily.
Secondly, you know that the church leaders have more of a target on their back than you do, which means that you also feel protected that you're going to go after them first, so maybe you have some time to escape or you can just leave. Thirdly, you feel that at some point you're going to have a worse scenario than you currently are in, so you see this as the massive opportunity for you as the tides are shifting.
Even if nobody runs them out, and this takes the best case of opp., I feel like either the leaders or the people in the mafia are going to feel like somebody might run them out, which forces them to become more cautious. That means that there are going to be fewer actions on the streets than before. There was no POI, I'm sorry, so there were less actions than before.
You also are likely to be more covert. This limits the amount of crime you can actually do. It's 6:14. There is, this limits the amount of time you can actually invest into crime duty. This is crucial because it does prove to you a marginal reduction in crime. What this means is that, one, these people are likely to be the vulnerable ones in the proximity of the mobs, thus being the ones that are more protected from crime. So any marginal utility of them not having as much crime in their community is crucial.
Secondly, this actually has long-term ramifications. One, because you experience this crime very often, you're likely to have petty theft or people getting into your house and stealing your stuff very frequently. If you reduce that on the long term, it accumulates. But secondly, people in the mob lose the ability to increase crime over time by not being able to recruit new people or increase the amount of finances that they have.
So what should you take at the end of my speech? One, there is a marginal reduction in crime. And secondarily, not only is this justified, but on the OO principle, apparently it is the best moral thing to do in front of God. So proud to propose. Thank you.
</dpm>
<dlo>
I'll be starting my speech in three, two, one.
Firstly, let's clarify something. I'm pretty sure that we are all experienced debaters enough to know that people are not, you know, monoliths and that people are different and nuanced and stuff like this, but I have to be nuanced about it. So there are multiple types of people who are joining gangs and who are current members and stuff like this. Firstly, people who are a threat of violence, which is the vast majority of them, who are at threat of violence, who have zero other options and stuff like this.
Um, those are the... and who are here to protect their family and stuff like this they are going to stay in gang irrespective of this. so you are not deterring most of the people from leaving a gang. The only thing that you are doing essentially is making them feel horrible about themselves and making them feel like their soul is not worth saving, that they have been abandoned by the only thing that was giving them hope in their life, which allows them to retaliate even more. Because like, if you can rob someone, why wouldn't you? Just why would you introduce, you know, rob them and, you know, hurt them as much as possible? Because there is no point for your soul, there is no point for morality or for anything because you are a lost cause. This is the comparative that is happening on their side of the house. These people are not going to leave gangs; they're going to stay, and they're just going to be horrible.
But secondly, even if you—there are other types of people who are in the gang because this is something that is most convenient to them. But there is some kind of chance for them to be able to save themselves. What do I mean by this? These are the people who are not at proximate danger but are here because this is the most—they're illiterate, for example, and this is the most convenient way for them to get money. These people, if they have access to church facilities—such as very often churches in these areas are the only ones who are offering, you know, like proper literacy education and all these sorts of things—these are the only places where you're able to get education, where you're able to get some kind of, you know, food in order to not die, and shelter to sleep at so you don't have to sleep at your house, you say, Gang Lord houses and all these sorts of things instead of on the street. These are the people who actually have a chance to escape, and you are denying these people these possibilities. This is also a negative comparative on your side.
I want to deal more with what opening government tells us. First, I want to deal with ratting out and, you know, like the perception of gang lords and all these sorts of things. Firstly, I would like to posit that even in the absence of church, even if the church rejects them, they're still going to be a vastly positive perception of these people. The reason for this is that in the vast majority of cases, these gang lords are often substituting welfare of the state. Like, for example, Pablo Escobar was literally building schools and welfare systems, and this is why everyone loved him and stuff like this. So I would argue that this is largely symmetric, right?
But secondly, even if this is true, I don't think that this is not properly engaging within this response, which is that you're literally scared to rat them out because they're so infiltrated, how you say, with the police and all these sorts of things. And then they say, "Ah, but like when people are massively going to be, how you say, reporting on these sorts of things, then you are going to feel more comfortable threatening them out." The problem is that no one is comfortable enough to be the first person to do this because you are going to put the target on your back. You're going to be putting the target on your daughter, on your family, and all these sorts of things, which means that their mechanism of massive amounts of people, how you say, like—uh—responding and all these sorts of things is not happening.
But secondly, Tin doesn't say that, you know, people don't think about God. Oh, but it's just not your most proximate and primary thing that you are thinking about when you are hungry. You are thinking about how much your stomach is in pain. When you are scared, you are thinking about how much, how you say, how you are going to die tomorrow, how your daughter is going to die tomorrow, and all these kinds of things.
So, um, and secondly, I want to talk about what kind of influence can church have on the people who are part of the gang, and this is doing because this is most of the people we are talking about because the majority of people who are in the gang are here because they have to be. They don't like it; they're here because they have to be. Um, these are the most, uh, I think important people. And what is the comparative? You can be a member of a gang, but you don't have to do as much damage. For example, you may just have to rob people or like deal drugs or whatever. But there is a difference between robbing a woman just taking her money or like robbing her and assaulting her, and you know, like, um, doing some damage and stuff like this.
The comparative on our side of the house is you still believe that God loves you. You still believe there is a chance for your soul to be redeemed, and the only things that you are doing that are harmful for the society are the things that you have to do because you were forced to do it. But if you see a woman that went to church with you, if you see another human being that your, uh, how you say, priest who's preaching about it, how you say, the lecture and all these sorts of things, you are going to feel empathy. You are going to feel sorry. And now this is not a, like, massive comparativism. Like we are removing people from gang and purging, how you say, Latin America from gangs and all these sorts of things. But if you are that woman that is getting robbed and being spared of assault and how you say, getting harmed and all these sorts of things, this is a massive impact. Even if we prove this on a marginal scale, you should be weighing this massively in this debate.
But next, churches that have more, how you say, money and all these sorts of things is incredibly important impact. Why is this so? Because this is what Ana says. Very often churches are funded by, how you say, these dons and words and all these sorts of things in safaris. They do not prove the harm of this, which is ratting out, how you say, Pablo Escobar and all these sorts of things. They do not prove harm of this. But there is a huge impact of these churches that have money that can give it to people who are in need. This is a huge impact which you are going to lose, and this is a third-party harm that is going to happen. I would like to take closing right now
<poi>
so just to defend opening government also, right? Like, before you join the church, no one's holding a gun to your head. So OG shows why you wouldn't join it in the first place, and you don't address the actual nuance of the OG. So like, listening to women, I'm also listening to you.
</poi>
So, uh, you—I mean, you joined the church because, like you, uh—I mean, you joined the church because like you are religious or whatever. So like, I’m not sure I understand the point of this POI. But basically what I'm trying to say is that like, when you are excluding people in the society who are the richest, like literally, Pablo Escobar was the one who is like substituting welfare because he had more money than the fucking state. And when you have these places that are like very poor and all these sorts of things, um, it is very problematic that you are losing people who are the richest.
And what the churches are essentially doing with this money is that they're building shelters for the poor. They're, you know, providing educational services. They're providing babysitting services for single mothers who have to go to work. They're creating soaps to give to the people who are hungry and all these sorts of things. This is a harm that is going to happen certainly and on a massive scale because these people are rich, and they are doing this in order to like wash, how you say, that image and all these sorts of things. And so that is, no one is going to solve gang violence with churches and all these sorts of things. The unique benefits that you are getting one outside of the house is you have people who are less violent, more sympathetic, some people who are able to escape, and you also have churches that are much stronger that are better able to help the people. These are massive improvements for these people's lives. Vote for us.
</dlo>
<mg>
Um, I'll take opening opposition at least once, preferably by voice around the fifth minute, but chat is okay, but I might not see it. Actually, just only voice, please. Okay, um, starting my speech three, two, one.
Lets characterize the people and address the nuance in opening opposition's case. Um, they do admit that not everyone is sort of held at gunpoint and forced to join the mafia. This is the vast majority are, and we can concede that and some people are marginal, and we also can agree with that, right? Their claim then is that these people then go to church, and they're sort of pushed towards doing good things and so on. Uh, opening government then says that actually the difference here is that the church itself is now going to push against these mafia, also sort of gaining lots of power and deter people because they think they'll go to hell.
But the way to break this clash pretty easily is to Explain how if the mafia gets involved in the church at a low level, the way you perceive God and the way you perceive the church as a whole is that it's pro-mafia. Note that OG says that there are gang leaders who become role models, and they do explain this reasonably well. But the reasonable case of this is the marginal areas where the gangs aren't very strong. Let me explain why this is relevant. If the gangs completely run the territory, then this motion is not feasible. If you kick out the gang members, you kick out a large amount of them, and then you get shot. Or, for example, you get completely destroyed in the new church that's repeated. So, I don't really see the impact here. But if it's a place with absolutely no organized crime, it does say high organized crime rates; then, of course, presumably this debate is relevant. This is about how organized crime rates—there are like two to three percent—which is on the margin, the moderate area. Because crime tends to be localized, right? You get to recruit people close by, and you need to know people you trust. And, of course, your actual operations are often physical, and hence those people need to be right next to you so you can get to them. Different legislations often make it difficult to kill someone in a different state, whether you might not know the police. So, these marginal areas with very high organized crime rates are rising, and at that point, it's very easy for them to expand their services.
So the closing government claim is a much more detailed explanation of why churches become the single focus point of recruiting a huge amount of people into this crime wave, and how the only way to defend it is to expel these members as soon as they come in. And I'll wait by like in my extension. So first of all, why exactly is your church the deciding factor in these moderate areas where high organized crime is sort of slowly seeping into civil life? The first thing is, like opening a government, opening opposition can see it's important to your community; it's important to your self-identity. But they don't explain the implications of this because OO is correct in the sense that you also need to get money, and you also need to get jobs, and so on. The thing is, unfortunately, in poorer areas, it's very unlikely you have institutions to support that for you because your tax revenue is low, and you don't matter as a voter. So often, churches are a way to get people to come together without money, and that means your connections—the way you make jobs in the first place, you find opportunities for employment, the way you learn anything—comes from churches or even concedes this with their mechanization. It's often education; it's often ways for you to actually get an opportunity to get a degree or scholarship. Someone who supports you when you're suffering because your mother is in the hospital, you need funding. But, second of all, it's also important because, like everyone says, it determines your self-identity. But third of all, it's important because it's a source of protection in the sense that it's seen as a safe space to get away from places that are dangerous.
Presumably, the the way to then sort of clarify this is either the mafia members are heavily regulated in a way that they don't feel unsafe, in which case I'm going to explain why that won't last, or the church then doesn't actually accept people who are scared of the mafia—victims or people who feel like they can't be there. How would a police officer sit right next to a gang member who they know has killed an innocent person? And that's the thing: even though OO says you might assault people less, you still have to assault them because that's part of your job. You can't fear like put people's uh like you can't put fear into someone's heart and ask them to pay you money if you you have created your protection racket unless you actually break some bones or actually start robbing people in a way that makes them dangerous—it's like scared of you enough that they give it up immediately. But second of all, what happens even lower level mafia men needs moderate areas where these crime rates are expanding occur. First of all it's really easy to take over the church in a way you can't otherwise. So this looks like intimidation and talking and sort of getting to know the social dynamics. Now, I listened to Ana carefully. She said you humanize these people; they become role models, and they become benifactors. But the missing mechanism here is why this is comparative in the sense that if you remove these gang members, they can't do it through, say, a charity donation that's anonymous or whatever.
Or, for example, why this is the tipping point to that and why the right. So the first thing is that you now understand social dynamics in a way that you can manipulate the priests so that you can make them lose their jobs and put in people from your own family—people you respect. Or, for example, and this is the most important, you frequently meet these people, so they trust you a bit more. The humanization mechanism from opening government is incomplete because the final end point of it is that when people trust you, they can also see you as a new leader who can run the church, who can run your schools on Sunday, who can run your hospitals later, who can push your welfare programs to the next extent. But, second of all, it's why money can only exist on our side. So on their side, which is that you can only connect all of these existing networks in this area to the church at the point where you understand how to run it, and it's cheaper and more affordable for you to run these churches when you have people you trust in them. You can't just replace the church with someone else, no matter how much money you give in, because people won't believe that person or trust them if it's something completely different. So you lose the buy-in required to get those donations, and often the church itself starts losing legitimacy because the victims and people who see these gang members often see them harassing people in everyday life don't like them anymore.
Um, I'll take you in a second. Okay, so why is it likely that this causes recruitment, and why do we solve this? So the thing is, first of all, it's very easy to spread your own version of truth. It's not just role models and humanizing; it's the idea that God wants you to grip your life in your own hands and take back what's yours and go ahead and rob those damn people who are making money off of your hard-earned labor. And exactly the type of narratives that opening opposition says you need to stab that woman to steal her groceries; you need to rob that person. The claim is, in these moderate areas, the police exist; there are often people pushing against these high organized crime rates. There are alternatives like relocation and employment programs that are put there because people are scared of these crime rates evolving. And also, this is really important: people need to be doing normal work because otherwise, who are you robbing? You cannot rob a grocery store that doesn't employ anyone or make any profit, and also if you reduce that profit, then presumably they still need to exist for you to continue robbing them. So they need to be able to employ more people before that. Opening opposition quickly,
<poi>
So far as OG concedes gangs have economic capital and the literal tool of infinite intimidation, physically they don't need the rank-and-file members to join the church to influence it. In fact, they're more likely to influence it through intimidation when they're angry. But the judge is excommunicating their members; your mechanism is not unique.
</poi>
No, no. So, Tin, you're right, but the intimidation is harder, which Oji also said, by the way. They said that it's harder to go on the street and threaten people because the police exist. But it's not about intimidation; it's about trusting you in the gang in the first place to then get involved, to join that group, to trust that they'll keep their end of the contract up. Because the thing is, in moderate areas, people do have alternatives, and note otherwise has no impact. There's stuff on families and there's stuff about the metaphysical stuff; I'll talk about this in a second, but it's just irrelevant. The counter-fraction is very simple. First, obviously, if you're anti-mafia, you gain a lot more support and funding from the state and from other churches because you have to justify the fact that you need to push these people away. So, law enforcement funds money so that you keep your support systems. But even if you don't, this is an immense signaling effect that makes it very difficult to take the gang members in your church seriously if they do try sneaking in.