text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
Wait repeat from the hammocks part, |
<poi> |
what do you care about more that Stella has a hammock and people are jealous at it, or there's like money in his bank account that He could spend helping people's lives right now, if you, like, wanted to and chose to do so, |
</poi> |
probably that he has billions on his bank account. But I don't know this is, this is like, this doesn't respond to stuff. Again, saying, right? |
So if morality is inherent to human beings, we have to go and this is what both of them are saying we have to go through, go through social contracts to value morality. This means that all the constraints and negative personalities in modern societies of acquiring health are a product of that society as a media. This i... |
So at the end of this debate, we showed that there's something more basic and primitive, like really biological, non physiological, that drives us to have more than the actually necessary at the very moment. But they also show you that in terms of like utility as after this, their world is a weapon. Everyone is equally... |
</ow> |
<pm> |
when the White House is filled with people like John Bolton, the National Security advisor, who are very sure that we can win the war with Iran in a breeze and actually secure Trump's presidency and filling his mind with this horrible nonsense and stuff like that, this is the riskiest and possibly the most horrible tim... |
So, let's talk about what you can get from nuclear energy and stuff like that from this deal. You can get nuclear power plants. This is what they're claiming that they want. They want to develop their country with energy. And notice that with the agreement that specifically allows... and it specifically allows enough e... |
Thirdly, for Israel, it was really sufficient in taking down stuff with hacking, with projects like Stocket, and taking you down even remotely. And fucking you’ll but notice lastly, even if they did have— even if I didn't say any of this, the current estimate of them making a nuclear weapon would be at least 5 years fr... |
So, what is in of the debate? So, let's say risk of escalation of tensions, how say ruining your relationship with people who are actually defending you at the status quo and actually safety. Why is it ruin? Let's say even the best-case scenario where all I said is not true, we still win this debate. A couple of things... |
Notice that Iran has a lot of decentralized units that are operating and that are downing these drones and stuff like that. So, the Iranian military guard and CS are necessarily more decentralized. The central government doesn't have as much influence over them. Why? First of all, because they were needed to, how you s... |
This means that these people are much more... this is why downing of drones happen and stuff like that, which is not necessarily something that Iran should have done. This risk of escalating tension becomes even more pronounced when Trump is now sending more ships and more, how you say, battle carriers in preparation f... |
<poi> |
but your analysis, decentralized stuff, actually proves that if he do the deal, some crazy guy who's a commander might actually shoot. He's... |
</poi> |
no, no, but you know why you know what's the difference in that case? That's not comparative. But what is comparative is more ships on the shores. It's more Trump getting ready to attack the overall idea of people being ready to attack. But even if that's not true, let's say about the EU. The EU is the one who has been... |
Also, expediating... like slowing down the process that I told you before. But also, how you say, your businessmen, your politicians not meeting on relevant playing fields with other politicians where you can influence and bow for other people, not meeting in Dallas, not going to the Yen meetings because you're targete... |
So, safety lastly in the situation, let's say 5 years, but I said... but the last thing as well, even if you develop a nuclear weapon, there's triggers the nuclear race in the Middle East, where also Saudi Arabia gets nuclear weapons and all the other enemies go... go get nuclear weapons because they can. And what was ... |
</pm> |
<lo> |
Chair, adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen. Countries gain power in the world either by being an economic and political powerhouse or by being a military powerhouse. The Iran deal asks Iran to sacrifice their military capabilities in order for them to be able to gain prominence through economic prosperity. Iran is now b... |
We think that will be better at achieving the goals of the Iranian government which is to ensure sustainable economic and political power for Iran and its people. So, we think the reinstatement of sanctions on Iran has hurt their products, their oil exports, and their trading partners have been penalized. You've seen a... |
Firstly, the example they give you of how Trump was minutes away from ordering drone strikes on Iran and then was pulled back is evidence of the fact that there is a check and accountability mechanism on the things that Trump can do. So, when they say it's just him and John Bolton and they can do anything they want, an... |
Thirdly, the example of why an attack is likely to happen is that ships are now near Iran. I would point out that the US has military presence and naval presence all around the world. It is the way that they keep checks on people. They have ships outside of China. No one is saying that it is likely that they are going ... |
So, the only way you get respect from these individuals is if you become a threat because otherwise it's incredibly easy for them to ignore you. The US is likely to respond. It's similar to how it responded before, which is to say engage with Iran rather than attack it for a number of reasons. First, it is an election ... |
For this, that means that the response to this sort of action is overwhelmingly likely to be a stabilizing one by the US rather than one which just attacks them, which is kind of... I think unfounded by the proposition team. No, thank you. The second thing that it can do is it puts pressure on the EU to compensate. The... |
Two, they spend an awful lot of time on this deal, and it's a really good pure win for the European Union. Its success can be shown to be a success and a worthwhile mission as a unifying thing that the US uh that the EU can hold up together as a strong, unified union. I'll take closing in a second, but also because it'... |
<poi> |
so how do you think that the Republican Party will react during those elections you mentioned in order to portray this strongly? |
</poi> |
I still think that it is too polarizing to do that, and there are so many other ways that it's easy for them to portray themselves as strong with respect to the economy, etc. I think that it would be very unlikely that this would be their first port of call. We're going to go to war with an enemy that doesn't really af... |
Thirdly and final point about why this would be bad for the Iranian government. South power, in order for Iran to promote itself in the world, we will have to sign more deals like this in the future to get more allies in different places. That means they will have to make some sacrifices in return for a benefit. They w... |
</lo> |
<dpm> |
This previous speech was a lot of analysis of why it is a bad idea for the United States to engage in armed conflict with Iran. That disregards the analysis in our first speech. We agree it's a bad idea; that still does not mean it will not happen. One of the key reasons why Donald Trump did not launch US air strikes a... |
What is more likely to happen is you will have a few people at the table making these sorts of decisions. We already provide analysis as to why these few people are very, very problematic. Some of the most influential people within the Trump Administration are John Bolton, a gross foreign policy hawk who has called for... |
When Donald Trump, as he has already done so, consults with very few people when it comes to foreign policy decision-making. You have a far higher risk of conflict and escalation. We think that further, there is a large level of decentralization that exists within the decision-making within Iran. What closing ask in th... |
So, if there is a call for escalation, if there are numerous, no thank you, if there are numerous public gatherings, you continue yelling "Death to America," etc. These guys, in a situation where there is further escalation from the United States, where they also have to make decisions reasonably quickly, are far more ... |
But the further point on this is, I don't really understand how gaining nuclear weapons improves your international standing or makes you a bigger superpower. Look at North Korea; it has to improve the standard of life. The second thing I will point out is that yes, nuclear weapons may, to an extent, be a deterrent, bu... |
Now, the U.S. will not engage because it's an election cycle. A few responses here. The first one I will point out is that 2003, the year of the Iraq War, was also in an election cycle. It was one year before the 2004 election; that's exactly the equivalent of this year. The second thing I will point out here is that, ... |
So, yes, completely correct that a war is a terrible idea. The analysis we have provided over the last 12 minutes is why a series of small circumstances are far less likely to happen on our side of the house and lead to this grossly unfortunate turn of events. I will take Closing. |
<poi> |
If Iraq was invaded during an election cycle and with clear proof that no nuclear weapons existed, then how can the premise case be that the United States will be rational and de-escalate if we follow this agreement? |
</poi> |
I find so what the point of this is that U.S. foreign policy can be hawkish in situations, even in situations where there is real proof of nuclear weapons. What I would point out is there has been a massive de-escalation in the years after the Iran nuclear deal, albeit with some aggression from the Republicans. The sec... |
Finally, on the European Union, the responses we get there are that the EU will try to be prominent, but by and large, the EU is not a unified institution. The fact they haven't been able to elect the European government for two months after the election is one proof of this. The point is, though, that they have been s... |
One other thing I will point out is it's not that simple to stop enriching uranium. They have decided on this. Again, that is why negotiations with the Islamic Republic lasted for a decade, again because the decision process is not fully centralized. The final thing, therefore, I do want to point out on the risk of aga... |
</dpm> |
<dlo> |
Two responses in terms of, and then I'm going to talk about U.S. response in this case. Talk about the state of the deal and what can happen in the future in terms of relationships. Let's first talk about responses. In terms of the first thing that they say in the specific case is nuclear weapons don't make you a super... |
The second reason why nuclear weapons or nuclear capacity is important in this case is because it does give you a certain amount of power, even if it doesn't make you a superpower. That's why this deal was struck in the first place, because people recognized that Iran having weapons meant that a compromise had to be ma... |
This is important in the context of trying to establish itself in general. When you approach international deals, when they go the way you don't want them to go, or someone falls back on their side, how you respond to that decides how people treat you in the future in relation to these fields. So, it is particularly im... |
The second thing, though, is that when they say it takes five years to make nuclear weapons, one of the criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal was that it was that Iran might be able to make nuclear weapons in as little as three weeks because while the deal stopped enrichment of uranium, it didn't necessarily stop people ... |
And therefore, their framing in terms of how these powers interact and whether people will take them seriously is actually categorically incorrect, both factually but also to how historically countries have responded to this particular deal on Iran's power, which is important in the context of how seriously countries ... |
But let's actually talk about how irrational these actors are or rather where Trump might get his ideas and how they might be informed. Firstly, their response to the thing about the Joint Chiefs of Staff not mattering is factually untrue in so far as there are advisors to a government, and there are people who have th... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.