text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
The second reason, though, is that if news anchors could inform Trump in one case, why can't they inform Trump in our case? Because there's no reason why newscasters wouldn't take our side in this particular situation where wars are costly, where a deal with Iran or some sort of peaceful agreement with Iran would be be... |
But in general, we think there are three reasons why these people will advise Trump not to get involved in any sort of conflict that could uh that could put put at the region in any sort of term out in general. First of all, these people are generally pro-trade, and so far as Iran has any control over the Strait of Hor... |
Third of all, the threat to Israel. A lot of people in power in the U.S. are Evangelical or have Evangelical Jewish connections such that they would want to protect Israel. In so far as Iran is an enemy to Israel and has threatened Israel in the past, them having any sort of military capability or being militaristic is... |
But also, there a 2003 War happened that was after 9/11. This is not the same as 9/11. They give you no specific reasons why this will necessarily be so much on the national conscience that people would be forced or compelled to be involved in conflict. |
<poi> |
Cool, the EU, Russia, and China said they will uphold the deal if Iran does it too. The problem with this, you think that if they break the deal, they will offer us carrots. The problem is they will offer us sticks because they can push us to this with riling sanctions. |
</poi> |
Yeah, so I'm going to go on to that now, but ultimately what we get here on the proposition case, just to be clear, is that they have achieved no link between Iran making this action and the U.S. response. We've explained to you why, even so far as the U.S. responses are rational, there is more likely to be influence, ... |
And here's the reality: one, EU, Russian, and Chinese businesses have left Iran because the sanctions mean they can't trade with people. Second, businesses using Iranian oil with the connection to the U.S. have been sanctioned and have therefore stopped doing that. The reality is this deal, because it's happened in suc... |
The status quo is there is no renegotiation of the deal happening, but also essentially there's an international sanction on Iran because the people who came back into the country have structured themselves in such a way they can no longer actually beneficially trade with Iran. There are two options: one, we think the ... |
That is the best-case scenario, but that doesn't happen in the status quo where Iran does absolutely nothing. Because the EU, Russia, and China have no incentive to create any difference in Iran's situation in the status quo, Iran does nothing; nothing happens. The reality is Iran is a vulnerable party in this particul... |
</dlo> |
<mg> |
Who you said was right that Western countries would not react would react with hostility to this new nuclear program. What they means is that the most important impact in this debate is not the short-term military effect that this will happen; that sure is more likely there in the house. They oppose that in an governme... |
First of all, two additional rebuttals to the opening opposition. Okay, already opening government, I see that say so a really effective rebuttal that U.S. reducing the pressure because of the electoral period. But I want to add two more. First of all, the mechanism that they say that you want to maintain stability bec... |
And secondly, I think that they do not take this into account in opening half is that these people, the people of Western countries, usually hate Iran very much. They think that they are like a terrorist, that they are like Islamic fighters, that they are really tied to terrorists. We think that this is extremely unlik... |
Now, going to our extension, we have two parts. First,where we think that it's extremely likely that the sanctions will happen not only from the U.S. now but also for the next administration of the U.S. and also for other countries, such as Israel and Europe, etc. First of all, as introduced, because it's a great sense... |
Secondly, for this reason, not yet, for this reason we think that for the voters, it's extremely popular to say that you are doing like an intermediary. You are not attacking this country because war in Europe is extremely unpopular, but you are able to put hard economic sanctions, which are not risky at all, but which... |
So, third, I also think that this works in the past; they think if for many years we put economic pressure over this country and they were forced to to to withdraw the nuclear program at the surrender,that then we have another time that we have another opportunity of doing the same—putting this country on its knees and... |
But what we are sure of, at a 100% chance, is that the United States, Europe, and Israel is not going to respond in an economically friendly way to Iran, but rather with embargoes and sanctions, which will lead for decades of economic stagnation. Thirdly, we think that Iran, after these economic sanctions, are going to... |
And also because we think that due to the economic pressure, it will be very important for the Iranian government to maintain popularity within the country. While you are suffering from stagnation or an economic crisis, it’s really important to find a common enemy outside which is the to to blame for these economic pro... |
What we prove with this argument is that it’s extremely likely that this escalation, at least in economic war, and therefore that Iran is going to be maintained like in the corner of the trap for many years. So what’s the impact of this? We think that, as most of the; I not, sorry I have no time. The The impact of this... |
That means that when you are going to face decades of economic stagnation because nobody is going to buy the oil—which is 20% or 25% of the economy—when all the countries in your region, which have been allied with you, are not going to trade with you, are going to block you, you are going to face a long-term economic ... |
A. It’s much more likely that in the long term, because of this process of economic stagnation, and therefore retaliation from Iran with Hamas and Hezbollah in the long term a war can happen or attack can happen but secondly, |
B. It leads to instability in the Iranian government, just because of this economic situation that will eventually lead to to some protest for it. |
Closing government wants this debate because we are able to prove the most likely thing in this debate, which is not war—no United States invading Iran; that’s like a 10% chance. But what happens in the next decades when the economy of Iran is going to crash because of the economic sanctions? What happens not only for ... |
</mg> |
<mo> |
I've had it with people telling lies and getting away with it because they sound smart. Not happening this time around. Three things in closing opposition: |
1. Why everything in government is sound comparative. |
2. The benefits of a nuclear program far more than the open opposition. |
3. The actual interests of the Iranian government—why this enables them to have legitimacy and power. |
Everything is integrated now. Opening up’s response to the open government is: look, the U.S. is rational and will engage. We don’t care if the open side is right; let’s say that government is completely right. Let’s take their word that the U.S. is completely rational and therefore engages because of John B. feeling T... |
Within their framework, it is incredibly unlikely that the United States will act rationally and de-escalate tensions if Iran complies with this deal for a number of reasons. |
1. Stefan tells a explicit lie, or he has no conception of time. The reason why Iran started developing uranium again is because Trump imposed sanctions on Iran, even after Iran started complying with the deal because He construed the idea that Iran is not complying, and therefore Iran decided that since sanctions happ... |
2. The second Iraq war happened during an election cycle. International inspections of the United Nations proved that there was no evidence of nuclear weapons, yet the United States still invaded, even after it ostensibly democratized. They still retained troops on the ground; they did the same thing in Afghanistan bec... |
3. Both OG and CG want to talk about the narrative of Iran as an evil country. Note that this George Bush Jr. defined them as the axis of evil back in 2001. But since Trump has already construed a narrative that they are breaking a deal—which they were not breaking—there’s fast dependency here. It’s incredibly unlikely... |
It’s very unlikely that the future establishment will back down on that claim because it delegitimizes their foreign policy, and it loses the electoral power because this is what the United States people believe. Exactly this is what CG concedes in their speech. They say people hate Iran; they’re convinced it’s a rogue... |
Iraq is again an example; when you convince people that Iraq has nuclear weapons, even when it’s proven that they didn’t, in order for you to retain legitimacy over your foreign policy and for people not to vote against you, you still have to pretend that they had nuclear weapons, and you still have to go down there, a... |
So essentially, the government concedes our case. Now, Mil is with decentralization. Like, Mil using big words in this debate is not going to help you. Look, having a weaker chain of command means it’s probably more likely that someone is going to go rogue after we sign the deal. |
Again, note also that for religious reasons, most rebels in Iraq and Syria who rebelled against the governments there did so on religious grounds. This government is betraying our vow to fight for our world; they are siding with the enemy who invaded our Muslim brethren. Therefore, we have to rebel against this governm... |
Essentially, again, can see it. Again, just another point for CG. So if you want to talk about sanctions, sanctions probably happen anyway, as I explained with the U.S. They probably also happen with the EU under CG’s framework. If people hate Iran because there are secondary sanctions on companies, every European comp... |
Also, if people really hate Iran, then no country in the EU will openly trade with them, right? Because you don’t want to be ostracized from the international law system if they are a sponsor of terrorism, and you trade with them. By extension, you can become a sponsor of terrorism, which means that in all negotiations... |
Moving on to benefits now—developing nuclear weapons. First of all, I’d like to point to an example of North Korea, which is the most isolated country in the fucking world, and they still manage to develop a nuclear weapon. And Yes, it’s right that they did not improve their standard of life, but it also meant that alt... |
But even if that’s not true, the belief that we have nuclear weapons is incredibly important. It’s a stronger measure Milo gives you because even if the government is completely right and everyone is hawkish, the belief that we have nuclear weapons is something that’s going to help us. Look, the entire Trump administra... |
Note that even if Trump knows that they do not, he still has to get approval from Congress under the War Powers Act of 1974 to send troops down to the ground. Most countries work this way. At the end, this means that if people believe that a country has nuclear weapons, even if it doesn’t, it’s probably not going to be... |
We need to keep reinforcing this deal and show the people that we indeed have nuclear weapons, which is something that the U.S. is not going to deny because they are credible threats to Iran. Under OG’s metric, the U.S. is a credible threat. |
So, the U.S. promised Libya they wouldn’t be attacked, and it was attacked. Saudi Arabia shows intentions to attack; it attacked Yemen directly. It blocks Qatar, which is one of its main trading partners. Israel has religious reasons for a preemptive strike because it believes that under Shia Islam, Iran will want to b... |
Therefore, as long as there is no credible deterrent in the form of nuclear weapons, all countries surrounding Iran have shown a tendency to attack other countries when they believe that the calculus is in their fucking favor. Look, Israel is also an example for our side as well in terms of nuclear weapons. Before that... |
<poi> |
cool, yeah, there’s a comparison at the end of the debate is judged by the risk of escalation. The problem on your side then becomes that the path to nuclear weapons, which is not instant by Trump’s metric weeks... |
</poi> |
Okay, sure, the first part was answered by the first five minutes of my speech. The second will be answered now. |
Is also an excellent example of nuclear deterrence; there were four Arab-Israeli wars, the last one happening in 1974. 1974 was the year Israel acquired nuclear weapons. The USSR, which was in the Cold War and on the edge of the Cuban Missile Crisis, never engaged in a full-scale war. |
Siri, go India and Pakistan admit it; it’s regionalized. Yes, exactly the point. Not until 1945 did we have cycles of 30 to 40 years of countries going to full-scale wars when their territory would be invaded and their cities bombarded. Now we have a reduced explosiveness; Kashmir and proxy war. That’s probably compara... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.