Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k
So first of all, because of the chicken versus the egg—it’s already talked about this—because the U.S. unilaterally stopped the deal and started massing forces, implementing sanctions. These are things that happen regardless of what Iran is doing or not doing in this debate because of the narrative of excess evil, because of the narrative that like this was Obama’s thought and the deal was not tight enough to begin with because of the perception of having nuclear weapons. All these things mean that the United States is acting hostile towards Iran and stuff like this.

But secondly, because of their very own analysis of Trump, it does not want the escalation because it’s not in their interest because they are fish, and they build their power based on this. But also, they have intensified the conflict unnecessarily to start off with, which means that in so far as they see—but this is going to cause further escalation from the Iranian perspective—if someone else is de-escalating the conflict to start off with, there’s no reason for you to act in a game theory of de-escalation because appeasement doesn’t work if they are escalating the conflict in this way.

So the only reason for you to fight this is if you show strength, and if the balance of power is recaptured again and stuff like this. These are the same people who sponsored the Iraq War. So their side of the house, the perfect case, I grant you nuclear weapons, is still likely that they are going to portray them as having nuclear weapons and attack them or impose sanctions and stuff like this.

<poi>
Yes, cool, we give you five structural reasons why getting a nuclear weapon will take a long time, and in this period, every actor—not just the U.S.—has the urgency to escalate, the spectrum of tools becoming more hardline in sanctions. So it can get worse than it is in the status quo.
</poi>

Yeah, so you gave me reasons that you thought up in your speech, which do not represent reality. We already talked about how North Korea was able to develop the nuclear weapon. They literally did this under sanctions for years, I guess, right?

So the Iranian nuclear deal is not something that was happening in open space, and they were like, "Oh, I need to trade with these people to develop a nuclear reactor," because no one is going to trade with them. Literally, no one wants to have nuclear weapons from the surrounding countries, and they need to go to these countries to get to them, which means that this program from the very start was something that was ready to go dark, develop under sanctions.

The problem could easily be established, as they literally just did like the last week when they started enriching uranium again and stuff like this, right? On the idea of decentralization of Iranian forces, which is the only me you say, but there are other things that could go wrong, but you never mention what are these things comparatively.

From the Iranian perspective, you say that decentralization of Iranian forces and stuff like this consolidation happened after the draw. It was possibly that this was something that was mandated from the central government and stuff like this. One fanatic who is anti-al, because he feels like we are surrendering to the United States, is enough to push your mechanism through and actually act opposite to what the interests of these conflicts are.

But it’s more likely that damaging weapons are more centralized on their side of the house. So there might be this random guy with the bazooka who can probably do some damage to some extent, but if you have more sophisticated weapons, these weapons are more likely under control of the government, which means at this point it is very weak in its impact on this debate.
</ow>
<pm>
As in every narrative debate, we need to separate two things. What is the scope and the effect that this narrative has? Because people in the debate often time pretend that narrative is everything and it will like shift it one way or the other. The realistic scenario of how this plays out is there are some biological urges that urge you to fight the illness, not fight, but like to combat the illness, try to overcome it anyway because you want to live, you don't want to die, you have family, you have friends, you have all of these things. So the power of the narrative is more subtle and this is what this debate is about. The power of the narrative is how you interact with the illness psychologically and second of all how others interact with your illness influence in your psychology as well in this situation. So let's talk about some other pieces of framing. One, so there are different people, people are different, right? Everybody has their own life philosophy and how they're going to life.
Right. And people who have the right philosophy will see the world as a battle generally like I'm a story kind of defeating all of these things there. Regardless of the narrative most likely going to have this narrative because it works for them because that's their, how do you say, life philosophy. Right. What is narrative changes. So that's non-comparative. What is narrative changes particularly is that these pushes people who do not have this life philosophy or this life philosophy does not necessarily suit their psychological needs to adopt this narrative and necessarily
look at there illness in that way? And that can be horrible because it skews their choices and makes them cope with illness less and makes them psychologically vulnerable. How does this manifest? How does this look like? Usually this manifest in a way when you tell people and when you have the illness, what are these people saying to you? Oh, you will overcome this. You will definitely defeat these fires. You don't worry. Not sure that's the smidgen of pessimism usually around these people. People are usually awkward around people who have terminal illness or illness overall because they also don't want to
It's a denial process, right? You don't want to cope with the fact that your friend might die, father might die, or somebody like this. But we are saying that this coping, that this pushing under the rug is actually bad for both parties because it pushes conversations away that are necessary to happen for these people to have good psychological states and die in peace, which is in some cases inevitable under their side of the house. So expectations if you're a fighter, right? Like we have association with what does it mean to be a fighter. Your brain, you're not showing weakness.
So we don't see that it always manifests in that extreme way, but it definitely pushes you to be more in that line and hide some of the doubts that you have, hide some of the questions. So let's talk about why this has impacted, why is this so important, right? We believe there's a huge, some people might not overcome their illness. A lot of people might not overcome their illness, especially because this notion has the majority of the impact where people are actually worried, which is terminally illness or lost lifetime illness or something because if it's like cold who the fuck cares, doesn't even hold it in the association so we believe that process of coping with the disease or dying potentially from a disease is something that is very like like that you need to go through right but we believe that this narrative is putting you through that process alone because one of the ways to cope with that process is to cope with the possibility that you are mortal you will die and that it will not go good for you in association and this is the thoughts that you
already have in your head, right? But the problem is with this narrative, you're pushing these thoughts aside. You're never engaging with these thoughts until it's too late. The problem is you rise your expectation as well of what will happen and how it will happen, which leads to a lot of cases of depression and additional psychological illnesses on top of you having a terminus illness, rather than engaging with the possibility that you are going to die making, to some extent, your peace with it and necessarily leaving the rest of these with less pain and necessarily because psychological pain in this case, I would say it's even worse the dread of one day is coming making like peace but the problem is you are alone in this battle. If other people are awkward around talking uh talking about this sort of situation and they're telling you all these toxically positive stuff you will overcome definitely don't ever say that you are giving up and all these things because i saw these things in my family, right? this is how, this is how it works in the majority of the families, right? when my grandpa was was dying in the association, they sounds like these people don't understand. it sounds like if you're having these thoughts that these people don't want to face these thoughts with you and it's pushing them aside, which means that you're not having conversations with them against us. Sometimes this conversation is crucial, right? Talking to your family, the possibility that you're going to die. It will be painful. You will cry. It will be horrible, but it will be 10 times more horrible pushing that under the rock and counting that it will become a bit better just the passage of time. So this catharsis and psychological well-being of people is being harmed by their inability to
talk to these people, to cry with these people, and to have this cathartic experience of coping with something that is so horrible in dissociation. But it also skews you into continuing the fight. The fight is not always good, right? In some cases, you will die no matter what. In some cases, you are going to live with the term, with the illness, your whole life in dissociation. Coping in the fight mechanisms means that you're fighting in any ways necessary to give yourself a chance. Five percent, one percent, ten percent, right? Which means that you're going through something
very horrible procedures, going through surgery, going, maybe even going to chemotherapy that in some cases where people don't want it, going to alternative medicine, which all have side effects that can make your life in the last couple of years of your life, make it even worse than it is living with the terminal disease, which means at last moments of your Earth and we have only one life are spent trying to combat this, going from hospital to hospital, to hospital in association, going into depth because of it, feeling guilty because you're in depth because your family is in depth.
because of it. So you have all of these psychological burden in you. Some people might choose to do this still, right? With or without narrative because they want to fight because this is something, but this is narrative is skewing that choice from them. He's taking that choice away to meaningfully think about the potential, the potential that they might want to give up, that they might want to live the last few days on this earth with their family on a cabin doing nothing or just, just shivering the moment rather than being in bed, shame, then
a lot of procedures that means fighting the terminally illness are horrible. Are you bringing a lot of pain to that person, to their family, to the people around them? It also brings despair because the more you're doing it and the more you're losing this fight, it brings you to even worse psychological state, which means in the fact that you cannot stop and that you cannot sometimes say, I've had enough, I'm tired, I'm horrible, that you are afraid of this feeling by yourself because the society has ingrained in you that you should be brave, that you should be
that you should be a fighter because your family told you that you should be brave, that you should be a fighter because you have nobody to confide in. It means that sadly, under their side of the house, these people are usually dying alone, under the physical pain, but also huge emotional and psychological pain that is horrible. In this situation, we believe that biology doesn't change. People will still fight illness, but when it's time to give up, we give them a peaceful and dignified death that these people deserve. That's why you should definitely vote opening government. Thank you very much.
</pm>

<lo>
The narrative that someone can fight and defeat cancer is one that we think opening opposition is deeply empowering because it says that this illness is not something that is internal and intrinsic to you, but it is something that is external to you and something that you can fight and get over. That is a narrative that we want to preserve for individuals to help them get over illnesses, to help them cope with illnesses, and to help society have greater support for people with illnesses. That's why we're going to be so proud to oppose. What I want to do is two things. One, I'm going to talk about how this affects people who are impacted by illnesses as well as their families doing some responsiveness to what we just got out of opening government and second of all I am gonna talk about the societal implications of this narrative. So, before that though i want to do some brief kind of rebuttal and framing against some of stuff that we have heard out of opening government because i think a lot of stuff is about how this is harmful for people who are coping with the illnesses, number one the number one thing that i am gonna say is that I'll give you analysis on how this is actually empowering for people and thinking about themselves in a battle against this illness is actually something that gives them a lots of hope and fulfillment and makes them feel empowered and more happy as they are coping with the illness. Same thing with their family. But the second thing to say is that on weighing in this debate, even if opening government manages to prove that they get a slightly better experience for the people who are going to die, we think that is still less important than preventing people from dying and suffering from a large amount of pain from this illness in the first place. We are fine on opening opposition with instrumentalizing people to an extent. If we have to accept that, if we can mean that less people suffer from this illness and less
people die. And the reason why we know that this is true and this is something the weighing that you should perform in this debate is because if we just think intuitively, would you rather someone is able to cope with their illness better, but still dies of that illness or doesn't die at all? Obviously, you would rather people don't die at all. So all of our material there is going to outweigh opening government, even if they manage to win on helping people cope with death and die with more dignity. So one, how does this benefit people affected by this illness? The first thing this narrative does is it gives people who are struck
with this illness, a sense of hope and empowerment. The most substantial thing about this narrative and the notion of illness as a fight and as a battle is about viewing illness as an enemy, something that you are fighting against. And I think there are two key things that I want to remark about that particular view and that particular narrative. The first thing that I want to observe is that this view frames illness as something that is external to you and not core to who you are. And second of all, this narrative frames your life as one in which you have agency
in which you have the power and the ability to fight back against that illness. And indeed the analysis for Milos would suggest that I am correct. Why is this important? The first reason this is important is because we think that the perils of dealing with an illness are such that it seeps into every aspect of your life. It affects your ability to see your family, to enjoy your everyday life passions, because you're constantly stuck in a hospital bed. You're constantly being given treatments and medications from other people. And it's easy for you to feel like your fate
the hands of other people, it is not something that you can control. And because you lose all senses of normalcy, it is easy for you to begin to view this illness as intrinsic to you and intrinsic to who you are. But with this narrative, it is something that allows you to feel more empowered because you feel like this illness is external to you. It is something you are fighting against. And crucially, even if you don't end up winning against this illness, this allows you to feel more happy as you fight it for that reason and be more hopeful, which is a huge good
for these individuals. Because we think psychological harms, as OG has conceded, are some of the greatest harms that illnesses inflict upon individuals. But second of all, and more critically, this gives people a sense, as I've said, a sense of choice and agency and causes people to actively work to combat their illness. I want to fight back here against the framing that we get out of the prime minister, because the framing they give us is that people who want to fight against illness will already do so in the status quo. And what this choice is
about, what this narrative is about, is it's about boxing in people who do not want to feel like they are fighting against the illness to fight against the illness. But that is not true. The reason why that is not true is because we think in these situations, there is a huge natural tendency for people to become hopeless and despondent for the reasons I've identified, because having this illness being stuck in a hospital changes your life to such a significant extent. And furthermore, just I think it's just intuitively natural for people to be feeling despondent and hopeless in a sense
situation in which they are told that they only have a couple more years to live, that they have a terrible illness. So I think what this narrative does is it fights back against the natural tendency of people to be hopeless and despondent in a manager that encourages them to fight back against their illness. This is important because you need people to buy into treatments and medication in order for them to work. Medication and treatments are not magical spells that make you better. They are incredibly difficult processes and very arduous journeys. Chemo has hair loss, nausea, general feelings of lethargic
and it makes it harder for you to enjoy your life. So having a psychological belief that you can fight against this is massively important. But it's not only important for people to feel hope and a degree of happiness during difficult times, but it also keeps them motivated. But also just intrinsically and scientifically, having people who are more motivated to fight against the illness helps during treatment. Studies have shown that complying and cooperating with treatment, having a strong and stable mental game, believing that you can fight against this illness, that you can win,
in this battle has significant effects on the success of that treatment. Our psychology is not distinct from our physiology and from our physical conditions. And when people believe that they can fight against this illness, they are more likely to defeat this illness that has been proven through studies. But even if they are not, and this is the most critical impact in this debate because of the framing I gave you at the start, but even if people are not likely to fight this to a significant enough extent such that before I move on, I'll take CG.

<poi>
What's the mechanism that people are going to believe this just because everybody else tells them they need to be a fighter?
</poi>

I mean, i think even opening government has bought into this mechanism, that people are influenced by this narrative. so i am not sure what you're getting at. you'd have to prove more that people don't buy into this narrative. and as i told you, there's a natural tendency for these people to feel hopeless. so now this means that people are more likely to fight against this illness, more likely to survive, or even if they don't survive, they're more likely to have less pain, because they comply and buy into these treatments and that makes their life easier.
Also, all of my analysis here applies to family members as well. Family members are more likely to feel hopeful in this situation. Secondly, on societal impacts. I think that this narrative is not solely individualistic. We also think of ourselves as having a societal fight against breast cancer or societal fight against COVID. But even if that's not true, even to the extent that this is individualistic, when you believe that individuals are fighting against something, you believe that they can defeat it. And thus, as a member of society, you are more likely to support
efforts to help them defeat it. And that looks like research funding research into cures and funding research into drugs, etc. that make these people's lives more bearable. So it is deeply unclear that opening government makes life better for people in terms of when they're coping for this illness. And regardless of that, we make it more likely that people survive from this illness. That's the most important thing in this debate. And for that reason, we oppose.
</lo>

<dpm>
What we heard from Sharma is bunch of coherent arguments, why people fear hospital? What we heard from the leader of opposition is linguistically in a nice way said words that are not actual arguments, i am going to deal with that but before that just to remind you of some pieces of framing that you already presented in this debate. What do narratives do? We regret most of the narratives that exist in society. Narratives put you into a certain model of behavior that gives you social expectation that you act in a certain way because if you don't act in a certain way, you're not to signal certain virtue that you have. In this debate, to be concrete, you're signaling the virtue of courage, bravery, fighting, and all those things that happen. We say when in some instances, like regarding illness, some narrative is so dominant, it is inherently harmful almost for any narrative that exists because it puts you in this
And the specificities of life is bad and many have said in Milos speech have not been responded by leader of the opposition. But to tell you if you want to fight two responses, if you want to fight, if you're the person who views life that way, you can view life in nine different ways, you're already going to fight, you're going to tell your parents or your family, or I'm going to fight them and everyone's going to tell you, yeah, you fight this fight. So what we want is one of the reasons why we want is
to give people more freedom and more choice in how they approach this disease. If you want to approach it in a fight, you don't need narrative to do so. What narrative does is accuse people who do not want to perceive it as a fight into perceiving it as a fight. And this is where the problem and this is where most of the problem arises. What we heard from OP other than this framing, which was very important, we heard that you perceive it as something external. What kind of, I'm sorry, bullshit line of analysis
disease. If I don't feel bravery, I'm not feeling that cancer is external. I'm feeling that it is somehow part of my identity. Just because you say something is external, it doesn't make any logical sense. Most people want to live healthy lives if they have disease, and they will do everything with the disease that's in their power to help their health get better because of biology, because we're evolutionary condition that we want to live life. And no, you're not going to say, oh, cancer, I myself, it sounds good for some dialectics philosophy and things like that. Not really good for
not really good for a BP argument. It gives you agency. I told you one, many people will still feel even without this narrative that they are brave. But secondly, it takes away agency from those people who do not want to act to be brave, who want to talk to their friends and to their parents, to tell them how horrible they feel because they got that disease, but they cannot do this. And why? This is really crucial because if everyone signals the virtue, you're so brave, you're so brave, my love you will survive, you will be this. Then when you get all those virtues, you yourself become a inhibited and don't want to talk about problems that you have, because you're getting all those confirmations on how great you are, how they are. And many people, maybe 50% of the people in the world, wasn't like that. Maybe they would like to talk to their husbands and wife and say, I really feel bad about this. I feel bad. And then we have the conversation that Milos tells you, we shall get to certain closure in the cases of terminal ill patients or those who are most likely, or those or those who are most likely, or those who are most likely.
Most likely, or those were most likely going to die. So if more if more people are going to survive because of this narrative,
with all the medicine you wanted to survive, we believe that this statement just doesn't say in this debate. Regarding scientific stuff in debates, we say there are a bunch of other scientific studies that show completely opposite of what our opposition states, this equally valuable argument and this equally good argument in this debate. Let's go a bit further there regarding this hope that is helping us survive. This hope is not actual hope. It is very often a performative hope. Someone telling you hope
hope that there is hope just for the sake of telling you there is. And then when this starts going on and on, you still miss on those conversations that you still miss your conversation that Milos just told you about. What this causes you, this causes you to be alone and why this causes you to be alone because narrative pushes people to think one dimensionally inside of this narrative and to signal the virtue. So you don't talk about people regarding this and you put it all inside you. So you're going to feel psychologically worse. So if psychology is influencing, then 50% of people are being psychologically
worse because of it because of this narrative, then they're going to be less healthy and more people are going to die if they really want to run those kinds of impacts. Furthermore, what Milos told you, they completely disregard this, how this narrative is skewing your legitimate choice. Many people who have horrible diseases want and should have the free choice to do things such as assisted suicide or things like that. They're heavily, heavily stigmatized in our society already as it is. So what often happens is that
People do not cannot rethink that choice because they're so afraid of the social stigma that's going to happen even if they're ill They don't even retain their choice then later for 30 40 years many people may have may feel regret about this, you know, there are many people who even we Who even we will confess to this after years of being After years of being ill that maybe it will be better for someone that they have taken in a dignified way their life away this perfectly legitimate try that it's completely skewed because of this toxic positivity and
toxic virtue signaling that uh and toxic which is courageously healing hat that occurs in this debate. I want closing if you have POI, please. Then opening.

<poi>
As i told you in my speech, the natural human tendency for people when they are told that they have six months left to live is to be hopeless. so this narrative actually helps people who want to be hopeful. be hopeful. your framing is incorrect.
</poi>

No, the natural tendency of people is that they want to survive because of biology. If doctor already tells you you have, you know, you have probably six months to live, what is much better is not to think, Oh, yes, you have, maybe you will beat it. You will beat it as Milos tells you and then not have conversations with your friends, with your family about what may happen if you die, what happens in the after all, and all these other important philosophical questions that I guess, I don't know. I don't have that personal experience. The man who is, you know, soon going to die wishes to have in order to have this closure in the moment before they die. But even without terminal reasons, if you talk about
multiple sclerosis, other autoimmune diseases, this narrative of bravery, what it does, it pushes people away. Okay, if your friend or family member has autoimmune disease, and you're like, yeah, you're so brave, you're so brave, then and you get all the time this, you know, dopamine rush, because people are telling that you're so brave, you don't want that to be lost. And then you avoid having difficult conversations about how your life, your life tends to be changed. What does this mean? This means this creates a chilling effect with your personal community with other people, just goes deeper and deeper and deeper
years go by where you never have the appropriate conversations that you wanted to have with these people. As Milos already told you, if this narrative doesn't exist and people want to feel that they want to feel a warrior-like mentality when they're this, they're still going to do this because people are still going to approve of someone fighting for their life. So at the end of this debate, really not much is lost on side government. But those people who are skewed into certain type of social behavior get really bad off, proud to propose.
</dpm>

<dlo>
Honorable panel, it takes courage to live. It takes courage to live when the only world that you've known for the past few months, for the past few years of your life is pain. It takes courage to say, I want to push through this. I want to go through and I want to be alive. That courage isn't something that comes naturally to people. And it's not something that OG can just assert that
Oh, you have the biological will to live because biology doesn't give you that courage. What it does is it sends you into despair. It makes you scared of death, makes you scared of the endless abyss of not knowing what happens when you die. We want to give people hope on opening opposition. We want to let them know that they have control over their own lives and that they are able to find a way out. And even if they do end up losing that battle in the end, to give them something to cling onto until their very last breath is something that we find vitally important, incredibly proud to oppose.
Three things in the speech. Firstly, I want to talk about the framing of this debate. After that, I want to talk about the individual psychological impacts. And lastly, I want to move on to the larger societal perception and impacts, which we see opening government has completely missed. Firstly, on the framing, who's affected under this debate? Because I think a lot of people in this debate are going to die regardless, right? And I think only centers are case on that. But there's something really important is that a huge majority of those people are diagnosed with a terminal illness several months prior
to which they will actually die. That's to say that they are forced to face their own reality and which that's when they talk about coping with laws, picking and losing fight, right? They often characterize these as refusing as denying death right up until the day that you die, but that's often not true. In many of the cases that they hinge their case on, people already get their terminal diagnosis many months in advance. Note that this severely mitigates the OG case because a lot of the things that they think they're winning are actually non-mutually exclusive within this debate in which the things that they talk about are going to happen regardless.
right? These are not the group of people who think that, oh, I have to fight this battle. It's the people who have a hook of living, who are not diagnosed as terminally ill, but still have a chance to live. These are the people in which the narrative affects most profoundly, right? So what is this narrative? What does it look like in Opp.? And crucially, what is the comparative on-site government? On Opp., we talk about fighting and two very key important aspects of this narrative. But one, that it frames illness as something external to you. And secondly, is that it frames illness as something that you have agency over, that your life, you have agency over.
the OG comparative is that you frame illness as an affliction, right? that's the narrative, is that it's something internal to you, and that your life is not as deterministic. it says outcome has already been decided. note that these weren't just assertions that we made. i don't think OG can get away with just being like, oh, this is bullshit biology, right? because tyson gives you a lot of analysis. as to why this is the natural tendency, we're scared of death, and often no matter how religious you are in many circumstances, you don't know what's going to happen to you we are naturally scared of death.
What that means is it sends us into a pool of anxiety. Similar for viewing illness as something internal to you, Tyson talks about how coping and dealing with treatments is something that consumes your life. It's so easy to view that as something intrinsic to you. These weren't just things that can be talked about. Oh, biologically you have an incentive to survive because biologically a lot of bad things shouldn't happen. We shouldn't develop depression and yet we do. Those are valuable and important things that we all solve for on the side. Right. So we'd say the idea of fearing death of losing heart rate
and viewing illness as something that is part of you as opposed to something you're fighting is true for almost all people. It contains the entire scope of the debate that we're talking about. And then on opposition, we help everyone to some degree. Even people who are battle-hardy need this confirmation, need the courage, and especially people who are more likely to give up, the people who are riddled with doubts, the people whose anxiety plagues them every single night, unable to sleep, right? It's important that we give those people the hope that they can cling onto. That being said,
I want to talk about the individual psychological impacts. Firstly, undergoing the process of treatment. I want to talk about the worst case, even in the worst case in which that person is going to die anyways. We prefer that that person can cling onto hope to the day that they die. And their work, what did I write here? I would say that this is really important because in many people and evidently throughout society, in their worst moments and their often most hopeless moments, people want to cling onto something. It gives them a place of mental comfort,
and you can see this in religion in the sense of luck. People will believe in these things even if they rationally might not completely understand them, even if they can't rationally convince themselves that it's true, they cling onto those things because it gives them comfort. And that's something that we think is inherent to almost every single human being. That's why people don't fall into pits of despair all the time because they cling onto that hope, they cling onto the faith, even if it's maybe not something that they rationally believe in, though, thank you, I'll take a POI from OG, maybe you're in a bit. It's still something that we'll cling onto and it's something that we can all
bring them comfort. But we also say that this helps their family. It's important for their family to be able to also have hope. Seeing your loved one go through treatment, seeing your loved one go through despair is not something to be taken lightly. And giving your family hope, the idea that things can turn out okay, that this person might survive is also vital. But secondly, the likelihood of success. This is Hella important. This is very important because life, it's beautiful. Life is incredibly beautiful. And I think in a lot of cases, the most important thing in this debate is to preserve that life.
Tyson talks about why the likelihood of successive treatment is much higher in our South house, because your psychological well being is actually closely tied with how well you're able to treat right, how accepting you are those treatments, how much you're going to take them regularly, how much you cooperate doctors, but also just your general emotional physical state is something often dependent on whether you have hope. That's because we can increase just the number of people who are able to survive, see another day, spend another month with their loved one, perhaps another year, another decade, building those bonds. So thank you. That's the impact that we think is winning this debate. But I want to deal with their case, because they talk about firstly, coping with loss. I said that this already gets mitigated. No. Thank you. In most cases, people have to cope with loss once beforehand. That's something that they naturally have to accept when faced with it, right? They're unable to dilute. But also say that when they talk about other people, so that people around you, those people are usually also accepting that if you tell them, I don't want to die and hear me out, and if you expose your emotional vulnerability, those people usually don't say, No, fuck off. I don't want to listen to you. They're usually understanding of your pain and where you're coming from,
and their first instinct is to reach out to you and listen to what you have to say. So I think a lot of the cases in which OG hinges their case on aren't applicable here. People are naturally empathetic and that a lot of people are forced to accept. So let's talk about the worst cases that OG thinks in which what they say is true. I'd say that it's really important, at least even in those cases when you're losing hope, it's important for the people around you to not see that they don't lose hope. That the people around you still believe in you because that affects how you believe in yourself. Talking about difficult fights now, right? This is also mitigated
significantly, but I want to say the cases, right? The people who are regretting alive versus the people who are glad that they had the courage to live. There's a reason why suicide survivors are often grateful of the fact that they're still alive. It's because when you're in pain, it's easy to forget about all the beautiful moments of life, right? But that doesn't mean that they aren't real, and that doesn't mean that it's not worth living another day. It's on all of those basis because we give those people a shimmer of hope in the last moments or for the rest of their lives, we're incredibly proud to oppose.
</dlo>

<mg>
The particular piece of news that opening opposition misses is that agency is a subjective term or the illness and the grief and denial associated with it are processed over a long period of time and based on different people’s desires, happiness, and personality they create different responses. Some people need a fighters encourager than a pep talk, suddenly, the shoulder to cry on. Notably, the same people may need different things at different points in time, and no team in this debate has the epistemic access to say which one is true in the majority of cases, the most important impact therefore, is you're able to access your support structure based on your definition of the problem, regardless what you need, but you're sure that the people around you, or at least some of them, will confirm that they understand how you feel, and therefore that you can ask type of support that you need. This is where the counterfactual comes in, very handy, and it's interesting that opening government did not provide one know who the counterfactual is. People are naturally diverse in their beliefs within their religious or moral in their experiences and in their views of life which are determined by the sum of those experience which means that if I get cancer, the three of my closest friends, probably naturally will not react in the same way, right? Which grants me some kind of flexibility as to who I want to talk to, I know who my friends and family are, I know the way they react, and therefore based on my needs at a particular point in time, I can just be confined in one or the other and therefore have a toolbox at my disposal to access this support structure. The narrative shifts this artificially because it doesn't just work with the family as opening government says, also goes to the media, right? You're probably going to Google things you want to get some kind of confirmation your friend will live. And you will Google success stories, all of these success stories when they go on Ellen DeGeneres, or when they have long articles in The Guardian talk about people who fought the disease, found positivity in their life, and they prevail. Notice the skew distribution, because you only see the people who survive. Dead people don't talk. But this artificially shifts the belief in the people who surround you, the Connect fighting to survival, and they change the way they react to you, even if they naturally wouldn't, which is the key mechanism to mechanize government in this debate? What is the counterfactual? Then the counter patch is a narrative of free choice, and this is something that's already happening in a lot of other similar areas. For example, in the mental health awareness community, there is a lot of backlash against the term of toxic positivity. So the idea that you should look at everything through like the most rosy sunglasses, you should find it you should focus on the sunny side. They say, No, everyone carries their own cross and their own burden, and given that we cannot fully understand what they are, we need to make the greatest possible effort to understand their definition of the problem.
This is a trend that's already happening, not in professional areas like psychology, but particularly also in social media, where people very often go for solace, notes, subreddits, and pages like the Rt Dot. This means that given that this is therefore also a narrative, the most likely counterfactual given the majority of people, particularly like young progressive people who push this narrative, this is then tied to survival. The idea that if we accept the definition of our friends problem, and if you offer them the kind of support they need, they're more likely to get through this easily, which therefore then mechanize with all wants and we get more efficient , also goes to the media, right? You're probably going to Google things you want to get some kind of confirmation your friend will live. And you will Google success stories, all of these success stories when they go on Ellen DeGeneres, or when they have long articles in The Guardian talk about people who fought the disease, found positivity in their life, and they prevail. Notice the skew distribution, because you only see the people who survive. Dead people don't talk. But this artificially shifts the belief in the people who surround you, the Connect fighting to survival, and they change the way they react to you, even if they naturally wouldn't, which is the key mechanism to mechanize government in this debate? What is the counterfactual? Then the counter patch is a narrative of free choice, and this is something that's already happening in a lot of other similar areas. For example, in the mental health awareness community, there is a lot of backlash against the term of toxic positivity. So the idea that you should look at everything through like the most rosy sunglasses, you should find it you should focus on the sunny side. They say, No, everyone carries their own cross and their own burden, and given that we cannot fully understand what they are, we need to make the greatest possible effort to understand their definition of the problem.
But let's take opening opposition at their best within this debate. Let's say that survival is a benefit in and of itself, although we're unsure like this. The narrative that they're pushing is harmful for health. The idea that you should not seek emotional support because you will burden others, or this will show that you are weak, the idea that you doubt whether or not you are too weak and whether or not you're burdened people around you too much is emotional stress on the body. It makes you uncomfortable to discuss
your issues. This kind of doubt, this kind of stress has literal physiological reactions in terms of how your body copes with its illness. Stress is one of the primary predictors of survival or death from terminal illnesses insofar as your emotional state is likely to be extremely vulnerable in that situation and you're likely to think that you are not doing enough this harms your capacity to respond to the illness but secondly it affects the decisions you make. You are less likely to want to force your family to like take a credit or whatever
to pay for your treatment. You're less likely to delegate duties to family and friends, things you would otherwise do, but now you cannot because you have to preserve your strength. You are less likely to be careful in so far as you're going to expose yourself to more risks, to more strain, or even like to more health hazard because sometimes leaving the house is a risk of exposing yourself to infection because you want to show on the outside that you're positive, that you're retaining a positive outlook and that people around you can live their lives normally, shifting that kind of behavior, meaning shifting that type of normalcy. But this means that you deplete your strength, this emotional and physiological strain is what exacerbates your symptoms, makes your body and your mind less able of reacting to that disease. So insofar as they want to prevent harm in the form of people well dying, they are more likely to exacerbate that, but they're also more likely to have a harm, inherently, insofar as the symptoms themselves are worse, and the family also sees this, and it's a harm in the family. The reason why this thing is the debate is because it takes opposition at their highest ground, even if we say that survival is a parent goal in this round. But the last thing I want is guilty, and the mechanism of how guilt works. Before we move on to how that works, opening opposition.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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