Datasets:
utkarsh2105
/
DebateBench

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
9.69k
<poi>
An inherent part of a fight is struggle. you're allowed to struggle in a fight, and you're allowed to show that struggle this narrative, isn't about strength. it is about struggle inherently?
</poi>
Yes, if we discuss it theoretically, know that even the strongest people are likely to move towards doubt in these situations, you are facing the strongest existential dread you have ever faced. Everything around you all support structures and feelings of protein are grumbling. This means that the negativity is probably the rational psychological reaction insofar as they're already going through grief and physiological strain so you're less able to rationalize and move towards positivity which means even if what you're saying is rational you're more likely to perceive the situation as if it is a lost cause as if you cannot talk to others as if you are being a burden on them that's the key difference and this also plays very well into how my point works how does guilt work and i explained this earlier when we see representations in the media right people are very often commended for the fact that they fought you are such a fascinating person you are so selfless, you devoted yourself to your family and let them live a normal life, even though you are fighting so hard. This creates a perception or to be a good person, to be selfless. But all of us want you need to be like them. Otherwise, you underachieving. You're not achieving the bar set for being a selfless person in this kind of situation, and it feeds into the doubt you're already feeling. They're very susceptible to this. So even if the people around you are empathetic, as opening opposition says, you're less likely to want to access that empathy insofar as you think that saying that you have a problem, saying that you need someone to do something for you is inherently bad and makes you feel like you're losing the struggle. But secondly, if you survive, and this is very important one, you're very likely to feel survival guilt, because you will feel that every situation where your survival was dependent on others was something you have to repay them for, and you feel a feeling of death rather than being able to enjoy relationships in your life normally. But secondly, you're also likely to feel contempt for people that do not fight this transit into your other relationships, people who need your emotional support, into how you raise your children. You're more likely to push them to be fighters, because you connected that to survival, and you will not give other people the support they need if they're different from you, which is a third party harm in this debate for all of these reasons, we beg to vote for closing.
</mg>
<mo>
We are going to close the gap in the opening opposition we're going to explicitly explain you why in absence of this narrative, the alternative narrative that is going to be created, also engaging with CG, is going to be more problematic and worse for people with terminal diseases rather than not. But just before that, let's clarify one thing. There are multiple different types of diseases that aren't like cancer. Like for example, autoimmune diseases also exist that are like threatening, but aren't to the same extent as this. And treatment and early treatment towards these sorts of things can drastically make the life better of different types of people. This is very important when we get to
impact of the debate. One point of rebuttal towards causing government rest of it is integrated. We think that the choice about you coming out to people isn't as free as they claim to be. It's usually binary. Why? Because when you tell one person, they're likely to tell the other person because they think that this is an important news that many people need to know in this particular moment. So when your thoughts are definitely going to be a hard place. Let's get into framing. I do think that the alternative narrative is likely to be problematic. Three specific reasons. Firstly, notice that these specific diseases are like small portion of society.
limited quantity of people are seeing these sorts of things like cancer, autoimmune disease, etc. So it's not something we generally talk about. It's not something that's used on a daily basis, etc. And there is a general, notice this is a regression motion. This is important. This is from the past. Generally there is a feeling that these are specific situations that we're talking about. Second reason, notice that it's very problematic to talk about these subjects. These subjects are in many cases disgusting and associated with biological problems with death. With death, it's usually very hard for people to talk to and usually stay away from these sorts of things. Why?
people have an inherent mechanism to not want to engage in these sorts of things because they see it as bad, because they see it as problematic to them. So the reason why a narrative will be problematic. Not that people have limited capacity to engage in such sort of things. They have their job, they have their responsibilities, they have their own competing interests, like policy, politics, these sorts of things. So they're not necessarily likely to ground themselves into these places. Let's be clear here. What happens then? Notice that on their side of the house, people do not have cut clear
cut rules as to what necessarily they'll have to say. They will most likely opt in and drop into the specific of their like versions of these particular of these particular people. What is the likely version than what you're thinking of? This is a dead man walking. This is someone who is likely to going to die in the future, etc. What happens on our side of the house with this narrative? There are specific models of behavior that you're likely that you know subconsciously. We're taking all the other tests in this note. You have subconsciously to do and be supportive of them. Tell them it's going to get better. Do these sorts of things, be positive and
So, you know, this will be the opening opposition, by the way, because they never put this on the platform. Let's get into again the mechanism. First mechanism. We think it's easier for you to come out with these sorts of diseases and talk with people once we get once we once these sorts of deals. Why is this? Why is this the case? Notice that first people don't want to come out because of fear. Fear that they may receive a bad reaction towards themselves. Fear that they may see some kind of specific thing that will happen to them. They're not wanting to see the truth, etc. But second mechanism. Note that you don't want other people to think that
things for your family. So when you come out and say like for example I have cancer or autoimmune diseases etc. People are thinking that we're doing oh shit his family is going to have a hard time, they're going to have problems, they're going to have these sorts of things because they're going to lose someone who is bringing the pet etc. These sorts of things. Note this is proportional because of the reasons that we said people don't necessarily want to come out in this particular moment. Now why does this change the narrative important here? What mechanisms?
What is the Western civilization in people in the West, etcetera, genre, view heroes and heroic ships and fighting as something very important. It is in great in the society and it's an image that is easily associated with. You have multiple outlets of how you can see these sorts of things, heroes in movies, books, etcetera. And you have positive aspects associated with these sorts of things, charisma, fighting, good narratives and good associations in your circle. When the decision happens, you're likely to click as if this is something positive. The second thing, though, is that people who have, because this now
has been going to. People who have survived and defeated the disease because we thought there's a white political disease, there's a white political disease of different diseases can capitalize and say, look, I have won. I have did all of these sorts of things. The post is possible for you to do all these things. Well, you can be the disease. I was important because some consciousness tells people that there is hope. There is something to do in these particular cases. It's just the perception that you as someone who has autoimmune disease, cancer, et cetera, know that you may receive positive reaction and help based on this
particular reason why you will come out earlier or come out in general about these sorts of diseases and give the information as fast as possible. Why is this so important? Three four impacts based on this. Firstly, When you come out and when you tell these sorts of things, it's like an anvil drop from your head. You are more likely to feel good about it. You're more likely to feel confident you can hold the truth and the reverse is also true. When you have not told people, when you have not said that you have these sorts of problems, it's like an extremely bad burden.
on yourself. You dwell on this disease progresses and you feel even more bad and more bad. Secondly, strictly part-time. It's new ones here. Also later on the line, but we view this is problematic also because we don't see it as fast enough. You are likely to skip out an important treatment that may be the difference between you being able to continue your life or surviving. Third reason, notice that when this narrative exists, you deciding to fight the disease also is opted out. Why?
Because usually in the alternative, when this positive narrative doesn't doesn't exist, and when, for example, your your family on both this important frame here, by the way, your family on both sides of the house will want you to fight the disease. Why? Because on both sides of the house, they want equally, for you to survive in these particular moments, because they want you to live. Before I wanna take CG,
<poi>
given that people probably naturally want to survive. And as you say, your family also wants you to survive, or at least some members of your family do. Why is the...
</poi>
No? No? Because, because in these sorts of situations, you're irrational. In the alternative, you don't know how to react in these particular situations. It's not an important issue. It isn't as talked about as possible. You don't have the specific outlines as to what you're supposed to do. this is the this is the comparatively proved you with your authority if it's worse you need contributions to your CO, but why is this important because when you do this particular situation, you're more likely to opt in into the treatment they would likely do not fight with your family should you not like want to engage in these sorts of behavior, and this is important impact because you don't have family infighting you're more likely to be one particular working. Fourth impact and this is probably the most important one
This isn't like the binary thing, right? Over time, you can specifically engage on your own versions of what this is likely to be. You can see what your version is, how to what extent you're fighting the chemotherapy, etcetera. When you're talking about choice in this debate, there is a metric. You have more choice when you have undergone the treatment and later on in the line, you can make yourself your own version of the world, etcetera, to continue or to not continue, to do specific things or to not do specific things. This is quite possibly the most important thing in this particular debate exclusively for me from closing opposition directly engaging with the CG for all these. Proud to oppose
</mo>
<gw>
Greetings in this speech, counterfactual mechanisms and impacts and why we win on all three of this. recognize that i want to ask this in a POI to opening opposition, so that they talk about this a lot more, so that they kind of like win over opening garment, but they didn't want to accept the POI. but we recognize that just because you've done away with not one narrative in the motion that does not say that it's the dominant narrative. That doesn't mean that other narratives, do not remain there, specifically with the narrative of pity, and I think that causing opposition are correct and they recognize this and say that there's a potential problem with OGs and OOs case on that the other narratives could replace the one that we are dealing away with. I think this is why it's important that we are the only team who has the analysis in Dean's extension on why this is not the case. I think there's two levels of dealing with a counterfactual here. One is that OG and OO talk on an internal level. And I think this is largely not comparative in this debate, right? Because your internal motivations do change to some extent based on the narratives influence, but I want to talk about how
the narratives themselves in the narrative market of ideas shape. And I think this is the most important than second rate impact to how you personally view the world without engaging with this specific part. There, there cannot be impacts that determine whether you're more likely to survive or less likely to survive, which is what both opening government and opening opposition try to do in this debate. That's why when I asked the POI about the mechanism, opposition is like, Oh yeah, OG and OO both consider there's some sort of influence, but that's because they fail to look at the whole
picture of what is influencing people's survival trip or like against cancer when they talk and when they deal their cases. So this is why it's important that we show you why the narrative will not be replaced by pity or some other coercive narrative. I think opening government also, uh, consists that this is very important in this debate when the DPM, Janko, in his speech says that they hate all narratives. That means without the MEC that we provide, that acknowledges that there's not going to be another narrative, their case is a lot of
a lot of good content, but it's not comparative because other things are going to happen instead of this. I think that the relationship between fight and PD is a one where the fighter narrative feeds the pity narrative and they are then reinforcing once another. If we move the fighter narrative, that means that we are largely going to remove the pity narrative as well, which is the concern that we get from closing opposition. And here's why. I think that the fighter one is the one which you like show to other people.
you are with the family or as I'm going to explain later this is not the most important mechanism as OG assumes but other influences on your on your being such as when listening to other survivors or when listening to the media and all of these other things this is what you get as an influence on you right so the outwards projects towards the influence that there is a narrative that you need to be a fighter but the problematic part of this is that on the other hand when you are not in the room all of these people are talking about how pale you look or how you cannot move
or how you cannot breathe. And this is a narrative of pity, right? Why does this happen? Because it's important to show that this is not chicken or the argument here, because you feel that the person has a lot of extra things to do because you have applied the fight narrative. You have applied the duty to fight towards the person. And you cleanse your mind in this way by then providing a counter narrative when you talk with other people about how pity you are for the struggle that they have to persist right now, which is why you feel bad for them
and you're talking with other folks who are also seeing the person, but when you talk to the person, then you are all you need to be so brave and so brave. This is a much more nuanced characterization of how the narratives are actually shaping each other. And this is why in the absence of this, we are left with what team pros is the best option for people who are battling diseases in this case. And this is that they own shape and form their narratives and that people around them are not under the influence of any of these narratives mechanisms.
OG relies mostly on your near the near surroundings family. I think when you have cancer, what's probably true for you is that you are in the hospital or any other serious disease, which means that your family can only be with you one hour a day and you cannot have your cell phone all the time, especially if you're old blah blah. Probably what's more important to you is the influence of media is the influence of doctors is the influence of the people who are under the influence of the survivors perspective, right? Which is why when we talk about the idea of survivors being important here, you internalize if you survive,
fight as part of why you survived. You do not say I was lucky or you do not say I changed my habits. I stopped smoking or stopped eating. But you say I was a fighter. I was in the mindset that my serotonin is going to defeat cancer. This is very detrimental because you then because spread this message to other people. When people go on media generally the whole impression of people who should be fighting a serious disease is that they need to be fighters. But the important thing to recognize here is that this mechanism comes a lot
less from the immediate family surroundings, or a lot non-comparative in this idea, except for the mixing of the pity versus the fighter narrative, but mostly from people who have much more influence on you in this situation, because probably like people will either way, it's non-comparative that you're not gonna talk about cancer in your family, because this is going to be a difficult topic, even if you are not a fighter and all of this. What does this mean about impact then? And I think we win on this as well. First of all, OG talk a lot about death or near-death experiences,
and they don't talk about your will. They talk about your will and not doing your will and not confessing or closure, blah, blah, blah. What we prove is that your likelihood of surviving is a lot less under their side of the house. I think this is the most important impact. I'll explain this after I take a POI from all.
<poi>
The feelings of despair are not a narrative. They're intrinsic to the arduous treatment process. Without the narrative of fight, you're left. You're left at the mercy of those feelings of despair.
</poi>
Yeah. I told you are fighting the clash that you fought with OG already and I'm not sure who wins there because humans are biologically, you know what, you know, this is fight or flight. Humans are both biologically, how is it, predisposed to flight as or wants them to believe or OG to fight, which is why you should have both engaged in the narrative clash but you didn't. On surviving, we show you why you are less likely to survive because you are more likely to fight, not be on the defensive let's say and I don't know, stop smoking or start walking.
or stop eating fat and all of this shit that you need to do in order to defeat your disease. But this is crucial because it lets people live more than what opening opposition wants to prove in this debate. This actually shows that people are more likely to survive comparatively with the idea on opening opposition that you get more serotonin and you're going to fight cancer on this behalf. I think secondly, this goes above opening government's impacts, especially with young folks who are already feeling superior to the disease. I think this shows them most the willingness to survive or this improves their
chances, right? Because when the narrative is not that you need to be a fighter or that someone needs to feel pity for you, this is when you can objectively then assess what the best theft over survival is. Sometimes it's very good that you are on a defensive and that you withdraw on the battlefield. The same thing is hypothetically spitting with the disease here that you start shifting your changes and not believe that you can overcome everything. Thank you.
</gw>
<ow>
While both governments are fighting over who has the right counterfactual we are already winning this debate. Frankly, we did already win this debate. Why though? First of all, it's important to understand that our analysis is not contingent on fighter being replaced by pity. And this is extremely what Rumen's analysis gives you. While this was actually pointed out by the previous question by open, they told you, we're not talking about a counter narrative. We're talking about the feelings of despair. But this is actually where Rumen gives you three analytical
reasons as to what exactly are going to be the influences over you when you get that information and how you're going to react based on those influence. He talks about having the ability basically to have limited time to make a decision. He talked about how hard it is to talk about this in particular, especially since you just found about it, you don't have a lot of information. But thirdly, and most importantly, and this is something that we need to point out very directly, that Rumen
explains to you the counterfactual in the context of information. Because he explains to you very directly, this fight mentality pictures the people as heroes, as positive people, which makes them them when they receive that information and they start fighting, prone to talk about it publicly more. This means that there is going to be a very big discrepancy of information that you have on the
the sides of the house. On their side of the house, there's going to be likely to be much less, less people who have been in your situation in the first place. But secondly, and most importantly, have talked about their own experience, meaning that you get much less of a chance to actually basically get the right information and then make the choices that you believe to do so. This is why we'll win this debate. So the counterfactual that we really establish is no guidelines versus
some guidelines. And we say on our side of the house, it is far more likely to have certain initial guidelines. Now, how is this important in the long term? It is important because at this particular moment, when you're in that cabinet, when you receive that information, you have extremely emotional, you're impacted by your current previous notions of the world and what is important. And if you're the average individual, you're probably not an intellectual debater. You probably haven't thought about
What is your concept of life and death what what what is happen or what is happening? You're sick of all of this new information and this basically complete shaking of your world and you're likely to act drastically This is the moment in which you don't you you do bad things such as take a big bad loan such as Maybe harm somebody else because you don't believe that I think any replications are impactful This is the moment in which you
you do stupid things such as, for example, fight with some members or not to reconciliation with other people, etcetera, etcetera. This is the moment in which, in some cases, you take your own life because in that particular moment, you feel like that. And this is why we believe at that moment, when you're in that cabinet and you get that code, you get cancer, you get an autoimmune or whatever, it is important for you to have at least a lot
impact of existing narrative that provides you certain guidelines. And what we say on the comparative is that over time, you still have that choice whether to accept that narrative or not accept it. And we feel that you're in a much better position over time to make that decision than what is in government cases. Now, moving on to a couple of important rebuttals. I think that firstly, let's start with CG,
I think that CG's case, although they try to prove you certain new narrative is pretty much derivative of opening. They basically talk about free choice of individuals and where you have more ability. It's the same impact. It doesn't really matter. I see, I see you always agree with me right over there. But most importantly is that you need to, you need to understand that what we show you is the discrepancy of media information. And this is where we believe that choice is much more limited of their set of values.
reason why number one. Second reason is in terms of you getting more and more information. Because look, ask yourself, which choice is better? The informed one, the one lived to personal experience, or the one which is based on your previous notions of that, which were never, never really that close. And this is what we believe is important. So opening government says, well, you still have biological urges, you're still going to fight.
This is fight or flight mechanism. this is not how actually it works. so fight or flight mechanism works on their side. in the case in which somebody is stopping me directly, it doesn't work in terms of me receiving that information and then deciding what to do. so this is completely out of the debate. what's most importantly here? let's talk about agency. two important reasons. Firstly, it is depends on the individuals itself. So really, we can't claim one narrative over the other, how much it impacts individually, what we're seeing here is that this existing narrative provides for the individuals who would rather do drastic stupid shit when they found out this information is that now they have some guidelines as to whether maybe they should at least try to fight and not over time when you're receiving that new information proven why this is much better on our side of the line. Why you meet people who have been in your issues, why you search about survivors which you wouldn't have in their second account. While you talk about this with individuals you start to create your own philosophy and position on what you should do you care about living, or do you not care about is the life you're living worth it, or is it not worth it? this is the moment in which you make the right choice. it's not just about, oh my god. all people are affected by narratives. i can never make decision for me, acted by narratives in the first place, but the more I live through that situation. And I experience new information. This is the more I actually am able to
have more individual choice. Everything else is debate bullshit about narratives limiting your choices. We're grown up people, we can make our own decisions, especially we have more information. This is how we win this debate. And I think that in these key comparisons, we also prove to you numerous individual impacts, this is how it is easier for you to cooperate and actually talk to your family and how it basically means that it less people coming out helps less
people make the right decision. And I think that all of this and this particular counterfactual being established brings it over over opening in terms of why exactly despair is going to happen and what despair looks like and what is going to happen when you're in that state. Very happy to maybe become a linear world campus or whatever. Let's see how this goes.
</ow>
<pm>
We're going to be talking about three things in opening government today. Firstly, why this veto is a principally legitimate exercise for these unions and organizations to have. Secondly, why you get more qualified nominees and checks and balances over the policymaking process. And thirdly, why you get better policymaking in terms of a model. The way we imagine this veto would work is as an additional mechanism to complement existing approval measures already in place. So when a president or prime minister appoints a judge to an appellate court, it's still to be confirmed by the corresponding legislature in that region or nationally. When an education minister is appointed, it's still being confirmed by Parliament or Congress. This operates as an additional veto power that goes to the corresponding industry, i. e. a teacher's union, an industrial labor relations union, something like that. Secondly, we envision there are significant degrees of political cost you can incur from using this too often, which means that it is likely that these unions will exercise this veto power sparingly. Firstly, because it can cause degrees of antagonism if you over-veto in policy. Secondly, in many instances, lobbying exists within these groups, which means that there's likely going to be used to this as a first tool in order to influence policy. We think it's relatively likely that this veto is exercised somewhat sparingly. Thirdly, the veto probably can't be overridden in most instances. I suppose theoretically, in some instances, if you get like a two thirds majority in the Senate or something like this, you could get a review and maybe there could be another another corresponding thing. But in most cases, we think the veto is final. Why do we think this is specifically a principally legitimate exercise? I think this argument is probably the most important in the debate, because I think if we can prove that these people deserve to have a mechanism of control over the kinds of people who get appointed in their industry, we win the debate. I think this is a principally legitimate exercise because it rectifies imbalances and representation that exists between specific industries. Note that this motion probably has very little delta in cases where it's like a very big business organization. For example, the Chamber of Commerce in the United States will likely always have a massive amount of exercise over who gets appointed to the ministries of commerce and things like that. It's very unlikely you're going to get a minister of commerce who isn't very pro-business on either side of the house because these lobbying groups have massive amounts of power. Where this debate has a delta is in instances where there is an unbalanced in representation, i. e. in union power, where teachers unions have significantly less ability because they have significantly less financial capital than other interests in order to appoint a teacher's union person who is likely to regulate these things in a manner that is favorable them, i. e. in industrial and labor relations, where you might get very anti-union representatives and unions have no mechanism of control over the state to the same degree. I think this operates as a mechanism of control over state appointments which otherwise would not exist for specific industries, i. e. where organized labor, which is often under assault in many developed capitalist countries, getting a measure of control over who gets appointed. I think this is important on a principle level because the state is extremely coercive insofar as it controls every facet of your life. You have no opt out and is inescapable. And insofar as this is true, we think it's principally legitimate to give these people an additional mechanism of control over that appointment. Why is this needed addition to voting? I think that firstly, voting is always asymmetric, right? You get limited choices over which kind of policymaker that gets appointed, you cannot predict who the person you voted for will choose over each appointment. That is, you can choose Obama as president, but you don't know who Obama is going to appoint.
as education secretary. So this policy operates on a more granular level. Secondly, this is far more specific form of control over the state than voting because it deals with specific regulation that is industry specific. I. e. you don't know what kind of like minister education guidelines are going to be passed like Title IX policy or things like this. But these teachers unions do and have a significantly greater degree of awareness and information about them. Thirdly, these industries are far more asymmetrically affected by the kinds of policy than the general public. So you might be able to vote a ton of people into power and they might be generally a good representative for most people's political interests, but at the point which it functions on a more granular lever. You need to rectify those representational imbalances she's going to degree. Finally, lobbying is always asymmetric because some industries have more power in lobbying over others. If you're a country with a very strong manufacturing sector, i.e. the malaysian rubber industry. That industry is always going to have more power than other industries in malaysia. So what this does is it gives other industries a rectifying thing to rectify that power and balance that exists through lobbying it makes representation comparatively more equal, even if we're not perfect so we are better fulfilling this principle on our side of the house on non-contingent grounds in this debate, even if opposition proves that there is some third order practical harm resulting from this. We already win this debate. But why do we get significantly more qualified nominees for each position? I think the first thing we do is we reduce politicization over the confirmation process significantly. There are three broad ways this happens. Firstly, in status quo, confirmation of nominees with these positions rests with the party in power. I. e. if you have a parliament in the UK with a Tory majority, you can effectively appoint whoever you want. This means you get less vetting comparatively over each political appointment because these people are vetting for specific things like alignment with political interests, for example, I. e. they want to know the education minister is going to pass the education policy that is aligned with the specifically the labor parties, political positions, for example, or the conservative parties, political positions. The comparison is that these political organizations have interests that are orthogonal to that. They probably care far more about what they're going to do for specifically, I don't know, teaching policy or curricula standardization or things that political appointees might not care about to the same degree. So insofar as these interests diverge, that is the political interests and the interests of the union, we get comparatively more ability to have those both those interests taken into account and to veto people who are specifically problamatic. But secondly, the Bar Association and teachers unions probably want to be able to work with multiple administrations. That is to say they want consistency and regulation because the pendulum swings back and forth when you go from extremely strong anti-union policy to extremely pro-union policy that causes issues with compliance and cost those unions tons of money. What this means is there's likely to be a race to the median in terms of regulation or a more moderate policy being pushed for where they veto particularly extreme nominees on one end of the political spectrum or the other because they don't want to deal with the fallout of those extreme nominees appointing some kind of policy that's incredibly extremist, then that getting rolled back by another successive nominee later on down the line. So this means that the veto gets used in such a way that's more moderate. Thirdly, certain industries have massive asymmetries of power, i. e. in terms of selection. The industries that bank or grow due in the status quo can lobby governments to get appointments. When you chose over these specific policymaking, this operates as a check and balance against that kind of lobbying to a significantly greater degree. I think that's principally legitimate, to see my earlier point, but it's also practically legitimate because now you're likely to get more policy that probably benefits vulnerable groups, probably benefits the working class for a significant greater degree, so it operates as additional mechanisms of control. Finally, bar associations and teachers unions are full of people with a deep level awareness and knowledge about the position because their web education. There's the experience conforming to spirit educational doctrines, specific legal doctrines you compare it is now you get less people with absolutely no knowledge and so on and so forth. I think what this does finally in terms of changing the impact of that final thing is that it's very hard now to appoint someone with absolutely no knowledge. For example, I patronage appointment probably doesn't happen to the same degree on their side of the house. What this means is that you get like in the
the absolute worst cases in corrupt states, for example, far fewer patronage appointments because these people aren't seen as unqualified, are seen as unqualified, for example, they get vetoed by that nominee to a significantly greater degree. How does this change policymaking? I think that firstly, the people who get appointed probably get more informed policymaking that's representative of interest. But secondly, during the confirmation process, they have to justify a deep level of awareness and knowledge about that kind of thing to a significantly greater degree because they want to avoid that veto. So even if the veto is never used, we need a preemptive incentive for these people to make better and more informed policy. So what happens is now voters are more aware of those kinds of policy positions that each of these appointees have that each person has. But thirdly, the people who want to appoint these people when they promise to appoint a specific individual that position now make credible commitments to make them make that person appointed in the first place, which means more people have more leverage over the voting process as well. I think you get less antagonistic policymaking as well because the rubber stamp of approval generally means you minimize situations where these policymakers work aggressively against industry interests. You probably get just less antagonism in that policymaking writ large on all of these grounds. Incredibly proud to propose.
</pm>
<lo>
i'm going to start by outlining what the counterfactual looks like for appointments and then talk about two things. Firstly on representation and just getting good people and then secondly about industry-wide corruption on our alternative. So i think what happens under the status quo is consultation with industry experts with then having a veto power is far too much and the government ends up having the
final say. I want to respond to the og thing here of like awesome groups of asymmetric lobbying I think that this is a little bit odd like if you're an industrial union i'm kind of unclear why you're going to try and shape the education minister ultimately is, like presumably there's still a checking mechanism for this you're only going to want to invest the most in lobbying. When you're actually approximately affected by something and if you are approximately affected by something I don't think that lobbying for a higher number of groups is actually a bad thing as I'm going to discuss my argumentation. So firstly on representation, I want to deal with their framing about corrupt states and advance positive material, in like corrupt states with those patronage networks if anything this model just makes it worse. The reason for this is that obviously the state still has an incentive to appoint patrons, so they're just going to ensure that the industry experts who are now charged with the appointments and have the veto power
are going to be loyalist, whereas they might allow for compare comparatively more meritocracy to get good policy under the status quo.
We tend to not allow the government to go rogue and they monitor each individual appointment that tends to take place. What this means is that there's an inherent feedback mechanism that's created to the state because obviously there's an implicit incentive to appoint people who are going to be aligned with what the public interest ultimately is to avoid creating political backlash in that regard. Secondly, though, even if there's not immediate scrutiny, the dominant party in power is still a reflection of what the majority of people within that state once in coalition government, smaller parties, will also have a say over these things. So by extension, you are representing people who initially voted for that party in some kind of ideological basis. On the comparative, what is the problem with industry experts, are they not representative? Firstly, they have an incentive to campaign with what is best for their industry, rather than what is best for society at large. This is for quite intuitive reasons. So this is where like their own job is being protected. But more importantly, this is where they get their main need of support from people. This is the industry that they've grown up in and they're probably just ideologically are indoctrinated to believe it's the most important industry. When this means that a union leader, for example, you're probably going to prioritize like economic well being, and not having things like factories shut down or outsourcing factories over what is best for the environment because your own people your own ideology tends to side with that particular thing. On the comparative, the state is a far better mechanism to aggregate preferences because you're not just tied to a particular industry, but they are tied to representing people who have a broader diversity of what their preferences ultimately are. So if people on the ground care about environmental policy, you might have an incentive to appoint someone who's going to control a certain group of unions who also has pro-environmental policy, even if the remainder of people within that union don't support that to as large of an extent. OG tries to preempt this by being like, this doesn't matter because people from the industry are most approximately affected, that is not true. Like every single industry has wide sweeping societal implications. Like the education industry is literally about indoctrinating every single child within your state. When it comes to things like economic industry and unions, there's negative externalities. When it comes to like taxation or environmental pollution of all of their policies that impact everyone. So I think that then the most fair thing to do is to defer to the collectivization of preferences. Secondly, though, a lot of these positions just involve very subjective moral trade-offs or any degree of technical knowledge and expertise as one that is broadly relevant. So the question, for example, of the degree to which religion should be incorporated into school curriculums is not really one where I think like any educational kind of ministers any more epistemic access to than people on the ground her wing with their competing priorities and their competing ideologies ultimately are so democratizing this process is substantially more fair. The third observation here is that industry experts don't even represent their entire industries rather it's a very select group of people. The exact same power dynamic issues that opening government talks about just cross apply toward our case. Let's think about who are the people who tend to become like industry experts. They're often older people and they're often privileged.
The reason for this is that in order to rise to the top, it requires a lot of connections that tend to take time to be able to cultivate. We need to be likable in order to get people to like you, which often just coalesce around white man with these industries to a massive extent, meaning they're often just older and privileged people to a massive degree. And therefore their ideology is likely to be distorted in favor of that because they have lived experiences that are more approximately related to that in the first place. I don't really think it's about a demographic issue. I also just think that it's like one subset of the industry might be more powerful. So if we're talking about things like teachers unions, just cross-apply ODEs analysis, that might be slightly like religious and the religious teachers union should have substantially more power because they get more funding from like religious bases, they'll have an incentive to have, there'll be industry experts who will afford their own thing, even though for the bottom of the industry, a higher number of people tend to be secular. The end point of this argument is that insofar as policies impact a very, very wide number of people, it is necessary to get policies that are going to be in the best interest of a wider subset of people.
<poi>
Do you think that the most property net capitalized system was acquired justly?
</poi>
Sure, I really understand the relevance of that. Okay, on industry-based corruption. I think that industry leaders are always going to have an incentive to push for under-regulation of their own respective sectors. Firstly, just regulation always tends to conflict with the bottom line of their industry to a massive extent, given that they often just get a lot of pink kickbacks, they don't want that. It also tends to be unpopular with people in the industry themselves who will fear that their jobs will be kicked out on the ground, meaning that they're going to broadly have an incentive to veto any degree of political appointment who are going to campaign for higher degree of regulation.
I think that then like the proper response to this is like otherwise you're going to regulate the state. This is substantially more difficult to be able to do. Firstly, there's just a wider number of interest groups who are constantly logging the state. So it's difficult to just store your own policy priority relative to the policy priority of like others, which is like just the main reason in terms of like this is asymmetric in terms of the degree of how easy it is to ultimately be able to regulate people. As a consequence of this, I want to note that these people have a large degree of power in terms of enforcing the amount of regulation that exists, even if this otherwise decided in legislation. Like yes, you can legislate regulation, but it's ultimately often dependent on industry-based enforcement to carry out that regulation, especially because state bureaucracies are often terrible and shit, and therefore they often cooperate with political appointments within the industry to actually be able to grassroots carry out the regulation that's occurring on the ground. I don't think what we're likely to see is insane overregulation, because there's still some incentives to like offset this when it can conflict with bottom lines, but a better balance of what regulation is. This is necessary because constantly under-regulating industries can create a variety of negative externalities. So in the financial sector, for example, having scrutiny over things like accounting cheats and balance cheats to ensure that derivatives are being sold people are just like nonsense instruments are going to lead to some kind of crisis happening in the future. Where social media companies not giving other people the data. Fair of fair rulings when it comes to things like judges, minimum wage laws, rather than just campaigning for things like chronic under taxation and policies are just going to benefit larger corporations. I think that then having some degree of regulations, right, a better balance between offsetting negative externalities that can hurt people on the ground. But secondly here, I think that the world just creates an issue where like the political leaders always have an incentive to suck up to the industry leaders or the industry leaders are not necessarily for their own reappointment creating an additional channel of how corruption works because even if there is sufficient regulation you're not going to comply to that and there's a risk of pissing off industry leaders, but it's just other broad things like personal facts and favors that can conflict with the general interest of your industry. very proud to change the opening opposition.
</lo>
<dpm>
Before I start, I just want to say I think all the property was justly acquired because you had to work for it. And insert any other reasons if Cg, if CG tries to run it, it's a direct knife of their opening. A little bit of characterization for getting into some rebuttal. I think this debate really matters at the point where the industry and states don't perfectly align. That is to say, if it's a strong industry like banking or steel in some countries, the alternative is in fact called consultation and the minister reflects the interest of the industry anyway. So there's unlikely to really be much of a delta there. Where this debate matters is where the alternative cannot be consult consultation because there's no incentive to that is to say the industry does not have enough power within society to represent its own interests and the state doesn't care if it doesn't represent those interests adequately or efficiently. I want to get into some direct rebuttal in some kind of more balanced way. I want to clarify something Matt didn't say that you're going to as an industrial minister interfere with the education system. What Matt said is that in the status quo some industries have more lobbying powers than others. So Naomi's right that certain interest groups with powerful lobbying will always get people in power. In the respective interest, i. e. business and financial associations in the U. S. , for example. They will always get a pro-business person because the government is very receptive to pro-business interests. But the education industry has substantially less lobbying power. We equalize the power between different interest groups. Now, the interest groups with the most power don't just get their way automatically in their specific sector, while the other groups are not as powerful. Everyone has equal veto, which is comparatively more fair. Second, all of Naomi's material about the state being a better aggregator of preference is true symmetrically because the majority of people in the state still get to select the politicians who do the appointments. The difference is now interest groups which are not currently in power have a mechanism of self-defense and rectify representation and the intuition pump
here is, for example, we don't do everything via majority decision making where the majority of people get to decide everything else for the minorities, for example, We have like minority protections that exist that represent disproportionate power or disproportionate influence that can affect minorities asymmetrically through the naomi's argument about asymmetric power of industry is true on their side of the house as well. The difference that there are far, far fewer industries that have asymmetric power. On our side, we distribute that balance of power far better. Fourthly, I think underregulation or overregulation happens more on their side. And so far as one, Matt explained why the interests of business unions are to work with multiple administrations. They self-moderate because they don't want to put in radicals on either side. And secondly, underregulation like it happens as a consequence of politicization that Matt told you or Matt analyzed, we get less of it. On corruption, I think you have symmetric incentives to suck up to industry leaders for campaign donations, now you suck up to more of them. So there's more diversity in interest. I want to do two then kind of clashes that on like the principle. On the principle of balanced representation. OPP says that the industry cares only about their own industry and this gives them like a disproportionate power over things that affect everyone else. Note one, yes they prioritize their industry, but to a degree. Why? Because one of large supply chain interactions between different industries, they can't just fuck over another industry or
But secondarily, by OG's own analysis, if these are issues that affect everyone else in society, then by definition, they cannot only care about their own industry. But secondarily, I don't think these are really issues that aren't as like a that aren't really asymmetric between everyone. I think these industry reps have disproportionate power over these industries and their members compared to other citizens. Why? Because they impact direct employment standards. The long term implication of that industry is that they're not going to be able to do that.
Now yes, that exists with every policy and every citizen, but this is a question of degree and how isolated these experts are. Now, I don't think democracy is actually one vote and one equal slice of power. Insofar as the implications of this policy have particular effects on people that last longer more than others. The optional implication is that representation is not a binary. It should not be treated as such when the particular decisions are structurally asymmetric by getting the right to be a better person.
But second, we recognize that the industry shouldn't control it. We're not saying the industry gets to make every policy for the country. That would be abhorrent. We recognize that would be like principally on democratic. We recognize the industry should have a balance. That is to say, it should be a balanced representation that recognizes asymmetric influence within those particular groups of people. Now on the power balance and the more pragmatic impact. Opp says that there might be too much power, which means that things like bad policymaking or capital flight. I don't think it's actually too much power but rather a balance why because no emotion says veto it means they don't get to choose them themselves. They only approve they only have ability to participate and approve that process. But secondarily, know that this is critical the person in charge is accountable to both members the state and the industry, i.e the state can remove them if they are being too schmoozy with the industry for example not being optimal with their policy the only abilities that this gives a capacity for the industry to fight back if it is being too abhorrent to them why is this important because the debate hinges on who provides a better balance of power, not who provides a power for one or the other when we recognize that there could be trade-offs and important differences there. This is a balance because these groups have disproportionately less power in the status quo because they're a minority of the population, even if it's a big industry. Unionization has substantially fallen since neoliberalism, and clearly they have substantially less money for lobbying and big financial groups. What is this more balanced approach do that is critical? What it leads to a method of communication and dialogue between the industry to address grievances and have them be listened to as opposed to have it having them entirely shut out and not being able to participate in the voting process because they just don't have enough numbers.
<poi>
So as you can see, there will probably be conversations about what exactly you will and what met through. So obviously, this is not a balance. It is the disproportionate effect that is going to be weaponized against everyone.
</poi>
The reason why it's a balance and it can't be a conversation on your side because the conversation only matters when the person has a reasonable voice that you need to listen to. When the industry is one that doesn't have much power. There's no reason to consult them because they have no check back against you. They have no way to get you or compel you to listen. Now they have a mechanism because they can veto that process, but it doesn't give them too much because they don't make the policy. The industry doesn't directly have direct control over the policy of the industry. It doesn't get to choose the person themselves. That's why it's a balance. They get to participate in that process, but don't get to control the actual thing. The second impact of this balance is that this leads to less antagonism between the state and the industry. It's less likely that you have wild
catch strikes that come out of nowhere because someone that now acts as a bridge between the state and the industry and an actor critically that represents both interests. That's the key to our case that you need someone in there who doesn't just represent the interests of the majority and everybody in the state, but recognizes the impacts of someone that asymmetrically suffers from that. And thirdly, it leads to critically better time horizons of policies that are more aligned and optimized because there's potentially more information shared because both actors feel comfortable enough to share those with the person in charge, because they have some degree of connection to them and there's a credible commitment. They will care about at least both of their interests to some degree. Voters have substantially more information. Now, policy discussions have been way more at the point in which the PM chooses a person. Never been prouder to propose this motion. It's about striking a balance.
</dpm>
<dlo>
A huge part of opening government's case relies on one sentence and one particular assertion, which is that currently in the status quo, these corporations are able to essentially have huge lobbying power on both sides of the House to promote certain politicians. So they need that veto power in order to balance the scale and not have to pro-business minister on their side of the House. But I want to ask you the following questions. What are the structural reasons for this to be the truth? Because I will give you five reasons as to why currently in the status quo, it is actually easier for corporations in industries to lobby their own labor unions and organizations compared to actually lobby governments who have much larger interest groups that they need to adhere to. Here is a couple of those reasons. But what, before that, I need you to understand that if I'm able to prove to you that they are going to have a huge ability to actually influence the decisions and the vetoes that these labor unions apply to certain positions, it actually gives them more power on our side of their side of the house to do bad things and pick and choose particular people who promote pro business stuff compared to other policies which are good for multiple industries, but also generally good for multiple people living inside. What are the reasons for this compared to their assertion? Reason number one, direct communication channels between the industry and the corporation and the people in there. It is very easy to have like particular calls, to have particular internal promotion, to generally talk with the influential people in these places. You know them, they work for you,
you know what they care about, you know what they talk about, all of these particular things. So to that extent, it's very easy to create an internal narrative. Look guys, right now the company is, let's say pushing for more wages, but the labor union does not want to give you more wages because they care about, let's say our pollution policy or more environmental regulation or these particular things. It's the same in the education industry. They can tell their teachers
like tell the teachers, oh my gosh, we want to push for more wages for you, but they want to reform the educational system in terms of other particular students, such as, for example, giving more funding in general for underprivileged schools compared to increasing more of the wages to actual people. Now, why are these things important? Because when you create these internal narratives, you now put people in a position where the workers themselves lobby their own labor unions to push for this particular things that directly benefit them compared to other underprivileged groups in society or society in general, which means that when they do these particular things, they will be to people who actually want to stop pollution policies, but environmental policies that let's say only harm particular vulnerable regions in the country where there's more disease. People don't get access to health care. They get cancer. They get all this particular stuff in the same context of school.