Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k
</mg>
<mo>
Before moving on to my susbtantive, two points on cg. One, they have clearly knifed the opening government was trying to say. Opening government said, we're going to be morally ambiguous about whether progressive politics is a good or bad idea, cg explicitly comes up and says, progressive politics is a bad idea, they can't run both things on government bench. The second thing I will note is how uncomparative cg has been because notice he logical collateral of the argument that these guys are presenting is, the democrats should try to be as moderate as possible so that they can get either modern moderate policies through but also mobilize support which means that we should become more towards the right. I just want to know that this is the reason why there are so many apathetic voters in the united states of america to begin with so if they want democratic voter turnout in their world, I would suggest that people will think that we need to drain the swamp that the establishment is the same, that the republicans and the Democrats are not different at all, which means there are a lot of people, unlike the present election where you did have the influence of a progressive in the party, a lot of people do not come out to vote. So I'm not sure that the impacts of their arguments flow. About OG before moving on to points of framing though, OG's main claim in this debate is, well, attacking the movement becomes easier because you tethered the movement to like, you know, a single person. I would just note the historicity of this claim is absolute bullshit because notice it's not the problem. The problem isn't that Bernie Sanders is a bad guy. The problem is
Bernie Sanders practices progressive politics, which is a bad idea. This is rooted in Cold War era beliefs of, you know, the politics of the Red Scare, McCarthyism, and so on and so forth. So even in their world where the comparative is some decentralized movement of progressive politics, they are similarly going to be facing the same kinds of backlash from the right wing, right wing media, and so on in their world. The question in this debate is not about backlash. The question is backlash remains constant in the status quo against progressive politics. The question is how then do we pass progressive legislation and change this course. The second note about polarization generally and this attacks both og and cg is that negotiating is much more easier in our world, polarization is much less in our world. Why? because instead of trying to bargain with a hundred different progressive politicians, all you need to do as a republican party is bargain with bernie sanders, who's heading the wing withing the senate, right. This reduces polarization, allows you the opportunity to centralize negotiation and bargain much more easily. What am i going to talk to you about in this speech, before moving on to, one, why progressive politics is important and , two, why we get that passed. I just want to point out framing one these people are locally popular within their constituencies because of the fact that they're icons but notice that they are also popular nationally. We do not know the names of all of the senators within the United States Senate but we do know the name of like you know the squad and Bernie Sanders. They are popular nationally as well. The second thing I want to note is they're also internationally popular. I just say that Bernie Sanders etc have a huge following within the developing world especially areas where progressive politics is censored and does not have the room or the space to go, which will become important in my space later on. But lastly, and this clashes directly with what CGS is trying to say, progressive politics is important for a couple of reasons. One, climate change literally fucking threatens the whole human race and its existence. We do need the Green New Deal, even if it doesn't pass by the way, because it costs too much. At the very least, what the Green New Deal allows us to do is shift the overtime window such that Biden now has the most progressive campaign and policy agenda when it comes to environmental politics. Police brutality is a huge fucking issue within the United States of America. ICE does lock up Hispanic kids and the Supreme Court, by the way, does have a majority of conservative people on the bench. So in terms of this, progressive politics is good. It protects minorities, it protects immigrants and so on, but it's also better in terms of foreign policy agendas and developing countries. Now, why do we then get progressive politics too? And over here, I'm going to explicitly point out, OG does not mechanize for jack shit and I'm going to mechanize lots of the things that they're trying to say.
The first thing I want to note is how better messaging happens if you tether the movement to single people, that is icons and specific. One, notice, progressive politics is extremely difficult to explain, especially within red states or states which have lower education or are swing states, etc. , where there you have lots of blue collar workers. Why? Because the language of progressive politics is extremely difficult to understand. It is very difficult to understand gender theory or racial theory or how the environment functions. What you need is people who consistently are able to communicate these ideas to people in the most simple language possible and that becomes much better on our side of the house and Bernie Sanders and AOC etc are able to do so. On the comparative in Gov world, we don't think you have the opportunity to do so anymore because these icons do not exist. The second thing I want to tell you is very specifically, we explain progressive politics much better to people because notice in their world, progressive politics is decentralized. That is to say that the meaning of what progressive politics is, is different according to the person who is forwarding those claims. So one consistency is in New York, for instance, one senator from New York
will say very different things to what a senator in say California would say in their world. But in our world what we do is there's one head of the progressive movement or three or four heads and they can actually say well strategically guys we should focus on Medicare for all we should focus on the green new deal and this idea of centralization of the message makes it much more easier to explain to people that is why there's much more buy-in towards progressive policies on our side of the house. The third thing I want to note is messaging in media is much better off. Why? Because Fox News, CNN etc have people that they can pick and choose and say, look, this person is nationally popular. He will boost our ratings or she will boost our ratings that therefore we should have them on our program. So there is much more attention towards progressive politics on our side of the house as opposed to their decentralized world where nobody is the leader. Right. And why is this important? Because you are consistently shown on TV. So your visibility increases the faith that people have in you increases, but also you have more time to explain your message. So on and so forth. The third thing I would note is role model analysis and that this doesn't only affect these people, not only affect mobilization of voters on the ground, they also ensure that you have a constant stream of future progressive politicians also coming up because they want to be the next Bernie Sanders or the next Alexander Ocasio-Cortez. So the movement doesn't die out. The fourth thing I'll note is resources are concentrated . Notice, These people do not accept money from big corporations. They accept money from grassroots like you know grassroots support and so on. So you need to tell people give your money to Bernie Sanders because he is running the present residential campaign. So we get much more resources on our side of the house. These people are better able to campaign and fight elections. The last thing I'll note is legislative change in their world is very difficult to achieve. Why? Because you know, you need bipartisan support. You might need a majority to get progressive legislation passed. However, in our side of the house, we don't need legislation to pass. We only need single electoral victories and constituencies before Fox News, CNN, etc. Just make them into broad fucking issues. Why is this important? Because people have protest fatigue. When legislative agendas or your ability to get legislation passed fails continuously, people don't come out and support progressive movements at all. Why is this important? There are a couple of reasons for this. One, shift the overtime window. Two, we get politics through because we can actually get stuff done. Thirdly, I would note in terms of international politics, these people act as inspirations for people outside your country. Why? Because often not in developing countries where there is censorship role models are not available. You need people from outside to give you hope that this kind of politics is possible. But two, these people often push policy agendas which are beneficial for people within the developing world. Notice Bernie Sanders speech on Kashmir, giving rights to these kinds of people. So these are actually people who can shift foreign policy discourse in favor of these people. For all these reasons we are very proud to oppose.
</mo>
<gw>
The first extension that Greg gave you is why the kinds of progressive policy that is being proposed by these icons are really bad. This beats the up bench in a couple of ways. First, oh, oh, all of their mechanisms about how you get more progressive policy with no explanation as to why they are good other than the fact that their voters are being given a choice. However, in fact, in so far as their argumentations about how America is naturally becoming more progressive it is unlikely that there will be literally no discussion of any progressive policy, right, so voters will be given a choice on both sides of the house. So almost principled benefit is being satisfied but they don't tell you why in addition to that principle benefit giving people a choice. It is good to have these kinds of progressive policies. Co's entire extention is about how this is good because you create role models for both the developing world but also in th united states right, but again it's predicated on the fact that these policies are good, because if the policies are bad the they're bad role models for people to have and it is bad for there to be more of them. Now I want to deal with this argument, right? Because the response we get is twofold. First, that this is contradictory to our opening. This is not the case. Our opening is agnostic about it, which means they're neutral about it. They don't provide a stance. We're happy to fill in that hole and provide a stance for the debate, purpose of the debate. Right. So, and also it doesn't weaken or directly contradict any of the arguments they've given you, right? If you think they've done a decent job talking about polarization, for instance, right? This doesn't counter that. But second thing that was just very glibly explained is that things like climate change is really bad. Police brutality is really bad.
Right. And we need these kind of policy to solve them. Again, there are many different ways to tackle climate change, right? We can do it with a moderate carbon tax where we can do so with a green new deal. What Greg explained to you is by the progressive iterations of the solutions to these problems are extremely, extremely bad. And there's no contention with that. What does Greg tell you? The first thing Greg tells you is that these icons have an independent base of support. That is because they have direct channels with a lectures with the people. Right. And I think all teams agree that they're fairly very popular to have a direct channel, communicating with people. They are one financially largely independent from the party establishment. That is, they get independent donations from people and they don't really need to depend on the party. Second is they have an independent source of legitimacy, right. That is, if you have a twitter page that's followed by millions of people the what you say actually counts, people tend to have this legitimacy about you, right. That if I'm just a random other representative, I don't get. This is really, really important because it means that if I'm , this is what greg told you to no response,, that if I'm a progressive icon because of my icon status, right. There's no need for me to appease the party whatsoever and I can go for the kinds of aspirational policies that are hugely costly and are largely inefficient, right? Because that's what carries the greatest amount of favor with my millions of followers, right? This means that one, these policies tend to be fairly bad, right? That is they create their inefficient, they're very costly, likely damages the economy structurally. And two, they're infeasible. Like the Green New Deal is 30 pages for something that's supposed to revolutionize the economy, the way that like the economy works, right? This is not something that is actually possible. It is, it's not something that's actually well thought through. So I think this is already a way for us to win the debate.
Now let's talk about the top half. First, I think that OG has this issue where a lot of their arguments are about the existence of progressive policy. Insofar as progressive policy exists, then they can get demonized. But there are two things they tell you that isn't contingent on this. The first thing they tell you is that people become less informed on issues because instead of debating the Green New Deal, we debate about AOC's background. And the second thing they tell you that is unique is the fact of gridlock. The AOC will never back down and AOC will never cooperate with the democrats when they're in power, right. This is really important, we're going to give you better versions of both of these arguements, right. The first thing is on informing of issues, og's argument goes to the extent that they're uninformed on specific progressive issues, right. Like, I only because I'm debating about AOC's background. I'm not cognizant of AOC's policies but greg's extentions on campaigning is a reason why voters in general are uninformed about every single issue in the campaigns because there is now an incentive for every politician both on the democratic side and the republician side to be obstructionist and to be obscure about the policies that they support. Right. So this means one, the magnitude is much larger. And two, if you want to take the value neutral stance of top half, then obviously the most important impact, the big picture that people can exercise a democratic will, right, which can rely on the fact that they're actually informed and policies are campaigning based on issues. So how do we get less issue campaigning? What Greg told you is that because these icons have one independent basis of support, where they're independent of their party, two, they're hugely popular. So their endorsements and their primary challenges really matter. And three, this is conceited by closing opposition when they say that these icons create tight control over the progressive caucus, right. Which means if AOC chooses right, so thank you for supplying this mechanism to us. If AOC chooses to not endorse, we're challenging someone the primaries and all the other 1o or 11 progressive politicians who are also really popular with some young people right. They also follow hard lead. This means that if I'm biden if I'm any candidate right. If I'm democratic, I'm being asked in a debate where if I'm trying to publicize my issues, right. I cannot raise a position, If I am too extreme, then I get skewered by the moderate side of my base. But if I voice anything that is not what these icons want, then I get skewered by that. So I just don't talk about any issues. And instead, it talked about things like general popularity, or like a general popularity, right? Politics. This is really important because it means that the Democrats can't call out the Republicans when they do the same thing. Neither party is talking about issues. This is really important because of what I've just told you about having like informed elections. So we do a better version of OG's argument. For the second, the other thing I want to talk about with OG.
<poi>
Unless you are able to prove that the people who would not vote for Biden, who are inspired by AOC, would otherwise settle for Biden, your case has no marginal change. Somewhere between moderate Republicanism and this communist dystopia you are painting, there is a meaningful policy change that we have proven. Please engage.
</poi>
Yeah. So I don't think it's the case that all of AOC supporters are previously non-Democrats, right? That is true to an extent. You've energized some people, right? But a lot of the times you've also attracted a lot of prevvious people who were on like far left the democratic party who would have voted around anyway right . It's just patently false that AOC's entire supporter base are just people who've never voted before or people who are third party right. That's just false. The second things that they want to compare with regards to og is og talked about gridlock, right. Which is that AOC herself will not vote, we're not compromised, right, but they don't tell you why this means there's actual gridlock after all like votes are not tied by a margin of one, right, but what we've told you instead is because aoc is an independent base of support and have independent source legitimacy. It makes having her support, other progressive members of prince's caucus means they too can block those votes, that they too feel confident enough to disobey the democratic party establishment, and when you have 10, 12 representatives, right. Obstructing a democratic vote that's when you actually get the meaningful impact of obstructionism, right. A policy is not being passed. This also beats co because co's basically talking about how you get more progressive policy but progressive policy requires democrats to be one, power and two, even when they're in power be able to legislate, right. which they cannot do. If AOC and the Progressive Caucus because of ICON stat is able to block the kind of legacies of the policymaking machinery. That's really important because if you have like if Democrats are in power but they can't legislate or they can't rule, then not only do you have like lack of policy but you also don't get any of the good progressive policies the CO thinks is really good for these reasons proposed.
</gw>
<ow>
I don't want to be that sort of person but what is progressive? In America progressive is a to wear a fucking mask. In America, it is progressive to have anything past any market mechanism to resolve climate change. In America, it is progressive for people to have healthcare recognized by the United Nations as a human right. So this Tucker Carlson-esque speech that I just saw in government with painting a communist socialist dystopia is untrue insofar as progressive politics occupies a crucial space and some would say the only rational space within American politics that's why it's important, But they miss the second nuance between progressive politics and centrist politics, which is that when Bernie Sanders says something very left wing, Biden is able to get away with saying something pretty left wing, but short of Bernie Sanders and normalize it as a centrist policy. This is literally how you get progressive agendas passed. For instance, Biden has the most progressive climate change platform in political history. And yet he's still saying a centrist uncle Joe, because there are a bunch of people who are further to his left. This is the political nuance that they missed within our case, in terms of who you interact with centrist politics. Second point of framing, what is the counter factual because if I'm deeply honest I am still unclear on what happens to bernie sanders and aoc types. Do they just vanish into the ether? What would you have rather they done otherwise? what does progressive fractions look like within congress? The only thing we got here was we don't want famous individuals. Let's take that as some sort of substitute for a counterfactuals. Three reasons why individuals are crucial. A, they humanize progressive policy because progressive policy is caught up in elite discourses. Not everyone understands how capitalistic structures influence climate change. Bernie Sanders can put his cold face on and do it for them. Secondly, and directly engaging with opening governments, only valuable responses, What if these people are fallible? What if they lose the election? What if God forbid there's a scandal which comes out? What if they die? These people become martyrs for the movement. The point of which these are people that you look up to and want to be inspired to become the next generation version of. Number three, individuals are important because you allow them to go a less and often disparate faction of progressive individuals, allowing for on opening governments concern, less polarization with the Republican Party on closing government's concern, less fracturing of the Democratic Party because they control the caucus and they control the wing. They attempted to very glibly flip this point by saying on the same note, AOC can also ask people to obstruct. I just want to point out, panel, that I know that debating is the science of logic and not the science of facts for unfortunate reasons. When has this happened? When is Bernie Sanders and AOC, he said, we are going to lose entire elections, but not support like you know, the normal person? This happened in 2016, this happened in 2020. Like every single time that you can think of, the progressives have compromised. So it's unclear to me where this dystopian version of the obstructionist progressive is coming from. But the final thing that I point out, which I think is really important, is what happens to these voters. As opening opposition says, the point at which you don't have individual leaders, do they just vanish into the ether? Opening opposition rapidly points out these people might have potential political apathy. I'm going to be a bit bolder.
I'm going to say that the point at which these people aren't tethered to individual ideologies, they move towards the right. Think about it. There were strangely two people in 2016 who talked about neoliberalism being a horrible thing. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. It's an unfortunate political coincidence within our politics that the far right and far left share an eerily similar economic platform rallied against neoliberalism. So I see that it's not just apathy, but it is zero. There's an active negative here the point of which is a drift towards the right for these disenchanted voters who see anyone who is in any way allied with this establishment as utterly evil. That's why we went on the individual clash. The third thing I want to do in this speech then is talk about why progressive politics are extremely good for Democrats and also generally. Two points here. The first point, which is really important and went completely underbudded by government web is the house point about international politics. A, Bernie Sanders isn't just inspired people in Birmingham, Alabama. He inspires people in Karachi, Pakistan, and New Delhi, India to pursue a progressive politics that is systematically censored by the states that they live in. Secondly, they platform these concerns, the point at which they talk about them in Congress, talk about them in Senate vis-a-vis the Kashmir issue and increasingly the Palestine issue. But thirdly, they contribute towards legislative accountability, re the Congress's or at least the House's passed with Senate's rejected declaration against Israel in terms of building its settlements in Palestine. These are three crucial ways in which they further an international progressive politics that is crucial for people in developing world that it meditate no response from government. Let's talk about the second strand of this, why progressive politics is good. The first thing I just want to point out here is that these people get funding from extremely small organizations. This is a good thing for us because this means according to their own agnostic, democratic norms, people have a much more pluralistic impact on their politics instead of ExxonMobil and Shell crowding out the interests of the poor and the marginalized. Before I deal with the final three reasons between progressive politics domestically.
<poi>
The problem isn't that individuals are fallible. The problem is that supporters of Bernie Sanders literally won't support Elizabeth Warren because of their personal disagreements in places like the presidential primaries.
</poi>
Okay, but that's literally not what happened yesterday. Like, fucking open the newspaper and they're like, I'm sorry, right? Like literally they had a fight because people argue. And then when people argue, they come to a consent. They keep literally saying they argued with each other. Yes, they did. I completely agree with you. And then they did coalesce on a common platform. That's literally what happened. This is the average reasonable voter test. I'm sure I'll be fine. Um, but then the other three reasons that I want to talk about the first reason that I think that's really important is in terms of radical politics, as I said at the top of my speech, progressive politics is extremely crucial to creating a democratic left which is different from the so-called radical left of closing government and opening government. This takes it over opening opposition because we show you a lighted runway apathway towards getting policies from the democrats past by making joe look the sensible guy. While crazy bernie goes off. Secondly, weshowed you that there's a compounding of the impacts in so insofar as the impacts aren't restricted to the contiguous borders of the united states but flow outward towards international politics, and thirdly we showed you that the only way get policies passed in an extremely polarized country is to create humanistic portrayals vis-a-vis individuals and also to allow a coalescing of the left, which prevents polarization and prevents factoring. For those reasons, I'm extremely proud to oppose.
</ow>
<pm>
I think the burden is kind of clear. I mean, assuming feasibility, presumably we just press a button and then animals have cognitive levels of capacity that have developed their own language or whatever. I think we should debate about the principles here rather than we're practically integrating. Of how this happens there are only two points from opening government; firstly that this is just a good in and of itself to give animals capacity and then they are far better alive themselves but also humans will treat them far better and that has numerous positive impacts. So why are these things good in and of themselves? Here I want to characterize what it is to be cognitive. What is kind of speech and so on; we say that you now have rational thought, you have the capacity as an animal as a bear or something to think about the long term; to go against your basic urges that push you towards the instant needs of things like food, that push you towards sex or whatever and sniff those lags. Instead you can plan things as long term. You can develop higher order goods. You can engage in animal academia if that's what you want. All these sorts of benefits of cognition are the best thing in the long term or to therefore will mean that you're able to plan your own lives far better as an animal because your capacity for utility goes up. It's on that side of the house we're just trapped in things like you know food consumption or whatever, on the constant stresses of that; whereas on our side when you're able to plan things as long term, to access higher order of ability. You're able to genuinely pursue meaningful projects that you have in your lives and so on rather than just being battered around by forces that you don't really control secondly we say the relationships that you have with other animals improve to a massive extent when you have a cognitive internal capacity the capacity in which you reflect on why a relationship that you have with your essentially animal spouse is genuinely meaningful for you. That is something that we think is far better and will give you a lot of value in and of itself rather than just seeing them as an object of sex or whatever which is probably like an evolution thing but the third thing that we'd say in a second is that adding them to probably create better social structures as well; on that side of the house these things have been developed purely by evolutionary means they're probably quite unjust you know like you have an alpha gorilla or whatever and that hurts the other gorillas and that's probably quite a bad thing and now you have gorilla social movements they're able to challenge the alpha gorilla in essence and therefore lead to far better outcomes for them as well so we think this is just good in and of itself. I don't really care about why this is principally extremely important. Essentially their side of the house is denying animals the cognitive capacity, the capacity to be treated as akin to humans. We say this is equivalent to something like denying a child schooling, because essentially the reason why schooling is so important is because it helps develop a child’s cognitive capacity to become an adult, to become a rational creature like us; that is what they are doing, on their side of the house they are denying animals the capacity of itself and just even if it's not a utilitarian thing, we still say that that would be wrong because we think these capacities, they're extremely important as well but we also say you probably have a reciprocal obligation to animals as well given that humans have treated them in such terrible ways over time that means that you probably should like give them this right, to give them a bit to fight back too.
<POI>
Matt, do you think it's morally legitimate to bring a child into the world in the middle of a war zone?
</POI>
Well, potentially i mean the thing is that essentially we say that like as well like animal conditions are going to improve massively as a result like that's the second argument right okay. So we think that humans are going to treat animals far better on our side of the house than on theirs, because animal rights groups have a pretty deep problem. On their side of the house you need to convince people of a trade off you need to say that they should sacrifice their own welfare for the sake of animals because, you know meat is quite delicious but what happens is, the way you split this is when you push someone who eats meat, the way they defend themselves is by saying of we're separate from animals; we have a cognitive capacity; we think and so on. We're able to engage in language and communication. These are how people separate themselves from animals and therefore justify that they're allowed to eat animals and consume them to the same extent but that defense goes away, because animals have this just by definition of motion. We're pressing the button that gives them that and so the main defense that people have against eating meat massively goes away as a result and that is something that we say is good in and of itself. But maybe opposition will be like aha well on both sides of the house you know that you can press the button and so therefore that will lead to better animal rights in and of itself. I don't think this is true either because we think that the power of giving animals the capacity of speech in and of itself means that their ability to advocate in and of itself increases far more; the reason is very simple; when an animal themselves is able to communicate these things, that means that they're able to like genuinely talk about their life experiences; they're able to do it in an extremely emotive way because you know they realize what works for other people and so on and so they're able to advocate for themselves in a really effective way, in a uniquely effective way with empathy and that can only happen when the animals themselves are doing it as opposed to humans and note, given my first point they probably also collectivise around these goals so you get all chickens who can now talk collectivising and being like fuck you, you’re treating us really badly and then they end up doing far better. But the third thing I would note is that it's probably just pretty haunting in terms of humans to clock what they're actually doing to animals when they're able to describe the terrible-ness of their conditions, while it is objectively quite bad and we probably presume that people have some degree of empathy to get rid of this and the impact are obviously that things like veganism as a trend going up; that you probably paid for animals far more you know in farm conditions and so on you might really send into the wild and so on and so forth. Now government might be able to say well veganism is going up as a trend on both sides of the house, so this is not that big of an impact but we say that it's held back on their side by two things; first it's unnatural whereby people just are settled into eating animals over and over again so they don't care until they keep eating them there are also things like cultural norms that exist that prevent people having meat but now the cultural norms are things like wow i'm basically being accountable according to my cultural norms. It's far easier to combat against it and far more visceral on our set house when animals are able to defend themselves; even if it's true that there's an improvement trend on their side it's far faster on our side of the house so we're literally able to save like two or three generations of animals, that is millions and millions of lives like that is a huge impact in this debate. The last thing I want to just briefly preempt is like if they say something like animals will like engage in war against humans you know the rick and morty case about snowy the dog; we think that this is unlikely because obviously war is Incredibly irrational,it hurts the animals themselves because they will take massive losses as a result; I think it's far easier for them to go towards peaceful means first and we have explained why they are far more likely to work on our side of the house. Now at the end of the day then, I think it's extremely clear we give animals on our side, the capacity to get far more utility and they're probably able to get this both in their own lives and also by appealing to humans. On their side of the house, they deny a lot of this. We say it's akin to denying animals a deep and fundamental right and so we are very proud to propose.
</pm>
<lo>
I just want to quickly note that most of the funny kid’s principal analysis is very much contingent on him being able to show that granting this right to animals is going to make the quality of life actually better. Right? That’s why this repetitive alteration exists; we want to make our lives better because we’ve done that harm in order to deal with harmony to do them good. I don’t think he shows that you end up good; therefore, the principal analysis fails. That’s also my point; it’s bad. Cool, very simple case. Firstly, that despite this policy, I don’t think humans are ever going to substantially care enough about animals to substantially improve their well-being. So, all that giving this right does is increase their pain and suffering in a way that we find morally and practically unacceptable. Why is this? One, I think there are just structural factors that mean that we really cannot significantly improve animal well-being anymore. Right? This is due to the fact that we’ve already massively destroyed habitats; we’ve already caused some changes to significant and, in some degrees, unreversible extents.
What that means is, that you really cannot help animals, even if you somehow develop the political capital to do so. Note that I don’t think they get instantaneous political capital as well, right. At the very least, you presumably need 10 to 15 years at the point at which, like, I don’t even know if climate change is going to be sufficiently reversible. At that point, you’re just causing massive suffering, not necessarily. They’ll talk about more later, but secondly, I want to note that the massive amounts of suffering that tend to exist within animal life forms tend to be broadly invisible. That’s to say that I don’t think it occurs right in front of our eyes, but rather occurs in things like factory farms. It occurs in places like the developing world, which most consumers just cannot invisibly see.
No, thank you. What that means is that even if they are right that you do develop this sort of, I don’t know, empathy, it’s going to be triggered when you cannot see the suffering and the suffering does not directly trigger your emotional heartstrings. Right? Think of this as like, uh, probably a believer in the developing world. Right? I think we all are aware of the problem, and yet we see that Western consumers have done practically nothing to deal with the issues of supply chains. Right? We know there are slavery abuses within our supply chains; we still consume products anyways. I failed to see whether it’s going to be any different. Thirdly, though, I want to note that there are massive political interests. That is to say, fine, maybe you believe all of their like, consumers are good, good, I love animals. The issue is that I don’t know why consumers are that powerful of a force in a world where political interest exists. That’s to say, when a trade-off exists between your welfare as a company and the welfare of like, random chickens in Papua New Guinea, I don’t necessarily know why you as a company are going to prioritize the welfare of animals. Rather, you’re probably going to prioritize your own welfare.


Right? What does that look like? The major industries that are dependent on the existence of like the destruction of habitats, right? This is like deforestation and all that sort of stuff. These industries are the ones that are going to be lobbying the government, and they have the most political capital. That means that even if you do care about animals on their side, I don’t know if you care about them to a significant extent to actually change anything in a meaningful way.


I want to win this right because they might come up here and say, “Ah, but at least we change the individual's actions. If you don’t buy some formats, here’s the thing, I don’t know why individual action matters that much.” Right. This is about what companies do, this is about what governments do. They are the biggest actors, the ones with the most power to do things. Right? Like Serena can say no, but I also say no. Right? Like, these are individuals. I don’t know how much day-to-day contact I have with animals, in their best case, maybe I eat less meat; I still don’t know if that’s going to deal with the massive issues like deforestation, like climate change that I just talked about.
I think we’re talking about political actors, systemic actors, because they don’t see all this. So, on impacts, right? Because all I’ve done basically is dismitigate our taste. Now I want to increase the impacts here, because what I prove to you is that there’s going to be suffering on both sides, but I’m not going to prove to you that by giving animals some level of cognition, they massively increase their levels of suffering. Why is this? One, because I think there is a psychological level of pain. Right? That’s to say when I see, I as a cow, I am seeing like my mama cow or papa cow going to the slaughterhouse and dying, I think that’s a horrible feeling. Right? This isn’t just trivial. Right. Think of a kid who literally has to see their mom or their dad taken away and murdered, often in front of their own eyes. Imagine how massively painful that trauma is in a way that you could never understand on the side of the government. Secondly, on empathy, right? Because you start to build connections between these animals. But I don’t think those connections can last because, yeah, they are going to go to the slaughterhouse.


Also, I want to note, just trivially, that animals tend to eat each other. And I think that’s a really horrifying experience. Right? I think If I went over and ate Aniket; that’d probably be really traumatic for both of us. Thirdly, though, right? I want to note that humans, I think, are also going to feel sad because there’s going to be, like, we’re going to continue the suffering for the structural reasons I just explained. But at the point that you know that animals are experiencing this hyper-level of suffering, I think humans also feel bad.
I don’t think we’re a trivial operating speed, I think we provide there as well. Cool. Note that I, like, there are also social dynamics between animals. Right? That is to say that I do think that certain animals, when we think they are better than each other, and like if you have high levels of cognition, that view is probably going to be advanced. But it’s the same way that like, racism and all that sort of stuff, like tribalism exists in our world. What I think that means is often you’re going to actually get a conflict between these animal groups that are really pernicious way, Right. I think if you just look at human history and the groups that have had this cognition, they tend to go to war with each other, they tend to kill each other, they tend to come into conflict. I think that’s massively harmful because even if they can prove that human agents have more empathy, I don’t know why animal agents are going to use this level of empathy to help each other rather than how this occurs historically and apparently, the harm image and then for moving on, closing.
<poi>
In the status quo, animals experience suffering, but it is invisible. The experience of empathy for themselves, why is this in any way asymmetrical?
</poi>
Presumably, you have to believe it is asymmetrical, by anything the opening government says, right. If you can already experience empathy and all these sort of things, then I don't know why any of their Guild mechanisms and stuff are going to work through any asymmetric extent. Right? You can have an opening, you can’t have it both ways. Cool. Second argument on why this creates active friction. Right. This is going to create active goodwill from humans towards animals. I want you to note how massively foreign this phenomenon is going to be. Right? Because this isn’t this house would, none of this house prefers. Which means that we are implementing a new policy. People who are living right now would wake up tomorrow in a world where animals are standing up and talking to you, and you’re going to shit in your pants. Right? It’s terrible. Okay, two issues here. One, I think there’s either going to be actual attacks on humans, or there’s going to be perceived threats of mass human attacks. No, we don’t have to prove that they’re going to get attacked; rather, we just need to prove that people are going to fear that there are going to be attacks. I think that’s just natural. Look at how many humans treat minority racial groups; I think that’s only going to be magnified in a world where there is this terror. Right?
I think one, in terms of why this fact is actually likely, animals are going to be resentful to a very understandable extent. We have treated them massively incorrectly. And secondly, like just think some humans, right? I think attacks naturally for, the issue is that as soon as one attack occurs, that’s going to be like disproportionate media coverage, dispersion of fear. What are humans going to do? There’s going to be genuine, meaningful backlash. That means they don’t allow animals to live together. That means you’re probably going to use a lot more brutal techniques of suppressing them, a lot more trying to cause regards, a lot more killing of animals to an unnecessary extent because you fear what’s going to happen.


Secondly, I want to note that like, in terms of Aniket that’s going to be war against humans, I don’t know if that actually is, but I think there’s going to be a fear of revolution to the very least extent. Right? But note that this revolution is always going to be unsuccessful. These humans have technology, the animals don’t. Humans have resources, animals don’t. Which means that they’re just going to be engaged in a failed revolution. There’s only going to increase fear among human populations, it’s only going to get themselves killed. It’s going to function much in the same way like we are scared of AI and all that sort of stuff; we’re going to be scared of animals.
To treat them is correlated. for all those reasons, opposed.
</lo>
<dpm>
Firstly, responses to OO, then the actual non-store online version of our case and why it’s going to win the debate and then the metrics by which you should judge a little bit of soft principle because I know my principles. Firstly, in responses to OO, the first thing to say is that they just assert that things like the environmental damage that we’ve caused, global warming, and all of these various candidable benefits that we could get are, one, at a tipping point, which means that no action could be beneficial. But two, and I think this is really important, they assert that the capacity, if we’re able to prove it for us to move to a greater extent and to a quicker extent towards veganism, also as vegetarianism, could not be a typical point in meaningfully changing this.


The reason they do this is because if we prove this, everyone wins. Humans benefit because we’re not, for example, fucking up the planet with methane and industrial farming. Animals benefit because they’re not in pain, which, by the way, exists on both sides because this debate is about their ability to articulate and have conclusions about that. And this is really important because I think there are several reasons why this is likely to be a tipping point. The first, is think about how much of gas production in the world comes from this level of industrial farming, coming from the fact that the justifications that animals have a lower level of cognition or the lack of haunting in your own mind when an animal is able to articulate that meat grinder and not an animal rights hippie-dippy kind of, liberal animal rights activists are saying it.


And the tipping point that would have for how many people would consume these meats, the fact that they would compare it to cannibalism and the fact that you’ve seen the production of billions of cubic meters of this gas, the impact that, that would then have on our journey to trying to lower even marginally the average temperature in the world and the impact that that would have for humans in terms of marginally less sea levels, some countries that previously wouldn’t exist on the side, existing on our side. I think that that is a clear tipping point because the way the environment works is, yes, things are marginal, but it’s fucking massive, and every marginal change has a huge effect.


Secondly, they say in the status quo the average consumer can see the suffering but they don’t care because, like, you know, try them out for a couple of things. Firstly, this is clearly different to child labor. This is things like cannibalism, which in the vast majority of contexts in almost every context in the world is considered to be abhorrent. And the reason that humans now equate it to this is because they can hear the haunting screams, but they can understand what they mean. They are seeing those visible stories, no thank you, of the actual unimaginable suffering. And here’s why this matters because humans have been able to construct the narrative in their head that by being higher beings, they’re able to not just make rational but also able to make empathetic choices.
So the way humans distinguish themselves they're not brutish like animals, they don't just rip heads of things. We have a higher level of ability to have compassion empathy and understanding, so being directly confronted with that and directly confronted with the idea that the very thing that makes you human is wrong because, actually, you are a disgusting animal is something that humans would want to very quickly disassociate from and work very hard to ensure that they are avoiding. Secondly, it is not true that nobody knows about animal suffering. The tipping quick, however, when they talk about capitalist interests and the fact that nobody cares enough about animal suffering or not enough people care enough, I think you have credible reasons why we have a tipping point there.


But finally, I think individual action, even if we prove that, which I don’t think we do, mattered, millions of people have pets, zoos exist, and the way that humans construct their own personal choices is what feeds into capitalism. We get pushed products, yes, but nobody wants a product if it’s made of cannibalism. Ideally, the tipping point, they're of mass consumption choices is actually going to affect those corporate interests because it affects what they can feasibly sell. Finally, they talk about human backlash. The problem with this is that animals often get killed and euthanized at the point that they harm animals, humans because they are considered to be these wild irrational beings. But on our side, when they’re able to articulate why they did those things, when they’re able to shine a mirror on humans and show that they are just as bad in creating the conditions which led to that, there is far more likely to be empathy. And like, it’s not going to be like if people still are self-interested, people still care about themselves. But the relevant analogy is once, for example, somebody has been disadvantaged, can mix and fine, you’re far likely to see a level of empathy for them in society because we are able to have narratives which understand why those individuals can do those things in the first thing. We don’t just euthanize those individuals, and I think that is the level and scale of impact that we are able to get.
Okay, what was our case? Firstly, we get benefits within animal structures in terms of their behaviors and their interactions. The status quo problem is that evolutionary randomness decides the optimal behaviors which are filtered by natural selection with animals, but there are two problems with this. One, humans, and this is like a reciprocal duty, humans have fucked animal evolution, especially in the past 300 years with things like industrialization and urbanization. They’ve endangered animals; they’ve increased global warming, which means that these animals haven’t been able to evolve as they should have instead.


But secondly, this requires a mass death of animals for natural selection to occur because it’s just the ones who happen to randomly have the right attributes to survive, human action, who are able to survive. We avoid that death when animals are aware of what is going on in the world around them. And it’s not just at the point where they’re confronted with death or pain or being driven out of their habitat that they are able to understand things, which means that we get more cumulative knowledge of human activity among animal communities. This is independent of whether we change the behaviors of humans, wins this debate because it gives them the ability of self-defense to be able to, for example, understand the wider world around them, move to certain places where there is a lack of human activity.


It gives them the capacity to be able to organize in a way that is better able to defend themselves, and self-defense is crucial, because on both sides, animals feel pain, but the difference in this debate is the capacity for them to articulate and to do something about it. We think that is imperative. Sure.
<poi>
Every single person in this room walked by rows of homeless people freezing on the street to get drinks. I think the light in humanity is quite true.
</poi>
It’s imperative to debate. Obviously, comparatively, there are homeless people on either side. I didn’t say that everyone is, every animal is going to be considered equal. We still have certain preferences for animals in the same way that we have preferences for human beings, but that doesn’t mean that human beings get treated to a level that animals do under the status quo.
Live in the comparative. Secondly, I think the interactions between humans get better ,between animals. It gets better because right now, it’s brutish and short. They have no conception of each other’s feelings, no conception of the deep societal and intimate relationships that they have with each other. I think that they are able to organize in structures which may be like allocate neat quotes or something, something that allows them to have less brutish lives, something that means that you don’t get a random animal getting snapped from a mother or something, which yes, they feel marginally less on their side of the house.
But actually, many animals still have the capacity to feel that thing on either side of the house. Finally, just as a point of way, animals feel pain on both sides of the house. The delta is their ability to articulate that, to be able to fight back, even if they aren’t successful in doing that. We think that is a right that they deserve because pain should be alleviated. What it means to be able to be heard.
</dpm>
<dlo>
The destruction of the environment and slaughter of millions of animals does not come from evil or indifference. Rather, it comes from privileging the interests of your own community, much like indigenous people in Canada. The harms that afflict them are distant and far away and far-off reserves, much like they’ll be in factory farms and forests.
Thus, it is incredibly easy to turn a blind eye when it comes to our day-to-day necessities and making our own lives better. Consider here, that the extent of us being truly empathetic for animals was significant, it wouldn’t just be about eating meat. It’d be no longer being able to access medicine that comes from animal parts, no longer being able to wear much of the clothing that you are wearing right now, things that by and large we do not believe are optional. And given the fact that the equivalent general community and the arc of human history, I think that the likely outcome of this is just destruction and death.
Two things I want to talk about here. First, I want to discuss human empathy, and I want to talk about whether or not the lifestyles of animals are actually going to improve. Second of all, I’m going to talk a little bit about animal society. So first, on human empathy, at the top, I just want to frame this issue of cognition and empathy because they claim that you can have empathy on either side of the house. First of all, in the status quo, a very small number of animals do generally have empathy. Those are higher-developed animals like dolphins or elephants, but the vast majority do not. So, this is just a factually untrue claim, and I think everyone has an average intelligent voter can assess and adjudicate that fact.


But the second thing that we ended up noting, is that being able to rationalize or conceptualize your pain is entirely different. Even if it’s the case that I can feel an instinctive sadness when someone I love or care about disappears, when I can intellectually comprehend how much they mean to me, how much I care about them, the plans that have been created on an intellectual level amplify the degree to which I’m empathetic because I can understand the significance of that relationship. No, thank you. In a far deeper way, moreover, I can understand my own suffering in a far deeper way. But I can instantly, intellectually conceptualize that I’m being oppressed, that I’m disadvantaged, that there’s no hope of getting better and that my life is constantly going to be a pit of despair. They cannot just make some big debate land or analysis to explain why this is symmetric. This is a huge difference in terms of how animals experience the world. So what do we hear from the opening government? They tell you that we’re now going to engage in more veganism.


I have four different responses here. The first thing that I want to point out is that this won’t be seen as cannibalism, as they have noted, because this is a cultural norm that we’ve already inculcated. It is normal for us to eat animals already, and that it’s going to be incredibly easy for us to view this as a normal activity that isn’t cannibalism because they are the other. And the same way that some people can enslave others of different breeds or different backgrounds under the justification that they are lesser or not like us.
The second thing that I want to point out is that there is every incentive to cover this up, for large corporations, to ban advertising campaigns that display the suffering of animals. And you will never be able to see an actual animal face to face that has suffered and has experienced these things. Third of all, oftentimes this is going to be based on your own lived experiences. If you do not have similar lived experiences to these animals, you do not conceptually understand the full extent of pain.
That is why we are more empathetic to those who are similar to us or approximate to us; they have similar experiences that we can then relate to. But animals will have a completely different set of lived experiences, not just in terms of their oppression but in terms of the day-to-day function that they have in their day-to-day lives, which means it’ll be very difficult for us to become empathetic to them. The fourth thing that I want to point out is that there is a more persuasive way to persuade people, which is perhaps the narrative of, you know, climate change will kill us all or that there is a significant health benefit to yourself.


And here’s the problem, if we can conceptualize that this significantly contributes to our own destruction as humanity through climate change, it is unclear why this distant message that opening government talks about will actually influence anyone’s rationality. But aside from this argument, I also want to point out that there are some inherent reasons why animals are going to suffer, that we’ve already deforested regions, destroying entire habitats. The animals can have to eat each other, which by default means that they have to go through the trauma of eating another sentient being and, of course, being eaten by another sentient being.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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