Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k
Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough or have a good enough memory to actually quote MLK, but he had a quote that essentially said that until the means of capitalism and wealth production are not in the hands of black people, they're never going to escape their oppression. Because the main truth which you're actually oppressed is the economy; is the wealth that is being distributed in an unfair advantage. This has been the case since the entirety history, and we are slowly progressing towards more and more what's it called economic equity. But until you're able to live in neighborhoods that actually allow you to build wealth, this is impossible.

That's why the lack of interaction with our mechanization loses all over the debate. So let's see what they provided. I'm going to have two major clashes: the short-term and the long-term, and I'm going to try to weigh them if I have time.

So, first thing in the short term, they see that there's a four-story location. And here, I want to be very clear on the model. Yes, eventually, if people don't want to move, we are going to move them, but this will obviously take a few years. Right? If anything, you have a shipping bottleneck of like, people can't move their couches around, so UPS needs some time in order for them to move everyone around the city or around the country. Right? So this does take some time. We do provide financial incentives if you're willing to move without us having to do anything, but if you don't, we will eventually relocate you.

And here, the main point that they have is that the areas will suit you really well because you have very specific skill sets of fishing or farming. Firstly, I had to look it up because I'm like ESL, but neighborhood generally refers to more urban areas rather than rural areas. Where you have a very specific skill set, that means that on average, most of the people that we're talking about actually have skills like doing paperwork or a very specific type of corporate job. But even if that isn't the case, let's see which is more common: are you living in the region that you're living in because you have a very unique skill set that can only be exploited in your specific neighborhood, or is it more likely that you are there because of gerrymandering and redlining?

I think that the second one is more likely because of historical reasons that are the main precondition for all these natural consequences that we currently have. What this shows to you is that this argument of some people not getting jobs is quite minimal compared to people who can move to areas where they can access significantly higher job opportunities. If that is the case, then you should waive for OG.

Secondarily, I think that you are likely to reskill to a significant degree because you now have access to wealth-building tools that give you the stability in order for you to are like to reskill. These are things such as: one, better education that my colleague talked about and was on interact with or two, the security of knowing that you have a home that actually increases in value. So like that means you have like you can take debt against it and so on.

But the last thing I want to talk about when it comes to the short term is whether we are legitimate to force you to move because CO also brought up a point on this. They seem to be very keen on the argument. So note, if opp. bench only cares about agency, I would posit that communities can take aggregate decisions on whether they want to move or not. Because note, some people are going to move away from the neighborhood, some people will stay. The decision still lives up to the individual, and the community takes aggregate decisions, and they decide whether they want to move if they're incentivized by the financial benefits that we give or the better neighborhood they would go to. So some people just willingly choose to move.

So the delta on like, "I'm forced out of my house," is actually quite minimal. There are very few people that would be actively forced to move. They are more likely going to benefit from one, financial incentives, or the better lifestyle that they would access in these neighborhoods. But let's take the opp. bench of their best: some people are forced to move. I think that this is legitimate nonetheless because when we take decisions as a state, especially when we take long-term decisions, we can't access the preferences of the people in the future.

So what we do is that we access and prioritize the likely preferences of the people in the future. We don't know if the people in the future would like to not die of climate change, but we presume that they would because it's very intuitive for us that they would. This is how we make decisions, and thus in the present, we try to make decisions that would protect the people from climate change in the future.

Similarly, the fact that you will see financial benefits transfer to the most basic of rights that you can access, and we think that it's intuitive that even minorities that enjoy the community would prefer to have food on the table and for their children to go to school as a precondition for them to access anything else in this capitalistic society. So even if some people are forced to do it, we think that this is a fair and legitimate decision by the state because it accesses what the people would generally want to access if they were in this position 20 years from now. Before I can move on to the long term, I can take CO

<poi>
You don't prove why this integration will be successful. It doesn't matter.
</poi>

I don't have to because I'm not playing the game of whether people are going to get along with each other. I can at least take CG and let them do it, but we chose not to do it for a reason because we don't want to face the whole backlash scenario. Note, all of our mechanisms have nothing to do with you understanding your neighbors or caring about them. Even if there is some level of discrimination, which I'm going to interact with now, we don't care because our mechanisms are purely economic, and there is nothing you can do about them even if you try to discriminate against your neighbors.

So let's actually interact with the point on ethnic tensions. Quick mitigation: I think that the police still exist, and they're likely to prevent a lot of these ethnic tensions, mostly because now they have to protect the majority of the population that is actually politically relevant. So they don't want to have violence in their neighborhood, no matter what that neighborhood is. But even regardless of this mitigation, I think it's still preferable for us to do this motion because the main push from OO is that you are going to have insulation from oppression.

Oppression happens very often in very, how should I call them, covert cases. So the main push from OP is that the short-term harms will be experienced right now, but the short-term harms would be experienced anyway because when you try to get a job or move up the social ladder, you are likely to be oppressed and likely to be discriminated against at the job offering or even be called racial slurs for attempting to move out of your caste.

Secondarily, I think you are more likely to experience indirect state-driven discrimination through lack of funding, lack of healthcare, or actual displacement being moved to even poorer areas. So the delta on short-term discrimination doesn't play out for opp.; it plays out negatively for opp. because realistically, you are likely to be discriminated against by the state anyway. Yes, there might be more direct discrimination, but realistically, the quality of life doesn't fundamentally shift because you would have been oppressed anyway. But our benefits are more certain because they're insulated from externalities.

Why? One, nobody can take this away from you. They can't move you out of this place now that you have established that this is your home, and you are now the minority that needs to be represented in the community; it's really hard for them to move you out. Secondarily, your position in the community is solidified in time because then you do have contact theory; you do agree with your neighbors. But even if you don't, the third reason why you should vote for us is that the long-term benefits are more important than any short-term detriments because they allow you the ability to defend yourself.

Because generally, you now get access to the economic benefits that allow you to then become politically active, to vote for yourself, or even just the economic benefits that insulate you from all of the harms of discrimination. A clear OG win.
</dpm>

<dlo>
What proposition does is force the appearance of Bosnian boys who were killed in Srebrenica only a couple of decades ago to live.

Next, to Serbs to force to graze in Ethiopia, who are currently being genocided, to live next to the people who are killing them, this is a morally disgusting idea. I'm going to talk about three things in this speech. Firstly, can the process of relocation be successful? Secondly, will it lead to successful integration and an increase of opportunities? And thirdly, weighing violence in degrees of security.

On the question of feasibility, both prop teams try and say, "Guys, it worked in Singapore." Singapore is a very unique political case. It is the smallest country in the world, or one of them. It is rich in ethnic groups that hate each other substantially less. Singapore is very different from how Ethiopia looks under the status quo.

Then Tin says in an appeal, "Guys, we're just going to move the majority into the minority communities." That doesn’t work if you think about how population demographics actually look. Think about a country like Nigeria, where you have the predominantly Muslim North and the predominantly Christian South. In a case like this, you're going to have to move both groups to equalize proportions. Then, even just moving the majority group is going to have a bunch of harms.

What did we tell you? The process of relocation is morally disgusting because if people don't take cash transfers from the state, we'll have to forcibly do this. You uproot people from communities that they care deeply about and that are very important to their quality of life. These are ice cream shops that they went to as kids that they love deeply. They often love their friends; they love their communities. It's near the church that they grew up going to, which is very important to their religion, and that's couched in very significant memories for them.

The only response that we get to this is to say that people don't really choose to live in their communities under the status quo, so agency violation is symmetric. This is nonsense for a couple of reasons. Firstly, even if you don't choose your community under the status quo, it still acquires a high level of significance for you because this is where you formed your memories. This is the community that you grew to care about. So it becomes morally significant.

But secondly, choice is obviously what is higher under our side of the house, right? Like, sure, there are some factors that can strain your options, but to intuitively pump, many communities have diversified under the status quo. The Middle Belt of Nigeria is very ethnically diverse, right? There are still things like migrant workers that exist. If you're really unhappy, you can move. I would also posit that we probably have put a lot of power under our side of the house. We could say that if people are really unhappy, we would invest tens of millions of social resources that are going to be used in forced communication to offer people the option of moving if they are deeply unhappy.

So we group under this theme that this will go badly, and it's morally disgusting to uproot people from their communities. Secondly, let's talk about the process of integration. I want to explain that the perception of the majority is going to be very negative, and then I'm going to impact this. Firstly, there is a reason why groups hate each other in the first place. Artificial ethnic divides were created by colonial powers in order to reify their powers. In a deep-seated way, we're socialized to perceive other groups as being vermin. This often led to tremendous conflict and genocide.

Think about Rwanda. Think about the kind of violence that occurred throughout Yugoslavia. These are literally people that you perceive as killing you, killing your families. You don't have to live alongside them. But secondly, even if you don't hate the group initially, resentment grows when you perceive the group that is coming in as pushing out your community and your family that you care deeply about, even if it's the state and not the group. This is the most direct way to direct a variety of degrees of blame.

Why does this negative perception mean that integration is never going to be successful? Firstly, all public services—an opening government is talking about—even if they are public, still rely on a favorable perception of the dominant group. What if an Indian doctor refuses to see a young Muslim boy when he's dying in a hospital? What if teachers refuse to answer the questions of ethnic minorities in their class or ever write these kinds of recommendations to get a job? You still need the majority being willing to hire you in the first place.

Public services still depend on high degrees of private buy-in to actually be effective, especially when you often have things like lower income and worse credentials that are going to reify negative images that exist. They can say that social contact theory works; interaction happens. But if you've got the negative initial perception, it has a reinforcing anchoring effect rather than actually deconstructing these biases.

Secondly, large amounts of services in these communities are still privatized. This is not just the West where everything is public. A lot of the time, we don't have these well-funded, nice public schools. We have private schools; we have private hospitals. Not only are you going to be financially precluded from accessing these services, which Daniela analyzes, but this is the exact same problem as gentrification under the status quo. If you have rich people moving into poor communities and you increase prices, people are unable to afford these kinds of things in their income brackets. Discrimination means that you can't access these services regardless.

How on Earth do you get a job as a poor person in a rich community if you don't even have the CV to be able to do this? Private services are also inaccessible. But next, you also get, thanks to community-based segregation happening internally, the dominant privileged ethnic group around the city core and the poor communities on the outskirts, meaning that there's still segregation when it comes to things like the kind of schools that you're going to.

Why is it less important than violence than bodily security? Firstly, on exclusivity of the impact, there are other ways to promote things like uplifting of poor communities. We can get things like state investment, and we have some fiat to do that. Often, there are incentives for governments to do things like invest because if you are a concentrated region, you have some political influence in first-past-the-post systems where you don't want every single Muslim province not to vote for you. Right?

You can also get things like private investment, which are often more blind to ethnicity. You can be a Chinese business and still see a region that's being profitable. Secondly, on the extremity of impact, the degree of inequality is going to be very small, whereas violence increase will be large. Closing government, opening

<pm>
You do realize that these places tend to be the most underdeveloped parts of cities? Why the would a private investor go and put this money there?
</poi>

Because if you're underdeveloped, what does this mean? More potential for capital appreciation and for future flows that are going to exist.

Often, you can still have things like resources at Disney’s community. Some Kurdish communities, for instance, have quite a lot of oil that's existing. Let's chat about violence. We gave you multiple reasons about basic protections being violated. Firstly, the nature of communal scrimmages during the process of forced relocation. Panel, think about what happened during partition. A group who just genocided you is moving into your community.

Hey, civil wars often just happen. The probability of violence outframes your economics arguments. You've got things like infrastructure destruction. But secondly, it's about violence within these communities and the forfeiting of basic protection. We explain this in the realm of things like cultural protection, where at the very least, you have a local level government that respects your language rights, that respects your religious rights, and that does not forcibly indoctrinate, even in the context of education.

But it's also about physical protection. They say the police—this is offensive. The police in India watched as the Babri Mosque was being destroyed. They're often also not ethnically existing in proportion. They don't care. This is about protecting people who can otherwise be genocided and killed by ethnic oppressors who hate them. You can otherwise have things like fenced communities. Be very proud to oppose.
</dlo>

<mg>
I'll be starting my speech in three, two, one. Opposition bench needs a common sense check. First, on these forcible relocation things, notice that for all of the reasons opposition talks about, it's very likely going to be politically

Unpalatable to forcibly move people. This means the government has an incentive to find ways around that. Most often, the only point that's going to be made is that this is done through public housing schemes, which are targeted at minorities who, in the status quo, live in disenfranchised neighborhoods. Because they do, they're likely to accept the opportunity to move to a better location with better education and better healthcare, which the government is giving them for free. Which means that in most cases, you're moving the minorities in as opposed to moving the majority out, and the minority has incentives to accept that as opposed to being angry about that. The only response the LO gives is "Nigeria." This is not analysis.

Secondly, I want to talk about integration, but before that, I just want to point out one thing: it's uncharitable for opening opposition to say this debate is in the worst possible excesses this problem. it's emotion probably doesn't happen if a civil war happened yesterday because if a civil war happened yesterday, you probably don't have institutions; you don't have a constitution; there is no Parliament that we can pass this policy. This probably happens 20 years after the Balkan Wars, not one day after.

Opening opposition cannot set their cases if you want to run that example. Now, on integration, Note most people in most countries and all debates are debated in the vast majority of cases. Parliament racists, and even in Bosnia, most people don't have a family member in Instagram. Most often, resentment between groups is caused by the fact that groups do not interact with each other. At the point where you don't interact with a stranger, it's very easy for populists and right-wingers to paint them as alien, to paint them as different, to paint them as not wanting to integrate into the culture, and being a threat to the culture.

What happens when you have these people interacting with each other in neighborhoods is that you see they're just normal people who also go to the store, who also go to work, who take their kids to the park. In other words, you directly disprove the apocalypse theory. A very good example of this is football: a lot of football fans are racist, but racial violence tended to decrease amongst football fans at the point where players from other minorities joined the team, where they would also kiss the match, where they would also score goals for the team, which shows that they have the same goals, the same values, they live their life in the same way, and care about the same things.

Therefore, something must be wrong about the previous theory I had, and even if it's not a conscious process, it's subconscious. But let's deal with the worst-case scenario: like this is Yugoslavia, and people were killed, and everybody is incredibly angry, and all these kinds of things. Reconciliation works transgenerationally. Even if you don't have reconciliation within the first generation, you can have it with the second generation because children are born into political narratives they don't understand, they don't care about, but what they understand is this guy plays football with them after school. What they do understand is that this guy helped them with his math homework.

It doesn't matter whether his name is Ahmed, or is Yovan, or is Marco; they're all doing the same thing, they're all kids, they're all having fun. Over time, you begin to not care about things. Notice how the creation of Serbian debate communities are very close despite the fact that all of our fathers and grandfathers have been to the war. Notice this happens transgenerationally. A lot of other cases as well: when JFK desegregated schools in America, the first couple of years, he literally had to send the federal army to the southern states to enforce it. Now Black kids and White kids go to school normally. Why? Because over time, things become normalized.

in Backlash, anger is a transient emotion. So even if we take opening opposition at their best, they get harms in the short term; we can flip those harms in the long term by creating integration. The problem with their case is uncomparative because where these people live today is equally bad, they're equally discriminated against and equally under-invested in. So I'm not sure whether comparative is just subjecting them to a different form of violence and a different form of people not caring about them. We can flip that.

Now, how do we flip that? I think this is where it's important to engage in where these people live today because opening government assumes that their status quo is bad and then perhaps the comparative they have better opportunities, blah blah. But an opening legal position comes and says about noise something very good to live concentrated. Who wins that clash? Closing government. Why? Because we're going to characterize how those places look and how their lives look in the status quo.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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