texts/model_speech2.txt

Model Speech Motion: this house believes that governments would be justified in heavily pursuing long-termism

URL: https://www.youtube.com/live/D-JXK_yw1bI?feature=share&t=1154

Model Speech(OG)
the generations of the future multitudes upon multitudes depend on our decisions then the parent they depend especially on our governments they are our children and we must protect them even at a cost to ourselves i'll start with the framing about the morality of this debate and then i'll have three points let's start with the framing they'll expand the points about morality and about responsibility nobody and not in this debate and nobody at all knows what is the correct moral metric everybody each person has its own moral metric that they believe to be true and note each person has an equal moral value that means that the best way to achieve morality to understand where our responsibilities best lie is to expand upon the a lot of lots of metrics of morality and that's what we'll do in this debate we will prove a way it is justified morally on the utilitarian metric on the dependence metric and the access to to liberties and rights metrics that means that any team in this debate they want to weigh over us or why their specific metric is more justified we'll need to weigh against the combination of these metrics in order to satisfy the needs and beliefs of every individual and their moral worth the combination of these metrics is what will make our case so strong in this debate i'll start with the utilitarian front we help more people for a longer time achieve better lives first of all there are going to be more people in the future than the 7 billion that we have right now we have improving health systems we have a smarter use of utilities and resources and governments we and we look at the hundreds of years ahead we're looking at generations and generation hands which is the scope on which government decisions that will happen right now about global warming about all the population about automation about crises that we are facing and are about to face are going to influence that means that we're talking about the sum of tens of billions of people that are going to live in each generation from now the sum of that which means a hundred billion people 200 300 billion people as opposed to the seven we are talking about now that is orders of magnitude more people and we are talking about existential crises in danger that even if they have a low probability of harm will cause massive harm but we feel that in a lot of government decisions right now there is a large probability of harm right if you for some short-term political reason weaken your courts you set up the crown for autocracies and less representative elect systems that protect the rights of people less in the generations after you that happens more and more if you don't preserve your resources if you don't use alternative means of energy and you take all of your research resources you lead to resource wars where's about water words but oil was about gas all these sort of thing and these are things that we are already doing now but even if there's a smaller chance of harm even if global warming goes completely out of control even we can contain overpopulation and each like actor in the prisoner's dilemma of limiting population of controlling our use of resources decides to defect and we are subject to that the generations after that will suffer horrific fate of fighting for resources of being perpetually poor or not being able to excuse themselves and to suffer for a long long time why are people now will be less hurt if we care about that more simply because first of all these are less people as i said but they already have the ability to act themselves in the world that they surround themselves they haven't been born to a society that was pre-built by these countries by these crises by the world that was built for them and therefore they are much more able to construct their own fate to help themselves better they are not locked in economic niche that was designed for them by a world that was already automated they can still find a job they can still help themselves out of poverty they can still do that utility utilitarian wise this is more justified because we help more people moving on to dependence and access to rights we have a greater responsibility for people who will be dehumanized who will not get access to liberties should we act otherwise know that in a lot of the things that we're talking about it is so much harder to respond looking back than it is to prevent them in the first place if we already finish our resources if we don't have any sources for energy and we haven't constructed the alternative means to gain energy we are stuck that way and it's so much harder to solve that if goblin warming already happened if the glaciers already melted if the co2 was already released to the atmosphere that is not a wheel that we can turn back we could if overpopulation already happened and we haven't been careful we can't just kill a bunch of people that will cannot be turned backwards but we can with government action prevent that in the first place to a much more effective degree and that is what governments can do uniquely and note this motion and about specifically the action of governments before i'll explain why that is so important co great so to what extent does yours your persuasive over long termism exist so are you willing to support ending abortion or restricting all things like reproductive health and development we are not willing to do away with the rights of everybody because as i've noted access to rights access to liberty is a metric that is important to us but we will invest less in things that happen right now we may invest less in pension we may invest less in developing a short-term energy solution as to the extent of alternative energy we will take a much longer view with our investments as governments will manage our uh uh interest in that sort of thing that these are the means yes people will have less utility right now we owe them less as governments why is that true because people today that are living right now are less dependent on specifically governments even if you're the poorest of the poor you still have access to alternatives that are outside your government like ngos like charities like markets that can help you on their own these are bodies that have less of an influence on the long term because they don't make laws they don't pass budgets they have a limited scope and so specifically it is the government that is that the future generation are most dependent on the future generation to the government is the kid that is next that is hanging on the cliff that is right next to them and if you are the actor who is right next to the cliff who nobody else can help you are the person most responsible for that child you need to help them even if you don't help other people that are less dependent on you your responsibility to them is greater why because their access to rights and liberties are specifically moral to deprive them of the access to these liberties to make them live in a world that is overpopulated that is warm that is automated so they don't have any job to do they can fulfill the liberties and rights they should have and the people today can still access to you they are still dependent to us for all three of these metrics i am so proud to propose i'm so proud to do that under the banner of tel aviv and i'm so proud to do that next to an awesome partner like assaf who is sitting right next to me we are very proud to be ocean that these benefits are also quite large for three reasons that they're substantially more likely to be people in the future their population is growing over time  secondly these people have no consent to what happened over the past now we have a responsibility to create an international court for these people in the future and thirdly is that we are  taking mutually exclusive resources away from them which is why we should care for them there are two reasons why opening government wins just a bit the first is  that we explain why we save the world and secondly we explain why there is no other possible choice.