add perfect_case

app.py

@@ -777,12 +777,24 @@ def page6():
     with tab2:
         st.header("Perfect Case")
 
+        perfect_case_list = [
+            "This house supports the creation of an international court with a mandate to prosecute leaders for health crimes",
+            "This house believes that governments would be justified in heavily pursuing long-termism",
+            "THBT international discussion forums should not self-censor* in an attempt to increase inclusivity to people from countries with stringent freedom-of-speech rules.",
+            ]
+
+        perfect_case_selected = st.selectbox("Choose the Perfect Case", perfect_case_list)
+
         perfect_case = perfect_case_selector(
-            st.session_state.debate_theme, 
-            st.session_state.topic
+            perfect_case_selected
             )
+        
+        perfect_case_url = perfect_case['perfect_case_url']
+        perfect_case_text = perfect_case['perfect_case_text']
+
+        st.video(perfect_case_url)
 
-        st.write(perfect_case)
+        st.write(perfect_case_text)
 
 
     with tab3:

bots/perfect_case_bot.py

@@ -1,66 +1,28 @@
 
 
 
-def perfect_case_selector(debate_theme, topic):
+def perfect_case_selector(perfect_case_selected):
+
+    if perfect_case_selected == "This house supports the creation of an international court with a mandate to prosecute leaders for health crimes":
+        perfect_case_url = "https://www.youtube.com/live/s8g4BLdhQQw?feature=share&t=782"
+        perfect_case_text_path = "./texts/model_speech1.txt"
+
+    elif perfect_case_selected == "This house believes that governments would be justified in heavily pursuing long-termism":
+        perfect_case_url = "https://www.youtube.com/live/D-JXK_yw1bI?feature=share&t=1154"
+        perfect_case_text_path = "./texts/model_speech2.txt"
+
+    elif perfect_case_selected == "THBT international discussion forums should not self-censor* in an attempt to increase inclusivity to people from countries with stringent freedom-of-speech rules.":
+
+        perfect_case_url = "https://www.youtube.com/live/N2fXz3nfdfs?feature=share&t=1373"
+        perfect_case_text_path = "./texts/model_speech3.txt"
 
-    if debate_theme == 'Education':
-        topic_list = [
-            "THBT college entrance examinations should accept students only on the basis of their academic performance in secondary education.", 
-            "THS a world where the government gives cash that individuals can use to freely select their academic preference (including but not limited to school of choice, private academies, and tutoring) instead of funding for public education.",
-            "THW abolish all requirements and evaluation criteria in higher education (i.e., attendance, exams, assignments)."
-            ]
-    elif debate_theme == 'Sports':
-        topic_list = [
-            "THBT having star players for team sports do more harm than good to the team.",
-            "THR the emphasis on winning a medal in the Olympics as a core symbol of success.",
-            "THP a world where sports serves purely entertainment purposes even at the expense of fair play."
-            ]
-    elif debate_theme == 'Religion':
-        topic_list = [
-            "THW, as a religious group/leader, cease attempts at increasing the number of believers and instead prioritize boosting loyalty amongst adherents to the religion.",
-            "Assuming feasibility, TH prefers a world where a panel of church leaders would create a universally accepted interpretation of the Bible that the believers would abide by.",
-            "THW aggressively crackdown on megachurches."
-            ]
-    elif debate_theme == 'Justice':
-        topic_list = [
-            "In 2050, AI robots are able to replicate the appearance, conversation, and reaction to emotions of human beings. However, their intelligence still does not allow them to sense emotions and feelings such as pain, happiness, joy, and etc.",
-            "In the case a human destroys the robot beyond repair, THW charge murder instead of property damage.",
-            "THP a world where the criminal justice system’s role is mainly for victim’s vengeance. THW allow prosecutors and victims to veto assigned judges."
-            ]
-    elif debate_theme == 'Pandemic':
-        topic_list = [
-            "During a pandemic, THBT businesses that benefit from the pandemic should be additionally taxed.",
-            "THW nullify the effect of medical patents in cases of medical emergencies.",
-            "THW ban media content that denies the efficacy of the COVID-19 without substantial evidence."
-            ]
-    elif debate_theme == 'Politics':
-        topic_list = [
-            "Info: The Candle Light Will (촛불민심) is a term derived from the symbolic candle-light protests for the impeachment of the late president Park Geun Hye, commonly used to mean the people’s will to fight against corrupt governments. The Moon administration has frequently referred to the Candle Light Will as the driving force behind its election that grants legitimacy to its policies. THR the ‘candle light will’ narrative in the political discourse of South Korea.",
-            "THW impose a cap on the property and income of politicians.",
-            "THW give the youth extra votes."
-            ]
-    elif debate_theme == 'Minority':
-        topic_list = [
-            "Context: A prominent member of the LGBT movement has discovered that a very influential politician helping the LGBT movement has been lying about their sexual orientation as being gay when they are straight. THW disclose this information.",
-            "THBT the LGBTQIA+ movement should denounce the existence of marriage as opposed to fighting for equal marriage rights.",
-            "THBT the LGBTQIA+ movement should condemn the consumption of movies and TV shows that cast straight actors/actresses in non-heterosexual identified roles."
-            ]
-    else:
-        topic_list = [
-            "THW remove all laws that relate to filial responsibilities.",
-            "THW require parents to receive approval from experts in relevant fields before making crucial decisions for their children.",
-            "Assuming it is possible to measure the ‘societal danger’ of the fetus in the future, THBT the state should raise infants that pose high levels of threat.",
-            "THBT any upper limits on prison sentences for particularly heinous crimes should be abolished.",
-            "THW require dating apps to anonymize profile pictures.",
-            "THW adopt a Pass/Fail grading system for students who suffer from mental health problems (e.g. depression, bipolar disorder, etc.).",
-            "THBT South Korean feminist movements should reject feminist icons that are adversarial and embody violence.",
-            "THBT freedom of speech should be considered obsolete.",
-            "THR the narrative that eccentric personalities are essential to create art.",
-            "THW allow parents of severely mentally disabled children to medically impede their children's physical growth.",
-            "THR the emphasis on longevity in relationships.",
-            "Assuming feasibility, THW choose to continuously relive the happiest moment of one’s life."
-            ]
         
-    perfect_case_result = "perfect_case_result"
+    with open(perfect_case_text_path, "r") as f:
+            perfect_case_text = f.read()
+
+    perfect_case_result = {
+            "perfect_case_url": perfect_case_url,
+            "perfect_case_text": perfect_case_text
+        }
 
     return perfect_case_result

texts/model_speech1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+Model Speech Motion: this house supports the creation of an international court with a mandate to prosecute leaders for health crimes 
+
+URL: https://www.youtube.com/live/s8g4BLdhQQw?feature=share&t=782
+
+Model Speech(OG)
+
+it is crazy that when it is the bullet that takes the toll we form quartz but when it is the bacteria we throw up our hands and we forget like it never happened to be clear what are we doing in this debate firstly we broadly expect an international court to be created in alignment with the wealth well world health organization and we expect this to be heavily supported by all the countries part of the world health organization. we expect us to have the participation of scientists experts to consistently write technical papers in order to inform our judgments appoint these from each country for judges and so on we also expect that participation in the world health organization and receiving benefits like aid is conditional of being party to this international court why is this likely to be the manifestation of the court i know up will challenge this there are seven reasons why we think countries will opt in and why we think this would be effective first countries that do not consent to such an authority without themselves having some say in the negotiation of that body would obviously be revolting so they would like to have some participation given that this body will have some control over the world's health resources no matter what secondly the second is that this is likely a broad worry that the international community is ineffective which is why they are likely to take these actions into their own hands because they want to make these decisions reasonable they learn from the mistakes of previous international courts thirdly the third is that people generally care about health as an issue and they want to be a participant to many things that are clearly on the level of a global scale the fourth is that there is a selfish advantage to imposing stringent regulations and that leaders now are unlikely to face the consequences of being punished as they are on their way out but will benefit from the legitimacy this provides their authoritarianism or whatever they are fifty is that they're also the game theoretic advantage in that you are harmed by other states in the case of pandemic goes awry so you want to hold other states to account sixthly the advantage is that many benefits you care about like health education cheap medical goods and so on will be contingent on this and beyond that there are spillover effects like economic benefits that you may care about so you want to be party to this in order to receive the benefits of the wealth organization and so on so what the crimes are we punishing so we look to examples like bolsonaro being unwilling to comply with a recommendation for usage of masks and warranty measures we're looking at the unwillingness for china to comply with wealth world health organization investigations on the village and institut we're talking about the harding of resources in countries and so on vaccines and ventilators why do they do these crimes so there are a variety of reasons we suspect they might do this they might not be technologically at the time or they might not have the right decision or maybe it's just the short-term incentives are too powerful and they feel the need to sacrifice thousands of lives in the future to allay present fears we will impose punishments such as imprisoning leaders for expanded periods of time taking them out of power or asking them to depose a bdd pose we're okay with doing this during the crisis if it is feasible to realign national incentives but we expect that in some cases for it to happen after the fact anyway so there are two arguments in the speech first what are the benefit before that i'll take up your wife from closing opposition so we also tried creating an international court for human crimes and camps against humanity how successful has that been that's a good question maybe you should answer that in your speech number one we believe that there are trivial benefits to encouraging countries to comply with health regulation note that this massively changes the incentives of leaders we identify in the setup for all the reasons we give we suspect this has gigantic benefits first on following the regulations on pandemics things like covid potential future ones like sars preventable diseases like malaria first we enjoin the prevention of future harm from occurring to people because measures are taken to overturn the anti-short-term the short-term incentive to focus on keeping the economy afloat instead of the long-term incentive of acting early we're able to mobilize health forces to start early lockdown in areas that would not have otherwise done it which means that we prevent massively the spread of diseases while they are still easy to solve secondly this allows for effective healthcare response in that actual policies imposed by the world health organization are substantially more effective than once implemented on the ground because they have access to a greater breadth of resources such as health experts from all around the world who have access to various different contacts and so on thirdly they benefit from a cohesive response in the sense that lockdowns and other policies become ineffective since pandemics don't recognize borders even if the spread is very slow in one place if it is open in another place the spread might still continue and as such you will have to keep it locked down for as long as everyone has kept the borders open we also suspect the allocation of effective resources to where it's most needed it is crazy that in the philippines hospitals are missing ventilators vaccines and beds while there are storehouses full of them in the western world we suspect it would be a massive benefit simply to put places when resources in some countries into other countries and to allow access to these things at the threat of imprisoning people for hoarding resources for future potential gain notably this also deals with massive future benefits such as antibiotics where in the sense that in order in the order of future potential lives diseases that have no cure might potentially arise because we have they have built up an immunity to everything we could throw at them because we decide to spend our antibiotics on agriculture and so on instead of protecting the lives of people we suspect massively reducing the either the political incentive for countries to do this or the capacity for them to do this by taking away the resources by making them not party to the international organizations anymore would massively benefit these individuals note i just want to impact this before we move on to the next part about enjoining trust the first is that in terms of scale this is a policy on a jerk down to one scale cleaving across hundreds of countries and ensuring that health resources are more adequately allocated and equitably allocated to the thousands of the world's most poor but secondly in terms of gravity this deals with some of the most vulnerable those in rural areas without effective health care resources those who are old and cannot take vaccines and rely on herd immunity these are the people we protect notably as a secondary benefit we think is equally important in the sense that the creation of a court causes trust to arise and increase overall investment and participation in global health the authority refrain is that these countries are ineffective in the sense that they are toothless even if the world's organization tells you to do something you're unlikely to follow it moreover politicians want to be sure that they can hold other politicians to account so they will likely to manifest their will through the score and moreover no politician wants to look like they will fear like they will be imprisoned for committing a health time which means that they will also increasingly participate in the support this means that we have way more money for operations from local forces and participation in this or international organization which means that we amplify any of the benefits we provide earlier and they seem to be pretty big benefits the end of this first argument is quite simple we're closer to saving the world secondly this is also principally important and principally legitimate we suspect an argument to come out that you might subvert the democratic will of people there are four reasons why this doesn't happen and notably why this is also principally interesting to do the first is that this organization is consented to countries participate in the organization and the ratification of such a treaty and the court but moreover they vote in politicians that do negotiating for them secondly the health care that we propose is a fundamental right that exists as a precondition for the fulfillment of democratic will if you are dying if you do not have access to goods it doesn't matter if you might hypothetically access your will in the future if you are not able to access that because you don't survive moreover an effective baseline in the first place is necessary regardless of whether or not the democratic will is important states have a responsibility to opt into situations where they allow for the preconditions to that will exist and manifest in the first place fourthly we also identify that on the balance of rights even if you fulfill your democratic will as a people this is often comes at the balance or at the cost of other of the democratic rights that other individuals might have so you as a country as a western country might be okay with having you know very not stringent that's the opposite of that very lacks of partying measures but people in surrounding countries who might be harmed by the infections that come out might still not have access to democrats and might have not consented to that in the first place this often very difficult for countries to face we also suspect there are two separate principle reasons as for why we think this is very very good the first is on the level of utilitarianism this deals with benefits on a gigantic scale in the sense that thousands and thousands of people's lives who do not care a wit about democratic will do not care about principle digimons without be given access to their lives but thirdly this deals with people on the scale or inordinately into the future like to say future deaths of pandemics that is the future that's the superbugs from antibiotics people who would not have to spend massive amounts of money in order to support a government welfare policy in order to support in order to support a basically overburdened and basically toppling uh international health system we suspect 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.

texts/model_speech2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+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.

texts/model_speech3.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+Model Speech Motion: THBT international discussion forums should not self-censor* in an attempt to increase inclusivity to people from countries with stringent freedom-of-speech rules. 
+
+*Examples of self-cenorship are: AI conferences avoiding discussions on the implications of the use of a certain technology by oppressive regimes; competitions censoring topics; moderators removing politically sensitive content from discussion boards
+
+URL: https://www.youtube.com/live/N2fXz3nfdfs?feature=share&t=1373
+
+Model Speech(OO)
+just a clarification at the start of my speech we don't think that the side of the opposition is one where you don't actually critique these sort of authoritarian regimes to begin with we believe that in certain scenarios where you think that the crime is extremely high or there is extreme operation of people going on things like crimes against humanity things like genocide we do believe we can still come out and criticize these people but oftentimes when we are self-censoring we like where the cost and benefits that are involved in these scenarios and then we decide on what things we should censor or not that being said why like let's move on to what the actual like aim of these international discussion forums is and why you need a like inclusivity in the first place right we believe the general aim of international discussion forum is to create betterment so of the global population through things like creating better environment things like creating better economics for people in general etc etc we believe if this is some these sort of forums are something which create exclusive access for the people who are in the developing world and therefore this creates a scope for them in order to access better forms of life notice that when you're talking about other countries for example to weigh for example the risks or the developed countries these countries don't necessarily need to depend on these things as much because they probably already have bilateral agreements they probably have developed technology which they can implement within their country they probably have a lot of institutions that are very strong and that create censorship on the like create check and balance mechanisms on the government they are for creating better friend meant for the people in general right so we believe therefore the major stakeholders in this debate are these developing countries and we believe once there is in inclusivity you can create betterment for people living in those areas in general i'll move on to how that happens but it's important to recognize that if these people don't participate then probably your like like your discussions can be really meaningful to begin with and therefore it's important to like include like ensure inclusivity in the first place all right then on my material first i'll show you what the characteristics of these countries are and why they are unlikely to meaningfully engage if you do not sense self-censor and then i'll show you why the counterfactual is much better right so firstly on characteristics recognize that these countries are often likely to be developing regimes which don't have a lot of democracy meaning it's there likely to be authoritative or dictatorial states where the leader stay in power through the portal of some sort of strongman image or saying that they're creating a lot of development we also believe these are areas which have in general weaker institutions and lack public awareness due to the lack of things like education and whatnot we believe there is also a lack of access due to like lack of engagement to the global population you don't necessarily have a lot of global institutions in this area areas therefore you don't really understand oftentimes what the ground reality in these areas is why then are you not likely to get like meaningful engagement three reasons under this first thing these leaders need to like uphold the strongman image therefore they need to cater to the far right and show that we are doing a lot of good to those countries this means that they do not like bow their heads to criticism this means they try to always show that they are in the right place and everyone is their enemy the moment you go into these forums even though they are criticizing you or even though you're being harshly and everyone's harshly against you this creates the this might create the notion that you're not being strong enough for your country to follow this is why putin doesn't tries to show that he does not care about what the united nations says or this is why a lot of dictators for example in asia and africa don't really care about what they go like these forums say right we believe therefore if you don't criticize they are likely to go up against you and say these are just bad areas and we don't want to engage with them at all even if some engagement happens we think that is unlikely to be meaningful because they'll always think these people don't think about us and can cater for their own incentives in the first place recognize that oftentimes these countries come with a lot of colonial history and culture and ideological differences so the there is already an existing antagonism towards the west the moment in time the west criticizes them as well it's very easy for these frogmen dictatorships to lash on to their narrative and say well they are extremely against us they are bad people and therefore we should not engage right this means that oftentimes you do not have meaningful participation if you don't send self-censor and these countries keep on doing whatever they want to begin with right but secondly you also believe it's very hard to like engage on a personal level in these like forums as well because oftentimes even if you can come out of that country you have your extended family and friends living there and therefore you or you always think that there is a risk to their life if you go against the government and therefore you are unlikely to be able to like meaningfully go against these countries and create protests to begin with i think that is the reason you don't get meaningful engagement if you're really harsh on them why is this harmful because a i think this just means you have a lesser understanding because through these discussions is how you set up local forums and ngos in these areas which help you understand the local area better but also you can create education and i like infrastructure in these areas the way this is important is since now people can have education and infrastructure they understand why this is important for them and therefore the incentive to join is created without doing this actually the incentive does not exist and therefore the people are unlikely to push the government in order to create changes in the first place and are more likely to buy into the like narratives of ways being bad or that strongman dictator being really good in the like a government's world right we believe once you have these people participating in the first place is the moment in time where you can create these incentives for people to engage and therefore in the long run you create better discussions and better like better results as a whole before i tell you how that happens i'll gladly engage cg don't the governments understand that they need it and will still engage in those forums um i think governments are unlikely to understand because you already have a lot of alternatives existing in the world for example china can fund rogue nations for example you often have russia or other extreme leaders funding in those areas so what happens is if the international forum is way against them and they see no alternatives they are likely to buy into them but if there is alternative they are probably will consider the chinese jet strap and other problems that come with engaging with these extreme actors and therefore are likely to opt into the international forums more why is this better because a i think now these people like these strong men themselves can say well this is still a moral win because they are accepting us as we are and therefore they can still preserve their strongman image even though they are engaging this means that now there is an incentive to engage because they can create the narrative that they are winning but secondly we also believe due to this you get all of the marginal changes that we talk about things like creating better like institutions creating education and public interest in general but secondly we also believe due to having this sort of meaningful concessions you're able to create incentive for the people in order to be better this looks like china and japan understanding the benefits of capitalism and coming out we recognize that the status quo might not be the best but it's still better than now being extremely against the waste and not engaging at all we believe we have a marginally better level in our site and that's why we think oh takes this debate for very proud to propose a very front office