EUDC 2022 Open Final

こんにちは！今回は一部では歴史を塗り替えたと名高い、今年のEUDC FinalのTranscriptです。個人的にDLOが大好きなのですが、一番難しかったのもDLOです。もっと私の知能に合わせて易しい英語をつかってください、、、

そんなことはさておき、今回はOpening halfの4スピーチを掲載したのでかなり長めですが、上の目次機能を試してみたので、クリックすると好きなスピーチのところに飛べるはずです！ではどうぞ～

Motion: This House Hopes that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists

Info: Humanity has invented a machine that will definitively determine whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. The results will be revealed publicly in Zagreb in 15 minutes.

OG Edinburgh A

OO TCD Phil A

CG Sofia A

CO LSE A

OO wins

PM Jamie Beverstock

A few points of framing to start.

1. First, I think it's probable that if intelligent life does exist, it's very, very far away from us. The reason for this is twofold.

1. One, we've looked at a lot of nearby planets already, and justice kind of found nothing. So we have things like the James Webb Space Telescope, which produces some pretty nice images of space that we can look at. And the phone from looking at pretty much all of the nearby galaxies and star systems than most of the planets that could potentially host life just don't really exist around us. And so I think it's very unlikely they're going to be anywhere near us.

2. But it's also because there are very, very specific conditions that need to be met for like to be exist. Things like existing in a certain radius of a solar system close to a star, so it's not too hard or not too cold. And that just means that, again, a lot of candidate planets just aren't very close by to us and tend to be very far away. So it's probably going to be far away.

And personally this means we're not going to be able to ever really reach them. Or if we do it, probably not for like a really, really, really long time, usually because it requires us to be able to do things like travelling faster than the speed of light. We're nowhere near achieving this at the moment, given that we don't know how to go faster like anywhere near like even 10% of the speed of the speed of light currently but probably not going to figure out for quite a lot of years. I think chances our planet is going to implode entirely before we actually get that point because it probably requires us to like build some reactor that means that we blow everything up or something or just like climate change happens and then things are going to get badly.

2. Secondly, I think it's very probable that this isn't that intelligent in the first place. So intelligent life doesn't mean like they're Brainiac's who know everything. Intelligent life means that they're just capable of possessing like consciousness, and they aren't like bacteria that are living on these planets. You know, elephants are pretty intelligent, but they're also not capable of like having language. Therefore, I think it could just be a little like dear existing on some fun at this very far away from us. I think this is very likely right, because presumably if there was super intelligent life that existed elsewhere in the universe, they probably have already figured out how to do things like space travel. They have already figured out how to like comment, obliterate our civilisation already If that was something that I really wanted to do. Think about the important indications, this is the if Opp wanna run something about why this like means that aliens are going to come and obliterate the planet, it's probably not true. They probably would have done it already if this was the case or would probably already be able to see them in our telescopes like invading all their parts of the universe are being present elsewhere in the universe. Therefore I doing this is very likely to happen.

So the case we're going to ring from opening government is very simple, in terms of why this humble humanity and why allows us to enter an age of enlightenment that is better for everyone. Because it's important to note that humans are often very self absorbed and we see ourselves on our problems as being the centre of the universe.

We have a very self privileged view of ourselves where we are the most intelligent life that exist on our planet and were unaware of any other life that exists in the universe. Therefore we think that we are the most intelligent life that exists in the universe. This very much feeds into his sense of self exceptionalism for humanity where we think that we are the most intelligent beings and thus we have a right over everything that is around us. Consider how this makes humans behave, things like meaning that we treat other species around us with disregard because we think of ourselves as being more intelligent than them and therefore having a claims their habitats. Meaning we do things like abusing our environment or feeling like we have an inherent right to nature but also drive harmful narratives of self exceptionalism again.

Things like for example, religion, which I think probably doesn't exist in a world where we know that there's intelligent life on other planets, given that most religious with the exception, may be like Buddhism, most religious narratives often say that God created humanity in their own image, that God only really created the earth as a planet where life exists. Therefore, I think this fundamentally challenges a lot of those narratives, and people probably aren't so willing to buy into religion anymore, or they buy more into other religions which aren't so anthropocentric. And instead said like believing in things like Buddhism instead, which is maybe something that is good.

What happens on our site then, when you suddenly understand that there are others out there?

I think firstly to know most people just don't really know what the degree intelligence with these life are. Even if there are unlikely to be intelligent for the reasons that we've told you already. In terms of like, there aren't spaceships flying around all the time so they're probably not that intelligent people don't know this. And so there's often going to be a lot of speculation as to whether or not these other life forms are are as intelligent as or potentially more intelligent than us. I think the important thing is that shatters our sense of self exceptionalism and its shutters are sense of feeling like we were the centre of the universe and we were the centre of everything that is important.

It showed us that there is more than just Earth out there and I think that's important because it very much changes how humans value themselves. In very positive ways, think about the moral and philosophical discourse that would exist in the world, and we understand this information when we are having discussions about the nature of life is and what the nature of life in the universe is in a public forum. Insofar as this is something that enters the public consciousness when this information is revealed, I think that means more people are forced to consider the inherent value of all life around them. Because when we discuss whether other life might be more intelligent than us, and we challenge the conception that life is only valuable because we were the most intelligent people. That means that people are forced to consider other things around them as having more inherent value. I think the important thing is that if that means that people are just nicer to our own environment, then that's something that is very positive because it means, lots of animals stop being slaughtered by humans or it means that were more likely to do things like fighting climate change. Yeah, sure.

POI(Matt Caito)

Aren't you quite likely, far more intuitively to value intelligent life? You believe it only exists on Earth. And if it's somehow space dear, why on Earth would you consider them have the equal moral value as a human to get your impact at your premises is true?

No. But again, people don't know that it's just space, dear. It could be like, really smart space dear. So, I think realistically the people just don't know, like there's nothing in this machine that tells you what the life is, just tells you that the life exists in the first place. So people can still value that.

But also, I don't get why you're not going to value intelligent life, given that humans are, as a whole, apparently quite intelligent, so you're probably still value your own life, and you probably are still going to value intelligent like even if you know that exist somewhere else in the universe. No one is going to be like humans are not important anymore because there is life elsewhere. I just think people are going to be like humans aren't the smartest people ever anymore and the difference then is that they treat other things with more respect the cause of it.

I think also we have to consider things like the wave of inspiration that could arise because of this because now you have people keep people speculating as to what intelligent life might look like. And that means that you get a drive with things like media being produced that speculates us to this. Think about the films like Star Wars that millions and millions of people around the world enjoy that were sparked by things like the space race happening in the 60s. I think in the very same way we are likely to have people fantasising about what this intelligent life might look like. And if that means we get a lot of media produced that people really enjoy, then people are probably going to be a lot happier in this world because of that. I think also like we really like Croatia and maybe it's great that Croatia gets you announce this information because they got have a cool thing credit towards them and that's another reason why we should probably like this quite a lot.

But realistically again I think this means that people reconsider harmful value systems that often leads to people killing each other. Things like religion where wars often start because people believe that. They are the people who were created by God and are the most important people and were able to challenge those value systems on a very fundamental level. That if we get rid of harmful systems of belief, I think we're much more likely to live in a peaceful world. In a world where people treat each other with respect.

(Outro)

I think is in order to dream, to be speaking in this final for you all, Cerys has been a wild right, and I've loved every minute of having you by my side. We are Europe's best and only all ginger team. For the last time, representing the best institution in the world, OG.

かっこいい＋面白いOutroとPOIの返し。Really smart space deerってマジでなんなんだよ、、笑　音源でもみんな笑ってたのでぜひ見てみてください。

こういう大きい大会のGFでチームメイトとか関わってた人に何かコメントするの、良いですよね。

PMで特に参考になるのは、やはりSet upでしょうか？なるべく特定の状況（特にOppが詰めてきそうなCharacterisationなど）に依存しないようなケースをつくるために、かなり丁寧にSet upの部分のロジックを詰めてますね。結局OGは、この「知的生命体がどこかにいる！」っていう情報が人々に与えられることの差分だけで勝てるようなケースを立てようとしていて、それがどんな生物だろうとどうでもいい！って感じですね。

LO Jack Palme

Hobbs was wrong to differentiate from the state of nature. It is a life which is nasty, brutish and short.

Hobbsから始まる圧倒的にかっこいいイントロ。Global poorから始まるイントロくらいかっこいい。

Two points of framing at the top collectivisation and then talk about the curse that is existence.

1. Let's be clear here, this house here is being asked a moral question about which we hope for all moral actors within the debate, what is good for them. The same clarification too, who should we consider moral actors? We've already heard it's the idea of anyone who has choice, consciousness, rationality and so on. We say we should expand this. it's animals too. The idea that we cannot know that which is pertaining within the mental processes of other beings and, epistemic access, drink. But crucially then, the idea past that you don't need certain. Therefore we have to defert to outside things. Do they exhibit choice or not, which we see animals doing each and everyday? Can they experience pain which we know to be certain for all animals? These are the things which are certain. These are the things which we should base moral prescriptions on, not of uncertain things which we cannot know inside of other beings as heads.

2. Crucially then, the three characterization. We say due to the nature of the universe, if there is other life forms, there has to be a multitude, a huge, huge scale over the life forms. The reason for this is this thing called the Fermi paradox. Either it is the case that we have passed the point of destruction in the universe. We were the so unique condition that exists even in an infinite area that was able to get past this point of destruction for all life forms. We've already passed that point. Or it's not. If we know there's other life forms, we know it's not. We know that that is not a unique thing in itself and therefore the odds of other life forms having too expands exponentially more and more and more.

What does this mean? It means first of all, we are now non unique. This is also crucial because it means it's probably very similar conditions. This isn't going to be like space steer or Boltzmann brains. It's probably because, If we passed this threshold, we probably did it in a way that's necessary to do so. Therefore the other existence in the universe is probably very similar to us and everyone way out of things. There's probably a package armour with no moustache during this debate, light years away. But crucially then, passed this means there's an insane scale here because it has to be so many different intelligent life forms, meaning it outweighs humanity in of itself. If it was more important for them and have them, sorry, Edinburgh.

What does this mean then? Because yes, well, this means humanity kind of hoped that like our world isn't going to die. I do not care, because this is not something you confronted with everyday, how we passed the Fermi paradox point. Who the fuck says that any normal day? Not me. And I'm a debater. Crucially then, when you say what is crucial is the life is unavoidable. Life confronts you each everyday the structure of it, the way it interacts with your brain away. The pain that hits you all the time when you were beaten. This is something which is unavoidable. This is what this debate is about.

What does that life look like then? We say it's a curse of existence. In fact, it curses because there's it's bound up with three of them.

1. The first is the curse that comes with energy and the nature of energy within the universe. Because it's obvious that life requires energy inherently, also could not do things.

2. But secondly, larger beings for the easiest way, especially if they're quite intelligent, than ever figure out this is an easier way is to get energy from other beings. Crucially, for example, site plants get photosynthesis, the band of energy. But then smart animals go, hey, we can eat you. Thank you for doing all the work. Then, moreover, scales open up when you get more and more intelligent life. But moreover this means food chains and evolution. The necessity of it, and given that these are very similar beings to us, means that there is a constant structure of oppression of animals across any of the whether they be terrestrial or extra-terrestrial. But moreover we say this expands with all resources because it starts to watch structured humans brains via evolution, which in a second. We say the very nature, that this is the way we should pursue things, this is the way we should do things. If it's easiest, If we take energy and resources from other people and keep it to ourselves means you get things like conflict within the real world, especially because energy is not necessarily limitless. And given that the public rights into us and we have invented infinite energy yet, I'm not sure if they can either. But crucially then expands to other resources because it's a mental process. It looks like things in the current system of capital where people who work a bunch other people don't just get the rent from their working on him to do anything in it themselves, he said this is a mental process which is likely to expand outwards.

3. And we say evolution has a curse in of itself because now which has made due to the top of the food chain. If intelligent life exists in of itself, we say there's certain conditions which means it's likely to do so. It's the fact that it never settles. It constantly to push more and more and more in their first shop out competed by another organism. It's the fact that it deeply fears pain and therefore constantly insulates itself from making sure it does not die or else it wouldn't have made it past the point of destruction I mentioned earlier. It is in these instances then, that life is likely to exist.

What does this mean? It means they constantly do not acclimatise.If you are happy in life, it's not a nose because you need to get more and more and more. You acclimatise constantly throughout, which was good is nothing normally need to push further and further. It also means paying this very approximate. It's probably the most proximate emotion for these people. Sadness, depression and all these things and things which are in avoidable because evolution forces to have them so we could be alive. This is something which is necessary for all these intelligent beings at least once, which likely rise to the top. Crucially, then. So far we've shown that there's like conflict and which brings about pain, but also pain ways very highly sure.

(POI CG: I'm sorry, but animals do not have sentence, they cannot reflect on paint. They're not the metric in this debate. Please debate something that is realistic, quantifiable.)

They can feel pain. You do not know that. They don't have scientists, because drink again, epistemic access! I've already explained all these things. You weren't being speculative and weighing up moral virtues based on that. I do not know you, so you deserve the moral value is a disgusting sentiment in itself, and it won't be needed to start applying to animals and realise that we should not do so.

Moreover, we say there was a conquers that is bound up with consciousness to the idea that crucially, intelligence means at least rationality as per Jamie.

What does it mean? It means you constantly have to ask yourself questions and you're constantly bound with trying to figure out what is in front of you. Now, one of the bottoms of the food chain of these kinds of things, it's quite straight forward. I need food, I go get food. We say that still though has other things bound up with it. The idea that even at those instances when you are paying your string, why is there pain? Why these things exist? There's inherent nihilism, the constant skepticism that exists because of intelligence. Intelligence is bound up with skepticism in of itself.

Crucially then, we say that skepticism is likely to default in nihilism in all instances. So even if you want to try to overcome all these periods of impact, through meaning, you're not able to do so. Things like religion is immaterial and it's hard to then conceptualise that to the material. Everything in front of his materials should go all this meaningless because of religion. How does that work? If it's not connected to everything in front of me? If I'm told it's immaterial, I sure got a control it. But that doesn't seem to make sense. That doubt, that skepticism, is something which will always make you doubt the meaning and Leslie meaning, is concrete. There's no way it can overcome all the previous curses. But crucially then, because you constantly doubted, you begin to have no belief in it. You believe that it causes you further depression, further nihilism expands the material meanings to our fragile, because, you know, meaning must be certain. But my love, one could die, my job could go. These are things which then seemed to not rationally connect. And even if you could figure out where to do it, you will constantly doubt your own rationalisation. the doubt that is bound up within rationality, because that which allows it to make choices is something which is inescapable.

Panel. I know it's grim, but existence is quite inescapable. We must wait all actors in this debate. We must not resume things. We must not weigh ourselves as necessarily better than anyone else. Especially because that's where Prime Minister says likely to happen. Crucially, then, we say you should oppose. Thank you.

うううう難しい、、、、この人たちこれ15分で思いついてるの怖い、、。これ、かなりすごいなと思ったのが、MotionにバチバチにTie backしてるんですよね。OGは、要するに「みんながエイリアンがいるかもって認識する」っていう事象レベルから出発していたのに対して、OOは、Motionに書いてある”Hopes”っていうところから出発して、Hopeすること自体にOpposeするケースを立てようとしてるんですよね。こんなよくわからないディベーターブリーフィングに載ってないMotionを急に出されてよく対応できるなぁと感動しました。このMotion tie back感はDLOでより強く出されていきます。

どうでもいいことですが、” Epistemic access”って言ったら酒を飲まないといけないノリみたいなのをいじってるのかな？すごいDrink!って言ってくる、、

DPM Cerys Walsh

The universe right now is a Black Forest of uncertainty. A factor that fundamentally limits our ability to dream and hinders our imagination and creativity in ways that darkens our perspectives and clouds our ability to access not just inspiration in our lives, but access net new perspectives about our place and the information about why we exist and why we're here.

I like to just quickly tackle what we got out of opening opposition. i.e. if the answer is no, it's like terrible for us.

I think this suggests there is a very low probability life can exist in the universe, but I think the problem is this specifically is what fills people with existential fear. Do we hit a wall in our civilization coming to collapse? I think what this specifically means is that we activate Jamie's impacts at the point at which people are more scared, more scared of war, more scared of climate change, and they think it will end all of civilization. I think this is when people are forced to contradict their current philosophical positions on whether or not humanity holds a sacred place, and I think this is exactly when people become less self centred and anthroprocentric about the fact that we own nature, we own the earth and we own our universe.

Why then does government win regardless of the results of the machine, something that I don't think are opposing bench has engaged with.

If intelligent life does exist, accessing knew an inspiring information about the university we live in, I think, noting that space is uniquely inspirational as a frontier of human progress here because of its sheer vastness, because it contains information about factors that contradict are embedded philosophes. Look at how discoveries of like Kepler and Copernicus were reacted to and shook the Catholic Church and fundamentally altered its composition. People dream of space, and material progress affects our ability to tap into this creatively. See the space age boom in speculative fiction in people questioning their government and what the future would look like. See how science fiction calls upon us to consider dystopias, afara possibilities of what we might do to her own earth, or how we may destroy our own environment. I think this is specifically relevant here because people react to new discoveries with enthusiasm as Jamie has analysed you, because people react in this way regardless of the results anyways. We didn't have to discover aliens during these space age boom of the Cold War to make creative works about them, but we did need creative prompting from information that contains innate philosophical information about our Galaxy.

Yes, I think this is kind of an art debate, but also why then will this information be non threatening to most people? For all of the reasons that Jamie tells you. i.e. they're probably very far away and they're also probably not like particularly intelligent. The anthropic principle tells us that it probably just looks like space monkeys or something. But I think we still access all of our benefits, right? I think the discovery itself is magnified by the media that will be created about it. I think the discovery itself will prompt people to consider what else may lurk out there. I think people will be engaged when they discovered that humans aren't the only intelligent life.

Why then will reception of this information be quite good? I think it's fair to say we get some resistance to the information from some groups. I think this is innate to all kinds of progress.

1. But, firstly, I think no agreement with this information is likely pretty neutral. I think people can choose not to engage if they don't want to, but I think they will, for all the reasons Jamie told you, I think.

2. Secondly, even people with hostile philosophical positions with the idea that humanity occupies a higher place in the universe. While they may not well, they may change their mind. As Jamie said and has analysed, they often will, and this will be good regardless, for example for religious people.

3. But also note that if you are really unwilling to alter your perspective due to your entrench interest in humanities higher position, I think that people can hold contradicting philosophical positions sometimes in the case that their position is entrenched, like non overlapping magisterial as the kids college.

1. Because, number one, they are already ardently, already ardently religious people do things like STEM degrees and research STEM cells engage with science, and while science is capable of changing your system of belief. I think it specifically is because you consider analytical ways of thinking and you develop critical thinking skills in literacy. We are not required to prove everybody changes their mind about this in order to inculcate new philosophical perspectives, and get Jamie's benefit of lush, selfish fucking perspectives of humanity.

2. But also means that we give people the information to make hard decisions themselves about their lives that are critical, like about religion, about spirituality specifically as it relates to our values and our morality.

But I also like to respond to the POI the Jamie received from her closing. i.e. humans be seen as having equal moral value to these creatures?

I don't understand why this can't be an expansionary view of what is worth moral consideration. i.e. like how the animal rights movement have expanded our ideas of whether or not animals are worth moral value. I think we also just pose people additional questions about this. But I also don't think that this is exclusive in anyway, because we already humanise other human beings all of the time. This is just an additional mechanism by which we get people to question their entrenched perspectives.

Why then this increased information good here? The most important thing in the debate, which is regardless of opening oppositions impacts.

Because this is about fundamental questions and things that hugely impact our rights and our ability to think. I cannot consent to being born into a universe where I don't know what happens after I die. I don't know why I'm here.I don't know if meaning is given or if it is something that I have to make for myself. I think this is a huge impact on people's individual lives, but also on society. I'll take closing.

(POI: Matt Caito) Don't you think that even if there's a 1% chance that these aliens are a massive military power that are hostile, why on earth would you want to give people the news, descendants are going to be wiped out by some alien disease virus?

I think firstly this just ignores all of Jamie's framing about how this is incredibly unrealistic and stupid, but I also think that if we have to prepare for an alien war, I would like to know in advance. I would like to be warned about that. I want to make some cool spaceships and like some guns and shit and do like Star Trek and everything okay specifically.

最高な返しですね笑。ハードスタンスを維持しつつ、自分たちが守りたい「情報へのアクセス」がある上での行為ならOKっていうノリをめっちゃアピールしてます。

Then people's individual lives are touched by the idea that they are the only people in the universe, because this is a specific criterion by which many religions operate. It also just informs agnostic people, whose moral values are based on the ideas that humans deserve inherent rights, but not necessarily encompassing the fact that we have obligations to nature and two other human beings, other sentient beings. But I think this hugely also impacts society, because it's the point at which we feel an obligation or ownership of our universe, specifically of our globe. I think this is when people are unable to question whether or not they actually need to look after the environment, or safeguard nature, or safeguard other animals. I think the fact that this gives people more information in the first place is prior to everything in this debate, because it gives them more ability to get consent into both their ideological perspectives under religious perspective. It is not fair that I had to be born in this world. But the least thing people can do is to give me more information to inform my perspective and how I choose to act on that information regardless of if I act in a good way or not.

All being said, shout out to Jamie for being an excellent debate partner. The Maverick to my iceman, you're my watermelon man. Shattered to SSDC for being an amazing circuit. Thank you very much. This was fun.

エモいOutro。

DPMでかなりOGのケースがかっちりした感じになりましたね。COからのEngageをうまいこと捌きながらReligionの話をちゃんと延ばしつつ、自分たちの生きてるPoint、PM時点で説明されてるImpactをぜんぶまとめて回収してます。理想のDeputyスピーチをしてる感じがします。言語化効率よすぎてEFL的には真似できませんが、、

DLO Dylan McCarthy

We are all trapped in a system of consumption which necessitates the privation of resources at the expense of the week. We all trapped in an evolutionary process which necessitates the proliferation of plain pain over pleasure universally. We are all trapped in an intellect which seeks out reason and is denied it at every single turn. We would not wish this trap on others. We would not hope for a universe of pain.

Opening government criticised the human proclivity towards anthropocentrism, and yet their cases anthropocentrism embodied. Only caring in an infinite universe about the pain that exists on a small blue dot in the middle of nowhere, rather than the universal question of whether we should believe that a world that has other sending beings in it is one that is preferable for those beings who have the capacity for pain and pleasure.

圧倒的にかっこいいイントロ（2回目）。あ、、もうこれ空気的に勝てなさそうっていう感じが漂ってきます。

So, the first question that I seek to address in this speech is the question of what we should hope for. I would propose two things here.

1. The first thing is we should hope for a better world morally. i.e. is the duty of the house to wish for that which is the most morally. The reason is the capacity we all share, and the instantiation of that reason in the world is an evaluative system of that world, which is to say a moral framework, a comparison of a better world which can indeed be retrospective. i.e. we would not hope to find out that a friend or loved one had lost their parents many years ago, even emotionally they had recovered. I would like to know that I like in general, If we ever debate about things like the environment, we don't just consider what would happen to humans, but do animals and do smaller lifeforms within those contexts. Why should we not have this in our context of this debate? We never get an answer from proposition bench then without weighing they cannot be winning top half of this debate.

2. Second thing I would propose is utilitarianism, because you need to ask what constructs that framework by which we should evaluate the world. We proposed that it should be that would create the least total suffering is the best system. Consider this, deontology, i.e. things like you should not ever lie, are fundamentally begging the question, because they are based off of an assertive framework about anything that is external to us as humans that we kind of had the capacity to perceive, and yet its claims that we should base our intuitions off of those claims, even when they seem really unintuitive. Now, you should not lie is as true when someone asks you for your credit card details as it is when the murderer comes to your door asking where your mother is. Neither of those things should be the same, and therefore that is the wrong system. Utilitarianism, therefore, uniquely, is valuable because it is based by a phenomenal instinct that we have contained within ourselves. i.e. The intuition that we universally share the pleasure is that morally good. That pain is something that is morally bad, putting pain on someone for no reason is something that we should all against in all instances, but it's even better than that. But it's not culturally defined, its not relativistic, its arithmetic. i.e. we can use mathematics and basic systems of additional subtraction to decide which is the better world in comparison of two worlds, and therefore that is the best thing we should do.

Normally, it cannot be just net utility for two reasons.

1. Firstly, each individual within that system of utility has a unique access to a perspective, which means that you cannot just be considering whether an individual's promise is the best one.

2. But secondly, and more importantly, because there's an intuitive framework here, right? It is that it would lead you to what is called the absurd conclusion within philosophy, which is to say the idea that one person leading a really, really good life would be a better world than 7 billion people leading a quite good life. We were proposed to you, therefore that is the net amount or the total amount of suffering that exists within the universe. That is the most important framework by which we should evaluate this debate. We get no engagement on that property government, and therefore they cannot be winning absent a framework of why we should consider these things.

Utilitarianismとそれ以外とのコンパリ丁寧すぎて哲学の授業かと思ったくらい。Deontology（義務論）との差別化がうまいことこのディベートに噛み合ったような見せ方になってますね。

To this closing government, say, haha, but animals have no sentence. I just don't think that's true. I just think the average informed voter believes that is true. I just don't think that you opening government said that it was true, because they criticise other centres within humanity. They said that the world that we should be seeking out is the weather which protects animals and the environment with large because of that they cannot stand by that framework in response to us because animals have the capacity for pain and pleasure. Because the human like existence is that might be in there universe also contained the capacity for intellect, for reason, for those kinds of processes. Absolute no justification from that closing government. They can't be winning this debate.

Three things we told you in opening opposition about why existence is fundamentally something we should all against in all instances that we should hope not does not exist outside of this tiny blue dot that we should hope we exist alone in the universe.

1. The first thing we proposed to you is that existence requires energy. And because evolution necessitates competition, it prioritises not the individuals who were able to get energy passively like photosynthesis from the sun, but the higher organisms were able to consume those having already been collected because it requires less expensive energy to collect energy where it already exists. This is the reason why fundamental duty question of existence is the answer of personally conflict for resources where they are scarce, but secondly the consumption of other organisms, the conflict against those organisms in order to fight against each other. That brings about the pain and suffering we talked about in opening opposition. close and go ahead.

(POI: CG) Why do you have the moral rights to want the one other organisms to not exist.

We have the moral right to want other organisms not to exist because of the reasoning we give you. As to why the evaluative framework of morality we should have is utilitarianism, because it is not a right individuating within a person to have a particular perspective. It is the person's existence within the construct of moral frameworks that we have evaluated already that matters in this instance.

シンプルかつ良いPOI。それに対する良い返し。こういう噛み合ってる感じは見てて気持ちいいですね。

2. Second claim we put towards you is evolution. It's very simple here. In order to compete and out compete the other life forms that exist within a particular context. By definition, you just be always seeking out more and more. You can never rest on your laurels because the animals that don't will out compete you. They will slaughter you. That will create the pain that exists within that world. Therefore, we were devolved back to what we call the hedonic treadmill, which is to say the idea that if I get an Xbox next week, sure it will feel good for a couple of days, but I will one more and I will want more, and it will always become more difficult, to a point where you were necessarily reach nihilism. But secondly, we explained to you in this context means that pain never resolves back to that medium. If I'm hungry this week and I'm hungry next week? Next week? Is no better than it was for me this week. That is the fundamental reason why existence is on total always going to contain more suffering than it does pleasure.

3. The last thing I want to talk about is consciousness itself. Before that, what is your extension? Closing government?

(GW) I won't tell you.

「CG、Extension何？」「お前にはぜったい教えない」←かわいい

Okay opening government.

(POI OG: If no other intelligent life exists, it's just humans don't have long life left in the tank because it means that will be destroyed by like war, climate change or disruptive technology.)

So they think it's two important things to say on this, which is to say our side of the house is not premised on whether our side can be true. We can think that this machine will always give the answer yes and still hope that the answer is no, for the reasons we've given. But secondly, and more importantly, we do not know what point along the evolution that those other intelligent lives are. They may be stuck in their version of the medieval age at the moment. They may be stuck in their Anthropocene. They may be stuck in any different form of their existence. But any path along that existence, whether that's retrospective or prospective, contains the negative terms that we talked about, and therefore is morally salient in the context of this debate.

The last thing we talked about was consciousness, because consciousness is by definition reason and seeks to find out reason, even if there's only isolated in higher forms of consciousness. The absence of that reason brings about deep nihilism, because of course it does. You are trying to find out how the world exists. Your brain is telling you to do it, and if you cannot do it, you feel like you are failing. You feel like you are lost in these systems. We say that their systems that become created within a system of evolution, of geography or politics or sociology, all interconnected with one another as an individual within that framework, you never had the capacity to understand that. The deepest questions why are we here, where are we going? Can never be answered by a human consciousness, or indeed any other form of consciousness that exists within the context of this debate.

Existence is fundamentally a negative thing. We should do the best that we had with allies. We have as they remain, but we should not wish it upon anyone else because there's strapping them into a system of fundamental pain. I'm very proud to oppose.

圧倒的にかっこいい（以下略）。難しいですが、HopeすることがMorally badであるっていう話、DLOでかなりわかりやすくなりましたね。このあとのCGもかなりいい話をしているのですが、今回は文量の都合でClosingは割愛します。気になる方はぜひ聞いてみてください。