Last Update - Wed Jan 22 2025
Doxbridge 5 Round 5 OO | CO 83 84 Matt Caito & Mikko Vitug Youtube link (Timestamped): HERE Matt Caito Starting in three, two, one. Unfortunately for OG, Ahmed conceded, and they have to stand behind this on CG: that in the absence of obligation, only hardcore zealots or much fewer people donate, which means there is indeed far less money going to charity on either side of the house, even with the psychological mechanisms that Ahmed says still exist. But even if the compulsion to donate exists on either side, this debate is then won for us on the margins, right? Because for many people, there's a cost-benefit analysis in terms of trade-off. In the absence of the threat to an immortal soul getting in trouble, we think other people who have the means are more likely to weigh their approximate needs—i.e., buying their son a second coat—over donating to the poor. It's a question of, on the margins, whether you buy a second coat for your son that's about Catholicism instead of giving stuff to the poor. We say that insofar as you maximize agency for the impoverished people significantly more because, in the absence of that giving, they likely die or they suffer severe harm. We think it's far more justified. On OG, I have five responses to their case. First framing on the concessions they make: OG concedes there's going to be a lot more money historically when they literally use it to explain consolidating the power of the church to a much larger extent. They need to pick one: Either Kira is right and almost the same amount of money gets donated, in which case we win on the marginal benefits to the poor and they get no deconsolidation benefit, or She's wrong, and we get way more money donated, in which case we win even larger on mass impacts of scale. Secondly, “alm obligations” versus saying that giving to charity is nice: What this does is it causes people to give who otherwise feel like they are fulfilling their religious duties. I think a good example of this is in religions like Buddhism that emphasize a karmic balance to a large extent. So, people who feel like they're good Buddhists in all other areas might not give on their side of the house because they feel like they're fulfilling their other religious obligations anyway. When you feel like you need to do this in order to fulfill religious obligations—or you go to hell, or you are unable to attain nirvana—a higher number of people care about it being an obligation of fulfillment being the best. This is the tipping point in terms of getting more people to buy in. This way, we get more donations on our side of the house, which is a comparative win even if Kira mitigates it. Thirdly, this created an institutionalization of religious giving via programs. This is the analysis that Naomi gives you when she analyzes in retrospect why it is the case that the existence and development of these programs are linked to it being an obligation that you donate towards consistently. This is linked to everything that was said about the zakat system being created: the ability to donate to charity at scale, the ability for NGOs and so on to plan consistently because the donations come in more consistently. All these things exist at a massive scale on our side of the house. At the very least, this is a comparative win. On their counterfactual, this is the third response: This is very silly. Without an obligation, they have to concede there's less giving. They say there will be a lot of almsgiving or charity in either world. This is unclear insofar as people have other proximate or overwhelming needs, and it's still less consistent even if it still happens. I think we're winning on that consistency. Then they say hardcore zealots still donate. If the hardcore zealots are a minority of the population, which means there's just less money going to charity and fewer poor people benefit on their side of the house, then they say, ah, you feel bad about yourself. But you don't feel better about yourself because doing extra credit might give you a small dopamine hit, but this is not the same as fulfilling obligation. This is important because love and relationship with God is conceptually built around obligation. Performing these kinds of obligatory acts brings you significantly closer to God. You probably feel better on our side of the house. DPM adds a mechanism, and this is important: This is not comparative. If that's true, they give in either world. We just get more money because we get more believers to buy in on our side. But at best, they prove a mitigatory benefit: That charity still exists. But even if you think it's only somewhat less money, this is still a comparative win for us because we're still getting more people to buy and donate. The final response I want to give to OG is that Ahmed says there will still be coercive pressures that encourage people to donate. The problem with all of his mechanisms about social pressure—like social narratives that they need to give, religious institutions leading by example—just means that this pressure still exists on either side of the house. Because when a zealot is still giving a lot of money, you're still going to feel bad as the religious person who's giving less in the community. This means there's not a large delta in terms of how bad you feel comparatively, but our delta—which is much less giving—is significantly larger. The final weigh I want to give on this is that, at best, their case proves that there's more pressure on people to donate, and this might deprive a middle-class child of a coat. I think a starving person getting access to food matters more because the marginal utility is larger. But it also matters more on the principal level insofar as you're maximizing agency for more people, and poor people are significantly more instrumentalized than the individual as a middle-class individual who still has agency to access their conception of the good life to a greater extent. OG is out. POI No, because inequality gets significantly worse on your side of the house. At the point at which other states that are religious shut out secular organizations, that don't let them in in your world—even if it is the case that religious organizations aren't perfect—what you need to do in this debate is comprehensively disprove why your counterfactual is one in which poverty is eradicated; otherwise, we get a comparative win on more donations, and we're still beating you. Now, why, in retrospect, is our world one where we get more money going to the poor in larger quantities faster? I think this is important as well. I just think it's unlikely that secularly motivated donations to charity would have filled the void. Insofar as people have other proximate, overwhelming needs in the absence of that belief that has an impact on their mortal soul, we think they're more likely to default towards filling those. Secular institutions were significantly less powerful for a long period of time. There's less faith in institutions, like stability, because kingdoms would get overthrown regularly through wars and things like this. But multiple kingdoms or states bought into the idea of God, so there's just more buy-in to these kinds of things. Even when secular giving happens, as Naomi weighed, it happens less often. It's one-off donations as opposed to a practice of giving. I also don't think religious charities are as powerful without this mechanism, right? So, even if religious and secular charities exist on either side, they're significantly less powerful in a world without these practices because that consistency of giving and secular alternatives don't fill in social gaps. What is the comparative in our world? But secondly, the consistency of the donation allows for charities to better plan for the social impact of their spending. Because when it happens regularly, you're uniquely able to plan out missions for longer periods of time. It's easier to have a stable budget as a charitable organization. You know you're getting this consistent income source, which allows you to better take advantage of economies of scale and donate to more people. What are the impacts on the individual? On our side of the house, we attain the good better by having a good relationship with God, which means we are logically prior to arguments about agency in this debate. But why is our world a counterfactual one in which religious charities did significantly less good? What we do on our side of the house is we uniquely get more countries letting in religious charities. That is, insofar as certain charities have religious governments in power that are otherwise hesitant in charities. Charities need regulation to be late and can't face regulatory interference where their actions are being secretly harmed. We think what this allows you to do uniquely is get buy-in to charities for these people. You get way more donations going to nations like Bhutan that would otherwise close themselves off. Some people who are moderate, they just want you secular charities, but not everyone.But for some people who need religion in order to access these services, this is a critical impact in this debate because you get significantly more access in the developing world for vast donations. But also note that at the point at which you get more religious donations, you also get the scrutiny and the direct challenges of legitimacy on religions. That's something that's superior inherently by agreeing. There's another one. We get competing religious organizations going into these states. You get the negotiation and dialogue between various religious leaders. The reason why Bhutan looks into Buddhist charities as well and allows individuals who are trying to get a good conception of what Buddhism is, even though it's a majority Muslim state, is precisely because of these donations and giving that they do. CO | MO 84 Mikko Vitug Youtube link (Timestamped): HERE All right, I’m going to start my speech in three, two, one. So I’ll talk about two things. Number one, why it has to be religious giving, and why it is important that we have religious donations, even assuming an equal amount of donations on both sides. Because I want to note the contribution from Opening Opposition is, number one, unnuanced. Insofar as they argue there are many compelling mechanisms as well, or state mechanisms, to ensure that there is a sufficient amount of giving. In fact, even in the worst case that you had the tax, religions, etc., which could have been forced because of the different justifications coming out from Closing Government, I’d argue we still prefer that religions are the ones giving out this kind of money. But secondly, I’d like to note that they had to defend the counterfactual of why states or secular organizations were any better at being able to provide these kinds of religious goods. I’ll take on the burden that Closing Government pushes. Let’s say they spend it on church upkeep. Let’s say they spend it on all the different things that do not directly go to the poor. I would say that is incredibly important. What is the nuance of religious giving? Because while opening half teams just talk about the quantity of money, I would argue that more than being able to get out of economic desperation, the nature of poverty is not just a lack of money. It is a lack of spiritual fulfillment and a lack of ability to access meaning and agency because of the different circumstances that life has thrown at you, i.e It is when you have difficulty being able to do what you want and live a life that you like because you have to work either a job that does not give you enough money to do what you want, or a job that is going to be incredibly punishing—nine to five—because it’s manual labor, and your back is always going to be broken down by working in this kind of machine. But moreover, it is the need to make this a religious nature of giving because a lot of the time, these people who live in these hard conditions feel like they have been left behind by God. That they are no longer cared about. A lot of these people think they’re being punished by God. That they are poor because they are criminals, that they are poor because they are sinners, and therefore God no longer cares about them. That they deserve whatever is coming their way. I would note that poverty is not only a painful experience physically, but often an incredibly mentally and spiritually damaging one that is incredibly isolating. Why is this important? And I’ll directly engage with Closing Government. The first thing I want to note is that even if this was short-termist in nature or does not solve structural inequality, I’d like to note that the counterfactual is unlikely to do the same. Firstly, a lot of secular charities are also very short-termist in nature because you need proof of concept to be able to get more donors. So even if it takes 10 years to build a very good infrastructure plan to be able to uplift people out of poverty, it’s not likely to get people to donate because they do not see it until that 10-year mark. And therefore, they are just not likely to donate to begin with. And therefore, the prioritized short-term nature of it. Secondly, governments are often lobbied quite strongly by the wealthy. Or most likely to spend their tax money in capital cities, in areas that are most productive in subsidizing big business because of the most powerful and seen as good for the state. And therefore, are much less likely to give them to the same poor individuals they talk about. So unless they meaningfully change structural inequality on Gov, this is not the tipping point of this debate. What is? Even if it is true that you spend on things like church upkeep, more than being able to sustain yourself on a day-to-day basis, I would argue that things like finding meaning in life through things like church and their communities that it is able to provide us, as conceded by Closing Government, are very important for you to feel like there is purpose to your life because there are other people around you that care about you. The feeling that you are directly in contact and in close communication with your God because there are people being sent out on missions—and obviously that takes a significant amount of money—or, if ever you receive any of this money directly, that you are being personally influenced, like the people around you are being influenced by God to act on His behalf and therefore are able to guide you. Because note, this personal relationship with God is sometimes the only source of comfort and solace in a world that is incredibly damaging to your psyche. Because you feel like you haven’t been left behind. Because you feel like there is possibly a better tomorrow because God will be able to bring you there and provide you with that. It is this belief and conception of a God that gets people through on a day-to-day basis because we cannot rely on the fact that there is enough political will to solve the incredibly difficult material and structural realities of the poor. But we can rely on the fact that these spiritual necessities of the poor that are often just as important as the economic perceptions that people have about their own lives are incredibly important to be able to live on a day-to-day basis. And note especially that in areas where this is most likely to happen are areas that are probably quite religious and therefore they likely prioritize these things. They are likely to be quite swayed by these things and therefore are more likely to find value and meaning in their lives as a consequence. Secondly, I want to talk about social attitudes, because this will determine, therefore, how do we feel about the poor? Why is it an important doctrine to integrate within religion, and as a consequence, direct political will one way or another? And this is important because I want to note the paradox of religion. You have a God that is all-powerful, omnipotent, all-knowing, but also, for some reason, you have people who are suffering—people who are dying and starving. How do you make sense of that as a religion? There are two ways. The first is to say that God will use that action. That’s what’s likely happening on our side. And that engages with the nuance in Opening Government because you can believe it was just something that people personally decided themselves to do, rather than one God had divinely commanded upon all people as an obligation because God is willing to act and use humans as His hands. I would like to note that this is important because what this says is that we have an obligation to the poor, and that God uses His power to be able to inspire us to use and fulfill that obligation in order to do that as a consequence. But I’d want to note, therefore, that this creates a social norm, especially when religions and states have historically been intertwined—not only today but in the past—and have often been the basis for multiple social values. So, if you say that it’s just going to be whatever excess, it’s not clear why any of that goes to religions to begin with, and therefore you don’t access any of your harm. Secondly, what is the likely counterfactual? If you have an all-powerful God and people who continue to die and suffer and stay in poverty, what other religions do is to justify that kind of suffering. For example, in Indonesia, when tsunamis and natural disasters hit irreligious areas, they see that God is cleansing sinners, God is cleansing heretics. And in fact, there are many popular reasons to support that today. I don’t personally believe it, obviously, but there are many people who think that Arabs are poor because they are filled with criminals and they deserve it. That’s why you should take away tax money from that. This is the only way to potentially justify an all-powerful God and, at the same time, a significant amount of human suffering. Because if God is unwilling to act on their behalf, it is therefore God choosing to divinely punish them as a consequence of their caste, as a consequence of being sinners, as a consequence of being bad people. And note that this is important because any kind of social direction—i.e., what policies you vote for—are determined by these religious and social attitudes to begin with. So, rather than redistribution—which I’d argue is also inspired by our side of the house—you’re less likely to get donations because if people think others deserve the punishment and suffering that they go through, the answers to poor people are instead things like mass incarceration, over-policing, and punitive measures to be able to emphasize that they deserve the kind of life they live. Rather than wanting to redistribute wealth, which is the important doctrine of zakat and many other pillars of religion. I’m very proud to oppose.
DLO | MO
Religion
DLO | OO
83
Two things in this speech: first, I will comprehensively refute the OG case and explain why they cannot win the debate in any world. Then, I will explain the rest of the opposition arguments on the debate and burden the rest of the extension on the CG POI.
This is the fifth response. That's how other people can give to secular organizations. One: these are different sets of people, presumably, to other people who still can give through secular means to give on either side of the house. There's no analysis as to why the existence of religious charities trades off against secular giving. Naomi's argument about how these groups target different kinds of people still applies here, but rich people give to religious organizations. Then they say—and this symmetrizes their case.
Before I explain why and preempt the remainder of the extension in this debate, I'd like to take CG: “Tithing as a practice has been happening for centuries. The reason why poverty is still endemic in many areas is because it continuously reinforces inequalities and only acts as proof.”
The last paragraph had 800wpm ! The entire speech is approximately over 300wpm(double the average)
Without the consistency of giving mechanisms, as Naomi explains, they just get fewer resources. We used to outcompete and have less reach. But they're also less able to distribute money via these zakat networks that exist on our side of the house, which necessitates you develop relationships. That, so far, you want to give to different religious charities and have ties with these organizations and get the distribution networks that are necessary for these organizations to gain reach.
In our world, we get vastly more economic impacts. Note, historically, in Islam, zakat was used to create a social safety net for the most vulnerable—i.e., widowed women who lost their husbands during the expansion of the caliphate. We think this is a tremendous amount of social good. This goes away on their side. This would have never happened. We think women and children are vastly worse off in a version of Islam that doesn't have the zakat.
These kinds of donations are uniquely meaningful. They make you feel good about yourself. Insofar as consensus is a metric you want to win this debate, we think this is secondary to accessing one's conception of happiness. The reason we value agency is because it allows people, as a prerequisite, to attain the good life.
Naomi analyzes this at the end when she explains how charity is something that is often stigmatized, something that's associated with being lazy, being a leech on the state, being a welfare queen, and narratives like this. Religious propaganda exists as well, which demonizes secularism. So, people have a worse view of what these religious organizations ultimately look like.
May have accidentally said the opposite of what’s true
When they would expunge and block out secular charities, you get more scrutiny on our side of the house. Very clearly, we won this debate from Opening Opp.
Religion
I first want to rebut OG here and say that there are many things that have a good utilitarian benefit that are probably coercive but are still good. I.e., the same taxes Gov seems to want to defend. I.e., laws that prevent you from being able to access agency, insofar as the poor are the least likely to be commanded into this and the most likely to benefit. I’d argue that’s okay.
Moving on, I’ll explain why the lack of a counterfactual on Gov is punishing because that likely counterfactual is damaging.
POI
But I’ll first take Opening Government.
“Don’t they provide better religious services when they can’t just oblige followers to give money but when they have to show their worth? And how do poor people gain fulfillment when they feel they failed their obligation and displeased God?”