Assuming that the finding is true, TH, as that environmentalist, would not reveal

the information

30 years of healing is 30 years of people still suffering from pollution.

The information looks like if reveal is that

1. this information came from a minority a single scientist for example so meaning
not all environmentalist and scientist know and believe to this information for
example right?
2. all the people will still continue with their current action if we continue in
this act so if we reveal this information people will prolly continue what they are
doing because earth will self heal anyway right?
3. the people will continue in sq that throwing those plastics for example or doing
fashion that is not recyclable. because of the narrative or information that earth
will heal anyways

How does earth heal itself?

1. By lowering global warming, ice no melting.
2. This does not include suddenly the earth digesting plastics in the ocean,
suddenly will erode all trash in the sewers and ground, does include the billions
of kg of textile in dumped cities and the ocean. Why is this the likely framing?
a. Because these take thousands of years to disintegrate, the earth does not have
that power.
b. If the earth that power, then it would've digested them long time ago..
c. Even if it digests trash long time ago, we say the existing trash today like
plastics and for example fast fashion rapidly contributing to textile pollution, or
even light pollution from cities, is not going to go away because they happen in a
daily basis
4. as we seen in the current sq that people are starting to repair the earth by
doing the different recycle, a ot of ecopreneur are arising or what not so meaning
if we reveal the information the people will lay low because the earth will heal
anyway right?

What is the interest of an environmental expert?

1. Their goals are multi-faceted meaning it's just to save the earth and it's
environment, but also to better human life and the environment at all times.
2. They are not burdened to reveal this information because whatever they research,
is their own property, the corporatiosn that fund them notice how they can't patent
this research because it is the ownership of the expert. Therefore you have the
ability to keep them to yourself as logn as you want, you have the agency to do so.
- you are private, you study for that information so you have the autonomy to
reveal that information.
3. You don't have the capability to reveal this and oppose the also research of
other scientists protesting that the earth is going to be detrimental in 30 years.

The trade off in gov is simple, we are willing to trade off the transparency thatn
the utilitarian benefits.

Burden is to prove, that trade off for utilitary proportional to the level
transparency.

Why is transparency not as important is this debate

1. Because transparency is only important if it gives people the benefit of being
more free and choice. They are likely to have less choice because of proximate
short-term harms right because of the problem in sq on how the problem and
suffering environmentally in the current sq right?
2. Because transparency will be much more detrimental to the actor we'll prove this
on to our 1st argument right?
if opp wants to challegne this framing, they have to outweigh these likelihoods I
gave to you on why plastics for so many years are going to melt in 30 years
especially in so many areas like within households and cities that's not in direct
contact of nature."

Pre emption - they might say from opp that it will give people more of knowledge to
help in the progress right?
- we say that is unlikely to happen because as the 100th monkey effect of the
people just like how we cam see in the fil that, it will happen in the future
anyways so it is like the detiny in philosophy, it will happen anyways so why
should I contribute, i should do other things for example.
- even if its true we gonna prove to you on why reveal this information

Argument 1: As an expert with an obligation to protect the environment and

everyone, you have an obligation to protect it at all times and better it.

What happens is if you were able to prove this, and people beleive you, meaning
people are likely to abandon their efforts towards environmentalism. What does this
look like?
1. Corporation efforts being abandoned because they care their profits and these
projects also take away from profits
2. People will start throwing and be undisciplined even more with the environment
because of the narrative that it heals itself anyways

What are the impacts?

1. Within the 30 years, humans and animals suffer from the effects of short term
environmental harm. This looks liek turtles suffering from plastics, or people from
poor areas suffering from the massive dump of increased or stagnated pollution.
Meaning harm to the health.

Why is this important

1. As an expert you have a moral obligation to protect life and environment at all
cost, and not jsut focus on the future because the present is just as important.
2. Because if people experience these harms in the short-term, this means their
agency is limited because they cant go to areas very polluted for their health
meaning you limit their choices and locomotion. This is important because agency is
a prerequisite to your self-actualization.

What is the metrics for self actualization

1. People have different spectrums on how to reach self-actualization. For example,
for some people, esteem needs are enjoying careers and sports and for others it’s
religion. Therefore it varies from person to person.
2. it will connect on how you limit the autonomy of those people to choose and will
limit self actualization to explore because you are oblige specific things to help
in the envir

What's the comparative?

1. The comaprative is on side gov people still continue to do the efforts because
they are alerted of this harms. And this comparaitve is important because people
have an obligation to continue serving the environment. This oblgiatio nsi
threefold:
a. religious obligation their gods tell us that you should protect the environment
b. because of environmental oblgiation, because they environment is what made you
live, you owe the environment the same proportion of protection and improvement of
it.
c. because we've already invested in this, it harmful if we abandon is suddenly and
projects fail.

Even if let's say people are still not going to abandon their projects this is
still bad because. (Although not likely)
1. SQ is not enough, actualyl we need more urgency to save people that suffering
from proximate pollution, meaning they to level it up, at best on side opp they
stick within their own practices that's not enough because they feel like it's
okay. Because they aren't likely to read your research. They will take the headline
that it will heal itself in 30 years.

Backlash against other scientists.

1. scientist has a lot of different ideas and beliefs meaning this information will
prolly know by minority and it will create backlash and chaos because of
information

2. there are a lot of information from different perspective and a lot of people
will prolly believes to different ideologis because they are specialized right but
the problem is those scientist or environmentalist has different perspective.

Reply - we already framed that earth has no capability to do those acts but even if
that's possible we gave you why pollution was used in daily basis, engage on our
argument on the interest of the actor.

The moment that the opp side didn't vetoe this motion is also the moment they loose
this debate right?

1. notice how we on gov were able to work under the both worlds comparatively on
opp whickh only work on their side. And we tell you that even the best case of opp
on funding, we say that the responsibility and obligation of the actor is more
leamning on the benevolence of the society which is their responsibility as an
environmentalist right??
a. Because if you cause so much incentivized harm of people polluting and be more
lenient you see people around the world continue dying they are doing just the bare
minimum but enough to save lives in India, in Kazakhstan, they literally dying
because of health complications
b. Research grants exists regardless of an award or not itearlly the state give you
money or a corporatio ngive you money you can pretend ot work or work on other
things to get grants

2. notice how the opp side is not engaging from framing that you get from pm there
is no definitional challenge and clearly we gave you why our framing on this are
more believable right because this information was prolly formulated by specific
environmental issue, this different scientist has their own theory of truthness and
we tell you on how it will create a backlash through the community of experts
right? coparatively on opp, they simply said that this is true so all will know
this, what a generic argument right so you must buy the framing of gov.

3. in comparatives, even if we bite the opps world framing that it will

automatically will be healed, what will happen after the healing after on the opps
world, those people will be iresponsible because on environmental issues because
prolly earth will heal anyways again so only environmental iresponsibility will be
entailed on opps world but whjat if the next healing is in 100 years but because on
the iresponsibility of people will not even reach that point of time right?
Comparatively on the framing that you get from gov that this people will have a
magnificent impact on healing the earth because pollution is in daily basis but in
gov side if you imposed this motion the people will be more responsible in helping
the change in sustaining the environment itself because of the realization that
they have in the current sq right? so in gov's world even after the healing, the
people contributed to the healing and can even sustain after the healing because of
the narrative or act that we impose in to them right which is the interest of the
actor as an environmentalist which is to atleast lessen polluto, save environment
and prevention before harming environment.

2 standards in this debate engagement, burden fulfillment

on the standard of burden fulfillment

1. the opp side burdened themselves that there are more envi incentive on their
side which they wasnt able to fulfill because a. it is lacking of exclisivity
because the healing of earth will happen for both side anyways 2. this is not the
proper burden of opp because this is thw not reveal the information comparatively
on gove, we debated on the essence of the motion because we told you on how the
current reparing of this people will continue but on opps world people will be
irreponcible which is not beneficial to the interest of the actor in this debate
which I mentioned earlier right?

2. we on gov clearly fulfill the burden of both gov and opposition side, but how
did we exactly fulfill the burden of opp that they faucet in this debate of more
environmental incentives because in side opp irresponsibility is very prevailing
because of lenient of automatic healing but on gov responsibility to care for
environment that will be beneficial even after the healing right

3. we fulfilled the burden that we on gov faucet in this debate because the burden
is prove that we are willing to trade off the transparency and choose utilitarian
benefits because again we told on the possible benefits of less suffering of
mammals, animals and humans and we even gave you that if you pursue with gov, we
gave the actor in this debate with their autonomy to choose on either they wan to
reveal the information or not but if you side with opp you remove the autonomy of
the actor to choose if they want to reveal and we told you that this is important
because the actor work for it and that is the interest of the actor on either they
want to gatekeep or not and to cater to the benevolance of environment and living
things.

on the standard of engagement

1. dont believe DLO when he say that we dont cater on the interest of an actor, as
early as pm we gave you that the interest of the actor is benevolence not only by
the environment but the humanity right? and notice how there is no weighning on opp
whip on the betterment on the issue and interest and actor but just demonize our
case without enough substantiation.

2. clearly the opp side is very stagnant on their prep cases because there is no
responses on the cases that you get from gov right, they are very stagnant and
leamning that earth will automatically heal, how can we believe that without even
ways on how it will happen

3. they said that it will be beneficial to environment because of healing of earth,

listen this is not the debate either we support the healing or not because if that
is the debate all wants the healing of earth right? but the debate is the revealing
of information, clearly the opp side is on leaning healing of environment, that is
symmetric for both sides, it will achieved in the very end of the day but the
difference is that we ways on how it will happen which is lacking to opp.