Welcome to the closing plenary of the inaugural Sustainable Development Impact Summit. We're here to have actually a summary conversation, not a really a closing conversation, but to be – because to be successful at attaining the aspirations of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement, we need significant public-private partnership. We need acceleration of that. And so we're very hopeful that this summit has provided the basis and the beginning of a real platform that for each of you here at the summit itself and joining us via the internet view as a way to continue to partner and accelerate as we go forward. So my name's Cheryl Martin. I'm on the Managing Board of the World Economic Forum and it's my honor to actually moderate this closing panel with this amazing group of panelists representing such a diverse ray of stakeholders who have their own stories to tell here. And we're going to share with you some of the examples of what's come through as commitments during this conference, as well as some of the places we need to continue to think about. How are we going to work together? How are we going to work better together in order to go forward? But let us first harken back to just less than 30 hours ago when on this stage we opened the Sustainable Development Summit. And so let's start first by taking us back to that original video. We could roll the tape. Our society is increasingly interconnected and human in its basic rights. We can no longer ignore our actions as we end up driving boost of everyone in this global village. Of the entire planet, if we're going to succeed with the world's economy in the future. Get innovative and diverse ideas quickly now, knowing how to implement those ideas and above all to test them. With technology and smart partnerships we can create innovative solutions to tackle world's interconnected problems. I am hopeful that we are going to be able to eradicate hunger within our life generations. Technology is giving us for the first time in history. An opportunity to be very specific about changing the way that we manufacture and distribute food. If we're serious about having lasting business in the world now, then there's no such thing as success with the new economic model. We should invest in more businesses that actually have sustainability at the core of what they do. Whether it's in boardrooms or whether it's in a village, essentially women are being excluded from the conversation across the board. We have a lot of work to do. We can never reach social justice or any form of social development in that case by not addressing the stimulation based agenda. I believe that it's critically important to bring in more diversity because if you look at the world, the conflicts that are happening are not because of nationalities. They're because of housing, housing arts. The scale is just staggering. 60 million people displaced, 20 million plus refugees. It's never happened since the Second World War. When you have a country that is falling apart, this is not because you choose to have a better job and then start a war. The effects of hierarchy here, when you start to damage is so bad and great. There are important aspects that need to be taken into people's dialogue. One of the biggest lessons from the Paris Agreement is that we need technology and smart partnerships to create innovative solutions to these problems. Ideas come less from inside people's heads and more from cuisine patterns. We have to think about things quite a bit differently. That's why I'm so excited about what's happening right here at the World Economic Forum to build a multi-stakeholder dialogue around the Fourth Industrial Revolution. My hope is that we have a robust discussion for how this can truly help our world solve some of the hard-pressed challenges that we have today. The world has changed. If we are not innovative, if we're not creative enough, it will be very difficult to survive in this century. This is a space to encourage, support and empower innovative solutions to tackle the world's most oppressive challenges. This is your platform for action. So that was part of yesterday's call to action. And I think everyone has actually come a long way in the journey over the past 30 hours. Sitting together in various sessions and sharing ideas and commitments. We have over two dozen commitments. They're continuing to come in as we finish our final sessions this afternoon. Commitments as broad as the Global Battery Alliance. Something to think about if each one of you holds up your phones. If you think about your phone, you have the 21st century in your hand backed up by what we could, I guess, call a 19th century supply chain. And so bringing together a coalition of partners, public and private sector to actually deal with everything from the child labor to the environmental and trade issues associated with those supply chains. So a very, very significant commitment to really enable us to be successful with the technology that we're excited about to attain so many other parts of the goals. In addition, another commitment that came in was around we mean business. A new commitment by 10 companies to be the first to implement the financial stability boards, industry task force recommendations on climate disclosure. And I could go on and on, but I will not. Because we have so many good stories and insights to share from the panel. And so Afsana, you joined us yesterday in one of the first panels in conversations. What have you seen and what can you share with us about what's being done? Thank you, Sheryl, for this incredibly great framework that you just gave us right now. The last two days have been indeed amazing. I don't think any of us in this room and a lot of people who have been here who are not in this room at this moment even imagined that we would be able to achieve so much in such a short time. First of all, I think one of the most important things that we did, we were very honest amongst ourselves. A lot of people put on the table the fact that we use different semantics to say the same thing and let's not get bogged down on that. This was one of the most interesting meetings in that way. We weren't debating to debate. We actually moved on to discuss the commonality, the fact that this is a meeting for multistakeholders from the private sector, from a civil society, from academia, from a private sector, and the public sector from many different walks within the public sector and the multilaterals and bilaterals. Everyone was really directing their attention to the subjects at hand, whether it was education, whether it was climate change, whether it was digital technology. We also were very, I think, proactive in talking about the fact that because we use different words, because sometimes we want to do the same thing, but we use different words for it, it becomes very difficult to measure. We had quite a few sessions on the measurement issue. That comes up not just because it is very difficult to measure impact, whether it's social, economic, or otherwise, but also because we all use different terms. I think there was a lot of discussion, especially today, we had some very good sessions on that. We were very, I think a lot of the sessions on job skills, again, technology, and the impact of those on each other were really, really important, and I know we'll hear about that shortly also. For example, the work that Saadia has been doing at the World Economic Forum with others, with Laura Tyson and others, I think, has been so critical and will continue to be so critical, I think, in terms of our achievements. And what I want to come back is that, again, as we started the summit, we didn't really even imagine that there would be so many decisions come out of it. I think what is very different about this summit in my own experience is that it was a very action-oriented summit. It was, how do we get things done?  It was about, within climate change, for example, what is the Asian Development Bank going to do? What is the World Bank going to do? What's MIGA going to do? How can we look at the guarantees that are done by many, many institutions and make things more consistent rather than each do our own? It was about what Luis Moreno is doing at the Inter-American Development Bank and how the lessons learned in different countries on specific projects can then be used in other regions. In other areas, there was a discussion about Clean Energy Research Center and the fact that the U.S. and China have been collaborating and there will be more collaboration than anything else. The fact that even though the political climate is extremely interesting at this moment, especially today with the speeches that are going on at the UN, despite all of that, the CEOs who were present in these meetings really gave their word on the fact that they will move ahead and how they'll sign up other CEOs to move ahead. The list was very long. There was a Finance Facility for Education partnership between developing countries and a World Bank for Education. Not World Bank I worked for, but it's another World Bank for Education. The World Bank. Exactly, the World Bank, which is even more important. I'll stop there, but because the list of initiatives was very, very long across all sectors and I can't tell you how excited I've been to be here for the last two days. Well, thank you for those insights and I think, well, you know, I've sort of mentioned the idea of technology, skills, jobs. As you look at that balance for you, I think you have some powerful insights for the audience. For the what? For the audience. Oh, sorry. Yeah, so I live my life in three different fields. One is what people probably know me mostly as and that's entertainment and how technology has disrupted that dramatically. And then my philanthropic work where we aim all of our efforts with the success that we have in our entrepreneurial fields and my entertainment field to bring skillsets to kids in inner cities. I started seven years ago. What about 65 kids? That 65 kid number has grown to about 600 plus. And it's a small effort, but the impact is amazing on how we're transforming these kids' lives and the ghetto that I come from. And the way that we're doing that is to get them up to speed so they not only graduate college but capable of creating jobs tomorrow in and around science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. So our kids build robots, they write code. Since then, seven years ago, we had a first graduating class last year. 100% of our kids graduated, 70% of them are all going to school for some robotics degrees and engineering and computer science. And the next year that followed, we saw the same results but more kids that attended. The thing that I find odd is my entrepreneurial career is around artificial intelligence. And raising money for AI versus raising money for group learning, group intelligence, is lopsided. So I am plus the company that I founded with my co-founder, Shandra. We raised like $117 million for our entrepreneurial work and we're currently live in Germany. We took over DT's customer service with our natural language processing, natural language understanding platform. And we do our justice with Tatiana who's every year we go out and raise money to educate people and we barely raise $1 million a year. Now to me, that just hurts my heart every year. Every year that we do that, every year that we raise money for AI versus raising money for people, that scares me. It scares me because I know firsthand just how smart the machine is going to be. Contextual, conversational, understanding and the phone that we all, and we're all addicted to these devices. We don't really understand how addicted we are to them. And it's a concern that I have that if we're still dealing with racism today, now imagine when the algorithm was programmed to be racist and the machine is racist 10 years from now. That is something that we're not even anticipating. People don't even talk about racist machines because we're afraid to talk about racist people. But the algorithms and the code is being written now. So if we're not educating kids in the inner cities and developing countries to the tune of developing the intelligence in your device, just know that the problems that we might face in the near future are worse than the ones that we have now. And that's the reason why I like coming to WEF is to learn and then go back to my kids and the people that work at IM Plus and IM Angel to give them perspective on how fast and rapid the world is moving and how slow it's moving as well, especially when it comes to group learning and going out and protecting that seven-year-old. So there's other companies that are looking at a seven-year-old and that's like the NFL. They're looking to see how well that person is playing their sport, regardless if they're doing good in school or not, they're going to get into a college and they're going to find a job and they're going to be working for one company. There's no competition in NFL. It's just NFL or FIFA. So if an organization around athletics could gather around the youth, then I'm pretty sure big businesses can gather around the youth too, especially when you see that there's jobs that aren't filled and all those jobs that aren't filled are engineering and developing jobs. Yeah, absolutely. That whole idea that we need all these kids to be trained and we need these programs to actually embrace all of them and an important point for all of us to remember about the technology and certainly we've thought about it very much as we've launched the Center for the Fourth IR in San Francisco is that the morals, the values that are embedded in these technologies are ones we write and we write it into the code and so we really need to be very cognizant to have these hard conversations and hopefully as Afsana said, in these rooms when we're having these conversations we're being really honest and we're bringing up some of these issues that Will's citing because that's the only way we're going to get there with this technology and really have a really positive future for everyone. But thank you for pointing out some of those tensions that you see every day in the world that you're moving between. And so Paul, you were in some of the conversations yesterday in an important part of the space as well, you know, food and land use, talk about a place with also a lot of tensions. Maybe can you comment on your insights in this space and what you've seen as what's getting done? Yeah, the first thing I need to say is I don't know what I've done wrong with the WEF but this is the third or fourth time that I'm spending after Will and that's just not fair. You're a good team. I'm telling you the next time I'm sitting in that shape. But no, I think the 30 hours is actually amazing how much you can do in 30 hours but what I think is that a good group of people came together that really don't want to debate the things anymore but want to move it to action as you rightfully said which is much more energizing also for the private sector. You know what bothers me and what continues to bother me is that if you look at the G20s or the G8s and all these agendas we get involved in the last time that food security was on the agenda really seriously was in Los Cabos with Felipe Calderón who actually after his presidency has continued to show in high interest which showed you that it was deeply ingrained in his DNA. But the rest has paid lip service to this and many of the issues that we have 25% of climate change easily comes from the whole food chain the issues of refugees that we see that we now deal with the issues of education actually directly if you get 160 million children stunted not having enough nutrition in their first thousand days then they're done for the rest of their lives so every element which I like every element of the 17 or every part of the 17 goals that are in the sustainable development goals actually although food security is goal number two if you want to no hunger all the goals are related and not surprisingly again the more you focus on women within that the better you even do again but all the goals are related it provides income for smallholder farmers it drives people to school it attacks climate change it deals with the issues of water or land with deforestation etc etc so a lot of efforts have gone on on food security there are many people that understand that something needs to change and have individual efforts there are groups of people also at the WEF a wonderful partnership looking at stopping the deforestation that has crept in then there are partnerships protecting the oceans then there are partnerships like scaling up nutrition trying to attack the issue of the first thousand days and nutrition there is now an initiative 12.3 a goal number 12 as you know is responsible consumption so 12.3 is around food waste so all these initiatives are popping up and thank God that people are doing that that they go beyond their own interest to try to drive some bigger changes but we said isn't it time to put all these different elements together and look at the whole value chain you know this is the first time in the history of mankind actually that more people are dying of obesity than actually malnourishment and you know we don't want to continue to be part of this it's getting to a point that it is ridiculous and what I like about the food chain is that all the solutions that are needed can be had with just willpower this is actually an element we are working on artificial intelligence and rightfully be worried about how we educate our own people as we start competing with computers but actually in the area of the whole food chain we have the answer so we brought about 30 organizations together here in the food and land use initiative we just had to give it a name not to make it too complicated organizations like the WEF the World Business Council the SDSM with Jeffrey Sachs the EAT Forum the World Resource Institute and we said come on let's just be real leaders and let's put the interest of others ahead of our own let's get out of our own little protections of whatever organization we work in and let's just look at the greater good putting literally the interest of others as I said ahead of our own and we said to ourselves very simple objective is the first one is obviously to feed 9 billion people because that's certainly what we are heading towards the second one is to do that in a sustainable way and the third one is to provide the livelihoods for about 500 million smallholder farmers and their families very specific measures and targets around that there are basically three strands one of them is science based targets which is also how we attack the issues of climate change when we went into Paris how we got the companies to sign up on the RE100 and other things be sure that the targets are science based there are a lot of information steps being driven here at the web for the World Business Council where we get the industry together and then last but not least country plans because at the end of the day the rubber hits the road in the countries which brings me to your point of educating the children in the school we have to empower from the bottom up obviously as many people are discovering more and more we cannot have these top down plans that are being made here we have to be sure in this case that the work that I'm just using is that we put the farmer in the middle of all of this and that we start there and have that empowerment on the ground and that we are just there to be sure that they are successful so I'm fairly energized with that not surprisingly we fairly quickly got a lot of countries involved also willing to sponsor countries that volunteer for these deep dives willing to put their own you know name in the game and be willing to appoint ministers or be part of that so I think we're getting to this point now that we're seeing a level of moral leadership on this crucial area that is probably higher than I've seen before and perhaps one of the things that drives this might not be just the morality itself but the one of the things that drives this is that wherever you look at the cost of not acting is clearly starting to become higher than the cost of acting so increasingly it makes economic sense as well which makes my job easier to get the private sector involved. Thank you Paul for sharing that perspective so as we talk about these initiatives energy food it all does come down to the people and we talk a lot about keeping the human at the center of all this conversation and so Penny for you being here in the host city for the UN General Assembly New York why don't you share a little bit about some of the innovation that you see is happening in the office that's enabling cities to respond better and as part of the city's leadership welcome to West First Summit in New York and we hope that you will continue this as I was telling Rick earlier we're already dealing with the traffic and the security so we welcome this you know one of the standouts listening to everybody speak is the necessity for innovation but the public-private partnership so the agency that I run has been around for about 50 years on the operational dynamic New York City is host city to the largest diplomatic core in the world and so that's an extraordinary opportunity to figure out what do we do beyond the operational and that was one of the original conversations the mayor and I had how do we take care of the security and the diplomatic incidents but how do we actually engage in the conversations that are happening and bring that global the global goals the sustainable development goals that we've come into our communities something many people aren't aware of our five boroughs New York City is as large if not larger than 134 countries by population so that allows us to show up in certain conversations because what can work here can work in many other countries many other cities and we're not just Manhattan we are East New York and the South Bronx and there's a lot of learning that can happen with the Nairobi's and the South Hallows of the world and so a couple of things that we have seen I don't know if many of you are aware but we hosted the Global Mayor Summit on immigration and refugees over the last two days there this right now local leadership is more important than ever and so we want to ensure that we are bridging those conversations and my office has really been at the heart of that one of the models that I wanted to share today is a program called Global Vision Urban Action so I just mentioned our population some of the challenges that we have whether it's on immigration or climate action or waste management but how do we identify the synergies between what the mayor is trying to accomplish from a policy perspective here in New York City with the global goals and then how can we exchange best practices and so that's a program we have called Global Vision Urban Action but that at the heart is about getting the principles the heads of state this most senior diplomats bought into that idea but also how do we get the experts both on the city end but on the international expert end talking and learning from each other and then doing the groundwork the fieldwork the site visits but you need those three layers of engagement to ensure that this exchange of best practices is occurring one example is Vision Zero the city has a mandate to lower ideally completely get rid of pedestrian threats it's a policy that Sweden was the first to really do in a successful way we brought it here in New York City and now we're sharing some of the learnings that we've had in New York City abroad and so this opportunity to exchange best practices between New York City and the global community at its heart is a public-private partnership we can't do it without our corporate partners without our non-profit partners and that's been a really interesting opportunity through this office outstanding what do you see as the most important public-private partnership to help you get out what you see every day as this tension between student education and people valuing it versus the technology what would you love to see more of in terms of public sector engagement or the private sector engagement that you think would be most helpful I really don't know the answer to that because I don't understand how we it's really the heart really you're just asking people to really truly care for the right reasons and the thing that you want them to care about is children and if sustainability is something that we all believe in then the youth the 7 and 9 year old right now what are we all doing how many of them have we adopted and and how committed are we to see them through right so it's a hard thing to ask someone because people have their own kids or maybe they don't want to have kids or maybe they just are on their own self bubble and you can't really ask someone to care but I'm asking everyone to care especially when it's obvious that there's a collapse in government to care for the youth right you know that you know a kid in prison is more likely to have gotten $3,000 a year education and next to that you know where they reside there's a liquor store, a check cashing and a motel and you know that if somebody has an $8,000 education there is no check cashing the family is like financially literate and there's not motels because there's nice houses and the zoning for where that person is getting that $8,000 a year suggests that that child is not going to end up in juvenile hall of prison in the next five years and you know that the school teacher in the area where the kids get $2,000 a year for their education is getting less than the warden in the security guard at the prison 20 miles away from that location so you know for a fact that this system is rigged so let's say let's ignore that so now as a citizen knowing that the system is wrong and flawed to minorities what are we going to do to help a 7 and a 9 year old so when they graduate college so it's a very complex you know I don't want to curse here but it's aft, these kids are aft they're really messed up and it's systematically set up for them to end up in a prison where somebody is going to make money and you just and for a while that prison was privatized which is even more disgusting here you're not talking about a third of a country you're talking about the United States of America those privatized prisons and those kids from 7 year old were being looked at to fill that it's a very, very, very hard question to ask someone care as much as I do I don't have any kids I'm 42 years old but I got 600 kids you know and and the reason why you do that is because 10, 20 years from now we'd live in a totally different world why do you think you're holding up that phone recording what for your family your feet in the cloud we don't even know what we're building and some people know what we're building and it's intelligent and I want a kid to be able to compete with it well the good thing is those 600 kids are lucky to have you and I think that with the honesty of these conversations and understanding that that needs to be part of our keeping it at the center it's not just a human it's these kids I just wanted to bring what you just said to a topic that we discuss in one of the sessions I've been on the board of a foundation a large US based foundation where one of our goals is social justice so looking at social justice one of the things that we do care about is that if people do get into trouble also that they what kind of prisons do we have and as you said the private prisons are probably as bad as they come so when it comes to work and the mission of the foundation it is how do we improve social justice when it comes to the endowment of the foundation we invest in everything so when we went back to the board and said maybe we should be investing sustainably and there's certain things that the foundation should not invest in there was a lot of discussion as to well then we won't get the highest return and I think that whole principle is flawed because if the mission of the foundation is social justice then the totality of the foundation should be looking at that whether it's sitting on the endowment or sitting on the mission oriented part and I think that was one of the things we discussed can I follow your nodding your head there thinking about some of these pieces you want to weigh I think the same thing I mean we all resonate and then we start feeling guilty and it's like seeing an exit on the highway you drive slowly for 5 kilometers and then 10 kilometers further you start speeding again the question really what we have to deal with here it gets to the essence of it is we all like the formal authority that we have the hierarchy and the positions that we find ourselves in but very limited time is spent on the moral authority and you know what Will is saying I resonate to I grew up in the Netherlands you know we're fortunate that the parents cared that the government paid for education that I had food until I could care about it myself that I had free education with all my six brothers and sisters and you know you're there and then you realize at one day usually too late in life that you basically want to take it in the lottery that you belong to the 2% or 3% of the world population that have these things all working for you but what gives us the right to look at that for ourselves so if we can get more of the people to understand that if you won the lottery you have to share the winnings and put yourself to the surface of the other 98 and if more people do that which actually increasingly makes more sense because we've waited too long but if more people do that we would be in a significantly better state and yet we don't want to talk about these things because it's softy-softy and all that stuff but it's probably the fundamental of what is missing now and what is missing in people that create these leaders that we need for tomorrow is probably the biggest thing we can do and this is where the young people come in tomorrow we have We Day in New York the whole day with Mark and Greg Kielberger and the reason I got involved at one point in time was they go out to the schools this is basically high schools 15 years old to 18, 19 years old and really empowering them and giving them an opportunity to be at the table and it makes so much more sense they're more creative, they learn quicker they're willing to challenge the status quo they're better in partnerships they know technology better all the things we actually need to solve some of these things that we keep banging our heads against so getting them earlier at the table you have your situations in the US but if you look at 80% of the world population living outside of Europe and the US 50% of that population is below 25 years old so the best thing we can do is to enroll them in all the things and actually it makes us better by doing so absolutely, Penny Euroyan in there yeah I think that this is an important reminder for the important of government I hear what you're and public policy we'll just said how do we get people to care and what we also need to do is take that into the voting booth because that's the leadership today for example we have our struggles in our community but if we are thinking about education you want to ensure that early childhood education is accessible to all of our kids and so how is public policy part of this larger conversation Paul you just talked about your childhood and the benefits that you've received and that's why it's important that we're always having this public-private conversation to figure out how can we bring some of these needs but are part of what government's role is in everyday communities and that is something that we have really prioritized here in New York City over the last couple of years and we've seen incredible results from paid sick leave to parental care to be quite honest I had some maternity leave just because of signed legislation within my tenure in this role which is crazy but in this country that is not guaranteed but this is where government has to play a role in helping people have that heart that Will was talking about Absolutely, so this whole conversation and commitment to action has been all about the public-private partnership in all of its aspects and if you got into any of the discussions on some other specifics where you feel there is real potential to scale do you have any really good example you had a long list but I think to bring it up to a specific one that you're excited about we could scale so one of the things we talked about is the fact that for example there is some of the banks that were in the room were talking about 42 or 43 billion dollars of projects that are green projects by whatever definition you want to use that are ready to go so that's a very large number the interesting thing also we talked is that investors do not know how to find them so when somebody is an investor unless they're a big multilateral or whatever even large pension funds let's say you're the pension fund of the New York State or Texas you have no idea how to find these so some of the things we talked about is whether it's a small project or a large project and there seems to be a lot of projects that have already there's already been a lot of due diligence so it's not something one particular project but the fact that the funding is there I think one of the things we talked about is how we've and the forum and this summit and people involved in it can help bring together the sources of finance with the projects or funds and it's almost like we need a marketplace so that radical transparency so it may not be exactly what you're asking is very specific but there is just so much sitting on the ready to go do you think it's something that future conversation in this and other platforms can actually cause that to coalesce into something? I think what also we discussed in some of the sessions is that the data is scattered so one bank will have information they're looking at another multilateral will look at the information they're looking at foundations will look at a whole series of other things the data let's say I'm interested in financing green projects the data is so scattered and a lot of the data is proprietary people are holding it in their vaults so one of the I think roles and one of the we've has is how do we open data how do we provide this data to people who are interested in doing something with it rather than sitting in a bank vault so I think this will be a very important topic moving into a marketplace with open data to put everything we're talking whether it's agriculture, nutrition education, health on a platform where people can access it easily which brings us into a lot of the conversations around data privacy digital identity questions for both people and things in order to facilitate but it brings out other questions which of course government certainly a conversation to be had more importantly you see that climate change there's an enormous amount of money coming into climate change and that is because the people understand the met reality of it which isn't clear for many of the other things about they understand the relevance and they are starting to be and they're able to compare so all these conditions are met and the task force that Bloomberg and Carney let and others are obviously giving further momentum to that but since we brought that common language to it and people understand the need for it you've seen the financial markets moving very fast it is strange to me that the sustainable development agenda that we have to implement when we have 12 trillion dollars sitting in the world at zero interest rates and we actually have a plan here that creates jobs and actually gives you a high financial payout but we haven't been able to bring this clarity as we've done in climate change to these other elements we have a hard time valuing education and we look at it or valuing food security so we really have to move our economic system beyond the simple financial measures to also include the social and environmental measures and when we are starting to do this I think the business world itself will be very well qualified to optimize that so it's a key thing that needs to happen move the financial markets to the long term which is a whole separate topic that I'm increasingly more passionate about and the other one is starting to measure what counts we just thought in Singapore yesterday I came back from Singapore to sit next to the Prime Minister of Bhutan where he was explaining to me gross national happiness which is how they do it instead of GDP GNP, a GNH and the thing behind that and the data that he has and the effects of just measuring a little bit broader than this narrow P&L or what we call GDP is a tremendous important thing if we want to move the world in this direction no, exactly it is so key we get what we measure I think this morning one of the speakers said we need to be careful we don't fall in the trap of doing what we can measure versus doing what we should do I think that's certainly a strong message that all of you have already resonated from we have about 15 minutes left and so I wanted to take this last 10 minutes before we invite Rick up to actually close the official program to extend the conversation we've had to those children what's the message that we would deliver to them today after having had the beginning of this week that there are things going on that we can point to that they should be confident that as they are leading in 2030 the sustainable development goals will be delivered we will be delivering on our commitments to Paris and so it's a what are the words to them today not of hope but of action that should cause them to really be able to look forward in a good way Afsana the way I think about it I was born in Iran I was very fortunate was talking about the fact that my parents did care about education they did not have much money my sisters and my education came here as an exchange student and really as a migrant what I found in the US as a 16 year old was the openness the fact that I was accepted the fact that I was given every opportunity and I think that has driven me the rest of my life and I think that's why I went to the World Bank did a variety of things and started an investment fund where we invest a lot in emerging markets and particularly the least privilege including in health sector and making a positive return doing that and I think what is very important for every kid all over the world is to have those kinds of opportunities and going back to what Will said is when we were all growing up there wasn't the UN was dealing much more with kind of much more dry as an economist in a sort of GDP type numbers as we just heard today we are in a different world where on the one hand there is a lot of inequality there are a lot of issues on the other hand the kind of meeting we are having today is really how do we help the people who are refugees you know one out of 113 people in the world are refugees today which is sort of much larger than ever the other side of it is how do we come up with an education system that doesn't look at them just as an emergency but now a permanent set of refugees and I think between the STGs between the forums initiatives between the work of climate change and others I have hope with at the time we grew up these things did not exist so we do have big issues that we are facing but I am also very optimistic with the kinds of discussions we are having today and others are having in other rooms particularly in New York right now that that kids should be positive but you know just as the STGs are trying to help them everybody will have to also be more proactive and do what will is doing which is to learn to code everyone needs to learn to code alright the words from Afsana Paul what do you see no what I tell young people if I would tell them I would say first of all you are lucky to be born now you know this is a great world to be born in people live longer more people are in education more women and workforce maternal health is down more people have access to water than ever but it is also a world that has some challenges and it is actually your world the next 15 years when we can and should resolve these challenges are actually your 15 years you are in the prime of your life you are a major force if you feel yourself you can't make a difference try to go to bed at night with a mosquito in the room you know we can all have an influence ourselves so start by creating your awareness around what you care about and then be actively involved whatever it is we've seen the difference between young people being involved in politics and not being involved in politics if the elections in this country would have embraced more millennials in the political thing the outcome would have been different the same with Brexit in the UK so get involved and make your voices heard and also start acting in your own circle with your purchasing power find out where you put your money find out what the products you buy what companies are doing because you have probably the biggest power the wealth transfer that is going to take place the combined purchasing power of that group of people is going to be bigger than anything else and if you want people to or businesses to start to behave a little bit faster than they otherwise would the best way to do that is to boycott their products or buy their products depending on what side of the equation you think they're on so start becoming actively involved and then obviously work together with these use networks I'm always amazed at how many networks there are of young people and actors, the global shapers we they one young world and the list goes on but if we could connect these networks and multiply them because at the end of the day that is where the change will come from we've seen it on climate change without any doubt the young people have played a key role in getting a more ambitious agreement in Paris than it otherwise would have been we now need to get that same movement around some of the other things that we're facing and the sooner that happens the better and we by the way should tell them very humbly that we are there to be sure that they are successful I think it's time for us to serve them instead of expecting them to serve us to own their voice Will? I agree right now is the best time to be alive even those that are without because you can go from without to contributing in ways that we've never seen before in the past and that's with mentorship, encouragement and surrounding and protecting a child and the things that you can create now topple not only big companies of the past but even the way governments move for example Uber was an idea and now it's changed what governments provide for us as far as Metro who needs it anymore because Uber's around and you see governments that don't want that into their country because how transformational that is it's changed even the private sector that provided taxis that's changed how a simple idea could transform the world so it's an amazing time to be alive and if I told you that every single person in this room is illiterate because none of us know how to read or write code until I said none of us know how to read or write code a lot of you guys probably took offense to that but we're all illiterate and we know reading or writing code changes the world so why isn't that we don't make sure a 7 year old whether your nieces or nephews or your next door neighbors or strangers some refugee some person in a refugee camp right now will transform the world because they come from a perspective that we can't even fathom the way the world actually is and that child in a refugee camp is going to get access to some code and see the world in a magnificent way and solve problems in the name of an app or an AI that is going to happen now because you know that's going to happen why do we let refugee kids just be refugee kids we should all be going there being greedy instead of fearful right so it is an upside for investors to look at refugees as a potential you know molder and shaper creator of an amazing social society that we are all going to benefit from when there is no more warring because I guarantee those kids don't want to see another bomb dropped or another like arm chopped off by some warlord in their village right so the world is an amazing place right now to be alive in given the tools that we have to transform and change it and everyone should know how to read and write code especially when the machine will be more powerful than your 17 year old who is 7 now 10 years now so let's make this time well I can't believe I have to follow this panel so I am focused on the activation piece this is something that the city is doing and two avenues that have been very interesting how are we connecting our kids to other kids around the world right so it's about bringing the most dire circumstances learning about those and bringing them home to our community too and so we have a program called junior ambassadors where the educators figure out how to integrate the sustainable development goals into their curriculum and if they choose climate action for example they get to come to the UN meet an expert in that area and then they have to go back into their community and do something and that activation it's an interesting it's been an interesting model because even if you're in the south Bronx and you feel like God this is just my space these are my problems when you see and share that kids around the world have these different complex areas it's been an interesting connection between how much more they want to activate in their own community and so the digital bridge I think is going to be the most important for that activation piece absolutely so we've heard about everyone code have a voice the magnificence of problem solving connecting and mentoring and take action and so if I ask you to thank the panel and invite Rick up to give our closing comments I think we've had a wonderful discussion thanks Cheryl thanks very much we get the mic working so I'm just here to make a few framing final remarks thoughts there we go this we've been part of a bit of an experiment over the last couple days here it's an experiment for us as an institution but arguably I think this is a bit of an experiment for international cooperation more widely the angle here has been quite specific it hasn't just really been about the SDGs it's been about the implementation of agenda 2030 and Paris there's a lot of discussion as the last panel alluded to about direction what the problems etc but frankly we have a very ambitious agenda and direction that's been set for us by leaders so it is indeed time to turn to this more practical side of the question and it reminds me of an old adage that I occasionally find useful as a manager is that strategy without implementation equals hallucination and this is such a grand vision that it does risk being inspiring but ultimately being something that we don't achieve and therefore end up being a bit crestfallen and I don't think that's necessary so what we've been doing here for the last couple of days with you is to have a very specific angle on implementation and action the method, there are a lot of different ways one can move the ball forward and advance progress the particular method of implementation we've had a focus on here has been partnership public private or multi stakeholder coalitions, alliances, partnerships whatever you want to call them because they have the potential to improve efficiency because you learn from other examples they add scale because you're piling and leveraging resources or in some cases you're adding innovation and here in particular the potential innovations from the fourth industrial revolution that can be applied to a number of these public agendas the opportunities there are quite large our approach has not been simply to try to have a marketplace for partnerships rather, or to invite people to simply present their own partnerships we've been trying to have a slightly different approach which is to create a bit of a platform in which we created a fertile environment for connections to be made whether that work is something the form institutionally is involved in or not and so we've had 50 or 60 different kinds of partnerships, alliances, coalitions here spread across the multiple sessions over the last couple of days in the hopes that interesting connections will be made again whether we've had a hand in or were unknowledgeable about it at all and finally the focus has been about impact it's not just about the process of creating partnerships it's really about the result that's what's needed here and indeed by having a more distributed approach by using a platform trying to create a robust platform to enable a more distributed intertwining of expertise and resources and what not the hope is to have impact, to help have impact at a wider systemic level now all of that is somewhat of an experiment as I said at the top and experiment sounds finite and time limited but we've just had a gracious nudge by our colleague from the government of the city of New York to come back and I would say that that dovetails well with our own thinking and the feedback we've gotten from many of you and I encourage you to provide the feedback going forward that what is really needed here is not a one-off time limited experiment that's focused in these matters on implementation partnership, a platform distributed approach and a larger systemic bang but we need a process and as I said yesterday what is needed to achieve these big objectives that have been set for us is international cooperation to enter a much more dynamic phase that operates at multiple levels not just the traditional multilateral process of cooperation which is vital, it remains vital but a much more textured multi-dimensional form of international cooperation and that requires a process so thank you very much for nudging us in the direction of coming back and I'm happy to say that it is our intention to build this as a process going forward now, but an event focus as important as it can be to galvanize people isn't sufficient for a process, of course you need something to carry the work on over time and here I would simply flag that we're prepared to make our platform available in the interregnum in two respects one is that we have what we call system initiatives, these are thematic areas of work which are intended to try to nurture and enrich the ecosystem of cooperation and the actors on their particular issue whether it be on environment or hunger or digital economy as the case may be they are available to help drive this work forward and secondly we have just opened this year a new center for the fourth industrial revolution centered in San Francisco but it will be a networked framework with sister centers around the world for the purpose of among other things connecting fourth industrial revolution related technologies such as AI that's been talked about in this panel to some of these real world SDG challenges and there are myriad opportunities for improving progress by making those linkages and that center will in part be dedicated to that purpose so both of those aspects of us of our work potentially can carry this process forward until we see each other here again next year in New York so that is how we come away from the meeting I want to encourage you to provide us with feedback I want to thank on behalf of the organization all of you you participants and particularly those of you who brought initiatives and coalitions and alliances to the table I hope that everybody but including you found at least an idea a potential additional partner or other resource or connection to help emboldened particular work I also very deeply sincerely like to thank our co-chairs and Asani represented particularly by you here on the panel for their willingness to dive into this experiment in the early stages when the water was relatively cold and third I would like to thank all of the teams involved in preparing this meeting this summit I would like to thank all of you who have come from and related partners that have made this possible I want to say that we'll be putting out an outcomes oriented report not a meeting report but a report that tries to capture and crystallize for the external audience including the intergovernmental community here gathered just how rich and specific is this meeting momentum to the goals that those government leaders have set May I ask Terry Toyoda, Dominic Waray and Emma Benamur and Lee Howell if they're in the room to join me up front because I particularly want to call them out these folks have been in the engine room of this experimentation process from the very beginning and I'd like to ask you to thank them for all the people, the feeling in my heart of appreciation toward all the inspiration and hard work they've given along with the rest of the teams so with that I'd like to thank you and send you all on your way for a good productive remainder of the week here in New York and hope that we'll be working and seeing you again in the near future thanks, bye-bye


Welcome my friends. Today, it is time to talk about one of the few games I actually got to play during the last Steam Next Fest. I know I'm as disappointed as you are that I will not be able to bring you my customary three to five reviews. Instead, I will probably be able to bring you one and a half, two mostly. Well, let's get into it. It's walk-on my age of sigma, realms of ruin. The hero-driven real-time strategy or RTS genre left an indelible mark on me as an early age. Worldcraft 3 opened a whole new world. I fell in love with its universe and story and gameplay and I had my first experience with the powerful sense of community a video game can create in the best possible ways. I awaited its reforged edition with the impatience of an abstinent drunk saving himself for the spiked Christmas eggnog. Reforged, released a universal scorn and proved itself the most cynical of cash grabs. Like many other former fans, that was one of the definitive moments that saw me disillusioned with Blizzard. It also saw my itch for this genre of RTS buried beneath a whole lot of disappointment. If you know that feeling, let me know. And remember to subscribe for more of these tetetet conversations. All this is to say, it's been years since I even thought of the death of hero-driven RTS games out there. Then along comes this latest October 2023 Steam Next Fest and what do I do but stumble upon warhammer age of sigma, realms of ruin. The full game is coming out on November 17th. The demo I played had the first three full missions of the campaign and it is the most fun I've had with an RTS in ages.  During combat, heroic units like the Stormdrake guards have devastating abilities which make enemy numbers into only so much shish kebab. Perhaps the most apt comparison to make here is with the now veritable dawn of war 2. Like it, realms of ruin concentrates on smaller scale action that sees you make tactical choice with every unit in your army's makeup. How could it be otherwise, when you only have 6, 8, 12 slots to make your unit? Buildings are constructed across specifically designated zones of control, bastions where you choose between prioritizing health, vision or additional resource generation. Resources don't only come into the construction of buildings, production of units and the purchase of unit upgrades. They're also necessary to the activation of your unit's powerful abilities. Command is one such resource. Realmstone is another. The former activates abilities that involve military discipline, such as the ability of low-blooded units to retreat to a place of safety. Realmstone meanwhile jumps starts feats of magic that your units and heroes are capable of. All those powerful abilities that can turn a losing battle around require this second resource. The use of both strikes a very cool balance between narrative and mechanics. Judging from the three missions in the demo, the campaign will be both long and varied. The first mission was a fun tutorial that didn't hold my hand too tightly, but still had some nice rails for players who might experience the genre for the first time. The second was a very traditional domination map, while the third saw Siggren's forces face off against the undead armies of Nagash, led by a powerful necromancer all in control over three chains that guarded the artifact we came all this way for. I should mention the second mission, the traditional domination one, also had a lovely bit of bonus objectives that allowed you to free several units. The variety of enemies is another thing that's really cool. The first two maps saw me square off against orcs, or orcs, as the golden-plated boys and girls kept calling them, and there is a clear difference in fighting them even if combat is generally defined by the rock-paper-scissors-like combat triangle that's defined by swords, shields and arrows, and is explained by a handi-graph you were introduced to early on. If there's something I can see as a worry, it's that this is a bit of an oversimplification that might lessen the complexity of the game, but then again I'd need to play a lot more before passing a value judgment, and even games with an abysmally massive amount of symbols like Total War Warhammer, which is the other thing I have really experienced with in terms of Warhammer Fantasy, even those have a similar logic underlying all those complex army symbols. What about the narrative? As I said, the Warhammer Fantasy universe, I've played many hundreds of hours of Total War Warhammer in its sequels, but still my understanding of its lore is mostly absent. It's something of a blank canvas for me. I know that Age of Sigma was something of a reboot, and squaring away of the wider Warhammer Fantasy lore, what I don't know is any of the granular details. Playing Realms of Ruin makes me want to learn as many of those as possible. The story opens with a small band of sigmas faithful on the task of reclaiming an ancient but powerful artifact, a scene in the visions of the divinator Demicrius. This artifact lies somewhere in the realms of ruin, deep beyond Sigmar's lands, which are themselves constantly besieged by the bad no good evil servants of the Cares god, as things always are in any Warhammer property, Fantasy or 40k. Sigren, leader of the expedition, has a great haircut and a profound sense of duty, as well as only a limited number of soldiers at her back and call. Another bit of information that marries narrative and mechanics in a neat way. I love the easy camaraderie on this play between Eden, Sigren and Demicrius at the campaign's opening, with corruption and alike a constant danger in the Warhammer setting. I am sure it will be sorely tested as I dive deeper in the campaign, which I will be doing come release day. I already have November 17th marked on my calendar. The best part of it all is, I played the demo on hard and found it a great combination between fun and challenging, as well as a boost to my confidence that I will be able to handle all the rest of the campaign at that same level. The lone complaint I have is of some stuttering during cutscenes, but I can be 100% sure that it wasn't my computer that was the perpetrator here. As far as questions go, I wonder if there will be any kind of progress between missions. Nothing suggested that as far as the demo, but I have hopes that there will be a layer of strategy to enhance the layer of tactics the way there was in Dawn of War 2. We'll see. If you enjoyed this video and would like further coverage of Warhammer Age of Sigmar Realms of Ruin and other absolutely random games as well as books, don't forget to subscribe, share this video with your friends, let me know what you think of this game and of what you'd like me to take a look at next. I'm Philip Magnus and you're not, shockingly, I'll see you again next time. Bye!


Over the past week, Israel has continued and intensified attacks against Palestinian human rights organizations. Who are these organizations and why are they being targeted? We find out in this video. On August 18th, Israeli occupation forces ransacked and shut down the offices of seven leading Palestinian civil society and human rights organizations in the occupied West Bank. The early morning raids targeted Al-Haq, Prison Advocacy Group Adamir, Bisan Center for Human Rights, Defense for Children, International Palestine, Union of Agricultural Work Committees and Union of Palestinian Women's Committees. The six organizations have been under constant threat ever since Israel designated them as terrorist organizations in 2021. The seventh target was the Union of Health Work Committees, which Israel had declared unlawful in 2020. The organizations later shared how the Israeli forces had broken down the doors of their offices, confiscated materials, welded and sealed the doors shut with iron sheets and left behind a military order. Adamir stated that the notice declared the organization forcibly closed on account of security in the region and to combat the infrastructure of terrorism. On August 21, Israeli forces threatened to arrest the heads of two of these organizations, Defense for Children, International Palestine's General Director Khalid Kuzmar and Al-Haq Director Shawan Jabarin. Kuzmar was detained by Israeli Security Agency Shinbeth on Sunday and taken to the offer military base near Ramallah. He was not allowed any legal counsel and released after a few hours. Jabarin, the head of Al-Haq, also complained that he had received a threat call from an Israeli intelligence agent who called him for interrogation at the offer base. The caller threatened Jabarin with imprisonment and asked him to stop his activities. In October 2021, the Israeli Ministry of Defense had declared six of these groups as terrorist organizations under the country's anti-terrorism laws. Israel alleged that these well-known organizations have links with the banned left-wing group popular front for the liberation of Palestine. The terrorist designation allows the Israeli government to shut down these groups' offices, confiscate their assets and arrest and imprison their employees. It also bans financially supporting these organizations or publicly supporting their activities. Months after making the allegations, Israel has paid to present any evidence to substantiate its claims. European countries which had suspended funding to some of these groups after Israel's allegations also soon resumed their funding as they found no suspicions of irregularities and odd fraud. Why have these organizations been targeted? The targeted organizations were carrying out critical work of documenting the Israeli occupation's ongoing war crimes in Palestine. They had been collaborating with ongoing investigations into Israel's actions, including in the probe by the International Criminal Court. Their work has been vital in the slow but gradual shift in international opinion against Israel's occupation. Many international rights groups have finally begun terming Israeli actions as apartheid. They also performed crucial work of aiding Palestinians in the matters of social, legal and human rights. Al Haqq is one of the oldest Palestinian human rights groups active in the occupied territories, involved in documenting human rights abuses and violations of international law. Ademir is a legal aid group that provides legal representation and advice to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody free of cost. Defence for Children International Palestine focuses on the rights and welfare of Palestinian children living under Israeli occupation. UPCW and UACW advocate for the rights and interests of the women in Palestine and of Palestinian agricultural workers and farmers. The Bisan Centre is a civil society organization working towards democracy, equality and human rights. The Union of Health Work Committees provides health services and advocates for health rights of all segments of the Palestinian population, particularly the poor and marginalized. Despite not providing any evidence of any wrongdoing by these organizations, Israel has stepped up its repressive tactics. Last month, the Defence Ministry Centre led to the lawyers representing the six organizations, claiming that their work could be considered a violation of Israel's domestic anti-terror laws. International Condemnation The actions of the Israeli state have been condemned worldwide. Nine European Union states released a joint statement condemning Israel's actions. The states reasserted in their statement that Israel had provided no substantial information that justified the branding of these groups as terrorist organizations. A group of more than 150 Palestinian regional and international organizations expressed solidarity with the targeted organizations. They called on the international community to take effective measures to end all other actions that deny Palestinians their inalienable human rights. The work will carry on. Meanwhile, Al Haq announced that members of the public had pried open the doors to its offices which had been sealed by the Israeli forces. The organization welcomed this show of solidarity and declared that Israel's arbitrary and unlawful actions will not silence them.


Hi, this is Dr. Don. This short video is going to show you how to do a Chi-square one-way goodness-of-fit test using the XL Chi-square calculator you can download from the website. In this particular problem, we have a manager of a radio station, I'm not sure where, she thinks that the taste of her listeners has changed. Back in 2018, she did a survey, which is labeled here as the historical survey. She got this percentage breakdown of the listeners in her station that participated in that survey. She redid the survey in November of 2019, and these are the counts of the people who responded to that survey, and she wants to know, has something changed? Are the listeners expecting something different? Recall for a one-way Chi-square, the null hypothesis that we're testing is, is the observed frequency distribution, the counts, the same as the historical, the specified in this case? The alternative is, is the observed frequency distribution, is not the same as the historical? So now, let's use this calculator. It is pretty self-explanatory. It's got a bunch of instructions here that can be helpful, but it's really very easy to use. We need to enter the number of categories here in B2, and we've got one, two, three, four, five, six, so I put six there, and that is used to calculate the degrees of freedom combined with the level of significance that I'm going to leave as the normal 0.055%.  I'm just going to paste the values, and that will help me when I put my report together. I need to put the observed counts, so I'm going to go back here to my survey data, highlight that, right-click, copy, and go here and click in the values again, and that gives me my counts. Note that I've got a bunch of decimals showing here. I put this in the calculator because your observed counts have to be integers, and sometimes when you're working with data, you can have something hidden behind what looks like an integer. And doing it this way, if there's something hidden, it will show up. But these are all good. They're all integers. I need to get the expected proportions. In this particular calculator, you enter those, and it gives you the expected counts. So I'm going to go over here and take this data, copy these percentages, control C, and go click in that cell and paste in my values again. And you can see it converts those percentages to decimals, which I said you can enter directly as a decimal or as a percent, or you can enter a fraction by using the Excel formula equal whatever fraction you want there. This calculator gives you the expected counts, and as I said, it gets the degrees of freedom from K up here, minus 1, and that combined with the 5% significance gives us our critical value of 11.07. We've got a chi-square statistic calculator, 63.089. And by looking at that, one of the methods we use to determine to reject the null is, if the test statistic, the chi-square statistic, is greater than the critical value we reject, so that method tells us to reject. But what is this down here? We've got this funky looking number, 2.79 e to the minus 12. Well, if Excel doesn't have room to put all the zeros, it will format your answer as scientific notation. And that means this minus 12, you would move the decimal 12 places to the left. So that will put 11 zeros in front of that 2.79, which is very, very small. And the calculator here tells you, hey, that's scientific notation. Your p-value is very small, less than 0.0001. Down at the bottom, the last thing you need to check is to make sure you haven't violated an expected frequency assumption. And in this case, we have not. We're both okay. I've got a how-to there that will explain what you do if these are violated. The one that's most critical is the no cell less than one. The other one, less than 20% of the cells, less than five. If that is violated, you get a warning, and then you can do some more analysis there. What I like to do if I violate either one of these to see if I can collapse some adjacent categories to give me a better distribution, so you can try that. But in this case, you're good to go. You've got a p-value there that's very, very small, which tells you to reject the no. You've got a very large chi-square statistic compared to the critical value, which tells you to reject the no. So you're good to go. I hope this helps.


Hello, I'm a Mac and I'm a PC. You know, we use a lot of the same kinds of programs Yeah, like Microsoft Office, but we retain a lot of what makes us us. You should see what this guy can do with a spreadsheet It's insane. Oh, yeah, and he knows that I'm better at life stuff like music pictures movies stuff like that Whoa, what what exactly do you mean by better by better? I mean making a website or photo book is easy for me and for you. It's not oh Oh that kind of better. Yeah, I Was thinking of the other kind What other kind in the now classic back in PC ads from the early 2000s Apple saw to advance the argument that their computers were better than PCs These types of arguments often manifest in discussions over competing values and ideas in formal academic debate Resolutions of fact and value provide the framework to have these types of discussions and competition in this video We will look at how to have these type of debates and how you construct your arguments when arguing in favor or in opposition to the topic New debaters often find that debates on resolutions of fact and value are a bit easier to wrap their heads around This is in part because these types of arguments more closely follow the real life arguments He may be used to it is important to note that while fact and value Resolutions set you up for simpler debates. It does not inherently mean that it will be an easier debate or that you can dive in without structure Let's start with a brief overview of what fact and value resolutions are generally speaking There are three types of resolutions you may come across in debate fact value and policy And this lecture will be focused on the first two But it is important to understand how to differentiate all three types as they call for different setups Resolutions of fact tend to center around what is they are based on an evaluation of what can be observed Improved to be accurate fact debates call on the affirmative team to prove that the resolutions premise is true The negative team must demonstrate that the affirmative team has not done so for example resolved the gender wage gap in the United States is decreasing For the affirmative to win this debate They would need to make arguments that there is indeed a gap in wages between genders and that it has been decreasing On the other hand value resolutions ask you to evaluate an idea Concept or theory for example this house believes that the death penalty is justified It is also possible to have value resolutions that Jax depose conflicting moral dilemmas a classic example is the security versus liberty Resolution resolved in a just society Security of the people is more important than individual liberty for this resolution The goal of the debate should be determine which value security or individual liberty is of greater importance in a just society Last it is important to differentiate fact and value resolutions from resolutions of policy Policy resolutions resolve around a hypothetical implementation of an idea aimed at improving the status quo in the wording of these topics You tend to see a call to action They also almost always contain the words should or would and these types of debate the affirmative is tasked with proving That the implementation of their proposed policy would lead the world better off on balance Consider the example the United States should implement a universal health care system in this debate The affirmative would need to prove that a universal health care system would improve the status quo on the other hand The negative would need to prove that passing such a plan would either not change the status quo or Would cause the status quo to get worse now that you have an idea what you're looking for Let's get back to case construction in a debate on a fact or value resolution You can break the basic constructive components into three key parts the top of case and the Contensions went on the affirmative and counter-contentions went on the negative Let's take a look at these in order when debating on the affirmative You should always start off your top of case with a bit of resolution analysis If it's not obvious from a title This is a place in the speech where you do a bit of analysis on what the resolution is asking you to debate The first thing you want to do is read the resolution word for word This helps us ensure that you your competitor and the judges all know what is being discussed Next state what type of resolution you believe it to be and why this can sound something like today Our resolution is Elvis Presley died of a drug overdose This is a resolution of fact as it asks us to prove that a drug overdose caused his death after stating the resolution type You're ready to define key terms in the resolution It is important to note that you are only defining the words that actually appear in the resolution If there are related terms or concepts that need explaining you can do that in the body of the speech This is a place to focus on the words in the topic only Defining key terms. It is not necessary or desired to define every term in the resolution Remember the clock is ticking and you need to move to the top of case somewhat quickly in order to save time For your bigger arguments later on this means that you should focus on defining terms That may be confusing or have multiple interpretations as the affirmative you have a reasonable right to define terms in debate So long as you do so fairly and not in an attempt to frame the other team out of the round with that in mind It is possible to find terms for both clarity and Strategy when you define a term for clarity you are attempting to specify a key But potentially unclear word in the resolution consider the following fact resolution resolved IRV is a more accurate system for Selecting candidates in a primary election in this case it would make sense for a debater to define and explain that IRV stands for instant runoff voting This is because a judge and the audience is not likely familiar with that acronym or what instant raw voting refers to It's also possible for debaters to define terms for strategic advantage The idea here is to define terms in a way that will offer greater impact to the arguments that will follow it Consider this example fact resolution resolved fake news posted on social media has become a threat to u.s Democracy in this example how each team attempts to define the term threat Could impact the rest of the debate is the ability of fake news to impact u.s election enough to constitute a threat or Must there also be intent by its creators to cause harm while defining key terms for strategy can give you an edge You should also be careful about how you go about it Most judges dislike drawn out definitional debates to avoid this you should attempt to define terms They leave fair ground for both the affirmative and negative teams to build arguments from if you fail to do this The negative will likely challenge your definitions during their first speech This can be done by providing a counter interpretation for the term you defined It also can open up the possibility of procedural arguments where the negative argues that the affirmative manipulated the definitions in a way that makes the debate unfair and should lose the round as punishment with Definitions stated you are ready to establish a framework for the debate Simply put a framework in academic debate is the set of criteria a judge will use to evaluate the round It is the judge's responsibility to listen to both sides of the debate and determine a winner Providing criteria for a judge to evaluate the round helps keep the debate fair and Establishes the burdens for both you and your opponent when on the affirmative It tends to be in your best interest to propose the standards of evaluation rather than having your judge apply her own or worse yet Accepting the ones given by your opponent in a debate criteria Sometimes called the Wayne mechanism tends to be the main way debaters Establish how they want judges to decide the round and its most simple form a Wayne mechanism Should explain what each side needs to do in order to win the debate in other words You want to make an argument about what the resolution wants you to discuss in practice You might simply say something like this We believe this resolution is asking us to advocate Some position and the negative to advocate the other position the team which best meets those burdens should win this debate This allows you to set up a debate with clear paths to the ballot making it easier for both teams to get to the core arguments of the debate and the judge to have a means to evaluate who won when the debate ends you also want to keep in Mind that the arguments you will make later on in the debate will need to connect back to this framework if you want to win Criteria can be simple or more advanced depending on the level at which you're debating in fact debates The burdens tend to mirror those of a civil trial in that vein It makes sense to borrow the balance of probabilities criteria Which is sometimes called preponderance of evidence in American courtrooms here Your goal is to prove through argumentation and data that the resolution is most likely true Consider a continuum where zero percent means absolutely false and a hundred percent means absolutely true Under balance of probabilities the affirmative would need to convince the judge that their case has at least a 51% or more probability of being true in value debates the affirmative should aim to establish a hierarchy of merit either explicitly or Implicitly in some debates this hierarchy is determined by the resolution for example Resolved a student's ability to speak a foreign language is more important than their ability to write in a foreign language Here the affirmative is tasked with proving why speaking a foreign language is of greater importance at other times The hierarchy is more implicit for example resolved Prioritizing spoken foreign language education is more desirable here The affirmative could again debate spoken versus written language education But may also be faced with an alternative hierarchical arguments such as prioritizing foreign languages over other subjects like math and music as Desirability could be interpreted to apply to a broad Continuant of options a final note before we move on it's of paramount importance that you attempt to keep the framework fair It is considered bad form or even abusive to frame the debate in a way Which prevents the opposing team from accessing any arguments the best debates will have good arguments on both sides Avoid attempts to gain a competitive edge in the round by decreasing their predictable ground Your opponent will use to prep out their arguments if you don't you may again find yourself bogged down in procedural Arguments that prevent you from actually discussing the issue at hand with top of case complete You're ready to move on to the core arguments of the debate the Contingents in fact in valued debates The contingents are the main place that you will make arguments why your stance on the resolution is correct during your Preparation and research time you should seek to collect the best arguments why this is the case a Contingent should function as a container to group like arguments together There are two ways you can organize your contingents depending on the amount of sub arguments you want to make Let's take a look at both options first the simple approach generally speaking You want your contingents to have three main parts a claim some supporting evidence and a warrant tying it back to the Resolution and framework consider a debate on the following resolutions Low-carb diets produce better health results than conventional low-fat diets after doing some searching around online You discover scholarly research that supports the idea that people on low-carb diets lose more weight with that in mind You may choose to structure your contention like so contention one weight loss claim people who follow a low-carb diet lose more weight than those who follow low-fat diets data a 2003 article published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that those who followed the low-carb diet Lost about three times more weight than those on the low-fat diet warrant Since losing weight and decreasing obesity improves health This supports our stance that low-carb diets produce better health results than low-fat diets do in this example The contingent successfully makes a claim about weight loss Supports it with some high-quality evidence and connects it back to the resolution when you first start debating fact and value topics This format will work pretty well. However as time goes by you may discover that Multiple arguments can make a similar point instead of trying to have several Contensions you can group like arguments together as sub points under a single contention Let's look at another example to see how that might play out resolved universal health care systems lead to better Outcomes for its people again. You start to do some research and you discover several data points centered around the economic Benefits of universal health care systems while you could break them into their own Contensions it may be more effective to do something like this contention one universal health care is good for a nation's economy Subpoint one is poverty claim Unexpected health costs push people on the poverty Data according to a 2010 report by the World Health Organization 100 million people who live in places without universal health care systems are pushed into poverty each year the report tied this Directly to the need to pay out of pocket for medical costs Comparatively the report mentioned that this phenomenon was close to non-existent in countries with universal health care systems Subpoint two is economic growth Claim here countries who switched universal health care systems see increased economic growth data according to data published in the December 2013 issue of the journal the Lancet after switching to a universal health care system Brazil China Thailand and Turkey all saw significant economic growth as well as a larger emergent middle class Which brings us to our warrant Thus we can see through a reduction of poverty and an increase in economic growth that Universal health care systems results in better economic outcomes for the people and the countries that have them and thus you have managed to group Two like arguments under a single contention had you had additional arguments about the economics You may have chosen to add a third sub point or you could simply move on to a second Contention where you discussed a different set of reasons why these types of health care systems result in better outcomes For have something to do with survivability in health a final note on contentions Debate is always a balancing act having more arguments may give you more reasons why you're winning the debate However, if you go for too much you will likely have to make sacrifices in rhetorical style by going faster or Incompleteness by leaving details out in this vein I recommend limiting yourself to two or three contentions total any more than that and you start to sacrifice Quality for quantity now that we have a working model for constructing an affirmative case Let's briefly discuss case construction on the negative when debating fact or value resolutions on the negative You will typically split your time between refuting the affirmative case and presenting your own Counter-contentions I talk about refutation in other videos So I will leave links to that in the video description However before I move on to counter-contentions I do want to spend a little time talking about framework as I previously mentioned the rule of the affirmative is to provide a fair Framework for the judge to evaluate the debate why that usually happens You should still be ready to debate the framework at the top of case when you're on the negative During your preparation time you should do a bit of your own Resolutional analysis if there are key terms that you think could be defined unfairly look up a couple of your own definitions If it seems like the affirmative could present a criteria that would frame you out of the round Take a minute's draft out what seems to be a more balanced framework for the judge to evaluate the debate This case you won't need it But should issues arise you'll be prepared with your own counter definitions and counter interpretation when on the negative The main arguments you will want to prep out during prep time are counter-contentions much like Contentions these arguments are designed to prove that the affirmative stance on the resolution is wrong before you start writing them It's important to consider what the resolution is asking you to prove consider the following example resolved when it comes to health Regular exercise is more important than a balanced diet at first glance You may think that your burden on the negative is to prove that a balanced diet is more important than exercise However, that's not completely true from the wording of the resolution You will only need to prove that they are equally important to win this debate This is an important consideration as most debate topics are set up so that the affirmative has the burden of proof When it comes to counter-contentions, it's usually in your best interest to go on the offense This means when it is a resolution of fact that you want to seek out the strongest arguments why the resolution is false When it's a resolution of value, you want to take a stance at the competing perspective should be preferred Let's look at two quick examples first a resolution of fact resolve The Boston Red Sox are the most successful baseball team of all time in this instance You might craft a counter-contention that as of the recording of this video two other teams the New York Yankees and the St. Louis Cardinals have both won more World Series titles than the Red Sox have in your tieback You can use this to support your overall argument that winning less World Series titles Means the Red Sox are not the most successful baseball team of all time Let's take a look at a resolution of value, which includes a comparison resolve Dumbledore is a more powerful wizard than Gandalf Instruction your counter-contention here you should seek to make arguments that the fictional character Gandalf is more powerful than the Dumbledore character This gives you two paths to winning the debate Either you can prove through refutation that they are equally powerful or Through your counter-contention that Gandalf is more powerful than Dumbledore in practice That might look something like this counter-contention one foes vanquished Claim Gandalf is able to win fights against seemingly all powerful enemies Let's go to the data in Lord of the Rings Gandalf is able to triumph over an extremely powerful foe the Balrog of Moria Where Dumbledore's fight with Lord Voldemort in book five ends in a draw So back to the warrant thus through Gandalf's victory. He proves himself to be the more powerful wizard Ultimately the structure of counter-contentions and contensions are the same Just be cautious to factor in the need to refute the contentions made by the affirmative in Addition to reading counter-contentions during your first constructive speech on the negative a counter-contention is not an answer to a Contention but a separate argument on its own today. We took a look at how to debate resolutions of fact and value We discussed the different types of resolutions and how to prep a constructive case when on the affirmative and when on the negative The Mac versus PC debate continues to be a contentious one. I guess even good advertising can't settle everything Thanks for watching this video series is written and produced by me Brian Guy with the help of a wide variety of scholar research And open educational resources for more information on the references and material used see the description page on YouTube This video is published under a creative commons license. Please feel free to share use and revix its content


TV coils, that's what they do. They're like wireless chargers for your body. They charge up all your cells, increases the ATP production. ATP is like the new currency. It's a molecule that your cells make, and it's like currency. It gets stored, it gets spent, it gets transferred between your cells and between your biosystems. This actually increases the currency or the energy production inside your cells. So when people use this, they feel like they sleep much so much better, they can focus so much better, and they clear out all the brain fog, all their chronic fatigue goes away.


Okay, this is a series that I'm starting on the Linux shell and shell scripts now I just want to go over exactly what the shell is well The shell is basically an interpreter when you write programs They're either normally going to be a compiled language such as C or C plus plus where you have a binary file that Kind of runs on its own. They need some library files and stuff Then you also have scripting files, which are just plain text their text files You basically create a list of commands and you run through an interpreter an interpreter It's just a program that reads that file line by line and does what it says and so the shell is basically an interpreter that you can Either dump a script file into or you can have a prompt where you can type stuff such as echo Hello And it will run those commands now I want to be clear that there are different shells different shell environments, and they're also Different they're built-in commands and there are external commands So for example, I just ran the echo command which is built into pretty much every shell for displaying information to the screen It is built in that shell So as long as you have a shell that that command will be there now There are external commands such as grep and said and ock These are commands programs that are normally on almost every system even if you're on a very lightweight system Some aspect of those tools are going to be available for you But they are not built into the shell so they may not be there And then there are you know External commands can be anything from nmap On up. I mean technically you can start stuff like firefox from the shell and That's not necessarily a shell program, but you can run it from the shell and running a text-based application is basically the same Concepts so I want to clarify that I'll try to in tutorials point out when a command is an external command And you have to make sure you have it installed rather than something that's built in now There's also different types of shells and I'll go over in the next video more of the differences like on my system I have my default shell set to Z shell and the way you can test some most systems one way is type in echo Dollar sign zero and that will tell you what shell you're running and you can see I'm running a Z shell on most Linux systems and macOS and Probably some other operating systems as well Bash is the default shell. So I just typed in bash and now I am in the bash shell and again I'll go over more of the differences between bash and Z shell in the next video So be sure to check check out the playlist in the description of this video to get the full playlist of all the videos in this series and So they some of the Z shell commands and bash internal commands will work different where something external like grip It doesn't matter whether I'm in Z shell or or bash on the system I'm running the same instance of grip where a command like the read command or the LS command might actually work Different depending on what shell you're in The way you can tell what shells are installed on your system. You can cat out a file so cat Ford slash ETC Ford slash shells so here we're going to display the information from a file called shells It's just a text file Inside our ETC folder within our root directory of our file system So I can display that and well it should list out all valid log in shells that are available on my system SH is available here But on most cases that's going to point to your default shell which will normally be bash on many systems As I said, I have Z shell installed But then you can also see that I have dash installed our bash and then also screen and Tmux Which are a little different and I might get to those in future videos. I've done videos on them in the past as well But just want you to be aware that there are different shells in most cases on my Videos, I'm using a Z shell But when I write out scripts, I usually write them in bash since that's commonly installed on most people systems Where Z shell may not so again, this is part of series in the next video. I will go over a few of the differences and reasons that I use Z shell over bash and then we'll get into actually writing scripts and So forth and so on in future videos be sure to check out the link in the description of this video for the full play list I hope you enjoyed this video Hope you're excited about the series again The first few weeks is going to be a whole bunch of videos going over some of the basic stuff that a lot of stuff that many of you May know I'm going to try to point out some issues might have with simple commands like the echo command some things that you Might come across that you're you're not sure why it's not working But so just a little more in-depth on the basic stuff and then I'm going to go through requests from viewers and Try to show how to do many different things based on your request and a long list of tutorials I want to do So I thank you for watching again. Please visit filmsbychrist.com. That's Chris of the K There should be a link in the description be sure to like subscribe share and comment


October 22nd at 85 South Shore, we will be coming to Flint, Michigan Know what time it is. Hey, how do you see it?  How do we have a show in your Showing your Flint, Michigan we coming man. You gotta get the tickets flint town. That's all ready. No 20 seconds.  We don't even we don't even know Yeah, we definitely don't know my man. He's not he's not even Jumping in the air right quick.  Tuskegee amin face. In the month of Tuskegee amin Tuskegee 22 man Flint, October 22nd