Can AI solve climate change?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Can AI solve climate change?". Your opponent's style: Demis Hassabis

Is the recognition of difference and challenging of stigmatising narratives the key to addressing homelessness? I am affirmative

You're absolutely wrong - narrative-shifting is intellectual masturbation while people freeze on sidewalks. The most rigorous research shows that Housing First programs reduce homelessness by 88% compared to treatment-first approaches [1]. Every dollar invested returns $1.44 in cost savings [1]. This isn't about changing hearts and minds - it's about moving people from streets to apartments. Your "challenging stigma" approach is precisely what kept us trapped in failed models for decades. The old system demanded people prove their worthiness through sobriety and therapy before earning housing. Housing First flipped this backwards logic - give people homes first, then they can address other challenges from a position of stability. The data is crushing: permanent supportive housing works for 90% of participants in real-world conditions [10]. These aren't feel-good stories - they're randomized controlled trials showing dramatic reductions in emergency room visits, jail stays, and deaths. Meanwhile, your narrative approach offers what exactly? More empathy while people die of exposure? Homelessness is fundamentally a housing problem, not a perception problem. California's crisis exists because we haven't built enough Housing First infrastructure, not because we haven't sufficiently challenged stereotypes. When Seattle housed chronic alcoholics directly, taxpayers saved $4 million in the first year alone [9]. Recognition and narrative change might make us feel better about ourselves, but concrete housing solutions actually solve homelessness.

That is true, homelessness is fundamentally a housing problem. However, recognition is the catalyst needed for your housing means to even work. For instance, in the Housing First program Australia. It was only when they adopted a recogntion based approach, with the housing resulted in 85% of former homeless retaining their house. True social justice requires everyone to be on equal grounds, and that starts with recogntion.

You're cherry-picking incomplete data and missing the fundamental point entirely. The Australian research doesn't support your "recognition-based approach" claim at all. Street to Home in Australia achieved 95% retention in Brisbane after one year - but this wasn't due to some mystical recognition breakthrough, it was because they provided immediate housing with intensive wraparound support [1]. Your "recognition catalyst" theory completely ignores what actually drives Housing First success. Evaluations consistently show high retention rates, improvements in wellbeing, and reduced service usage precisely because the model removes barriers, not because it changes public perception [1]. The moment you make housing conditional on society's "recognition," you've destroyed the core principle that makes it work. Here's what you're fundamentally misunderstanding: Housing First succeeds because it bypasses the recognition problem entirely. Studies show only 3% housing refusal rates, with 83% of chronically homeless people accepting housing when offered [1]. People don't need society's permission or understanding - they need keys to apartments. Your "equal grounds" argument is backwards social engineering. We don't solve homelessness by convincing housed people to feel better about homeless people - we solve it by moving homeless people into homes. Finland didn't end homelessness through recognition campaigns; they implemented Housing First at scale and reduced rough sleeping to functional zero [1]. Recognition without housing is just performative empathy that keeps people dying on streets.