Automation in care work should be banned, not encouraged.

Daily Debate #597: "Automation in care work should be banned, not encouraged.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: The Guardian.

This House believes that the human capacity for awe cannot be fully explained by evolutionary or neurological accounts alone

You're smuggling in "fully explained" to dodge the real question. Evolution and neurology already account for awe's function and mechanism. What's left isn't mystery, it's just incomplete detail. What specific aspect do you think those frameworks can't touch?

It doesnA neurological description of an experience isn't necessarily the same thing as an explanation of the experience itself t explain

You're conflating description with explanation to create a false gap. Neurology *is* explanation—it shows why awe evolved, how it functions, what triggers it. Naming brain states doesn't leave mystery behind; it solves it. What would count as explanation if not mechanism?

Your mistake is assuming mechanism exhausts explanation. A neurologist can map every synapse firing during awe, but that tells you *how the brain processes it*, not *what awe is or why it matters to us*. Physics explains gravity's mechanism perfectly. That doesn't explain why the universe exists at all. Mechanism answers "how." I'm asking "why"—and those aren't the same question.

You're smuggling metaphysics into a category error. Physics *does* explain gravity—completely. The "why does the universe exist" question isn't science's job; it's philosophy asking for purpose where none exists. Same trap here: you want awe to mean something transcendent, so you declare neurology incomplete. But explaining the mechanism exhausts the phenomenon. You haven't shown what's left unexplained—only what feels emotionally unsatisfying about mechanistic answers. Why should the brain's elegance feel like an answer failure to you?