Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ghengis last won the day on August 12 2005

ghengis had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

582 Excellent

About ghengis

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/26/1987

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    No, thank you.
  • Location
    already gone
  • Interests
    Sleeping, eating
  • Occupation
    Pool hall junkie
  1. Your understanding of debate theory comes from the 1980's. And you're wrong. "As per" is a great argument if the other team proposes a plan which enacts some specific piece of enormous legislation. Something like "pass Senate Bill XYZ" is specifically abusive because you had better believe that those bills are lengthy, and include many extra-topical planks. Here's what you do: cross-examination of the 1AC should ask if the 1AC did read the entire bill. Did they? Of course not. Also ask if they have the text of the bill. Do they? Maybe. . . If they do, you can easily make a show of asking them to read the entire text of it (they can't in three minutes). If they don't have the text, you're golden. If they do not read the text, the judge should not accept it as part of the round. This crushes their solvency, since their entire plan is probably rooted around the nature of this particular proposal. If they have solvency evidence which points to that particular item which plan is enacted "as per," it must be struck from the round. Further, this evidence is proof of the fact that they intended to use their extra-topical plan planks to gain specific unfair advantages in the round; that's your abuse story. If they have the text for you to read, make practically the same argument; they didn't read it in the round, so you shouldn't have to argue it. It would be like advocating a piece of evidence simply based on the author's name and the date, which is something that policy debaters definitely DO NOT do. "As per" has won plenty of rounds, and legitimately so. Enacting plan "as per" some piece of legislation or a huge document is the equivalent of adding secret, extra-topical plan planks that can't even be examined in the round. Every advantage and benefit claimed by the affirmative team per the item is evidence of the logical gap that exists in this form of plan. Do not let people get away with this; it's usually a load of tripe, anyway.
  2. Nostalgia is healthy, as long as it isn't regressive. . . I mean, I conclude that. I conclude that it's good to see that some things never change, however. . . I conclude that Chris Loghry should hit me up by some means. Edit: I conclude that I've received a ton of "reputation" points since I stopped visiting this site for a thread I created titled "porn." Go figure.
  3. You're in college. People are having sex all around you, probably while you're reading this. Go out and get some for yourself, eh?
  4. Moved. I think you'll get better help in this forum.
  5. I hate to post such a terse response, but I honestly believe that life is what you make of it. I used to think that there was more pain in this life than it was worth, but I've come to the realization that a sunny outlook and a genuine desire to help others when possible will lead to a fulfilling and positive life.
  6. Since there's always been such a demand for this, I'll post a list of all the spec arguments I know. Feel free to post any additions. This by no means should indicate any endorsement of specification arguments. I think they're timesucks, and have no place in a decent debate round. This thread is simply intended to end the constant demands for a complete list of the specifications. Specifications: Agent Author Ballot Budget Bush Death Discourse Enforcement Evidence Exact Significance Fiat Funding Ground Harms Impact Implementation Individual Microagents Inherent Barrier/Inherency Jurisdiction Justification Kritikal Location Objective Over- Paradigm Parameter Passage Politics Plan Qualification Resolution Solvency Advocate Specification Support Time Topicality Under Vagueness Veto
  7. The resolution would be better if "any" replaced the word "all." However, the intent is the same, and you can easily argue that the government should stop their two current attempts to acquire missile systems. If anyone gives you trouble about "all" meaning every missile system, simply reply that that would be a ridiculous notion; the Japanese government wouldn't try to acquire VX missiles from World War 2, but those are a type of ballistic missile. It's not your burden to predict future attempts to acquire missiles, and the intention of the resolution is rather clear in this case.
  8. They needed to do a study to discover this?
  9. I guess a discussion of the growing gap between the lower and upper classes takes a backseat to the finer points of Ramen Noodles.
  10. There was a case list both years that I went to nationals.
  11. http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/internet/0,39024165,39266472,00.htm Google Scholar scours scholarly journals quickly and thoroughly, although Windows Live Academic Search beta better organises finds on its pages. The Google Scholar beta is a terrific search tool for students, teachers, scientists, librarians and journalists seeking articles within established academic journals. In our tests, we found that the Google Scholar beta sifts through more publications than does Windows Live Academic Search beta (although Microsoft plans to add more sources). For example, Google found 44,000 results when we looked up 'thalidomide' -- 8,410 of those within the past few years. This is far more than Windows Live Academic Search's total of 1,595 finds. Also, if you're just researching physics and astronomy, for instance, and you need to weed out articles on computer science, you can narrow your searches at Google's Advanced Scholar page. There, you can also have Google look through specific journals or look for specific authors and date ranges; Windows Live offers no similar tool. The Google Scholar beta lets you narrow down searches to specific date ranges and journals. Here, we instantly found 30 results for articles about thalidomide, published within the past two years in journals with the word 'nature' in their title. You can use the Preferences page to make Google Scholar work best for you, such as searching only your university's library. Tell Google to hunt within the stacks at Oxford University, for example, and an 'Oxford Full Text' Library link appears next to articles in stock at that institution. Google can add a Library link for up to three institutions at a time. You can also choose to find reports in Chinese, Spanish, German and Portuguese in addition to English. Google's Cited By link lets you jump to other referring articles; however, unlike with Windows Live Academic Search, there's no author link to let you immediately find, say, publications by one of your professors. The Google Scholar beta also lets you display citation links to import into BibTex, EndNote, RefMan or RefWorks. Windows Live Academic Search displays only BibTex or EndNote formats. Plus, Google provides a quick way to add its Scholar search bar to your own Web site. However, we found that Microsoft's dynamic Academic interface organises research results better than Google's interface does. Where Google Scholar displays a text list of finds next to a vast field of white space, the right side of the screen within Windows Live Academic displays an article abstract. We'd also like Google to integrate Scholar into its other products, such as the Google Reader beta and your Google home page. For instance, Google's main search page doesn't provide a link to Scholar. And unlike the Windows Academic Search beta, Google Scholar doesn't allow you to save your finds or subscribe to feeds on a research topic for updates in an RSS reader. Overall, we found Google Scholar beta to be a more rigorous and customisable research tool than its rival, although Windows Live Academic Search better integrates its finds with the brand's other services.
  12. If you're trying to imply that you're some sort of government agent, I think you're full of shit.
  13. So, how will lowering the budget deficit change the fact that there's an increasing gap between the rich and poor in this country? I hope to god (not really) that you're being sarcastic. "The almighty" isn't going to save anyone from an incompetent government and a crumbling economy.
  14. Heh, the whole reason I rented the movie in the first place is because it was the only NC-17 movie at my local library.
  • Create New...