Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ShortPinkSkirt last won the day on April 10 2005

ShortPinkSkirt had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-7 Poor

About ShortPinkSkirt

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 09/10/1989

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. it wouldn't be FX//extra-T because of "animals" [by which i assume you mean nonhumyn animals...] persuns can be nonhumyn, so, no. just no. i dont' see the justification behind doing plan though. or the advantages or reallly "what the hell?!?!" and it's not a resolutional plan of action. at all. it's like "legalize drugs" this year...
  2. On that line of thought, and this was semi-addressed by Sara previously, What happens if a card is unnecessarily read [just to double check; read for fun (??) or scouting purposes, etc,] and the judge finds that the card has absolutely no warrants, explicitly concludes against the team reading it, makes contradictory arguments against the team debating it, etc?? Is the judge justified in interevening? Or are they just supposed to ignore it? Or if one is to go further, what if a piece of evidence is written by the team's assistant coach [solely for the debaters; I understand the unlikelihood of this happening, but in hypothetical terms...], and the other team didn't pick up on it? What then? And if we say that it is unjust in the first instance, but justified in the second, what is the "ethical line" that seperates these situations?
  3. find authors go to library read
  4. I am in need of the Zizek card from Postmodern Law and the...Mind/Brain? Not exactly sure on what the cite is, but the card talks about micro vs. macro revolution/actions. Any pointers would be much appreciated.
  5. that would be an intrinsicness perm... and you can get judge to reject that perm as well.
  6. How is this a justification for not spelling his name right?
  7. then just say "group their #1, 3, and 7." proceed to give answers.
  8. In order to run it well, and understand it, I think you need to read his stuff, and cut it yourself.
  9. no worries, you can always pm me too if you have other questions. as for the wiretapping: depends on the plan text. do you have it? if not, i bet the plan doesn't say where they're being done, who's being "tapped", who's doing the "tapping." umm....those are the only ones that i can think of off the top of my head, but it should suffice. oh, and i bet it doesn't explain what sort of mechanism they'll use to prevent wiretapping... i.e. warrants? or does it ban them completely? etc.... [if it eliminates authority, you could pull a really easy topicality vio] haha.......well, i don't think my wife will appreciate being married to a stranger. but you are welcome to join my commune.
  10. plan text is vague. <insert reasons here.> reasons can be, but not limited to: doesn't specify actual plan of action; other random specifics (i.e. funding, branch, etc) [although if you're going for a certain "spec" run it by itself; a-spec, e-spec, f-spec, etc.] doesn't elaborate further than "decrease authority" or how about this one...."it's motherfucking vague. i have no idea what they're doing. this kills ground and makes them a moving target. [okay, so those are standards, but w/e]" so will you be my husband now? i lack a husband. i *heart* vagueness, and have won on it 2 or 3 times, glad to help, so ask on. edit: you can also run it as a timesuck & just think of random ass reasons as to why they're vague.
  11. probably [or at least hopefully] they only extended rights to nonhumyn animals that are sentient and have central nervous systems... yes? or no?
  12. I'm not quite sure by what you mean by newer, but here are some: Rule of law Democracy Peace Modeling Scenarios Rights I can get cites if you want.
  • Create New...