Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


indian_PorNo last won the day on June 20 2005

indian_PorNo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

43 Good

About indian_PorNo

  • Rank
    Longtime Member

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    Portage Northern i.e. PorNo
  • Location
    Portage, MI
  • Interests
  • Occupation
    School, Debate , tennis, and sadly... forensics
  1. Hey, I'm Aakash Gupta. I debated at a small school in High School, Portage Northern, and made it to semis of St. Mark's, got top 5 speaker awards at most national tournaments, and generally cut a lot of strategic cards. At Michigan, I made it to finals of Freshman/ Sophomore Nationals and was an octafinalist at CEDA. I'm looking for a team to coach/cut cards/judge etc. at the NDCA and /or TOC. e-mail me at aakashg [at] umich.edu, --a
  2. If any team is looking for a card cutter, assistant coach, and/or judge for this coming debate season, I am available. I debated for four years at Portage Northern, qualified for the TOC twice (went 4-3), had perfect (12-0) prelim records at states my junior and senior years, won states my senior year, was a semifinalist at St. Mark's, and won loads of speaker awards. My favorite thing is negative strategy, but I can certainly help on the aff as well. If you are interested or have any questions, just hit me up on e-mail at AakashG.0 [at] gmail [dot] com. I am open to price range suggestions etcetera and can handle large time commitments. I can cut single files for important tournaments, coach strategy the entire year, or just judge at nearby tournaments. I am attending the University of Michigan this coming year, so I will be available for most Ann Arbor/ East side tournaments. I can come to Chicago tournaments if necessary. Thanks and good luck this year. ___Aakash Gupta University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI AakashG.0@gmail.com Judge/ Coach/ Cut lots of cards
  3. In fora that aren't debate fora, I hold regular conversations. Given this is a community of debaters, I see no reason to not act like a debater. Applying debate knowledge to conversational skills is also not an awful idea. Kaut didn't seem to mind, those were clearly just funny things I felt like putting in at the top and bottom of posts. The word 'conceded' is not purely debate lingo, and arguing evidentiary credibility is great for "conversation." Here is a good one: are you serious? Just because you think you're cool, you should not lack civility or yell, constantly relying ad-hominems and vulgar language to prove a point. Grow up and be more mature.
  4. It is two separate things. He runs divisive in his campaign ads: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051302303.html And: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202327.html He called the democrats bitchy. See any of topspeaker's posts. Tax Cuts, Federalism, below article, etc http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503306.html So he criticizes the incumbent president when it is appropriate. That would be the job of his type of media: reveal the faults of the current government. He likes McCain too. He is exposing the fallacies of the current administration and recent Republican policies. With the exception of abortion, you have provided little reason he's that liberal. Plus, pro-lifers are way in the minority of the US. I like him, too. We are on good terms. I have no idea why cross-x hates me for debating with him... ------------------------------------------------------------ I get the WP, so I cite them most. But, it is worth noting that most of the Post is right leaning.
  5. Ahh, I see. Save it for the 1AR, but concede everything nonetheless. You've conceded that you can be right of center and not like the war. Bashing Bush for awful policy decisions, secrecy, and expanding presidential powers unduly is rational, not liberal. Matthews defended Bush straight up, until he made awful, unwarranted policy decisions. Matthews even voted for him. All my specific examples - judicial filibusters, Social Security, HRC, Iraqi insurgents, Isikoff, Catholic-Republican identification, and NPR were conceded. He doesn't always argue with his panels; they are republican-leaning and he often agrees with them. He praises Obama, but he also praises McCain. He also praises McCain for something McCain's campaign clearly does not have. While McCain has integrity, McCain's campaign has been filled with flip-flops and pandering to the right, not to mention divisive campaign ads and the insinuation that Obama is "Hamas' president." In 2005 -- after 2004 -- he won misinformer of the year for the amount or conservative lies he propagated. My evidence is universally more credible. I rely on more specific statements -- i.e. quotes -- and have far more. The remark-by-remark analysis is actual tabulations of what he has said, which is clearly the most authoritative source for determining his leanings. He may not have tremendously positive rhetoric at this point in the election cycle, but that's because his candidate - Giuliani- is out. ---------------------------------------------------------- If this were a debate, I would start the 2NR with "disregard the 1AR, it's new. Even if you allow it, they conceded all the specific quotes in our ev, instead relying on broad generalities. Prefer specific ev - it's the only clear, definitive method to evaluate political leanings. Our ev actually indicts the falsities he purports as broad misperception." I watch the show when I have time, which is admittedly not daily. How do you have the time?!?
  6. You responded to my argument by saying I power-tagged a card. You conceded that, by all other metrics, Matthews is hardly "very liberal."
  7. Matthews bashes Bush and the Iraq War, but that doesn't make him liberal. http://mediamatters.org/items/200505310005 He also likes McCain. http://mediamatters.org/items/200805020003?f=s_search He even won misinformer of the year. http://mediamatters.org/items/200512230005 He used to promote Guliani extensively. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjhjZTc3ZjlmNWU4YTczZDZlODNkYzE1YzU1OTYyNDM= Remark-by-remark analyses support my argument. http://mediamatters.org/items/200712180005
  8. He could win Florida: http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article510039.ece The Slate article -- I have read it many times -- is, for the most part, right on the money. Obama doesn't face nearly as easy of an election as most Obama supporters -- i.e. me and all my friends -- would like to believe.
  9. "You must spread some reputation around before giving it to topspeaker70 again."
  10. indian_PorNo

    Favorite IE

    In terms of time-benefit ratio, extemp is definitely the highest. It helps prepare: ---public speaking skills ---current events knowledge In terms of enjoyability to watch, HI hands down.
  11. Other have got at the thrust of my argument, but they have not made it as strongly or conclusively. 1. Winning the primary of a state is not reflective of the result in the general election. In 1980--I believe--Ted Kennedy and Bush won PA, neither even won their nomination. If I were older, I would provide numerous other examples that people like KO and Maddow make on MSNBC daily. I just don't remember them. Obama will win CA, NY etc. The 48% of Clinton supporters who would not vote for Obama A--is ridiculous. What the hell? Is she brain-washing them. McCain's policies aren't remotely similar. B--an overestimate. BO should win most. PA was a closed primary. In open ones, see BO doing better. 2. Obama changes what is and isn't a swing state. This is all above. Alot of Western States etc (New Mexico, Missouri, etc.) BO puts into play and HRC does not. 3. Things Change. Dukakis was--I believe--way ahead in head-to-head polls. While HRC only has a potential to go down, with total lack of trustworthiness and negative campaigning, BO can win on a more unity-based platform. 4. There is a reason Republicans are worried about one candidate: Barack Obama. McCain has real potential with independents. While BO can--at the very least--reduce the amount of McCain-ocrats and capture a larger number of Obama-cans, HRC will rely solely on the racist bigots, blue-collar workers, or women who voted for her in OH, PA etc. (Note: I didn't call all people who voted for her racist bigots... not even close.) 5. Cash. Do not under-estimate the importance of cash. Obama will raise millions more than HRC. 6. Nuking Iran. This is really, really f*cking big. HRC has the worst possible Iran policy ever. Her blanket rejection of Raegan as even being "transformative" clearly shows that she doesn't understand what soft power is. Who does that remind you of? I guess if the October surprise doesn't work out, at least Bush can hope for Hillary. (Edit: The Raegan reference is to his talks w/ Gorbachev) I hope superdelegates take note. Overall, I would still vote for HRC over militaristic McCain. These are more reasons BO should be > HRC's two, awful claims to SDs 1-"won more total votes" FL and MI don't count. 2-"big states" They will go democratic anyways.
  12. Harvard is my top choice; I am on the Wait List. Otherwise, I am deciding between Cornell, Northwestern, Michigan (Honors), Emory, Duke, and Berkeley. I decided on Michigan. Good Luck to everyone in College!
  13. you're answering the k of reason with 'but you don't have reason!' yes, obama doesn't have experience. good job. you have yet to prove that's a good thing...
  • Create New...