POTD 73

POTD

Intresting enviornment.

POTD 72

POTD

Cool pirates! :D

Blah, too busy doing physics to say much.

POTD 71

POTD

Cool Christmassy picture.

I hope all of you had (are having) an awesome Christmas or Hanukkah or whatever it is you celebrate. :D

POTD 70

POTD

For those of you who watched Eragon you might find this interesting. It's an in depth look at how the model was designed and made. For the record I've made a better dragon. :P

Yay break is starting. Fun, fun! Too bad I'm so behind in physics and programming. Ah wells.

POTD 69

POTD

Crazy.... O_o. Fruit.

Argh B on my philosophy paper. >.> Whatever. Not too much happening, except for break!

POTD 68

POTD

Hmm....nice colors I guess, and lighting effects.

Eragon was so bad! I laughed my head off, and it was totally worth the time and money to go make fun of it. I won't elaborate on the individual problems with it though, because most of you have heard them anyways.

POTD 67

POTD

Cool picture of the hulk. The head isn't quite what I had pictured, but whatever.

Ah, time for another gigantic debate related post!

Well, I justed wanted to let you all know, this tournament sucks major time. They ran almost an hour and a half late the whole time...and they messed up everyones results. I guess I only hate it so much, because I was 1. sitting around for a disgustingly long time and 2. their stupid tabulation staff messed up my results, so that I didn't get into the octo-final round even though I had won my double-octo-final round.

On the aff I running: Value: Justice, Criterion: Self-preservation, Contention 1: Law doesn't protect the victim, Contention 2: The victim can't run. The idea is self defense is always just, and since DDF is the only option through necessity we must use it.

On the neg I was running: Value: Justice, Criterion: Proportionality, Contention 1: DDF not proportional with various reasons.

Round 1: After this round I felt like "hurrrrr." I was negating (which with the current resolution meant I should have won, because neg always wins with this resolution) and his case was using some messed up criterion like 'retributive due', and it was the perfect answer to proportionality. So combined with some of my mistakes he won pretty clearly.

Round 2: Here I was against someone that seemed to be actually mentally handicapped. And on the negative he used a criterion of minimizing patriarchal violence, so I made the obvious response "When we kill the abuse the violence stops, thus I meet his criterion." To sum it up easy win. The only problem is I was in this library with about 50 other debaters and it got really noisy.

Round 3: I was on the aff here, an ominous sign. And despite my opponent's poor speaking skills he won, because he negated...grr stupid prejudice against aff.

Round 4: Blah, I lose on negative due to good speaking skills and persuasive arguments. The judge seemed to just have sided with her from the beginning. Whatever.

Round 5: I win on the negative against a case that could have killed me. Except for the fact that she included a card that said the abuser wanted to psychologically control the victim, so I turned it saying that the victim's life is never in threat, because at the point where the abuser kills the victim they lose control, so they never kill and DDF isn't proportional. Yay first neg win.

Round 6 (double-octo-finals) : I faced some horrible kid that was so bad I can't describe it. His only piece of evidence was a quote from Gandalf the Gray, so easy aff win. haha

And then they messed up my rounds and make me cry. :( Only I didn't cry, because I didn't know that they had messed anything up, because the double-octos were "hidden" meaning we didn't know they were special, so I thought I was just doing a normal round. So I didn't know to be upset until afterwards.

So sorry if you don't really care and all I've done is write a really long post, but I think you might find it slightly more interesting than my lectures on math, although this is less educational. Whatever.