way back, when i was on the debate team, we would have to have prepared briefs which were meant to refute any logic that we forsaw coming our way.
our favorite way to do this was to prove that everything led to nuclear war.
i once proved that the new jersy mafia was responsible for acid rain and that any attempts to alter current environmental impacts by the mafia would lead to thermonuclear war.
i had perfect sources. it was a smooth arguement and very effective not by virtue of its actuall existance, but by logical leaps made by connecting respected sources.
that was then. i was young. it was the arguement that mattered, now i could care less about winning and more about
making it work for the better.
many of the posts that i read hear remind me of those days when it was about winning and advancing to the "F.U" round.
but hey. thats just me.
