Random
Source Code
Random
There is a difference between geeks and nerds.
Nerds are smart, people who lack much of a social life. They often have very few friends. Nerds don't talk much, and don't expect others to talk much to them. They are usually nice people, but don't have the social skills to go out and meet new friends.
Geeks are different from nerds in the fact that they have social lives. However, these social lives are often spent pursuing some passion that the geek is obsessed with (i.e. Yu-Gi-Oh!). They spend all their time thinking about their one obsession, and play it in all of their free time. Geeks are usually only friends with other geeks, and attempts to converse with geeks is futile, unless, of course, you want to talk about Star Trek or whatever the certain geek is obsessed with.
Examples of geek obsessions are Star Trek, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Magic the Gathering, StarCraft, and basically any other RPG.
Nerds are often very shy, while geeks are more outgoing.
Nerds spend most of their free time studying, while geeks make free time so they can play Dungeons and Dragons.
Nerds care what others think of them, but geeks are almost oblivious to the existence of those outside of their geek clan.
Based on all this, I would have to conclude that it is easier to befriend a nerd than a geek, but a geek would probably be a more interesting person.
762👍 210👎
In political debates, when someone asserts an opinion that cannot be supported by evidence--usually something that has been debunked by fact-checkers for several years and is often in Alex Jones territory--we should respond that we're not obligated to "debate your imagination".
You claimed President Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya as a Manchurian Candidate in order to ruin the Constitution, confiscate all guns, lock up Christians in FEMA camps, and usher in the reign of the Anti-Christ, but you haven't shown evidence that it is a reality that exists outside your own head. Why do you think we're required to debate your imagination?
Public forum debate consists of two teams of two debaters each. It is a fight to the death in which debaters are readied with their sharp tongues and quick wits, ready to engage in a verbal gladiator match. While Policy debaters laugh at Public Forum, a truly godly Public Forum debater can still anal anyone. Most PF debaters are douchebags, and the top debaters who recieve TOC bids on a daily basis are cocky, self-righteous dicks.
While all this is happening, there is a judge presiding over the match and deciding who the winner is. Once the judge sees the who should win the debate, their nefarious minds twist evilly and they then turn the verdict around and screw over the team that should win. Their bias shines proudly as they watch the team that should have won walk away with glum faces and sore asses.
I watched as the Public Forum debate went down.
Two teams were at it hard, fast, long, and furious. They danced around with fancy terminology and gained pleasure from turning another team's blocks.
The judge felt bad for the team that lost so she basically ran a sympathy kritik and gave them the win instead.
13👍 3👎
One of three debate events currently in use by the National Forensic League (NFL). Also known by its initials, LD, Lincoln-Douglas was named for the famous debate that took place between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas before the Civil War. The event is differentiated from the other two debate styles in that, firstly, only one person competes per side (as opposed to the two-person teams of PF and CX), and secondly, it concentrates on issues of value and morality rather than plan, the fixation of policy debate and (theoretically) PF.
Lincoln-Douglas debate was formed in the 1970's by John Copeland as a response to the increasingly academic and technically obsessive style, also known as "progressive," that had manifested in policy debate, and is therefore seen to be more of a rhetorically inclined event than policy. On the other hand, the relative depth of focus and emphasis of logical analysis LD demands makes it more technical than PF. Contemporary coaches and LD critics disagree on which influence should (or rather, ought to) be more important.
The odd-ball of the debate family, LD attracts criticism from CXers who don't understand its conspicuous lack of cards, or evidence, and its prioritization of speaking style--though some have come to grudgingly appreciate it. PFers, who carry a significant aversion to the mention of philosophy, a critical part of the LD debater's repertoire, opine that the event is "too open-ended"--roughly translated, "too smart"--for their tastes, and only jokingly claim that they will enter it. Fortunately, nobody cares what PFers think about debate, if anything.
"You just got out of a round of Lincoln-Douglas Debate, right? How'd the round go?"
"Well, I dropped his second attack on my criterion, but he totally bungled his defense on my subsumption of his value--I managed to turn it so hard I used it as a voter. I refuted the warrants on both of his contentions, and he never really brought them up again...did you want to see my flow?"
"No, thanks. How'd the CX's go?"
"I still have blood on my penis."
"High five!"
78👍 25👎
a place in which mass debating takes place
Parliament is a mass debating chamber
9👍 1👎
two high school or college debaters in a relationship who both do consistently well at national circuit tournaments. great people in and out of round, and a model couple for debaters everywhere. usually do the same event, but policy + ld couples are not uncommon.
debate power couples tend to be long-distance, but because they both compete on the national circuit, they see each other at tournaments.
"hey, nina and jack are both going to the yale debate tournament!"
"wow, they're such a great debate power couple!"
"chairs!"
attraction derive from an individual's debate skills, no physical appearance
Though he was fugly he had won many national debate tournaments, so she had GDS for him
19👍 5👎