need a little time to wake up- what's the story, morning glory

[luciazephyr]

So I'm prepping for a debate tomorrow in which I have to argue the pro or the con of this statement:

US policies established after September 11 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts against the US.

I have to argue one of the sides and won't know until tomorrow which one. The sad thing, while I'm collecting all my Pro arguments, I have a separate section at the bottom of the page refuting each point I make.

I have no idea how I'll BS this if I get Pro. I may just start laughing hysterically. And if Miller's team (my opponents) don't do a good job on Con, I may do both arguments.

It'll be like Formidable Opponent in a way. :D

Also, "(What's the Story) Morning Glory" by Oasis is a kick ass song. I mean, wow.

-Luce

PS: Someone tell Keith thank you for helping me bitchslap the Homeland Security Advisory System. I'm staying away from anything don't by pundits, but his "Nexus of Politics and Terror" report is too good.

Comments

[cosmic.livejournal.com]

Aww! Oasis nostalgia.

[alanddizzy.livejournal.com]

Hope you read this before you go to the debate, but here's my advice for arguing against your own beliefs.

Pull a Colbert.

That's right, just pretend, I mean if need be, use sarcastic overdramatic statements to push the bill. Be irashional if you have to, sometimes as long as you can come up with a logic defying point that you can explain with confidence (and yet still not explain anything at all) then your opponent will be so baffled that they can't argue back.

Make sure to brutally beat each of their points into the ground, be aggressive and give them very little time to respond to your own arguments, make blunt yes or no questions and then twist their words against them like the slimiest of slimy lawyers!

And most of all, try your best, the coach won't fault you for being lame as long as you try your best to argue the point.