| Subject: more extensions |
Author:
melody
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 20:27:43 01/01/02 Tue
In reply to:
MikeKnight.com
's message, "DX v FX" on 18:47:28 01/01/02 Tue
1. good job ashley keeping the dx pride alive. not only did your reply concede to the fact that dx sucks, but it also hinted to your complete suckiness in debate.
2. i would wait for hannah's reply to support dx, because it is the only hope of any strong argument for the dx side. however, one should not credit the source, considering she chose a duo with chelsea over dx for IU.
3. i would first like to extend the fx arguments points out the harder material, more challenging questions, and creative intros in fx as compared to dx.
4. and now for more extensions stating why fx is so much cooler:
>consider information obtained by fx'ers and dx's. fx'ers memorize random facts about sri lanka, bhutan, and burkina faso and take personal intrest in a country of their choice(cough IRAQ cough). dx'ers, on the other hand, can only lust after 80 year old men. furthermore, ashley's claimed interest on environmental issues forces me to question what she knows about everything else in america. if there is any doubt left in the arguement i would utilize my cx time to ask ashley to explain the environmental standards of the WTO(as it is associated with american trade and environmental issues). her answer most likely would be "my partner will bring that up in her next speech."
>consider the line of great extempers in reitz history. fx: casey howard, todd siesky, jayne henson, paul musgrave, and mike knight. (note i did not list my own name, perhaps because it is implied.) dx: bao huynh. obviously five against one says something.
>behold the power of the fx boxes. all seven of these boxes are wonderfully color-coded, logically divided and organized, and packed with unbelievable amounts of information. now reflect on the disgusting condition of the dx boxes. not only did the dx'ers have to ask mike create their filing system, but once created they ruined the art of the boxes by using folders that didn't match and mispelling obvious labels such as "michael jordan." mike is now being forced to print off his own dx articles to account for the lapse in articles of the boxes. to show the pathetic information obtained within these boxes i would like to give the example of their largest folder: china (yes, this is a fx topic in a dx box).
>assuming that dx was even worth a dept. head, it should be pointed out that the current dx officer is an fx'er. it majorly discredits all dx'ers to realize they don't even have someone good enough to control their own category.
>reference all trophies and awards given to extempers this year at WKU and bradley, understanding it was fx and dx combined. fx: mike- two firsts and a second. melody- one second and a seventh. dx: katie- one third. sweeps obviously prove fx has done better incorporating with dx than dx has with fx(note- only fx'ers are smart enough to understand what i just said). and arguing that some dx's didn't get to go to bradley is weak, because sibo and i also did not go to bradley.
>and if all other arguments are flowed out, the fact that ashley burgdorf does dx is enough to prove why fx is so much cooler.
5. for all these reasons i can only see an fx ballot.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 