Debating
My paradigm is I only weigh a money ballot. Call that truth over tech.
They knew their case was strong but they didn't know I fronted the judge a brick. Post-round went to the parking lot.
Opps said I failed to provide a mechanism, my MG spent 4 minutes describing the tec-9 in my backpack. They dropped the clash.
Had to translate the bylaws into sanskrit and latin just to pround with someone on my level.
Chicago gets their own division but we get lumped in apda south? Give us apda below I'm from hell.
If you tight call my novice will kill themself
Auspicious phrases
- urbane intellectual elite
- preemptive tight theory
- phenomenological genocide
- pre-tabula rasa offense
- loses on the prag
- obviously bullshit
- truth nuke
Dubious phrases
- affect-pilled emotional arguments
- pround
- T (short for 'turp (short for interpretation))
- epsilon (in tandem with 'delta', as in the definition of a limit)
- swifty slop cases (apparently there's a lot of them)
- anti-STEM bias
- check the speaker scale
That experiential contextual cush got me making principle arguments.
His cart has a reveled preference. Got me entering the head space of evil actors.
Broke the "no substances" rule, experienced real tabula rasa.
Ethics call turned into a the-cops call. To me thats just cultural relativism.