Dear Anon,
Sorry that I made you look stupid during the public formal debate. You may have a 4.0 and a subservient posse of student government lackeys. But, you, like many other future lawyers, politicians, ect. lack the ability to employ reason/knowledge, rather, you just seek to further yourself regardless of the effects upon the field of political science academia, and thus, society.
I really didn't mean to have the auditorium laugh at you after I grilled you on your sources, such as Merrill Lynch. I simple asked during the cross-examination if you could explain how your source was credible (which it wasn't for the line of reasoning). Not my fault you referred to the financial institution as a "she" a number of times before I asked you if you even knew who "she" was with a smirk on my face.
I am sorry that you failed to understand the fallacy of composition, and had to ask me 4 times "what I meant by that" or if "that was a made-up term." You can't be a true nerd such as myself that reads, studies, and discusses policy and logic with others as a pass-time. I am sorry that from this one argument I was able to make your case impossible to win given your lack of evidenciary support to address half of my plan I proposed. You assumed by attacking two minuscule parts of my plan, that my plan was then invalidated. But, I listed 6 alternative measures, and then serial listed them as "and/or's", thus, you must address all 6 alternatives in order to even have a chance of winning.
Then, you made up evidence, and I requested you submit your sources, and you said, "CNN". Don't worry, I was glad to capitalize on that gaffe just like all of the others. I asked you what studies CNN conducted, methodologies, ect. You went blank, and suggested that they were reporting another institution's research. Then I asked, what research institions? You know in a debate you must list direct sources for admissible evidence? Right? You were PISSED! (Don't worry, I kept that smug smile on my face)
I am sorry, once I had pointed out the fallacies in each of your arguments that you had to resort to ad-hominen arguments. I am sorry, I smiled, with each insult and remained cool and collect as you floundered. Then, I responded to the insults with "ad-hominens are irrelevant. The past five minutes were ad hominens. My opponent failed to address my points. Every argument I made is pulled through, uncontested. Thus, my opponent has lost this debate on each and every score-able component. Well, I have 5 minutes left, but it would be unnecessary for me to speak further."
After unanimous decision, I had tripled your scores on average, that's after some of your professors you suck up to gave you some pity points. You may be going to a top law school and have all the power on campus, but you won't last in the real world of debate that is U.S. legal system, let along law school. You are bitter and ego-driven without the intelligence, effort, and analytic rigor to support it.
After graduating, I am bitter you were acknowledge as the "smartest" in our program simply because there were others that were a quiet presence on campus that have truly put the time and effort into their research and helping improve society. So, I feel better now knowing how foolish you looked after being annihilated by me as your final "public appearance".
Little did you know, I am also ego-driven, though I hope that it allows me to pit fire against fire, and actually promote research that isn't liberal/conservative agenda BS. I went into this field to make a difference, I need to research and analyze a variety of perspectives to discover what exactly I should do. You are a joke, and after being admitted into a variety of top programs, the little attention I received campus-wide seems irrelevant. I am going places because of my research skills, PERIOD, and that makes my successes genuine to me.
Am I jelly? Yes. I WAS. Not anymore, I may be a bit TOO happy about ruining your reputation around campus, but you have no one to blame but yourself. Next time try putting in hard work, and not debating like a junior high student. (Actually, that would be an insult to junior high students.) I have always thought of you as a joke, so, I, unlike others, was happy to debate against you. Zero intimidation intellectually.
And really, your mom needs to stop coming into our classroom during lecture to pester the professors/instructors. Seriously, grow up! I wouldn't be caught dead requesting my parent speak with my professor during a class!!! She interrupted a timed research proposal mid-speech to announce to the class you got into U of M. Seriously, I see why you are they way you are :/
After all is said, I guess I am not as annoyed by you as I am annoyed by others. They idolize, well, idolized you, but you are of no importance to the program and academia or society in general. You have zero merits to base your successes; you fail to address the needs of others, but other people grant you those successes since you are so aggressive socially.
It's a mirage. And I am the evil and twisted, latent Machiavelli that reclaimed those many pairs of rose-tinted glasses that distorted your true worth.
Wow. I am mean. Fo' Realz.
