12345-art

OK this Emofuri thing is confusing, let’s try Live2d’s Cubism!

retkikosmos:

image

the software is similar to emote/emofuri, a little more complicated though, with modeling, texture maps and set up is different, but at least it’s in English! with an extensive how to manual and dozens of sample models to play around with 

there’s free version you can download

image

I picked up this program almost instantly, after struggling with emofuri all day (T^T I’ll try again another time), I really just wanna jump into this style of animating

usefuldebatecards

save-jayy asked:

Hi I'm a debater in the chicago debate league and in all honesty I do not know much about debate as I think i do. Looking at debates from the college circuit and browsing your tumblr I realized that I have a lot to learn. You answered a post with four files every debate team should have: wipeout, de-dev, Speciesism/Anthropocentrism Kritik, framework. I was wondering if you could actually tell me what these arguments are and how to run them.

usefuldebatecards answered:

The way we all learn is by asking!

Wipeout- Impact turn to extinction DAs. Makes the argument that human extinction is a good thing, usually based on ecological destruction arguments. Occasionally you’ll also see technology based impact turns (e.g. Humans are developing Nanotechnology now, nanotech leads to von Neumann machines that consume all life on the planet and then the galaxy, galactic extinction outweighs planetary extinction). 

De-dev: Economic collapse is good. Usually based around the idea of ‘upswing wars’, which say that wars occur when economic growth is occurring and that the next big economic growth spurt leads to war (or other structural problems) which trigger a more catastrophic economic collapse.

Speciesism: The claim that privileging humans over non-humans (read: ‘animals’) is problematic on a number of levels, and that we should instead approach humans and non-humans as being equal in consideration and regard.

Framework: How the judge should evaluate and weigh the debate. Usually done to say that the judge cannot evaluate critical impacts and must instead rely on policy impacts in order to decide the round. 

pro-choice-or-no-voice

ablogaboutchoice:

I saw all of these arguments. Some of them I saw repeatedly, others I only saw twice, but each one of these was brought up more than one time.

"This was done in the name of religious freedom! They followed the Constitution! "

False. If this was done in the name of…