Sadly, you drove away from your point. Your point on the journals was, "all journals or research stuff is available online now, so what is the need of having those lofty journals and researching stuff in the library", I guess you gave up on that and agreed that there are things which can't be tracked online. Moreover, I'm pretty fascinated to know that a student targeting corporate law doesn't require studying journals. For that, could you please kindly tell me as to what is your understanding, what is their in the journals, and why doesn't a person aspiring a corpo-legal job need to read them? I guess this question would give me a pretty straight answer and a sign of your understanding on the importance of journals, as I've become pretty dubious about further furnishing my arguments here, telling someone the importance of a good library, who has not even used a library ever.
The main problem I see with your arguments is that you assess everything in relevance of the job opportunities that you got. You show me that you've shared equal opportunities as that of an NLU guy, despite not having an informative backup as that of a good NLUite. You didn't get even a single book issued from the library, and got the same job which could have been fetched by an NLUite doesn't mean that you are just as informed as a good NLUite would be. You lack at the premise of understanding what a good knowledge backup is, as you don't even understand what's the importance of a good library and research materials. Fetching a job is not the objective of studying any discipline, how much of understanding you acquired of that discipline is what matters.
Footnotes show the extensiveness of one's research. They don't make one lose or win, but how much of research one would have done on a subject can be assessed from the footnotes. Moreover, if a person doesn't require those footnotes or that extensiveness in his research I guess the award of best researcher for any moot is a goof. Also, just in order to make you understand, unless you research properly it is impossible, mark the word "impossible" to have the proper understanding of the issue you're dealing with in a moot. That's what makes footnotes or to be specific extensive research important.
Again in your third argument, you've landed up onto the jobs. But still, the argument is pretty weak in itself. The jobs that have been fetched by the students at UPES were because of their individual potentials. I don't deny that individual potential is what lies as the most important factor for anything one does, but it's facilitated by a lot of things that surround those efforts. In this case, it is ought to be facilitated by the college. See the core of what we're arguing upon is whether the college is good or not, we're not dealing with the individual potentials developed by the students. People were good, they did it, but had their been a bit more effort, a bit more facilitation by the college, the rest of the students would've also sprung up to some high places.
Now about me, well well well, there is no use of boasting around this place. It's not worth it. I would just clarify on your points, that I'm not frustrated, I'm disappointed about the unavailability of the facilities that could've made me a better student of law with a better understanding. I'm not a failure, not me; my record says so, I just aspire for an improved college.
You acknowledged the persistent problem in one of your sentences, and suggested me to work my way around them, that's what I'm stressing at. Hadn't it been better if we wouldn't have needed to "go around". I expect improvements to dawn, I lie pessimistic because of the atmosphere that is prevalent and despite significant attempts that has denied any change.