Bruce,+Jonathan

My name is Jonathan Bruce, and I am a debater at the University of the Pacific. I have been debating in Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary, in college, for three years now. This year, in parliamentary my ranking reached as high as 11th. And in LD I have won two tournaments so far this year. So I have got to the point, where I can at least discern what is winning execution and what is not winning execution.

You can run any Critique that you would like to run and any project that you would like to run. I am not against any position. Merely, justify your argumentation--it's very simple. Just make sure that you remember if you know the literature to your critique I will not know it, most likely.

Furthermore, I am fine with any theory position. However, I need to see proven abuse. I believe potential abuse makes no sense, and it makes less experienced debaters highly vulnerable, in a unfair manner, to more technical, experienced debaters.

Third, I am fine with speed, I will be able to keep up with anyone. However, you may not be able to keep up with yourself--so please only go as fast as your tongue is capable of articulating....otherwise what is the point?

Aff K's are fine.

Conditionality is fine. Condo bad is fine as well, what you do just justify it with argumentation.

Politics is fine, boring, but it certainly wins rounds.

Essentially, you can run anything in front of me, just use warrants and justifications. And impact weigh/explain!!