Bub,+Sydney

I have debated on the circuit for Brentwood for 3 years. Basically, I will accept any argument that I can understand but I tend to prefer stock arguments because that is what I am used to. I am not well versed in dense philosophy so if you want to run that, please explain it very clearly. I can flow speed if it is really clear but if it isn’t I would much prefer that you slow down a bit. I view theory as competing interpretations and reject the argument but if you give me reasons to think otherwise, I am completely willing to evaluate the round in a different way. I will intervene if neither debater has done sufficient work for me to make a decision. I will intervene and not vote on arguments I don't understand. Most importantly, though -- I will intervene and not vote on arguments that are unwarranted, even if they are conceded. When you extend arguments extend them with a claim, a warrant and an impact. If you have any specific questions I will be happy to answer them before the round J -Sydney