In other words, phrases like, and this is a voting issue because of fairness are, for me, the functional equivalent of phrases like, and maybe the dingo ate your baby . I will have an intuition about the legitimacy of your argument when it is made, as it exists within the context of the debate. If you wish to infer from that statement that I am more persuaded by in round abuse arguments than potential for abuse arguments, you may. But, your ability to predict what my intuitions may be is, quite simply, nil. Judging debate is like being a home-plate umpire in the sense that I get to call the balls and strikes, and if you don t like how they are called, I don t care.
Debate follows no such rules.
You all are playing a game, I get to decide who wins, but I think, philosophically speaking, that I am playing too. If you think that makes me unpredictable, you are right. It is my opinion that those who say they have a consistent judging philosophy are lying to themselves, and those who say they are tabula rasa are lying to the rest of us. I think you get the idea. I think you get the idea.