Seems to me the filibuster turns the Senate into a place where nothing big can pass unless it clears a supermajority, which sounds less like a guardrail and more like a chokehold. I get my opponent might call it compromise, but my gut says it mostly blocks what most people want.

Sure, my opponent has a fair point that the filibuster lets politicians voice concerns. But I guess my gut still says it mostly stalls everything, so even good ideas just die. I don't really know how to argue past that.

Okay, my opponent makes a fair point that senators should be able to debate freely. But I guess my gut still says when almost everything needs sixty votes, that debate turns into blocking, and stuff most people want never even gets a vote. I am not sure how to argue it better.