[upghost]

This is a consequence of the fact that any argument not responded to "flows across" the score sheet and is automatically a win for the team making the argument, no matter how silly. So a "natural" tendency would be to ignore ridiculous arguments like "not paying for school lunches will cause children to hyperventilate, and by the butterfly effect will lead to infinite hurricanes in developing nations causing a collapse of the global economy and intergalatic war and genocide". But if the opposite team fails to acknowledge the argument then that is the same as conceding it will happen.

[beeflet]

Which is pretty ridiculous. The purpose of a debate should be to change/consolidate the hearts and minds of the audience to your side. To this end, it's usually sufficient to pick apart a few of the key points of your opponent's argument. Nitpicking every aspect of your opponent usually comes off as uncharismatic.

Brevity is really important in a debate. Especially in the modern day where someone might turn you into a chad vs soyjack meme.

And if anything, what happens before the debate is more important than what happens during it. Our dear president showed us you can become the leader of the free world using playground insults and ad-libbed speeches if you choose the right demographics and look good in a suit.

[johnisgood]

Debates these days (especially political ones) are just unnecessary, totally unrelated ad hominems, and people yelling over each other.

Yup to your last sentence. It irritated me how off-topic his responses were.

[amenhotep]

He looks awful in a suit!

[thih9]

I guess winning like this cheapens the victory. Then again, this strategy continues to be used at all levels of disputes and politics. I wish there was a way to stop that, not just in student debates.