Debate is a Broken form of Argumentation

More Framework: People run out of space all the time and lose rounds. Some people are idiots and can't write properly, but I wish to assume that both debaters have perfect strategy and grammar. If under these circumstances, a debater would still lose because he is curtailed by Volume Limits, the debate becomes broken because it is no longer a contest of argumentation. 1) Argumentation: In a debate, you put forward an argument, which gets rebutted, and then countered, and rebutted again etc. If the sequence results in decreasing content volume, we'll call it a "deflationary argument". If the sequence requires increasing volume from one or both parties, it is an inflationary argument. By "requires" I mean that there is no way to avoid an inflationary argument once it has started. So even with perfect strategy, debaters will lose debates if inflationary arguments put them over the Volume Limit. So far this has all been definitional, but I will now try and show that inflationary arguments exist. A) Linguistic Asymmetry An argument and its counter-argument are, by definition, composed differently. There must be some grammatical or vocable [1] difference between the two. The difference can cause inflation. For example: A: The sky is red Re1: The sky is not red Re2: The sky is blue Re3: His sky argument has no source As far as I can see, all possible rebuttals to the argument are longer in terms of volume. I guess it's possible that there's some alternative I'm not considering, but that would miss the point. Arguments and counter-arguments are always different, and may systematically place an inflationary burden on one or more participant. This is a very simple example. By itself, it would not break most debates. However, if many such arguments are strung together, or more complicated inflationary arguments are used, one or both debaters will run into Volume Limits and the debate will no longer depend on argumentation because linguistic asymmetry decides the winner. B) Logos Asymmetry Because arguments and counter arguments must express different ideas, there is potential for volume inflation. I have in mind "Simple" ideas that require more "Complex" ideas for their rebuttal. A: The universe was created by god Re1: The universe was not created by god Re2: The universe was created by the big bang A vs Re2 is in danger of being decided on the basis of which argument places more complex burdens on participants. My implication is that it's volumetrically easier to argue for god than for the big bang, but the situation could actually be reversed if it's easier to argue against god than against the big bang. There's no way to tell in advance, but this is an example of how debaters are must shoulder different argumentative loads even if they are arguing the same topic. 2) Blocks: There's no way to formulate a valid rule that would block argument inflation. A) First, there's no certain way to tell in advance if an argument will be inflationary. I have provided simple examples, but there could also be much more complex inflation that nobody reading the debate ever notices. So if you formulated a rule against argument inflation, competitors would have no sure way of knowing in advance if they would violate the rule. This is a violation of provision 1 for "valid rules". B) Since the worlds of logic and language are at least somewhat existentially free, debaters would never be able to prove they were forced into an inflationary argument. It is always theoretically possible that a less verbose, differently worded, or different logos would have taken up less space. Because there are infinitely many possible arguments, there is no methodology to prove absolute asymmetry. My examples above are very simple cases, relying on inductive logic. There is no similar deductive procedure. So even if a few simple inflationary arguments can be identified, not all of them can. This is a violation of rule 2 for "valid rules". C) Third, banning inflationary arguments necessarily puts a limit on what arguments debaters can use. Depending on context, the most logical arguments might become unavailable. Even if only "bad" arguments are banned, debate is supposed to give participants the option to use whatever arguments they want. On both counts, banning inflationary arguments violates rule 3 for "valid rules". 3) The Break: By now, it should be fairly obvious how inflationary arguments can break debate. However, just for kicks, I wish to contextualize the analysis. A) If a debater runs arguments he inductively knows are inflationary for the other side, he automatically secures an advantage (or victory) that does not depend on argumentation. So inflation creates an effective non-argumentative debate strategy, which "breaks" debate. B) Neither debaters may be aware that their arguments are inflationary, but their presence within the round has the same effect anyway. So it also "breaks" debate even when both debaters are acting in good faith. Underview We can all think of debates that seemed really good. Both sides argued well and the arguments had space to grow and be developed. That's fine. Not every debate round will break if inflationary arguments are avoided, just the same way the original starcraft matches didn't break if people didn't abuse zergling mass. But the original starcraft was still broken as a strategy game, just like debate is still broken as a form of argumentation. Inflationary arguments are the zergling mass of debate. http://beststarcraft2info.com... [1] http://en.wiktionary.org...