Debate is a Broken form of Argumentation

Debate is a Broken form of ArgumentationPrestandards:In order to promote fair debate, the following prestandards are copypasted from my previous debates.1) Dropping arguments and bringing them up later allows an unfair advantage. For example, if I run utilitarianism in round 1, egalitariansim in round 2, and justice in round 3, I can just pick up whichever my opponent fails to address in round 4. Because we have limited space, dropped arguments ought to count as concessions.2) Supporting citations must be clearly articulated in the debate. Writing: "Abortion is wrong [1]" is problematic on two counts. First, it does not justify a ballot because this is not an substantiated argument - it's an appeal to authority. Second, it is abusive because the debater is trying to glean offense outside of their round.3) No new arguments or sources should be used in the last round because they can't be responded to.To the voters: Honor my prestandards. My opponent is completely free to argue against them. However, if they still stand, they apply. I bring them forward not to gain special personal advantage but to ensure a principled debate.Framework:Debate - a competition between two participants who argue over a pre-specified topic. They use arguments to analyze the resolution, attacking and rebutting throughout. Debates have a pre-specified number of rounds and limits on content volume, such as Maximum Characters or Speaking Time.Broken - In the context of modern gaming, "Broken" means that game mechanics fail to depend on the intended skillset of competitors. Here are several examples:1) Tic Tac Toe is broken as a test of strategic skill because there is one perfect algorithm that is easily copied by both players. The game is decided as the first move is made.2) The original starcraft was broken as a test of strategic skill because zergling spam mathematically defeated all non-mirror matchups.3) Penalty rules in certain sports are broken because intentional fouls can give the offending team advantage in some situations.4) "Who can pick the highest number" is broken because the first player can lose no matter what he does.5) Quidditch is (close to) broken as a multiplayer game because the outcome depends almost entirely on the Seeker http://www.uniquities.co.uk....Closing Thoughts:Debate is interesting because competitors may introduce new rules as long as they are justified. For example, bringing up new arguments in the last round "breaks" debate because there is no way to answer them, so debaters may prevent these kinds of abusive strategies by putting forward prestandards.On the surface, debate rules seem like they can be tweaked to overcome any "broken" strategy. However, the rules themselves must not defeat the argumentative purpose of debate. A rule is invalid when...1) Competitors have no way of knowing in advance if they would violate the rule2) Rule violations cannot be methodologically identified, argued, or appealed3) The rule categorically prohibits a class of arguments (particularly valid ones)So my basic argument is that there is at least one strategy/phenomena that breaks debate, and cannot be blocked because there is no way to formulate a valid rule against it.