That document is incredibly ironic, if you know anything about actual debate. The common move of the experienced debater is to re-define terms to confuse the is

That document is incredibly ironic, if you know anything about actual debate. The common move of the experienced debater is to re-define terms to confuse the issue, then boldly advance a claim based on those bizarro-world definitions. That's exactly what is happening here...but, hilariously, being used to disparage debate. Someone defines "debate" to mean a bunch of things that aren't actually true, then proceeds to make a document where the tenet is that there's something "better" than debate. > Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it This isn't true at all. It's a socratic game to gain a better understanding of the truth. > Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs. Any good debater can take either side of an issue with equal facility. > Debate defends one’s own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions. Not a requirement of a debate. A good debater, in fact, often expands the playing field to win the debate. > Debate defends assumptions as truth No, and in fact, if you do this in a debate and are caught, you lose the debate.