I debated in the Lincoln-Douglas format (policy wasn't big in my area) and would sometimes try arguments from deconstructionist points of view. The judges neve

I debated in the Lincoln-Douglas format (policy wasn't big in my area) and would sometimes try arguments from deconstructionist points of view. The judges never really understood them and without their understanding, the arguments couldn't remain strong. In L-D having better analogies often was a stronger method than being clever. I suppose that's something that was different in policy debate, where as I understand it, nonsense can be debated so long as the other side responds to it? Also, which approach leads to nuclear war? Calling the frame of the debate legitimate or illegitimate?