Here's where it's a dead end: > “Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist... I cannot check the revolutionary prole

Here's where it's a dead end: > “Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist... I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when I’m judging... I will no longer evaluate and thus never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments... Examples of arguments of this nature are as follows: fascism good, capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism, Zionism or normalizing Israel, colonialism good, US white fascist policing good, etc.” If there's no way to defend against an argument because it's Objectively Correct in the eyes of the judges, that isn't debate, it's a lecture with extra steps. It's like being able to on stage and win by screaming "SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!" and nobody being able to counter it. If this is a competition, it should outlaw winning moves that can't be countered.