Right, but I think you're talking about the real world. I'm saying that in an debate competition, where the rules of the forum are such that the sides are assig

Right, but I think you're talking about the real world. I'm saying that in an debate competition, where the rules of the forum are such that the sides are assigned at random, impugning your opponent's reputation for arguing too well or too convincingly for the side they were assigned - while refusing to argue any side you don't agree with - demolishes the purpose of the debate. It's akin to "winning" a debate by showing up with a baseball bat and daring anyone to challenge your point of view. That is often called debate in a totalitarian system, but that's precisely why such systems are so brittle and inefficient at coping with and responding to policy challenges. My point is that such a "win" is not, in fact, a win, either in the rhetorical sense of changing anyone's mind, or the utilitarian sense of finding the best way forward on an issue, because everyone can see you merely bullied people into silence - hence there was no debate. Thus suppression of the opposing side under threat of censure or harm has no lasting power to override the speech you don't like, and usually backfires.