I always found this interesting because I grew up in a rural area and the debate judges were frequently not familiar with the metagame of debate, or could be aw

I always found this interesting because I grew up in a rural area and the debate judges were frequently not familiar with the metagame of debate, or could be aware but were downright hostile to it. Among my friends it became its own metagame: who could get away with the most egregious perversions of the form (including intentionally sneaking in logical fallacies into our arguments) in order to win in an atmosphere where point-keeping was highly contingent on the judge’s preconceived beliefs. While there was no substitute for a very strong positive or negative case, there were little rhetorical levers you can pull: calling the opponent a smooth-talking shuck-and-jiver in a political debate or appealing to your own family history that could win big with the right audience if you could guess correctly on what type of person they were.