It would be very useful if "debaters" like 'Majesty', who come here with overboarding ego - bragging and blathering - would be required to explicitly state what kind of argument they would accept as refutation to their position in their opening statement. Alas, this would probably a good requirement for all debaters. Anyone convinced of the soundness of the own arguments should be able to name the arguments that would undermine the foundation of this confidence, at least hypothetically.
Example: If i was to take part in a debate on the topic "Human amputees can spontaneously regenerate limbs" and take the counter position (i.e. "Human amputees can't spontaneously regenerate limbs") i would be able to tell in advance that i would accept any medical report of a spontaneous limb generation in humans, that holds names and places and overall information for me to independently verify, as refutation of my position.
It would probably be hard for the other side to tell me what they would accept as refuting argument to their position, but it is not impossible.
If they discuss their position at a concrete example of spontaneous limb generation they know of, the adequate refutation would be independently verifiable information that shows that example to be fake.
If they argue from a more general position, e.g. that other human tissue is able to spontaneously regenerate, therefore it should in principle be possible for whole limbs to regenerate under the same conditions, an appropriate refutation would probably be a scientific analysis of the differences between regenerating tissues and limbs with an emphasis on the limitations of regenerative power.
If the other side just argues from personal conviction, removed from all outside evidence, based on the imaginativeness of the own mind, an adequate refutation is not available, because the personal conviction is not based on objective analysis.
In that last case, a debate would be futile. Even if a debate is seen as beneficial for the audience rather than the debaters, imo. Nothing good or useful will come from it.
Of course it all gets much complexer for more abstract debate topics, but i am of the opinion, that any debater should be aware of what theoretical arguments would be fatal to the own position, regardless of the debate topic. If one only thinks he or she "is right, just because..." they are not suited for a formal debate.
