Between my Freshman and Senior Year at George Mason University, I ceased to believe in Debate. Capital-D Debate, as I saw it, was a sacrament of liberal society. The associated doctrine was that the free expression of ideas, even outlandish ideas, could be permitted on the condition that they would subject themselves to public examination by means of Debate. Their champion would meet with an opposing viewpoint, and in the contest, the superior idea would prevail, in the public eye, to the benefit of all. Looking back on it now, I feel this notion to be a combination of social darwinism and the old trial-by-combat principle as applied to philosophy, and it is telling that neither is admitted today as sane pieces of jurisprudence. I was mostly led to this belief through having undergone the exercise in futility that was University Team Policy Debate, which subjected me to the best researched and least intelligent conversations I had in my life. Periodicals were...