77 day later followup:
One of my debate captains was talking about a round she had where her opponent carded (took evidence from) Kurzweil. She was pushing a progressive (non-traditional) argument that since eventually humans won't be able feel a true sense of accomplishment/loss/morality, there is no right or wrong. I thought it was really interesting. You see all kinds of people pop up as evidence for debate cases.. Noam Chomsky, Stalin, and a whole plethora of nameless individuals. It really is an intellectual's sport.. If you can get past the fact that it's glorified confirmation bias. At least you're forced to use confirmation bias on both sides, so I guess that balances it out and makes it 'open-minded'. Oh, and if you can get past how scarily competitive it is. I swear, none of the integrity of socratic/forensic debate is left because it's all about the scholarships or trophies. I guess that happens with any school sport though..