Evidence that demands a verdict

[BIAD]

If I may, one of the main problems in discussions like these is the fairly-new rules of debating being taught.

In academic circles, a theory is just that, not a 'my' theory. If an idea to explain something is offered, it's done
with the impassive evidence that a theory is viable only until equally suitable evidence can counter the proposed
theory.
If the idea is sensibly negated, the outcome reflects nothing negative onto the proponent. Science doesn't deal
in an emotive environment.

Lately, I have read where University students are encouraged to bring less-disciplined styles to a debate with the
sole goal of winning that debate. Using emotional and polemic nuance in word-play, a discussion can break down
due the objective of overcoming a 'opponent'

Debates are about discussing agreed facts, not winning an argument.

If it helps, I made the universe... it was a Thursday and I was all out of duct tape.