Basically I approach debate from an offense/defense framework - that applies to everything. I used to call out specific types of arguments and gave details, but on reflection it's all debatable through this lens, seemingly.

In order to evaluate offense/defense I'm pretty quantitative, and use what is a positivist approach - empiricism is a thing, and there are criteria as to quality of evidence and claims.

If there is a clash of cultures, where systemic approaches to debate as a thing are called into question, there seems to be a need to step out of the clash to give criteria for resolving mutually exclusive cultural norms to the activity. It seems simply existing within one of those cultures isn't enough, since it doesn't inform how a decision can be made.

If you do have a specific question, ask.