Asklemmy

I'm not saying it can't be done, but getting a compromise from a debate is not a primary goal. For competitions, the goal is usually to demonstrate and practice debate skills and the topic and positions matter less. For more serious debates, it is meant to be a way to expose people to the strengths of your position's arguments and expose the weaknesses of your opponent's. It's valuable as an opportunity to persuade an audience of people who haven't been firmly entrenched in either position, or who may have only been exposed to one side's arguments in earnest.

The framework does presume both viewpoints are valid, since both sides are expected to believe in their position, be rational, and be reasonably well-informed. An invalid perspective would not be argued by someone meeting these criteria. It does not presume equality as that would be preemptively judging the quality of the argument. Either the debate platform or the other debater would presumably not agree to a debate with someone who cannot be expected to meet these criteria.

I never said anything like compromise. I prefer neutrality (as far as one can get it, but it is way easier in Europe). Why do you all think that anything that is not explicitly left biased is already compromised?

There are f-ups on both sides of the spectrum. This does not say both sides are equal - on the contrary, there is a shitload more f-up on the right side. But general whitewashing the left is also not OK.