Afterthoughts on debate

I study philosophy, and people always thought it goes well with debating (in Chinese, for your information).

Well, it doesn't, as the audience, ie. judges, are not all receptive to what that violates common sense.

To most people, what that appeals to common sense is what they call "logical." However, philsophers always call into question our common sense believes. Commen sense morals are the most easily spotted believes. For example, one would say it is "logical," or it is common sense that "killing is wrong." Why is it wrong to kill? Most judges would say it's immoral, but of course, it is just an example of common sense morality and does not answer any questions.

To convey to the judges things that violate common sense most likely guarantees your losing the debate. Thus the contents we wish to be included to our debate is determined by the judges as well.

We can't, for example, put in an argument for idealism, ie. only ideas exist and material objects don't. Or make a stand on ethical egoism, that is moral standards are really solely dependent on our liking. Judges are most likely to say that it doesn't make sense.

Then what follows is the most difficult to answer in philosophy: Is it that the proposition is so weird that it can't be true, or is it a surprising fact?