I've observed at least three debates stalled in challenging phase [two of them of my instigation], and one completed debate accused post-argument phase of being proposals of "truism," as if truisms cannot be debated because they amount to a proposal that happens to be perceived as true. I have two arguments refuting the accusation:
1. What debate standard defined by DART says truisms are not valid subjects of debate? The accusation is hurled that a Pro position in a truism debate is an automatic win for Pro. For example: I might propose a debate that the Sun rises in the east. Cowards who do not have sufficient perception to argue the point, even though generally perceived as true. Some will, and have, argued that the proposal is so obviously true, it is not worthy of debate because it is an automatic win for Pro. Nonsense! Perception is the whole point of the debate. I can think of at least three Con arguments, right now, to argue against the proposition. Will I tell you? No. Think for yourselves.
2. How many debates would be wiped off the DART if all the debates in one of several types of current status [challenge, argument, voting or finished] had proposals fitting the "truism" claim? Half? More? Hint: the charge of truism does not prevent debate on the subject for anyone who can conceive of arguments against it. The fact is, any truth can be argued. We are not compelled to believe our own arguments; we just need to make convincing arguments. The success of same depends on the validity and strength of the argument and the citation of supporting sources that contradict the proposal. However, debate does not consist of 100 percent sourcing. We are expected to think for ourselves. Why can't we be an original source provider? It behooves providing our own logic for our original thoughts, but what's wrong with that? It just needs to be convincing, yeah?
I am not restricting this forum topic to net zero, by the way. It is merely an example of my argument against "truisms" as unassailable arguments.