A competitive game, to me, is a debate. You argue your points with your opponent, and he argues his. “I think this series of moves is optimal,” you say, and he retorts, “Not when you take this into account.”
Debates in real life are highly subjective, but in games we can be absolutely sure who the winner is.
I like this, but beware the converse. Debates should not be competitive games. The goal is not to steer a path through the game tree that causes your opponent to seem a fool, but to resolve disagreement by the discussion of the actual reasons you have for your position.
Edit:
After I started reading the linked source, I find my position really contrasts with Sirlin’s:
Expert debate involves gaining an understanding of the opponent and what he will say, and knowing immediately what you will say back. It involves deception and boldness, risk-taking and conservatism.
-- David Sirlin, Playing to Win
I like this, but beware the converse. Debates should not be competitive games. The goal is not to steer a path through the game tree that causes your opponent to seem a fool, but to resolve disagreement by the discussion of the actual reasons you have for your position.
Edit:
After I started reading the linked source, I find my position really contrasts with Sirlin’s: