I've seen successful debaters who read complex K's, but have no deep understanding of the K nor read the works of whichever author they're reading from. They've only had success by being skilled at defending against generic arguments (cede the political, perm, ETC). Thus, I have two questions:
1. Does one really need to have read and understood the work of K author to be skilled at running the K?
2. In your past experience running reasonably complex K's (D&G, Psychoanalysis-Lacan, ETC), do you think you spent more of your time answering the generic/shallow arguments or actually going into an actual discussion on the K itself?