The CMD rules are simple and straightforward:

1) Define all terms:

The key to a good debate is comprehension between debaters. If they have no clue as to what they are arguing about, they will invariably end up arguing at cross purposes. Nothing of value will come of such an unfocused debate.
Thus, the crucial first step to a high level of understanding is to define all terms. If this is done, there is a good chance a debate will produce valuable insights, rather than just the ramblings of a drunken quarrel. Moreover, the act of defining all terms is beneficial even outside of debate. For it forces you to develop a mastery over an argument – to drop vague, fuzzy, inconsistent arguments in favor of clean, precise, rational argumentation. If any miscomprehension persists, it can be cleared up by being forced to…

2) Answer all questions:

After comprehension, the next key to good debating is a strict adherence to logic. Shoddy debates are notable for debaters weaseling out of questions, beating around the bush, and incomprehensible rants. CMD solves these problems by pinning down debaters and forcing them to answer every question. With nowhere to run or hide, sophists and their logical fallacies are exposed to the harsh light of truth and rooted out.

But the true philosopher (lover of wisdom) has nothing to fear from entering the CM format. Thanks to his Cagemaster mindset, he has no reason to hide. His burning passion for truth means he has no fear of being proven wrong. For in being proven wrong he has discovered yet another truth – another pearl of wisdom.

3) Standardized arguments (prose optional):

Standardizing an argument involves numbering the statements (premises and conclusion), writing them out in clear, simple language, and putting them in a logical order – premises (P) before conclusions (C). Standardized arguments are the most powerful tool in ensuring a high level of comprehension and sound logical inferences. The critical thinking textbooks say that standardizing is a useful exercise in clarifying arguments and making them easier to understand and analyze. Then why not just do this in the first place? By numbering the statements and writing them out clearly, we are cutting away all the fluff and disguises which are used as crutches by sophists. The argument is stripped to its essentials and is scrutinized as it truly is, standing alone and unsupported.

In this format, arguments can be analyzed very easily. Weaknesses are magnified and fallacies can be torn to shreds. Note that under Cage Match rules, writing out arguments in prose is optional; standardizing is mandatory. But standardizing is nothing new - if you can write an argument, you can standardize it. Since all arguments are composed of P and C, the task is simply to identify and number them. If you cannot do this, read Logic 101 and then come back. Standardizing is difficult when your argument is a vague, jumbled mess. But be diligent. The result is an argument focused like a laser beam!