If the resolution is about reducing worldwide pollution, and I put forth a counterplan that essentially says "No way. We should take all that funding you want to use for your plan and use it to support animal welfare instead," is that not "derail[ing] the agreed proposition" in your terms? Yet, again, this is a classical and accepted tactic.
I haven't participated in this kind of program, but it seems extremely bad faith to basically expect the opponent to argue that their position is necessary condition to something nothing short of absolute utopia.
As a college admissions officer or employer, if this is what the endeavor had degenerated to, I would place no stock in it as a skill builder or source of any reputable credential.
In what way? Like it or not, we exist in a world of finite resources. It's wholly appropriate to argue that "No, we should not use our limited resources on X when there is the problem Y out there that we could apply them to instead, and derive a much larger comparative advantage from." These are the types of questions faced in the real world by decision makers every day. If anything, your position is the utopian one.
So, you can't counterargue a lay perception? That speaks for itself.
Better yet: "this is atypical in-group power play: the misuse of authority in the absence of substance is de facto perpetuation of the institutional dysfunction laid clear by outsiders."
