Debate has always been a horrible means of discovering truth, though.
Debate is, fundamentally, a contest of rhetoric. Having logic and the facts on your side provides, at best, a tactical advantage.
There’s nothing innately wrong with rhetoric, but it isn’t a truth-seeking skill. It’s a tool of persuasion and influence.
Science is not based on debate; it’s based upon evidence, experimentation and consensus. We don’t resolve disputes by putting the two top scientists on stage to argue for an hour [1].
Not everything is science, obviously. But debate does not become a more effective truth-seeking tool just because the focus is a non-scientific topic.
[1] We do that for education and entertainment, but not for discovery or proof.
