Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention that a lot of these public 'debates' about topics unfairly give time and energy to perspectives which do not deserve them. For example, 99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and human-caused, but - oh! - we need to be fair and balanced so we'll give time to the other side that has tons of untested and unproven crackpot theories about maybe that's just what climates do and we just…
Thanks for these considerations. I think even if a debate doesn’t help arrive at an ultimate truth, it can still be beneficial as a substrate for revealing important questions that can then provide a deeper or more nuanced understanding of a given topic.
I understand that's the goal, but the end result is that a charismatic debater that engages in emotional rhetoric that can appeal to the audience will "win" over a well-researched academic more often than not.
The outcome is often... less than desirable.