I like the analogy but I think there is an important difference: the issue settled in a boxing or MMA match starts and ends in the ring, but the issues covered

I like the analogy but I think there is an important difference: the issue settled in a boxing or MMA match starts and ends in the ring, but the issues covered in debate are social policies that depend on external truths and impact participants. TFA gets into this in its last section about debate's impact on politics. Is it great to train a class of leaders based on competitive technique and effectiveness rather than external reality or support?