In-person "debate" is probably a really bad vehicle for truth-finding to begin with. Surely if disagreement emerges about something: it makes sense to "debate"

In-person "debate" is probably a really bad vehicle for truth-finding to begin with. Surely if disagreement emerges about something: it makes sense to "debate" in some sense of the word. But only insofar as that's indistinguishable from "trying to reach a mutual conclusion." The other use of that word — what we see in televised debates or these little Kirklike pop up stands — is where both sides are predisposed/rooted in some opinion and are instead vying over an audience (real or imagined). It's a social exercise masquerading as an intellectual one. Which, to be fair, is maybe an exercise worth engaging for a prospective president, but that nuance is lost in how we treat them.