I mean, can someone really call themselves a “devil’s advocate” if they’re really just arguing for their own position that just happens to be unpopular with the people around them? My understanding was that the term was supposed to mean something more like arguing for a position that one disagrees with, to ensure that the arguments against that position hold up and strengthen them.

Debate is a pointless waste of time.

The competitive form (like debate club) is gish gallop turned up to 11; painful to listen to.

The political form, as in organized debate or “panel” programs is a time-share platform for distributing talking points.

The internet debate is a venue for pendents and logocentrics to play semantics, moderated and scored by partizans.

The good-faith platonic ideal kind of debate doesn’t exist. If people who disagreed could be honest and listen to each other, that’s called conversation. Debate is adversarial like a game, because it is one.