I like this, but beware the converse. Debates should not be competitive games. The goal is not to steer a path through the game tree that causes your opponent to seem a fool, but to resolve disagreement by the discussion of the actual reasons you have for your position.

Edit:

After I started reading the linked source, I find my position really contrasts with Sirlin's:

Expert debate involves gaining an understanding of the opponent and what he will say, and knowing immediately what you will say back. It involves deception and boldness, risk-taking and conservatism.