Adversarial debates are not without their usefulness, such as in legal and political processes. It's true that they are generally suboptimal as far as deliberative truth-seeking goes, but sometimes we really do care about refuting incorrect positions and arguments ("killing soldiers") as clearly as possible.
I agree. I think it's really important to be able to support a point when you really do have one. That some people were able to win debates - which takes a lot of skill - was required for humanity to progress. How else would we have left behind our superstitions? The problem isn't trying to win the opponent over to the truth, the problem is trying to win the opponent over for other reasons. If a person was very good at debate, how would you make the distinction? Especially if everyone else is trying to win for the sake of ego? It's not easy to tell ...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, even in Discussion, it goes here.