See, I loved debate for all the reasons you disliked it. It was a game and seemingly everyone knew that - it was never touted as an exercise in truth-seeking. The truth one discovers in debate is through their research, not in the round itself.
I don't think this necessarily points to any inherent flaw with the competition, either. The goal of a debate participant is not to discover the "truth," it is to defend the side of the debate you are assigned (and over the course of several rounds against multiple opponents, you will inevitably find yourself alternating between sides). It's similar to arguing in a courtroom: as a defense attorney, your goal is not to discover the "truth," but to get a "not guilty" verdict for your client, even if you believe (or know) them to be guilty.
When I was in debate (mid-90s) most research was on paper - you'd have a brief with cut out photo copies ("cards") with the words to read underlined. If you weren't at one of the big schools, you were at a disadvantage, as the debaters themselves weren't seeking any truth in their research; they had teams who just cut every card imaginable. The goal, as in spreading, was just to overwhelm your opponent. (More baffle them with bullshit than dazzle them with brilliance)
It made it cannoying for those of us who were actually trying to organize a club around debating issues.
And you do debate issues, just very very quickly and efficiently.