Productive scientific debating is usually done in writing, or over long periods of time, not in entertainment-driven TV shows. It's unfortunate both are called "debating" but mean something very different.

It's fine if done in good faith. Debating somebody like Kennedy is a losing proposition. He will bury you with a ton of nonsense that "feels right". Refuting every point takes way more time than you have in a debate.

Sure - but do they engage in scientific debates with non-experts? There just isn't any value with that. Imagine someone like Paul Graham "Debating" RFK on whether Wifi causes "the blood brain barrier to open and allow toxins in" -- the level of misunderstanding you'd have to correct and education you would have to provide just to get them to a point to understand how WiFi works and how non-ionizing radiation propagates is just massive. The base of their understanding is the essence of "Not even wrong".

Being on Joe Rogan's show has nothing to do with a scientific debate. The host and the platform prevent meaningful and deep communication. That requires writing a book or at least a paper.

An online "debate" on youtube is just a ton of shocking oversimplification, if not dishonest misleading stuff.