IMHO the traditions of debate are more analogous to boxing than say, philosophy - a competitive endeavour, emphasising technique and effectiveness rather than a truth-seeking activity per se.

I think this is a legimate point of view despite the underlying hint of nihilism.

Some traditions emphasise restrictions on the kinds of tactics you're allowed to use (e.g. pure demagogy or deliberate use of convincing fallacies are frowned upon) and I can't help but think of these as like queensberry rules vs mma...