With that said, I never debate; I discuss. And while this might seem contradictory, I honestly hold the two to be two entirely separate actions.
A debate has the inherent environment of conflict. One person takes one view, and the other view is taken by their opponent, the goal being to lay out arguments and rebut the other's so that your taken stance prevails over theirs. There are many instances where such doing can be intellectually stimulating, and to an extent I respect the people maintain that atmosphere. But then again I feel that such a situation is not truly a debate, for the intent to win is gone. And in the exchange of ideas, does 'winning' holds any meaning, aside from "I can argue better than you"?
A discussion, on the other hand, cares nothing for a winner or loser, only that all parties come to a mutual understanding. In these, the participants are interested only in finding the truth of a certain matter, regardless of whether their viewpoints are in conflict. It is a working together of minds, rather than a working against. If a person tells me I am wrong, I invite them to tell me how, so I can gauge my own methods, beliefs, and knowledge on the matter. If I am indeed wrong, then I concede and ask them to elucidate. If I notice that their proof of my mistake is itself in error, then I may appear to defend myself. In either case, something useful is accomplished, and one of us walks away changed while the other is strengthened.
Is there truly anything accomplished from defeating the person with the opposing viewpoint? Have they learned that they are, in fact, off-base? or merely that they must learn to support more fully? Have you learned that you are right, or that you are adept at finding flaws, creating flaws, or confusing your opponent?
I would contend that, exchange of ideas notwithstanding, the exercise in question is a waste of time.
