It's been said above that it's hard to tell who wins these debates.

I see two big problems with that, namely the misuse of the terms
"debate" and "win". My opinion. YMMV

There are several two modes of interchange that are referred to as "debates".
    There are formal debates, such as colleges, universities, and other institutions of learning indulge in, which are organized as a sort of intellectual sport. There are judges who apply formalized rules and standards and award points, the highest point total resulting in a "win". There is an attempt made to apply objective (there's that word again!) standards.
    Then there are the so called "debates" carried on as part of election campaigns. There are either no standards or very vague standards for these, but at least generally speaking there tends to be an effort to avoid personality conflicts and name-calling. There are no judges, at least formalized judges at the time of the rhetorical exchange, whose rulings are seen as binding or authoritative. There are always lots of volunteers (including radio and television people) who will criticize, and deliver fuzzy comments like, "I think Mr. XYZ won the debate," or "I think XYZ was vague" or the like. No mechanism for scoring the rhetorical exchange.
    Then there are the "debates" that go on in the legislative process, which are even more unregulated. In some circumstances there may be a vote on some legislation fairly promptly after the speeches, and that could be said to be a scoring mechanism, with winner(s) and loser(s), but usually the real persuasion of the "judges" who vote on legislation has been done off the floor and entirely separate from the speechifying, and based on criteria unrelated to the subject matter of the "debate".
    And then we have the fights, the insulting rejoinders, the repetitious assertions of opinions, often opinions masquerading as facts, the name calling--the blackguarding and raucous quarrels that we so often find these days here on Mudcat, I'm glad to say in other threads than this one (so far at least).

    Truth be told, and logic too, the only one of those styles of
claim-spouting that really should be called by the name "debate" is the first one, the academic sport kind, and it is only in that endeavor that the concept of "winning" can truthfully be applied.

    We should at least try to distinguish between debates, discussions, arguments, quarrels, and slanging matches.

    I should live so long!

    Dave Oesterreich