What's wrong with organized debates?

They were called sophists,  They are first mentioned in Athens around 600 BC.  Just as the Greeks had taken mathematics from the everyday practice of figuring out how to determine the area of a farmer's field by abstracting it into points and lines and developing theorems, they took argument and analyzed it, and discovered rules for arguments that held true no matter what the argument was for or against. 

Aristotle and many of his ilk didn't like them.  At first you would wonder why not.  Didn't the philosophers use argument to make their points?  Didn't the philosopher who had a better argument win the populace over a philosopher whose argument was not so good?  I suspect it was the neutrality of the art of argument that disturbed them, much as it did Beagles 2500 years later in the halls of Gage Park High.  There is an element of underhandedness in it.  If your cause is right and the valor of your army unquestioned, will you still not lose the battle against the army that has invented a better sword or bow and arrow, even if their cause is unjust and their soldiers less then valorous?  If you have a dispute with your neighbor isn't the guy who can afford to hire a better lawyer going to win the case no matter what the merits of the case?

It is more complicated then that of course but I think the sophists were the forefathers of the modern day lawyer.  They arise just as Athens was adopting its limited democracy.  Before that there were tyrants and their was no point in arguing your case because whatever the tyrant said goes. 

You know I am a big fan of Objective Reality and seemingly in an organized argument the weight of the facts would determine the truth, but as you examine the art of argument you can devise strategies that, while not breaking the rules, are a bit underhanded.  When you hire a lawyer you are not interested so much in how scrupulous he is, as you are in whether or not he is going to win the case for you by hook or by crook.

I think there is value in debating for a cause you don't necessarily believe in.  You have to investigate why people believe in the cause you are arguing against and there is something you can learn there.  When making your arguments you have to be aware of what the other guy is likely to say against it, and if in analysis of that you discover that your argument is weak then you will have to abandon it.  This is all for the good.