Debate has not been some private school grandstand it's at the centre of much of the hard science discourse and rather than the plaything of philosophy such as dialectics.
Amd what about compromising your believes and position means you will attain greater truth. You are naturally assuming that ever side of a debate has merit and i don't see how you could make that assumption.
If I go to argue against someone that the earth is indeed not flat i don't think I'd be inclined to compromise that position.
The problem with that view is that the number of positions with a clear answer like "is the earth flat" is basically zero in comparison to the nunber of positions where your views are either significantly or predominantly incorrect but you just don't know it.
Therefore when you operationalize this type of thinking, you end up holding many more foolish beliefs that you are very certain of than whatever time/purity you save by "not compromising". Thus it's an unhealthy attitude to maintain.
And a good example of why this is true is the cartoonish style examples that have to be resurrected -- like the earth being flat -- in order to provide a single meaningful example. The moment you get into any issue of real import, things become real murky real fast, and it's not hard at all for anyone to find someone much wiser and smarter than them on the other side of the issue.
The cartoon examples are exactly what are being brought by the counter argument the fact that i may take a position and defend it does not automatically mean that we can't get along and even work together. We can continue to hold positions without becoming inextricably partisan in a wider sense.
Also because I defend a position does not mean that I would do so ad infinitum, I can relinquish my position if your counter argument is stronger.
Obviously if we can't actually act like adults then none of these approaches will work, we'll either become violent or in the counter approach so compromised that are collective position may reflect absolute nonsense.