Debates are meant to be won, not to reach truth

Now let"s examine the questions used to evaluate who won in a debate at debate.org: Who did you agree with before the debate? Who did you agree with after the debate? Who had better conduct? Who had better spelling and grammar? Who made more convicing arguments? Who used the most reliable sources? As you can see, the questions are not aimed towards truth, just like these questions would: Who used a reasonable amount of valid, testable and scientifically provable arguments? In case of a tie, how do you think both opposite ideas can join? (Optional) Did any of them miss an important point? If you chose "yes", What point(s)? And now I will try to make a point, putting the previous official questions to the test to see if they can really help us find truth. **Notice I"m making the point from now on: 1.- Who did you agree with before the debate? Myself, thank you. 2.- Who did you agree with after the debate? Myself, thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3.-Who had the better conduct? Myself, thank you (this way I"m having a bad conduct since I"m not being politically correct, so I"m going against this question.) Let"s put it to a further test: Con is stupid, he has a stupid name, and I don"t like his cat, I like cookies, my name is Ralph. I"m being irrational at the moment and this should disprove anything I say (Lalalalalala *singing*). For more information, check this video from youtube: http://youtu.be... **As you can see, I"m not having a good conduct, yet that doesn"t disprove any of my previous arguments, it just makes me look violent and/or irrational. Of course this doesn"t lead to any truth (Mmm... Or is it?), but I could still be annoying even if I"m saying something that is true. Yet in this case, I"m using rudeness to prove that it can be used to make a point. 4.- Who had better spelling and grammar? Meself, duh xd lol, omg how dis affect truth? Sry I dunno hw write god. In this case, I"m making a point with bad grammar. 5.- Who made the most convicing arguments? In my debate "Fallacies are not valid arguments" I prove that the main goal of fallacy is to be convincing. I talk a little bit about cognitive dissonance and also cognitive biases. http://www.debate.org... Arguments can be convincing, yet that doesn"t necessarily make it true. Example: "I ate some pizza that has been in my fridge for ages then I got sick" You may find this an interesting argument to say "Hey, pizza that has been in your fridge for ages is bad" but correlation does not mean causation, even if it is the most probable cause. You could have gotten sick for some other reason, perhaps you are really allergic to the peanuts you ate just before, after all. 6.- Who used the most reliable sources? You can actually use reliable sources and still deform the correct information in them to make fallacies, especially informal fallacies like amphibology. I propose pushing the boundaries of debate, if our wish is to find truth or just use it as a sport, because: 1.- If we want to find truth, we are not going to find it by debating, not in this way 2.- If we just want to debate as a sport, then why aren't we creative, instead of sticking to the classic rules and structure? In fact, to prove my point, I propose you to break the rules of debates, try to defend a different point, any of them in the middle between yes and no, or just anoher point about anything else, i'm giving you the right of free speech, the one you were asking me about previously. The only way to find truth is to escape from the debate, to go against it"s very boundaries would be to break free, for real.