Assuming everyone played ball it would create a better society. As it stands in spite of the prevalence of self described free and critical thinkers they don't appreciate having their beliefs (chosen deliberately) challenged.

The second trouble group are more interactive, but hold similar ideas. They will engage readily. I think there is a Cliff's Notes on obfuscation of debates and suggestion techniques. The problem is that the people who try to engage in this behavior pitiful.

Effective manipulation demands social skills and some degree of empathy to read others to convince them. "Master debaters" have neither.

Formal debate doesn't end in consensus. Informal debate can, but more often the interaction provides understanding. You learn about the person as well as the ideas they hold. Open discourse broadens and energizes minds. We are all better for exchanging information and learning from one another. In a better world this is,who we would be. It isn't our way and it serves the society we have not to be like this.