Showmanship vs. Facts = Debate vs. Courtroom
Just wondering, and have lots of questions for any of those who may have an ear closer to "academia" and the like:
Isn't a "debate" supposed to be an academic confrontation between two parties in order to see which side is better? Or do I simply have a misunderstanding of the basic principle of "an academic debate?"
Is it generally understood that a debate is more about showmanship than facts? That is, is it generally understood that "winning a debate" doesn't really mean much with regards to academically (factually) supporting an idea?
Is there an academic confrontation-arena that is more concerned with facts rather than showmanship... like a courtroom... where it doesn't matter how frilly your presentation is and it only matters what facts you actually have to support your ideas?
Has it always been like this? Or has "academic debate" been... corrupted over the years?
If academic debate
really is supposed to be about factual support for one's idea... what are the general mechanisms in place in order to control such a thing? Why did these always fail during Evo-Creo debates, but always work during Evo-Creo court cases? What is the fundamental difference that needs to be corrected in order to have the results of "an academic debate" actually have meaning in a factual sense?