Consider some different senses of ‘debate’ and its purpose. Suppose on one hand that the debate is an event in, say, a forensics tournament. It is likely that the goal of participating is to win regardless of the truth of the matter under dispute. In such a case, the participants are probably more interested in being perceived by the judges and/or the audience as being right or as having better arguments than they are in the truth of the issue at hand since the perception of being right, etc., is more likely to secure victory.
Suppose, on another hand, that the goal of the debate is apologetic, i.e., to defend the position of some group G but not to get at the truth of the matter. In this case, folks in G might want someone defending G’s position who can present the best argument for that position and yet might not care much about what the truth is.
On a third hand (figuratively!), if the goal of the debate is Socratic, i.e., following the evidence wherever it leads for the sake of finding the truth, such that acquiring the truth is more important than winning, being perceived as right, or defending a position, then it seems that any interests the participants might have in being perceived as right, winning, defending, etc. are less important to them than finding the truth of the matter.
https://longleaf.net/wp/cartoons/cartoons-philosophy/