You’re right, but in common public discourse, there’s no real difference between the two. Debating is about persuasion - a view can be objectively wrong but still be considered stronger than a factually true one if it’s delivered in an attractive and relatively believable way. This is why right-wing views are popular.

Debates are almost never about changing the other person’s mind; they’re about reinforcing your own beliefs. The participants rarely change their minds, but the witnesses - readers, viewers, listeners, etc. - can be influenced. To admit that you’re wrong would be to admit that your view is the weaker one. This is why “debates” about issues such as human rights are pointless and only serve to platform and promote oppressors and abusers.

I have family members who were born in the 1920s and 1930s and are still alive today, which probably has a significant influence on my perspective on time.

I’m determined to make it to the year 2100 / 22nd century. I’d be 97-98 in 2100-2101.