Oh, good. I was not under the impression this was one. Must has something to do with someone using concept of opinion as an intelectual immunity clause. Or introducing quasi - scientific requirements for "truth" into field where many truths are already established and usually only require reiteration. As shown above, in a "novel". I guess your definition of a novel is as flexible as your definition of an opinion or a debate.
In the absence of proof, one way or the other, your opinion is as good as anyone else’s. These particular opinions could be right and they could be wrong. You certainly have the right to have them.
As to the debate question you raise. Here is my thinking on that issue.
The most commonly used form of debating is where a person takes one side of an argument and presents only those things that are relevant to their position. It is a useful exercise in personal expansion if the debater takes the opposite side from where his inclinations reside.
It is a practice best left to high school debating teams and of course those most honest of truth tellers; the politicians.
It is akin to the Alan Watts term: ignore-ance. That state in which a person emphasizes those facts and ideas that support his position, and ignores all other factors.
Hardly a vehicle to truth. If I wish to find truth, then I have to employ quite a different process.