Yes, all those would examples of how people might evaluate a winner.
Another form is to say that the one who originally held the belief declared to be correct is the winner.
An example: a capitalist and a socialist debate which is the better system and capitalism is declared to be the better system so the capitalist is declared to the winner of the debate. Let’s say there was an audience and the people in the audience don’t agree about who was more convincing. In the minds of the ones who found socialism more convincing, the socialist won, and vice verse with the capitalist.
People recognize from experience that it’s pretty much impossible to agree so they give up on this way of deciding a winner. Instead they will rather do things like count points, despite the points not necessarily adding up to single conclusion about the truth status about the ideas. You can get points for being more eloquent, for using better rhetoric, for making more points, etc., and you lose points for being clumsy and awkward, for initially being wrong on some point (despite you revising position and thus improving it, which would be good thing in cooperative debates), or for offending the judges, etc. All that means that the debate has become more concerned with the skill of the debaters rather than the truth of the ideas. And so that kind of debate turns into a sport rather than a truth-seeking activity.
People will sometimes recognize that they treat debate as a sport rather than a truth-seeking activity, but at other times they’ll muddle the two conceptions of debate together. One reason is that they want the prestige of being viewed as the pursuer of the noble goal of truth-seeking.
There is a lot of that. If you win the debate you’ll likely be viewed as more intelligent than the other debate participant. People don’t like being proved wrong and don’t like admitting it. Sometimes they change opinions so much they have to admit, and then they might try to turn it into social points by pandering to the tribe belonging to their new positions by socially attacking their old tribe and explaining how they were confused and wrong.