You've made excellent points.
Imagine if the CIVIL DEBATE ranking was a combination of two scores, OUTbound points and INbound points.
A CIVIL DEBATE ranking of 11/22 would indicate that individual has given out 11 points to others and has received 22 points for themselves.
When looking for a debate partner, if you noticed their CIVIL DEBATE ranking was 6/232, you would imagine they're probably an unfair (closed minded) opponent.
You'd naturally look for someone with ranking more like 44/64 which would indicate a much more charitable individual.
Each individual CIVIL DEBATE "win" would not boost your ranking in-and-of-itself. A "high win-ratio" would mean nothing.
I'd even propose giving people the option to preemptively disqualify opponents with less than 10% (or 20%, or 30%) outbound points relative to their inbound points.
In the same way that DebateArt currently lets people preemptively disqualify opponents with a low (or high) ELO score or with fewer than X number of debates total.
This ranking system would promote cooperation and real intellectual exploration. And the split scoring would make it easy to choose the type of opponent you'd like to challenge.
No noob sniping. No dirty tricks. No semantic shenanigans. Just reasonable people presenting their best arguments for honest scrutiny.