Nah. We shouldn't have to encourage people to debate. They should just do it anyway.
I have a new similar idea anyway. It's kind of like a wrestling court type deal. A crime against wrestling sort of thing. You have one person doing the prosecution, the other doing the defence. They have ''evidence'' say for example 4 items they can refer to to back up their side of the story or whatever.
Jurors then decide if the topic is guilty or innocent.
It's just a rough idea. Same principle, but with a twist.
