What are we judging?
The debate is what we are judging.
I've got basic structure for a debate, along with grading rubric for the judge along with judging criteria to help guide what is being looked for. I would suggest 3 judges, one confirmed RE, one confirmed FE, and one as neutral as possible. Scores can be averaged among what the three give, though each should be attempting to be as impartial as possible. I would suggest in addition the thread should be highly moderated with the notice on the front that anyone posting other than Tom/3D will have the post deleted and warned they will receive a ban of length so they will not return before the period for debate is over if found posting a second time. Debate period to be 1, maybe 2 weeks depending on if we want a set number of 'rounds' or just let them go for a while and declare time for closing statements the day or so before the final day.
And what about the debate is being judged?
The idea was for it to be a formal debate. Rules, scoring, judges. An informal debate will never work here, because neither side is likely to change their view on things. But a formal debate isn't about changing the mind of the other side, it's about cohesively presenting your point and your side, while countering the points of the other side and showing why they are incorrect. The format is Side A presents a starting argument, usually laying out the points they will be discussing. Side B follows suit. Side A presents first arguments citing sources and information. Side B does the same. Side A then has a chance to rebut side B's points, and provide counter examples that either throw doubt upon Side B's points, or disprove evidence presented in some manner. Side B then does the same. This can be done more than once, but in a 'standard' debate structure it is just done this one time. Side A then presents closing arguments, wrapping up the arguments they presented before, showing how everything ties together, etc. This is usually more about their arguments, than refuting their opponent, but some of the latter can be done. Side B then does the same thing. Each section of the debate is scored based on a rubric of some kind, potentially like the one I posted. The winner is the one who scored the most points, or had the highest average among the judges scores. Usually there's only a single judge for these kinds of things, but to attempt to reduce the effect of personal bias, I suggested we use three. One for each 'position' although a neutral judge is of course the most difficult to find. Obviously ideally each judge should be as impartial as possible and stick to the rubric, but personal biases will affect how one feels about the validity or strength of arguments. Hence the suggestion/request for more than one.