Proposed Rules for Debates

I've noticed that several of the debates in the science section between different sides is either ruined or derailed due to bad discussion practices such as using various logical fallacies (most recently the debate about the radiometric dating and the use of the shotgun fallacy [Shooting off so many arguments and points in a discussion that the opposition cannot possibly respond to them all or many of them in a reasonable amount of time and if they did their post would take up 3-4 pages]).I propose we start a thread to discuss a set of universal rules that posters can voluntarily put themselves under when starting a debate thread.

I don't understand, why was it moved?

The thread was "Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD"Where one side would post 5+ posts, some quite long, to the other sides 2-3 posts. The 2-3 poster had to bow out because they couldn't keep up, not because the other posters somehow proved them wrong with facts.In the Ham and Nye debate both sides did it. Which is why timed verbal debates don't accomplish anything. In fact during that debate I think each side only addressed points made by the other a few times. The rest of the time they were talking past each other. Hopefully in a forum environment we can debate in a manner that actually shines light on subjects and at some point come to a consensus.My goal here is to set up a set of rules that all parties in a debate here agree to and pick a neutral 3rd party to judge when one of the debaters is violating it. So that the debates don't break down with one person outshouting the other.