Rules of Debate

 In fact the coherent rules of debate are already known, but it's not written down in one place anywhere. It's worth at least a partial effort. 

 It is very easy for both sides to claim they won a debate. As such, the debate needs a Pope or one of his duly deputized representatives. A winner must be explicitly declared via Law of Man. Perhaps call him a Judge, if you will. It is he who decides what the rules are, who has scored how many points, and finally determines what the answer is in light of the evidence. 

 Although it is easy for both sides to claim they won, and the Judge must have full authority, in fact there are a set of correct rules. The Judge is either good at following these rules, and will produce correct predictions, or poor, and will produce corruption. 

 The Judge must have so much authority that they can declare someone won the debate, and then side with the other guy anyway, in the case he is in fact correct. It's important, so I'll say it again: a good debate produces true predictions. A bad debate can be detected by its falsified predictions.  

 Of course the normal average debate is one in which both sides lose. Whether neither debater is producing accurate predictions, then the Judge should discredit both of them.

 

 The lists of fallacies are broadly correct. As correct as can be reasonably expected - only someone who holds themselves to absurd standards, like me, can do better. E.g. ad hominem is indeed a fallacy; 'trust me' is not an argument. If the worst person in the world claims that 2+2=4, it doesn't make it untrue. Anyone who is indeed trustworthy can verify their trustworthiness by producing the argument that they themselves used to glean their trustworthy conclusion.

 Debate opponents must exclusively use modus ponens and modus tollens. "If X, then Y." "X, therefore Y." Midwits hate these because they're too simple - even dimwits can do this. A good Judge challenges midwits to a debate and destroys any argument that it needs to be more sophisticated than modus ponens and modus tollens. Midwits ought to be ashamed of themselves, and will be shamed until they surrender. 

 The only standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. If it cannot be determined that X, or that X implies Y, then the argument is discarded. The correct answer is not A wins nor B wins, but [I don't know].

 A good Judge lists ahead of time what moves are considered bad-faith moves, and what threshold will result in forfeit of the debate. A good Judge can fine bad-faith debaters for attempting to pervert the debate process, and will hand out a lifetime ban, revoking their speech rights. The fines will be scaled by how much the bad faith was intended to benefit the traitor. For example, a lobbyist might see their entire industry confiscated. 

 Ideally these fines would be collected, saved, and used as bounties for anyone who exceeds expectations. Just as the Judge determines and advertises what counts as bad faith, the Judge lists criteria for success. What is the standard of evidence? Shall we use p < 0.05, or something stronger? (Also a meta-Judge keeps track of which debate courts are meeting their self-imposed standards.) Just as real life can score you lower than 0, hence fines, real life can score you higher than 100, and if the Judge can't reward the overachievers with cash, they will not join the debates. The quality will be capped, which is a runaway decay process. 

 Due to having a specific Judge, anyone who fails a debate can ask exactly what they did wrong. There's no gamesplaying with modus ponens and modus tollens, so the Judge can just tell them.