This gets into something that I think derails a lot of debate when dealing with people of faith. Most people, including religious people, try to argue as if bot

This gets into something that I think derails a lot of debate when dealing with people of faith. Most people, including religious people, try to argue as if both sides of the argument are starting with the same assumptions, when they're really not. If they accept the same premises for a specific argument, then sure, they can have a meaningful debate about it, but if they don't, and they very frequently don't when it comes to debates involving people of different faiths (including atheism for the sake of semantic convenience), then the debate will just be a shouting match. This idea is often referred to as presuppositionalism, that people have fundamentally different, and frequently irreconcilable, ways of looking at the world, and any argument where the arguers have different presuppositions is therefore futile. This is relevant, because it seems that the system you propose would make presuppositions very explicit, which would help people with different presuppositions to realize why they are disagreeing instead of just yelling at each other till they go hoarse. It sounds like a very cool system, and I'd love to see it in action.