Project Veritas: Seeking the Truth through Discourse

I had something of a strong brainfart yesterday while reading Al Franken's book. I kept reading about how people like Coulter, Hannity, and O'Reilly will exaggerate, embellish, and sometimes outright lie while discussion a political issue. This is a growing idea that I'm going to try to pitch to the university's poli-sci department, the student association, and the political groups. I might even be able to eventually form this into a good book or paper.

Anyway, here are the ingredients for what I hope to be a truthful debate:
1. Two to six(2-6) opinionated individuals across the political spectrum
2. One (1) bell
3. One (1) hat or similar container filled with several political issues and topics of debate
4. One (1) telephone, capable of making long distance phone calls
5. One (1) or more (computers with Internet access, and full access to Lexis-Nexis and similar databases
6. Assorted books, periodicals, tapes, and any other media useful. Ideally a library or archive.

Here are the rules:
A topic is pulled from the hat. A relatively random method (coin, rock-paper-scissors, whatever) is used to decide who goes first. A statement is made and the argument begins. Here's where it gets tricky.

There are no real rules about who says what when after the initial statement. As long as people are relatively polite, they can add to the conversation.

BUT...

Whenever a factual statement is made (the newspapers said, there are so and so many homeless, more people prefer whoever), any participant can ring the bell (DING!) and the debate is paused. Then the resources available are used to confirm this factual statement and put it into a context. Usually, if it's a simple statistic or reference, the fact is found and confirmed in a matter of minutes and everyone is equipped with that information. If it's a harder fact to confirm (something that would require calling an organization, and could take days for a response), the argument is recorded, tabled, and temporarily adjourned. And another argument is picked and the vicious cycle begins again.

This way no one can unfairly bluff of lie in an argument. Whenever a statement is made, it can immediately be contested, proven, contextualized, and everyone is made aware of it.

So..... think it's workable?

... yes.