What methods can be used to host a good honest debate?

When two people debate politics or current events; I often think that a person who is acurate and very careful to get all their facts correct is at a *disadvantage with a fast talker who flies loosely with the facts and uses much rhetoric. As a result fast talkers who are loose-with-the-facts often wins debates and sway public opinion. What do you think? What methods can be used to host good honest debates?

The fact of keeping them honest is a big issue with me , if they don't know , then say so , don't pander to me .

The mediator should have important questions given him by both sides and someone should be checking to see that the facts are correct and tell the public what they are .

Give the Candidate a chance to argue the point if he or she believes their right .

I would like to see some hard questions and make them stick to the point of the question .

One of these people will be the leader of the USA and the American people and I want to know just how they are doing to do it .

No more mistakes in " 08" .

We've got to get this one right !!!

Who moderates the debate and the questions ask have a *huge* influence on the debate.

How about well biased media not focusing on the "big money" front runners and actually pay attention and give the time for the lesser known candidates to have their message heard. I so F'ing tired of all the demonization and zero-time accounted in the Republican debates concerning Ron Paul. He's got the best message, wins all the polls(that include him in it) and has a good amount of support from the people who actually care about freedom and liberty vs. false promises.

BIG MONEY