I will be pro whatever the topic is.
Concerning the judges, I think the judge should be appointed based on degree of knowledge (should have passed A Levels in Economics with a distinctive grade or mark) and should be critical in his analysis, should harshly criticise both sides and not be opinionated.
Also on the method of conducting the debate, one member should be given a respective number of posts he can post during the debate (like a candidate in a debate is only given 2 chances, with one to present his reasoning and other to counter the other sides reasoning. If an unlimited amount of post chances are given, then the debate will become too long and an exact decision on deciding a win will become too hard. I think it will also be helpful to not involve statistical data the sources of which are not reliable, and we should also keep outside weblink involvement to a minimal. We should employee economic theory and logical reasoning more than bringing outside judgement into our analysis.
Also, if the judges find it too hard to decide upon the victor, they can question either sides debater's given points. If judges were given marking criteria, it would also be helpful, i.e. Each debater is marked upon criterias such as the number of points given (knowledge), critical analysis of the pros against the cons or the cons against the pros, etc.
I guess the debate system should be something like this. Well, that is my opinion...