It's a fascinating link and nice idea, but I think it's ultimately useless.
In my experience, there is no point in "debating" religious people on topics that are obviously dominated by religious belief: They think there is an absolutely flawlessly moral invisible alpha male who has already given them the answer.
Sure, you could debate them on apologetics of theism and supernaturalism first, but this debate is pretty much dead for decades or centuries now. At least for informed people. There are no new arguments or new evidence.
In fact, this is why I don't debate religious people. Their clinging to indefensible religious beliefs is evidence they're not going to change their minds on social issuses that depend on them either. Such as the ethics of suicide and euthanasia. It's fruit of the poisonous tree.
Sure, it may look nice and not arrogant to "debate" them on these matters. But to expect anything other than a post-hoc rationalization circlejerk from them is delusional.
I personally use debates to learn about the viewpoints of other people, not to change theirs. Some religious folks are not stupid. Such as edwardfeser.blogspot.com sure, they are just smart post-hoc rationalizations and essentially irrational in the willing-to-change-mind-in-face-of-evidence sense, but interesting ones. They teach a lot about psychology. I may know better what is true, but they may know a lot better what feels good to believe for the human brain. I am also fascinated how much logical consistency can be achieved without the whole thing being real. Often very much.
Scott Adams, the author of the Dilbert comic and several books, my favorite being How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big, named his debating format The Rationality Engine. He calls it this way because he claims that it is "the system for turning irrational opinions into rational outcomes". He applies it to several polarizing issues, those this site tends to label "Politics" and "Mind Killer" and shy away from.
His first application, investigating the gender pay gap, seems to have worked pretty well, resulting in several unexpected conclusions. His second, Who is More Anti-Science? I found to be slightly less impressive, but still producing a rather balanced output.
Now he is applying it to the debate about Assisted Dying. Scott's goal is to have a law passed in California that is similar to the ones already in effect in Oregon and several other places.
Scott will debate Jimmy Akin, a prominent contributor to Catholic Answers.
I am quite attracted to Scott's attempts at hands-on instrumental rationality, and on a rather grand scale to boot. They are very much in the spirit of his latest book.
Currently he is accepting suggestions for questions and links for all sides of the issue. Feel free to contribute.
EDIT: I think adding cryonics to the discussion would only complicate the issue and not be helpful, but that's just a guess.