Perhaps for Sparkling's opening statement we could wait that long.
But I think future debates should be more like events, and they should demand focus on the debaters. By making the time limit streamlined like this, it limits the entire debate to a maximum of 3 days, and makes it much more interesting to read. and look forward to. It is also a more definitive time period, putting actual pressure on participants to make their case.
I was thinking about the Q&A, and I thought that the questions should be screened. But it should be done so by at least two people, to prevent bias. For example, in this debate now we would have two screeners for each side. Since I'm a Christian Theist I would screen Questions aimed towards the Negative side (for the atheist, Sparkling), and an atheist would be my partner, screening questions that are addressed to the Positive side (for you, the Theist). That way we'll cut through crud *and* prevent bias.
Q&A's should be pm'd to the respective screeners from the start of the debate to sometime after the last conclusion (i'm not sure how long the Q&A will start after the last conclusion yet...). It would be the screeners job to prepare the best, and appropriate non-repeating list of questions to be asked to each speaker.
Anyone have any suggestions or ideas to add?