Structured debate is not the best strategy for coming to a consensus.
Before the debate begins, the participants have to come to a consensus on that structure of the structured debate. And how can they come to such a consensus if they haven't started the debate yet?
And suppose the participants have a trustworthy strategy for coming to such a consensus without yet having a structured debate. If the participants have such a strategy, why don't they just cut out the middleman by using that strategy to form a consensus on the original topic?
However if the goal isn't coming to a consensus then things change drastically. All debate structures will always favor some conclusions over others. In other words, if your goal is to reach a specific conclusion then there is a stong incentive to use a debate structure that favors your chosen conclusion.
Trying to impose rules and structure on an argument will always make you look bad. If you have skill and integrity then you ought to have no problem arguing with someone even without any ground rules. I promise you that it doesn't matter how reasonable you think the rule is.