A debate in real time between qualified adversaries. Treat these things like you're making a major investment. Make both sides answer hard questions from each other.

For example have RFK and Fauci put together teams of MDs and PhDs to debate in a live event.

"live" debate selects far less for truth and far more for "skill at debating" which is nearly orthogonal to being correct.

That is not to say that live debate has no place, or is worthless. I'm just not sure I'd come even close to agreeing that it's the ideal way to come to the truth.

Every Ph.D. goes through oral qualifications. An expert should be able to articulate and defend their views on the subject at hand in a live question format.

And yet, there is a reason that Orals are not what is used to give the final assessment and grant the degree. Like I said, has a place, but not the ideal way to reach the truth. Orals serve a purpose, but that purpose is most definitely not "determine the truth, as best as we are capable, of a particular question". Also, I don't really agree that Orals are particularly similar to a "debate" at all. For one thing, there usually aren't two "positions".

A true leader takes hard questions and answers them live. Watch some footage of Steve Jobs taking hard questions (yes, I know Steve Jobs had some real issues, because we have to mention that, but I cite him because he is one of the great leaders in the tech space).

When Fauci went in front of the media and dodged and weaved he didn't build trust, he made people question.

If you're ever in a situation where a leader is dodging hard questions that's a big tell. Take note of it.