Let me toss in some anecdotal evidence in support of your suspicion. The only "debate" site to hold my attention for more than a first visit is one that focuses on curating data to support arguments about certain issues (the curation is manual AFAIK). I initially stumbled across it when debating health care reform:
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourc...
Pay particular attention to to "Projects" sidebar on the left. It's a goldmine of relevant quantitative information and the arguments surrounding their interpretation. I actually don't think it's cynical to expect that this is the right way to approach the "debate market." Discovering data in relevant "digested" forms is a huge friction point. It should be central to the political debate process, it isn't, and anyone who can reduce the friction will be doing a huge service to humanity.
I'm thinking "How to Lie With Statistics"[1] as a service - tell it you want to, say, show that guns are becoming safer, or that higher taxation causes obesity, and it will produce a nicely manipulated graph containing only real figures from readily available datasets, ready for feeding to a journalist.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics