I have some idea for in depth discussions, related to your "pyramid of debate". I think it may be a good idea.

Have a look at MIT Deliberation.
It is made to prevent forum manipulation and focus on discussions. You may improve it a lot with the pyramid idea.
Here is a link
It explains how different ideas can live together without being in conflict with each other. It is like a meta-organisation above the discussion.

It also shows a different problem: The main topic already assumes a certain position in the discussion. It assumes that there is a "catastrophic global heating". (Because it is MIT). This problem might be avoided by allowing your own meta-topics and place these same discussions in a different context.

I have also seen that these meta-topics are actually used to reduce discussions or mark them as "fully discussed", while in fact they are not. So I have added my own meta-structure, by starting every discussion with a meta-topic.

A meta-topic starts by stating its sources and initial idea. More sources can be added. So a discussion about an event can have like 15 different news-sources. That way people do not need to start a new meta-topic when there is some new minor news.

I would also add logical fallacies and logical biases as standard flag and reply option in the discussion.

In the MIT example, the discussion starts with a huge bias in the climate discussion. As I see it, there is in reality no large consensus. Many NASA scientists disagree with the findings, based on satellite observations.

To solve this problem, a meta-topic should always come with certain assertions/assumptions. Which can be discussed separately.

Also there should be trust-values of reporting on certain topics by certain agencies. I don't trust anything that is not directly observed. And I don't trust the CIA or military complex at all. I often assume that the opposite is happening. This means I may use them as an anti-source.

So in the meta-topics we can discuss observations, reports and mark how much we trust them. Even come with counter reports or observations. Only that makes a topic worthwhile, without even having a discussion.

On deeper levels the assumption is already be made that these reports are correct, so any discussion or complaints of these assumptions can be removed. That way the discussion can stay on focus.

Sadly the MIT version does not deal with trust-values, but I don't think they are easy to add. These values are different per user. Like my CNN trust value 5%,

On admin level you could create mainstream news channels as default. Each user will have personal trust values for these channels. But these can also differ per report, as sometimes bad sources give good reports.

The trust-values can also be used as a tar-pit for users. As it allows them to de-rank a lot of the meta-topics that they are not interested in supporting. And things that they trust will be more on top.

It can also be used as honey-pot by the admin to detect manipulations by companies or agencies. People that value CNN above 80% can be marked as non-trustworthy, but if these values are public the community can find these people very quickly.

Still manipulation is very strong at certain levels if you look at how the CIA or I$raeli online manipulation is organized. Often they pretend to be on one side, and derange the discussions by inserting emotionally loaded topics or replies.
For example, a scientific discussion on micro-thermite is often deranged with no-planers or nuclear or energy-weapons..

But the meta-topic also describes the limits of the discussion. So these distractions can be removed directly out of the discussion. They are meta off-topic. And they move to the meta-topic garbage can, allowing people to reuse their texts to create their own meta-topic or even to discuss the moderation. All separately.

If this works at all, still needs to be tested ;-)