I would be difficult to have any debate with one who has no emunah concerning the existance of a God, and who believe that the Torah is not emet without being provocative at all. For example, if one focused on the Jewish God's obsession with a woman's hymen, his acceptance of slavery, his encouragement of killing in His name, and that every person throughout Jewish history who willingly died, as a kiddush Hashem, did so in vain, how could a believing Jew *NOT* take offence?
There is a talmudic reference that begins with not debating the minim unless one is as good as Rabbi Abahu (who was brilliant, and they give examples), but it then goes on to state that with an apikoris, one should never debate. So do you consider this wise? (Yes, some of us apikorsim are educated!)
If you want to organize debates as to why there is no God, why morality based on a religious text is inferior to secular morality, there are good speakers on that subject (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer etc.). They speak well, have written much on the subject, and would be a big draw for the Athiest communty.
Getting a no-name person who became an apikoris to debate would not gain as much of an audience as I believe it should. Especially since I would love to see those sitting on the fence to fall to my side.
Here is a typical debate between Shmuely Boteach and Sam Harris - one screaming that God exists, and one making the gentle persuasive argument that he does not.