Are there journals with the same "great big debate" format at Behavioral and Brain Sciences? I've found that articles from Cambridge University Presses long-running journal of Brain and Behavioral Science (BBS) are a great way to enter a literature: they introduce the names, reveal the faultlines, the arguments, counter-arguments, and counter-counter-arguments, and provide a huge range of perspectives on an issue.  I recommend it to students all the time. But as I interact with students outside of the behavioral sciences, I find that I'd love to be aware of venues in other disciplines/areas with similar formats.

If you aren't familiar with BBS, articles work like this: core authors make a big picture argument in 30-40 pages, BBS editors solicit 1-page responses from 20-30 strong researchers in every relevant discipline, core authors organize a 15-20 page response.  The result is a very long but quite comprehensive view into a whole research area, and articles are consistently engaging. Instead of getting one short paper by one set of authors with one background and agenda, you get tens of authors batting it out.  

BBS calls the model Open Peer Commentary. Does this kind of format exist in any other journal or discipline.  Does this ring a bell?
Although I haven't seen this format in particular (and I'm a neuroscientist, maybe I should be paying more attention!) it looks like Open Peer Commentary is also a phrase used by other journals, so searching based on that phrase may help you find journals in other fields relevant to your interests.

A less-formal approach that is somewhat similar is "post publication peer review", although at least in my experience these venues have not really taken off. PubMed Commons, for example, was discontinued after a pilot. These formats allow for online comments on published papers, but not in a curated format like your example.