First of all, I don’t think this nation will ever have a debate on this topic… and if at all there is a debate…it will first be about whether there is a God at all… and before midway thru this debate…we will have civil war… so lets not provoke such eventualities

Secondly…the OT references to god… are from a human perspective… its not that the bible is making a proclamation about many gods being there… it is definitely referring to beings who are playing gods… the gods of the nations… when a reference is made to such entities, how else annie shud they refer to? Shud Elijah on top of the mountain say, “I will call my God, and you call your demons”!!! There are limitations of human communication and expression and I think it is wrong to make a theological conclusion out of such contexts….

Thirdly, the quest for the true god is not an intellectual pursuit… it is more holistic… winning a debate or an argument can never lead anyone to the truth… also it is more an agenda of God to seek man….than for man to seek God…. but yes… much is revealed already and can be seen around and people need to be guided to those facts… but again… the role of the greatest apologetician, philosopher, preacher or intellectual ends there… it boils down to the individual and his decision….. ultimately it is a personal decision… the power and the decision of the human will is respected even by the Almighty… so lets continue to make every kind of an effort to spread the light… but then let us not make attempts to gag it down peoples throats…. with however good intentions….

Fourthly, agreeing to disagree is not against law of non-contradiction… but yes…the ultimate truth has to satisfy the law of non-contradiction… so even as you agree to disagree for some time…. one of you, or both of you, somewhere or at many places, will have to align yourselves to the law of non-contradiction… and face the truth

A) 1 God presides in the great assembly;
he gives judgment among the “gods”:
2 “How long will you [a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Selah (NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION)

B) 1 God calls the judges into his courtroom, he puts all the judges in the dock. 2. “Enough! You’ve corrupted justice long enough,
you’ve let the wicked get away with murder.
You’re here to defend the defenseless,
to make sure that underdogs get a fair break; (THE MESSAGE)

C) 1 God presides over heaven’s court;
he pronounces judgment on the heavenly beings:
2 “How long will you hand down unjust decisions
by favoring the wicked?(NEW LIVING TRANSLATION)

Now from the above variants, you’ll be able to understand that what God was talking about. He was not talking about other gods(The Hindu, Muslim, sikh, etc..) He was talking about the judges whom people revel as gods, the Judges and He’s the Judge of the Judges. The poet Asaph who wrote this psalm was preaching it to the corrupt judges and magistrates in the time of David.
Magistrates are the mighty in authority for the public good. Magistrates are the ministers of God’s providence, for keeping up order and peace, and particularly in punishing evil-doers, and protecting those that do well. Good princes and good judges, who mean well, are under Divine direction; and bad ones, who mean ill, are under Divine restraint. The authority of God is to be submitted to, in those governors whom his providence places over us. But when justice is turned from what is right, no good can be expected. The evil actions of public persons are public mischiefs.

As far as the media is concerned let them run a campagn about true God and let th ebest of the minds from all faith participate in the forum. I’m sure that at the end it will only point to the person of Christ.

Psalms talks about Who among you is like other gods? Ex 15 says that TOO Jethro admits that. There is no denial of the existence of other gods till the emergence of the prophets… Many insistence does not deny existecne of other gods… Ps 82 talks about the assembly of the gods
OT patriarchal narrative is more henothesitic where they believe in the existence of many gods but sole worship is given to one and then we became more monotheistic (deutronomy and prophets)where there is only one God … which came with the prophets more so. So to dialogue on the topic you wrote in the comment maybe the question is why polytheism doesnt work in your opinion? (maybe because i am not clear about your assumptions).
My question in my first comment was media should talk about which god? When the media brings in a nation wide discussion about God, we as Christians have to be ready to hear other religious assumptions also!

Fundamentally, polytheism faces a definitional obstacle. It is impossible to think of a multiplicity of absolutes. It is a contradiction in terms. Because of this, the gods of polytheism have to be necessarily finite and one would have to look behind these gods for the actual infinite reality. There are two alternative possibilities which need to be examined to decide whether belief in polytheism can be true and valid at all. 
* Firstly, if there is no ultimate infinite God behind and beyond the finite gods of the universe, then nature itself becomes ultimate. One would be driven to the conclusion that nature itself created these gods. Nature itself would thus be ultimate and the universe eternal. This is nothing but the atheistic position which holds that nature is the only and ultimate frame of reference. Thus polytheism, according to this possibility, becomes another form of atheism. It has already been argued, both from philosophical and scientific considerations, that it is not possible to sustain the idea of an infinite universe. Philosophically, if the universe were infinite in the space-time continuum, one cannot arrive at an actual present in time. In order to do so, one would have to cross an infinite past which, of course, is impossible. From a scientific point of view, the second law of thermodynamics and proofs of an expanding universe have put paid to the idea of an infinite universe.
For the polytheist, to hold that nature is ultimate and created the finite gods is not a tenable position. 
The second alternative to be examined is that of a supernatural First Cause Who stands behind the finite gods of polytheism. The only viable answer is that one of the gods of the universe created the others, or that there is an Infinite God who created nature as well as the other gods. In this case, polytheism collapses into monotheism. (It may be seen that polytheism is a non-viable intellectual position which cannot be held independently - sooner or later, it has to merge with either atheism or monotheism). 
Is there one God or many gods? Belief in one God is a sounder intellectual proposition than belief in many gods. The Bible says in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”. The Bible makes this categorical statement in favour of a monotheistic God, a God who created other gods, powers, authorities, dominions and regional hierarchies in the spiritual and material realms. 
We now take up the second sub-question - “Is this one God personal or impersonal?” In other words, “Is the infinite frame of reference non-personal or does it provide a basis for the human being with his intellectual, emotional and moral dimensions?” In Indian Vedantic philosophy, the case is being made out strongly in favour of an impersonal infinite God. The universe (inorganic matter, plant life, animals and humans) is an extension of this impersonal infinite Brahman (not to be confused with Brahma, the personal god of creation in Hindu polytheism). According to this view, all reality is one, and the diversity that we see in nature is illusory. Thus no significance is to be attributed to the diversity of nature and the personality exhibited by the human race which is an illusory (and inferior) manifestation of the Ultimate Impersonal Reality. This philosophy is called Pantheism (all is [impersonal] god) and underlies the various practices of the New Age movement. 
But can this definition of God be really true? If it is , all intellectual, emotional and moral dimensions are doomed to extinction. Questions like the meaning of life (intellect) will have to go without an answer. Feelings of pain and pleasure (emotions) will not have any significant difference. One should not even attempt to make a (moral) distinction between good and bad. On the basis of these three issues of intellect, emotions and will, one cannot but conclude that the infinite frame of reference point has to be Personal. 

When God created human being he created each of them unique and with a huge diversity. Which not only in India but can be seen across the world. The human body in itself is an e..g of unity in diversity. Each individual cell in our body is unique but they unite and are responsible to the brain. So God’s nature itself is diverse, he likes it that way. So the question of many god’s is not viable and can not stand the tests of human understanding and logical propositions.

I hope I was able to clarify some of your questions which layed behind the question that you actually posed.
God bless.