Would the most vulnerable people exposed to creationist arguments really read these online debates, though? I don’t know, I consider this all more of a public education campaign than a “debate” per se. I’m not against creationism being persistent because it’s wrong; I’m against it because it’s wrong and harms the public good.
What’s the main point, the main product/output, of such debates?
If it’s to produce videos to pass around or upload, then the debate could be conducted in rounds and edited together—or each side could present a separate video summarizing their case (and the case against the other) after a text-based discussion.
If it’s to present the debate to a captive audience—at, say, a church or club of some kind—then perhaps it should be handled like a court case. Each side writes down the points they intend to make. Then they take turns rebutting each other’s points in writing until one side or the other decides they’re done responding. Each turn, both sides should make a list of points not yet addressed by the other side—so neither side can claim they made a point which the other side left standing without the other side being aware of it. In the “live” portion of the debate, neither side can introduce any points or evidence not covered in the written portion; it’s more like a visual re-enactment of the real debate which took place on paper, for people who need that sort of thing.
Either way, if it’s creationists approaching scientists for debate, then the scientists should feel free to set all kinds of conditions (such as the above) in order to give the truth a little assistance putting on its boots so it doesn’t get walked all over by creationist lies.
Would the most vulnerable people exposed to creationist arguments really read these online debates, though? I don’t know, I consider this all more of a public education campaign than a “debate” per se. I’m not against creationism being persistent because it’s wrong; I’m against it because it’s wrong and harms the public good.
What’s the main point, the main product/output, of such debates?
If it’s to produce videos to pass around or upload, then the debate could be conducted in rounds and edited together—or each side could present a separate video summarizing their case (and the case against the other) after a text-based discussion.
If it’s to present the debate to a captive audience—at, say, a church or club of some kind—then perhaps it should be handled like a court case. Each side writes down the points they intend to make. Then they take turns rebutting each other’s points in writing until one side or the other decides they’re done responding. Each turn, both sides should make a list of points not yet addressed by the other side—so neither side can claim they made a point which the other side left standing without the other side being aware of it. In the “live” portion of the debate, neither side can introduce any points or evidence not covered in the written portion; it’s more like a visual re-enactment of the real debate which took place on paper, for people who need that sort of thing.
Either way, if it’s creationists approaching scientists for debate, then the scientists should feel free to set all kinds of conditions (such as the above) in order to give the truth a little assistance putting on its boots so it doesn’t get walked all over by creationist lies.