This debate is trying to address the two directly opposing models that try to explain the origins of humankind - "evolution" vs. "the creation" that is described in the book of Genesis. Depending on which view you support, it is most likely that throughout the debate and at the end of it you'll still hold the same view and won't be convinced otherwise. That is not to say that the debate itself is not interesting, but, in my opinion, the structure of it and points raised won't really sway the viewer to "switch sides".
After 5 minute opening statements from Ken Ham and Bill Nye, both debaters were given additional 30 minutes to further elaborate their position and raise arguments against the opposing model. To me this was probably the most interesting part since the presentations given by both men were well structured and informative. Here the viewer can actually evaluate the information that is presented and test their own view against it.
After the presentations I was expecting the actual debate to happen, but instead the moderator of the debate Tom Foreman was reading questions from the audience (when he could actually read them!) and both men were taking turns answering them. While in theory this should fulfill the idea of a debate, in practice you never really have the sense that Bill Nye and Ken Ham are actually debating each other. First of all the questions were obviously skewed towards either of the models with the intention to put the person answering first on the "hot spot" and then the person answering second could rebut that. During their answers both Bill Nye and Ken Ham raised some really interesting and provoking questions to the other party, but unfortunately they were not allowed to answer since their answers were timed. This left me disappointed and feeling that it's a fake debate with the audience rather than with the person standing on the stage.
As for the performance of the two debaters and the moderator, in my opinion:
If the subject interests you it is worthwhile watching, but don't expect to see a heated back and forth debate - it really misses that interactivity and doesn't fulfill its potential.
After 5 minute opening statements from Ken Ham and Bill Nye, both debaters were given additional 30 minutes to further elaborate their position and raise arguments against the opposing model. To me this was probably the most interesting part since the presentations given by both men were well structured and informative. Here the viewer can actually evaluate the information that is presented and test their own view against it.
After the presentations I was expecting the actual debate to happen, but instead the moderator of the debate Tom Foreman was reading questions from the audience (when he could actually read them!) and both men were taking turns answering them. While in theory this should fulfill the idea of a debate, in practice you never really have the sense that Bill Nye and Ken Ham are actually debating each other. First of all the questions were obviously skewed towards either of the models with the intention to put the person answering first on the "hot spot" and then the person answering second could rebut that. During their answers both Bill Nye and Ken Ham raised some really interesting and provoking questions to the other party, but unfortunately they were not allowed to answer since their answers were timed. This left me disappointed and feeling that it's a fake debate with the audience rather than with the person standing on the stage.
As for the performance of the two debaters and the moderator, in my opinion:
- Tom Foreman as the moderator did a poor job and was mostly there to be a time-keeper. Instead of taking a pile of questions from the audience he could've actually prepared beforehand some interesting questions that could facilitate an interactive debate, but there's none of that,
- Bill Nye played well with the audience by adding some jokes while getting his points across, his charisma and the manner of speaking did remind me of university professors,
- Ken Ham had completely different style of presentation and way of speaking close to that of a politician - more slick, stoic and raising several claims during his answers.
If the subject interests you it is worthwhile watching, but don't expect to see a heated back and forth debate - it really misses that interactivity and doesn't fulfill its potential.
