See? What did I tell you? All sorts of evolutionists were EAGER to debate those men who, though educated in the sciences, were convinced of the evidence of a Creator...there are records of all sorts of debates...but NOW, the evolution side is NOT interested in debate...and it ISN'T because their side "won" when the two ideas were put side by side.
I submit it is because they weren't able to defend their conclusions in an adequate fashion.
Think about it; if the evolutionists were mopping the floor with every "creationist", they'd be HAPPY to go prove them wrong over and over....but, uh, they CANNOT do that. So they just say "Shut up."
Another big chink in their armor is what Darwin himself said about his theory - the reason why they need more than just a single transitional fossil.
“If you do not find thousands upon thousands of missing links then my theory completely falls apart.”
“Shut up”, the liberal argues...
Back then they didnt understand the creationist rules of the game, and what you are calling debate is just a game.
Evolutionists are absolutely the wrong ones to get involved with this and the reason is simple.
Creationists want to talk about EVERYTHING but Creation, that is their game to be critical with nothing to defend. That is why they admit that they don't EVEN think its science. So to be on equal footing those debating them just need to be experts at Creationism writings and the first Book of Moses Genesis writings, not evolution.
Because Creationists refuse to come up with a ‘theory’ to defend its up to their opponent to create it for them.
Start with the two completely different Creation stories and the two completely different Flood stories, demand that they explain how all four can be scientific history when they are nothing a like.