If you want the debate in it's entirety: http://debatelive.org/
My verdict: no clear winner.
The debate between Ken Ham, founder of Answers In Genesis; and Bill Nye, the Science Guy, yesterday, is the current trending topic. Here are my thoughts in their presentation:
Ken Ham started with laying down a worldview position and definition explanation in his 30 minute presentation. Much emphasis was placed on the difference between observational science and historical science, with testimonial videos from Creationist scientists all over the globe. During the rebuttals, Ken Ham had the upper hand in humor and also presented the gospel at varying points when appropriate. He remain reasonable throughout the debate, but he loses his composure towards the end, which greatly affected the audience's (online and live) opinions. His underlying thrust of the metaphysical worldview was blunted due to Nye's many questions.
Bill Nye started with an anecdotal story about his bow ties, and how cool they were (which is one thing I agree, bow ties are cool). He then barrages Ken Ham with many questions, makes him seems unfocused, but it was an effective technique of flooding that left Ham a bit disconcerted. Bill Nye also used sentimentality and personal attacks, much, much more as the debate went on. He also dismissed some of the evidences Ham that addresses directly some of the questions. Bill Nye gained so much steam in the end, but Ham uses the last moments to inject humor in the question and answer time.
In the end, to be fair to both, both had strong points but also blunders. Ken Ham's focus of a worldview underpinning was undermined by Nye's call for physical evidence, which Ham would have undoubtedly provided (all of the things Nye asked about were on his website) if the debate had longer went on. And I do wish the debate had gone on longer.