Sounds like Doddy hit the nail on the head about poor defence.
Creo: Where`s your 'proof'?
Evo: Well, it`s not really 'proof'
Creo: The TOE is just a 'theory'
Evo: Well, we understand 'theory' in a different sense
Creo: Evolution can`t explain life`s origins
Evo: Well, the TOE really isn`t about abiogenesis
Etc.
Counter-punching only works against a 'real' opponent. As long as we try to hit strawmen by altering the questions posed, we will look like we are retreating, or covering up our inadequacies. Far better to dictate the terms by giving concrete replies built around overkill.
Creo: Where`s your 'proof'?
Evo: Millions of confirming experiments by millions of scientists worldwide
Creo: The TOE is just a 'theory'
Evo: Really? Then explain why millions of experiments, etc. confirm
Creo: Evolution has failed to explain life`s origins
Evo: Want to buy a 2-y-o car with 500 miles on the clock for $100.00? Irrelevant? So is your linking evolution with abiogenesis. Two totally different subjects. Next question?
Focussing on hard facts that the creo must dispute will weaken his argument (and resolve?), rather than us being forced to defend what can be nebulous proposals. Works for me.