I confess to being a bit surprised at the number of evolutionists here who share the view that Shermer and Prothero lost the debate, even though they committed both strategic and tactical blunders. You don't usually see such objectivity. What is much more common is for people to support their guys, no matter how pathetic the performance.
A debate ultimately comes down to a person's opinion as to who "wins." There is no clearly defined term of how to "win" in a debate, because there is really only one function in debating, and that function is totally subjective to the listener. The idea behind debate lies in the power of persuasion. The idea is to persuade the audience in your favor. Lawyers are prime example of this as they are essentially professional debators. Their function is to serve as purveyor's of persuasion.
In a debate, there is no judge. Usually there is only a moderator who guides the debate but remains neutral on the side lines.
In my opinion, you can lose a debate even if your information is correct. It is a matter of how eloquently and how persuasively one gets their message across. I think Shermer, for instance, is a very wise and learned individual who has well-supported points. Even in spite of this, I have seen him come unprepared to several debates and was essential slaughtered by the likes of Kent Hovind. Hovind, I believe, spoke utter nonsense, but he was far more prepared and eloquent.
Hovind is a bullshit artist and like a good salesmen has an affinity for public speaking. He sold the product better than Shermer.
That is my take on winning a debate.
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
™ Version 4.2
