I've found through personal experience that when an evolutionist gets backed into the wall he relies on arrogant condescending rhetoric
I noticed that rhetoric (using language persuasively) is the prime (but not sole) field of creationists. Try going to see (or download and watch) Gish or Hovind debates. The evolutionists they debate generally get exasperated by the shear number of things the creationists say. Gish and Hovind speak at a thousand miles an hour, and sprinkle their debates with charisma, charm, and humour. This is called fast talking and is a sales technique. It is employed by people that are trying to convince you of something.
Their opponents talk slower, and get confused about what issue to tackle and how.
These creation debaters rarely get involved in written debate, because in written debate there is time for evidence to be presented so the 'evolutionists' can demand that this happen. Written debates are heavier on actually presenting an argument using logic and evidence and not on oration skill.
Thus, creationists often get trounced in debates in written form because they rely on style over content and diversionary tactics are easier to call.
Sure, some evolutionists become condescending and rely on persuasiveness and insult, but that is on both sides of the fence. Indeed, I will happily debate you one-on-one relying soley on evidence and not rhetoric.
™ Version 4.2