We can draw parallels to why biologists (at least in general) don't accept these sorts of oral "debates" with creationists. Quoting https://creationwiki.org/Evo

We can draw parallels to why biologists (at least in general) don't accept these sorts of oral "debates" with creationists. Quoting https://creationwiki.org/Evolutionists_don%27t_accept_debate_challenges_(Talk.Origins) https://creationwiki.org/Evolutionists_don%27t_accept_debate... > The proper venue for debating scientific issues is at science conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In such a venue, the claims can be checked by anyone at their leisure. Creationists, with very rare exceptions, are unwilling to debate there. > Public debates are usually set up so that the winners are determined by public speaking ability, not by quality of material. > Debate formats, both spoken and written, usually do not allow space for sufficient examination of points. A common tactic used by some prominent creationists is to rattle off dozens of bits of misinformation in rapid succession. It is impossible for the responder to address each in the time or space allotted. What is better achieved by a "debate" on the JRE podcast than would be achieved by publishing papers? Quoting now from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Why+I+won%27t+debate+creationists.+(OP-ED).-a096442768 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Why+I+won%27t+debate+creation... : > The point is not, he said, whether or not you would "win" the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public that is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr. So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation, you will be accused of cowardice or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science. There's more from https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/why-i-wont-debate-with-a-creationist-and-what-to-do-instead/ https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/why-i-wont-de... ("There are more ways of being wrong than being right, and the scientist is constrained by reality, while the creationist is constrained only by plausibility.") which is one of many other sources along these lines. The right way to debate a creationist is with someone trained to debate creationists, not someone trained in evolutionary biology. The right way to debate an anti-vaxxer is with someone trained to debate medical conspiracy theorists, not someone trained in parasitology, vaccinology, or tropical diseases.