The thematic crescendo of the debate was the participants' replies to an audience question, "What could make you change your stance?" Bill Nye said evidence could; Ken Ham said nothing could. Ham's answer strikes me as poignant/sad, because regardless of whether any gods actually exist or not, learning about the many amazing features of the world we find ourselves in is one of, if not the greatest of, the gifts of life. Seeking out answers we do not know is, in my opinion, a primary point of being a rational creature. Determining an unchanging answer first, and then ignoring any questions or other answers that compete with it, seems like such a waste of an opportunity. What makes Ham's view even sadder, to me, is that when it comes to something like evolution, he does not have to choose between it and God. At worst, the science means a little more of Scripture is best viewed as allegory than historical fact. Not having ties to faith myself, I can't understand why that is an untenable breach of principle rather than a palatable compromise. Ah well.
I wanted to link you to this. Recalling an earlier conversation we had about some ambiguities you read in my position on abortion/personhood, I thought you might find this essay an interesting read. I never have a good means of including it in debate, but I harbor some recognition for certain kinds of arguments about potentiality (I often think in terms of our moral responsibility to future generations, by taking care of ourselves and our environment now). The author here provides a contents list, so to see what I mean you can click on down to the section on "What Rights Do Potential and Future People Have?"
Stay well, FightingPikachu~ ^_^