Some young-Earth creationists (YECs) have challenged me to oral debates.  I have very little interest in doing them.  My opponents have yet to provide me with a single good reason for why I should do a public debate when written debates are more advantageous in every respect. Also, why should I share a public forum with an opponent, when I can go on YouTube and other forums and have an hour or more to give my presentation uninterrupted?  Why should I participate in a public forum where my opponents can throw out all kinds of claims (a Gish Gallup) that I cannot immediately verify for accuracy?  Although not nearly as entertaining or glamorous, written debates have none of these disadvantages. 

If my opponents are really interested in debating me, they need to put aside their desires for entertaining theater, get some courage, and take the time and effort to write up a good and well-referenced response to something I've written at this website or said in public.  I've seen many YEC debates over the years going back to Duane Gish in 1979 and these public debates are rarely anything more than theatric circuses that ultimately only provide popcorn-eating entertainment for YECs.  I know that some YECs will chop up and exploit for propaganda purposes whatever presentations I make on YouTube and other public forums, so I don't need to provide them with any more than that.  If I would ever be tempted to do an oral debate because of an interesting topic, I would have at least the following non-negotiable conditions:

1. The debate must be centered on the Bible.  Before I agree to an oral debate, my opponents must provide unequivocal scientific evidence that a talking snake and magic fruit trees existed 6,000 years ago, that Jesus actually said the things credited to him in the Gospels and that the Bible is the totally inerrant word of God.  I won't accept "because Jesus or Paul said so..." or the circular reasoning of quoting the Bible to defend the Bible.  If my opponents appear knowledgeable and have extraordinary evidence well-beyond what I've seen so far from Christian apologists, I might agree to an oral debate provided other conditions are met (see below).  Because I'm not an atheist, I won't defend atheism.  In such a debate, I would only need to raise reasonable doubt about the veracity of the Bible. I wouldn't even need to attack YEC "scientific evidence" for Flood geology or a young Earth.  If people realize that Genesis 1-11 is a myth, then the very foundation of young-Earth creationism is automatically destroyed and I achieve my goals.  

2. I would ask for a very large speaking fee to compensate me for providing video footage that my opponents might use to make other propaganda videos, books, articles, etc.  I would also want a share of any royalties from commercial videos that use whatever I've said in an oral debate or any book that quotes more than 500 words of what I said in an oral debate. I might be willing to wave my speaking fee (but not any royalties), if my opponents provide an even larger anonymous donation to one of my favorite charities.  I'm not cheap. 

3. Any moderator of the debate should be as neutral as possible, and not a conservative Christian or skeptic.

If these terms are unacceptable to you, either put your claims in writing (see below for conditions) or go find someone else to debate. 

Although not as theatrical, entertaining and glamorous, written debates have all of the advantages over oral debates and none of the disadvantages.  Written debates can encourage learning and the development of rational thinking and good science.  My rules for a written debate are fairly simple:

1. All references must be entirely in English and readily accessible.  No video references or responses.  I prefer reading to watching videos.  All responses to me must be in writing on an accessible blog, the Journal of Creation, the Creation Research Society Quarterly, or another format that others and I can access.   The written responses must be entirely in English.  Unfortunately, I'm not fluent in any other languages.   In each round, my opponents and I will write our responses in one well-organized essay with a complete bibliography.  Although we may quote each other, I don't want to see my essays cut up into sections and each section with terse and flippant replies, like this mess here.

2. You must notify me and provide me with links to all of your responses.  I don't search the Internet looking for critics. 

3. I will provide links to my responses in the box below. I will prominently link to all replies that you make and you must prominently link to all of my replies. 

4. Unlike oral debates, there will be no page or time limits.  In my written debates with young-Earth creationists and perhaps others, I will include criticism of the Bible, no matter what the scientific topic is. So, my opponents will need to be prepared to defend their biblical interpretations. I will also respond at my convenience. If I need to take several weeks or more to research your claims, I will do so before responding.  Unlike oral debates, I will have the ability to individually check any Gish gallop claims in a written debate.  Any debate will continue until one or both sides agree to stop.  

5. I probably won't have time to engage in more than one written debate at any one time, which could theoretically last for years.  I once engaged in an email debate that lasted for 10 years.  If I have more than one challenger, I will select the most qualified of the two. 

6. My opponent must show some knowledge of the topics.  I'm not interested in educating an opponent on the basics. 

7. I will provide information or links so that individuals can look up my references.  I will not provide copies or summaries of my references.  My opponents will need to show some effort and look up the references for themselves and read them.  I don't expect my opponents to be lazy. 

8. The topic should be about Earth science and perhaps astronomy.  I will certainly include discussions on Biblical inerrancy.  I have no interest in discussing biological evolution or evidence for theism.  I'm an agnostic and not an anti-theist.  

9. Once the scientific topic is agreed upon, it will not change unless both sides agree.  I won't tolerate my opponents jumping from topic to topic once they become uncomfortable.  My opponents can decide if they want to respond to my biblical criticisms or not.  

10. You must write the first response in the debate.  I don't want to do two months of research and write a detailed response to only have my opponent never respond.  If you fear that I won't respond to your first response, we can choose a topic of a paper that I have already written.  Thus, my first response would be that paper.

11. You can certainly have coauthors on your responses, but their names must be listed as authors and the order of the authorship must be based on which individuals contributed most to the writing of the response.  Ghost writing is not allowed.