Why the hell is it even a debate?
I don't know that I would call it a debate if it doesn't involve the scientific community. They aren't even listening. And not just to the creationists, either. They aren't listening to anybody, including the scientifically literate who happen to agree with them. Why would they?
It's only this second group that hear and answer the creationists, but I wouldn't call that much of a debate, either. The creationists aren't taken seriously. They are corrected. Their errors in science and reason are what are of interest to critical thinkers, not the case for creationism, which is nothing but incredulity and ignorantiam fallacies, essentially, "I don't see it, plus you can't disprove God," or objections such as you weren't there to see it and you can't repeat it, so you're just guessing.
Also, maybe you meant disagreement rather than debate. Debate requires rebuttal, which is the presentation of counterarguments which, if sound, demonstrate that the original argument wrong, something like falsification with contradictory evidence, but using words to falsify claims. When does that ever happen? Debate ends with the first plausible, unrebutted claim, which is usually the first response to the creationist's post. It's like ping-pong where every volley lasts exactly two shots: a serve, a return, then an irrelevant comment that doesn't address the rebuttal. I don't think I've seen a single exception to that, a single rebuttal from a creationist, just unsupported dissent.