To be honest, the event felt less like a debate and more like two ships passing in the night, like two parts of a sandwich that wouldn't come together no matter how much one chewed them. Not much of a surprise, I guess. Debates work best when the conversation takes place between people who share a common matrix of beliefs, even while they hold disagreements, even significant ones at that. Ham and Nye don't have disagreements, they are in fundamentally different universes. How each viewed science was at issue. Nye clearly supported the scientific process as it is taught and practiced in research. Ham looked at science as only a crutch for finding support of his own view. If anything supported the standard scientific model over the creationist model, Ham found ways to dismiss or discount the finding rather than question his own model.
In many ways, this left Nye on an incredibly uneven playing field. Nye mentioned several times that the two participants had agreed to debate the science. Nonetheless, Ham's position was inherently theological. All of his evidence was used to point to his belief in the bible as the Word of God. Nye was hamstrung. No matter how much science Nye discussed, Ham was always able to return to his position that the world came into being precisely as described in the opening chapters of the biblical book of Genesis.
Nye appeared to refuse to engage the reality of the debate. While Nye stuck with scientific rhetoric, Ham peppered his pseudo-scientific language with biblical language. Nye refused to ask questions made Ham explain the ramifications of his theological beliefs. Sadly, Nye cannot ask these questions since he does not have a religious worldview.Were Nye to have a grasp of theological issues, he could questions Ham's assumptions of his biblical interpretation, just as Ham questioned the assumptions of science. For instance, Nye doesn't question Ham's literalism. He merely mentions that other religious folk have no problem with evolution science. Nye doesn't ask about what Ham's views claim about God. If God gives human beings the ability to reason, why does the prevailing evidence from science diverge? Is God testing the faith of humans? If so, why does God test our faith more by our adherence to our understanding of a few chapters of Genesis versus the way we treat our neighbor?
All in all, few minds if any were changed. People who already believed evolution to be true thought Nye won. Those who believed creationism to be true, thought Ham won. What is needed is a theologically sophisticated voice who is also familiar with the science and is able to challenge the theological assumptions that Ham holds. There is the common ground that is necessary for a true debate to happen.