Yeah, jgnat, good job!
The mere thought of dissecting that debate gives me a headache, just thinking of the sheer massiveness of plowing thru it all.
Ham exploits most people's susceptibility to 'style over substance', i.e. they don't really care about what someone says, but the non-verbals they get from the person unrelated to their actual arguments and proof. In that regard, I'd say Nye earned points by being polite and courteous (it's hard to accuse someone of being a bully when they're wearing a bow tie, LOL!). If Ham wanted to win on style points, alone, he should've debated a more-arrogant atheist some he could 'play the role of the victim' when the meanie atheist insulted him.
As much as I hate to say it, as brilliant as the arguments of atheists like Matt Dillahunty may be, some seemingly forget about their 'target audience' (the ones they're trying to convince) who are primed to tune them out (the Bible even warns believers about haughty men who say God doesn't exist!). It's surprising, since an ex-pastor like Dillahunty knows the Bible warns about "stumbling others", where the same concept applies to talking people OUT of religion, too? Nye diffused that concern quite effectively.
Dillahunty dismisses accusations of his being rude as 'tone trolling' (i.e. criticizing someone not by addressing their points, but attacking their style); while I agree it sometimes applies, it's also important for atheists to remember the fallacy is called, "style OVER substance", so it's not saying that style doesn't matter at all! That's jumping to the OTHER extreme, and is just as illogical.
I like the style and approach used by Tracie Harris on the Atheist Experience, as she always wears a smile and minds her manners (even as she completely eviscerates the arguments of theist callers). She's a walking/talking definition of "positive atheism".