I've heard people criticize Nye for using too much data, but I don't quite agree. I thought the point of the debate was to demonstrate whether Ham's Creationist viewpoint was valid. Doesn't that require a bit of data? Would it really be enough for Nye to say, the evidence is in his favor? He has to demonstrate his information. Maybe he could have explained his positions better, but I thought he showed the right amount of empirical data to make his case.