The only people that are allowed to debate evolution are those who have already committed to a philosophy which assumes naturalism and are committed to evolution.
Those who don’t, obviously aren’t qualified to debate it....
No-one. There is no debate.
Most science theories are subject to falsification, and have scientists using experiments designed to disprove them.
But not "special" science theories. These darlings are really just philosophical views that envy the credibility of science theories, and are thus willingly confused with the later.
Neither ID nor Darwin's theory of Common Origin are falsifiable by us mortals. Neither are scientific theories. Neither should be promoted as such.
Evidence should be examined, reason should be applied, and the subject should be debated objectively, with neither getting the magical lab coat of "science". If sufficient logic and evidence supports Darwin's position, then Darwin's position should not need to have the exalted "science" label in order to prevail.
Finally I make a preemptive plea not to repeat the tired old fallacy of siting what "THE" evidence "SAYS". There is no "THE" evidence. And if there was a "THE" evidence, it is not something that talks. Where some allowance for inexact speech is reasonable in such discussions. This kind of statement is unforgivably sloppy, and I can't imagine any thinking person justifying this kind of statement as part of critical analysis.
It would start with an understanding of the definition of evolution.
It does not refer to the origin of life.