Aren't Science vs. Creation Debates......rather pointless?

[Whateverist]

Don't get me wrong, I do love watching/reading these debates, but for all intensive purposes no one really learns anything new from Science vs. Creation debates. I mean compared to a debate with two theoretical physicists arguing whether information is lost in a black hole, I learn tremendously more: how entropy is information, how Hawking radiation exists through quantum entanglement, plus much much more... What I get from Science vs. Creation debates is nothing new except on strategies of how to come up with clever semantics to BS people.  

I just hate it when people debate really about anything and then one debater boils their argument down to "semantics" which at that point I just view them as the un-admitted loser of the debate.

Also, it also begs the question, then why do we have these debates (particularly at places like Science festivals)?  I think it's just mankind's desire for drama.  Or in other words, it's the same reason why we watch cheesy soap operas, reality shows, or talent shows where the judge bitches out the contestant for being so worthless and such......is why we still have Atheist vs. Creationist debates.  At least I know that is why I  watch them 

Anyway, what are your thoughts of this?

Saying we don't learn anything from this is a big statement about epistemology. What do you consider actual learning?
Also, semantics are useful when debating. Often people disagree because they have two different understandings of what a word means. I would recommend reading Phaedrus by Plato for a good look at how important that can be.

Actually pursuing what we consider constitutes learning seems promising.  But bringing it up merely to undermine the other persons point is disingenuous, especially if you suspect there is actually something to it.

Of course semantics matter and need to be cleared away if you actually want to have a conversation that connects.  Even if someone uses a word in a(n as yet) nonstandard way, so long as you both understand the purpose .. who cares?

I would say that "debates" with believers in general are pointless. You will hear the same old shit again and chance of convincing your oponent are slim at best. Time wasted on such "discussion" could be used on expanding one knowledge.

What is knowledge? Is there knowledge about things not physical(ethics) or is knowledge only knowledge if its correct measurements of the scientific processes that are our experience? Because people refuse to be convinced, does not make it not worth it to do. It is worth it to change one mind even if it takes one thousand tries.

Seeking to change minds by whatever means necessary is playing god and intensely disrespectful if you value living in a world of peers.  Of course I understand that the culture of a community need not place mutual respect over shared belief, but I don't think its being a cultural norm makes it right.  Do you?  (Funny that I'm not the moral objectivist here.)