Not a win
Abrams suggested one essay from each point of view be submitted for each of eight questions. Board members would review the essays, which would be made available for public debate.This is similar to what Steve Case proposed, but with fatal flaws. Having written essays provides the public with an opportunity to review the field of battle. That's good. That lets this debate be public, and lets people respond from all over. I'm still not clear who will ask questions in these hearings.
The ideal arrangement would be for a prosecutorial system, with opposing interrogators, each seeking the other side's flaw, each defending its own case. The subcommittee could hear the testimony and sit as an admittedly biased jury. That would ensure that each side is held to the same standards of proof, even if that's not how they're judged.
It's clear that the public attention and pressure is forcing Abrams to toe the line. Make sure the questions to be asked are fair, and that the process is honest.
Keep up the pressure.
Update: The Christian Apologists think this debate isn't about science, it's about religion. Duh!