Think I saw some t-shirts for that on the train and just kinda laughed to myself. After reading this, maybe I'll engage them next time I see them to find out how different they are on a one-to-one basis.

Also sounds a bit like when Sean Hannity used to have Alan Colmes on the show, to ostensibly balance the program, but the guy could never stand up for himself. Hope Mehta did a better job.

It is not faith to hold with evidence, even when the evidence does not create certainty. Believers seem to "know" the answer, whereas atheists follow the best evidence. The biggest difference I can see is that atheists can change their minds when they're shown to be wrong.

Atheism is a religious philosophy like off is a TV channel.

Sounds like a cool experience all and all

At least you made the effort. I don't know that I could have gotten through any of it.
Especially not silently.

If have seen some debates and some snippets from Brierley's podcast and in my view the interviews/debates were a bit slanted toward theistic views but never so badly that they misrepresented the other side or didn't let them make their points clearly. I have just seen a few videos on youtube, so maybe my experiences were not representative of the whole podcast. I do remember feeling a bit of frustration sometimes, but it was not always because of the theists faulty arguments but from some weak rebuttals.

The biggest issue is there's no debate. None.

There is no God. There is absolutely no evidence there is a God. How can there be a debate with a position that has no basis in one iota of fact?

Gulliani saying the truth isn't the truth, applies when discussing religion

These staged "debates" are attempts to reassure the flock that they should continue to allow themselves to be lulled and brainwashed by the seedy and greedy "clergy" and evangelists. You have more patience and self-control than I do.