Indeed, another problem is that being good at debates requires thinking on your feet, but when you are making a spontaneous answer, you may not be able to give the best answer. It is characteristic of people who know a lot of stuff that it takes to takes time to think of a good answer to a hard question.
You can't really judge a person's knowledge, and you certainly can't judge the strength of his position based on how quickly it takes him to come up with an answer to a really tough question.
There's a difference between the stuff that one knows and the stuff that one can instantly and spontaneously recall in the spur of the moment in the middle of a debate.
It's a bit like judging how rich someone is on the basis of how much money he carries in his wallet.
I am hardly as rich as Bill Gates, but I bet that if you catch me at the right time that I might have more money in my wallet than he does.
If you catch me when I am on the way to an auto dealership to buy a new car, I will likely have several thousands of dollars of cash on my person, because if you can pay in cash, you'll get a much better deal.
But I doubt that Bill Gates ever carries thousands of dollars in his wallet.
Another issue is the time limit of a debate. One two-minute attack made by James White may require a rebuttal that is several hours long. And yet, in the context of a debate, you aren't going to have several hours to give your answer.
In the same way, an erudite person like Father Pacwa is almost certainly not going to be able to spontaneously come up with a three-hour explanation of apostolic succession to respond to a James White attack in a debate, but it would be wrong to conclude that James White must know more about Church history of the Fathers of the Church than Father Pacwa.
I agree with Doom.