Again I disagree with your claim. His hermenuetics left Dr. White with but one retort "that is not exegesis"OK, I watched it again, or most of it. It is over two hours long. But my impression of it hasn't changed. He shouts and screams, and doesn't present a cogent argument. You don't win an argument by shouting. If you have a valid, logical, cogent, coherent, convincing argument to present, it wins by itself. You don't need to shout and scream to make it more convincing. You would only want to do that if you were not sure your argument by itself was convincing enough. James White at least have the added advantage of keeping his cool. But neither of them are being terribly convincing. Part of the problem is that the question is too vague. Romans chapter 9 is a big subject. Which aspect of Romans 9 are you discussing? Predestination? Unconditional Election? Faith vs. Works? Something else? That is not a right way to set up a debate. A better way would be to narrow the question down to something like, "Does the Bible teach predestination?" or "unconditional election?" or "limited atonement?" etc. Then there can follow a meaningful discussion.
And the topic was clearly a determinist predestination reading of Romans 9 and Dr. White picked the topic. A passage long considered a Calvinist stronghold. In any Flowers was passionate not just loud. You need to look beyond that to the arguments themselves and see that his arguments clearly called such a reading into question. It is a question of substance over style.
BTW if you want to hear loud listen to his debate with Theodore Zachariades and Sonny Hernandez and see who the loud party is
In any case Dr. White is a seasoned debater so his calmness is not surprising. This was Leighton Flower's first public debate. I believe it should be judged based upon the substantive biblical arguments made and in my view Leighton Flower wins on that score