Any amount of higher education is better than none at all. It should also go without saying that the average layman is more impressed by the arguments of a Ph.D. than by those of an untitled speaker. The proper way to judge the worth of an argument, of course, is by what the argument says and not by who is advancing it. They must think that those degrees count for something that will advance their cause. The ability to do that is essential to debating any issue.
Some people possess it naturally while others develop it by training and education.
Some of the wisest people I've ever known have little or no higher education at all. Thus, my earlier comment about judging the argument by its content rather than by the degree its proponent possesses. In fact, I rather think that my degree in administrative and behavioral science qualifies me in a unique way to examine the evolution-creation debate. Beware when one side in a debate spends much of its time proclaiming its objectivity while pointing out the subjectivity of the other side. That's valid only when there is no such objectivity vs. subjectivity issue present.