Nadir likes to post deceptive intros to his videos, and this debate with Daniel Scot is no exception. Nadir declares that Sam Shamoun agreed to debate him on Old Testament violence, and that Sam is too scared to do so. In reality, Sam ageed to debate two topics with Nadir: (1) Old Testament violence, and (2) the Prophethood of Muhammad. It turns out that Nadir refuses to defend Muhammad in a public debate with Sam, and Sam will not debate Old Testament violence until Nadir agrees to defend Muhammad. In other words, Sam Shamoun is the one who wants to debate, and Nadir Ahmed is the one backing down.
(On a different note, I would say that Nadir's embarrassing losses to James White and Sam Shamoun have ended his career, and that no one is under any obligation to debate Nadir. Even Muslims turned against him in both of those debates, and most Muslims will no longer attend a debate if Nadir is a participant.)
In the following debate, Nadir, like most other Muslim apologists, condemns his own prophet. In Sunan Abu Dawud 4434, Muhammad put his hand on a copy of the Torah and swore that it's the Word of God. Nadir condemns the Old Testament and, in the process, condemns the prophet who declared that the Old Testament is the Word of God. Apart from this, Nadir shows that he doesn't have even a basic understanding of Christian doctrine (e.g. Old Covenant vs. New Covenant), and this debate was about Christianity. As viewers have seen in my debates with Sami Zaatari and Adnan Rashid, there isn't a single conceivable situation in which Christians would be called to commit violence.
Understandably, no one, whether Christian or Muslim, wants to see Nadir on stage again. For more on Nadir, visit his page at AI.