You can check out Paul Buller’s account of the debate here. Paul thought I “won” the debate (to the extent that it is helpful to speak of such events in terms of winning). Of course, I guarantee many of the CFI people who were there thought I was the big loser! I could tell by their expressions during the debate and questions and answer period. So I suppose it all depends which testimony you’re willing to accept …
Paul did think I spoke at too high a level for some of the audience which is a fair criticism. However, this, for me, comes back to the expectations one brings to a debate, i.e. what one aims to accomplish in the debate. About a decade ago I was sitting in a Bill Craig debate at a church and I looked at the audience as he breezed through his five arguments in twenty minutes. Did most people understand when Craig was talking about the impossibility of an actual infinite? Definitely not. However, the point, it seemed to me, was not that they grasp every point (or even most points). A twenty (or forty) minute talk probably won’t do that. But what it will do is encourage Christians and challenge atheists with the fact that there are intelligent Christians who can address these issues at a high level.
So that’s more my philosophy of debating. It is a way to begin to change perceptions (of both Christians and atheists) and thereby to encourage and challenge. To the extent where people track the arguments, that’s icing on the cake.
Incidentally, I was told the debate was recorded and I’ll surely make the audio available when I can.
