Marianne Talbot outlines a distinctly unusual God hypothesis and gives a few reasons for her lack of unbelief, from the perspective of a philosopher who has read a bit too much Berkeley. Money quote from the other side, "Your idea of God is a bit different..."
Stephen Law focuses primarily on the evidential argument from evil, and goes on to sublimely and rather ingeniously flip around all the standard theodicies in order to defend an hypothetical supremely evil and powerful deity. I'm definitely adding this guy to my reading list, and to my anti-W.L.C. debater dream team.
This debate would have been a rare 5-star event, but for the fact that Talbot's argument for god cannot seem to be recast into a deductively valid form. If someone can correct me on this, I'd be more than happy to accept the reproof.
Unbeliever rating: 5.0 stars
Believer rating 4.0 stars
Overall rating: 4.5 stars