I guess I never posted my own thoughts on the debate, so I'll do so now. I'll remind readers at the outset that it's hard to be objective on such things; so while I've tried to be honest and scrutinize both sides, I can't reject the ubiquitous possibility of bias.
With all that said, let me begin by saying how impressed I was by PE as an adversary. I'm not sure we had had extensive philosophical discussion before, and I was unsure what to expect. PE navigated with aplomb through philosophical points that even many educated people find bewildering. This allowed the debate to focus largely on substance, which made it really enjoyable and, I think, quite substantive.
To summarize, I thought -- and here, see caveat in my first paragraph -- that I did succeed, and the affirmative won. It has been pointed out by others that a definition of rationality was never firmly agreed upon by us. I don't share in others' regret about this, because I think it's such an important and interesitn issue that it's certain to arise anyhow and to generate interesting discussion, which it did.
That said, I thought that PE made a decisive concession in the cross-examination phase of the debate, when he allowed that sensory and logical belief are accepted on faith. He had earlier defended these as rational according to his usage of the word (although rejecting their certainty), and there was nothing in anything he said that would distinguish why one purely faith-based belief was rational and another was not. (And even if he had, I had made points arguing that theistic belief grounds other knowledge, as PE suggested the senses and other faith propositions can do). This allowed me to point out in my closing that, according to PE's own definition, there was nothing left preventing us from concluding that Christian belief was rational.
I spent very little time on this point (I think one sentence), because, while I do think it sufficed for an affirmative victory under the negative's definition and reasoning pattern, it was a somewhat technical point, and didn't lead to interesting substance. Moreover, I rejected both the negative's definition of rationality and the conclusion that any purely faith-based belief is rational, so I had little interest beyond the strategic in pointing it out.
This leaves the other line of discussion, based on the affirmative's conception of rationality. This was at least partly aceded to by PE on at least one occasion, but never firmly settled on. Nevertheless, as I outlined in my closing, I believe I made sufficient arguments to establish a prima facie case that was never refuted that, under this conception of rationality, Christian belief was rational.
In one sense it's sad that the debate didn't go a little longer -- PE was giving signs of wrestling with this line of argument in more interesting ways in his closing. His specific closing arguments, to my mind, all rested on points that I had already addressed, and so failed to refute the prima facie case I had made; but a phrase here and there promised very interesting discussion if we proceeded. Perhaps we can do so in the future!
That, again, is the summary of the debate as I see it, but I don't mean to say I can't understand how somebody could read it and come to other conclusions about who won. It is hard to get out of one's own head, after all, and not everything we mean or think is clear on paper.
I thought PE asked outstanding questions in cross-examination, and I enjoyed the opportunity to answer them. His demeanor, timeliness, and generosity in the debate all deserve note (there was a misunderstanding about the expectation that I would define God, which he allowed me to correct without penalty). Altogether I left with a lot of respect for his intellect and ability to move quickly in a conversation to the interesting points; and I would love the opportunity to have another discussion with him in the future, if time and events allowed.
Do Webdippers have a temperamental attitudinal problem? 
)
)
)
)
)