Incinerating Presuppositionalism has a commentary on Steven Carr's debate on the resurrection. I was going to review it awhile back, but had trouble with the download. Then I noticed the IP link was working for me. So here are some thoughts. It isn't a formal debate, which makes a blow-by-blow harder, so I'll just give general observations:
1) Carr was the only one who knew what he was talking about. Both his opponent and the callers to the show were clearly ignorant of the basics of Biblical scholarship. It a sense that was good for him, but it meant he needed to do some educating that he didn't do the best job of. His argument was that Paul's idea of resurrection was different than that of the gospels, so he needed to clearly explain the reason for giving priviledged status to Paul. He needed to say that Paul's letters were earlier, and we know that Paul really wrote certain ones of them, while the gospels are later and we aren't so sure who wrote them. He did this to an extent with some prompting, but it needed to happen at the start. On the other hand, given that it was an informal back and forth, it's not as if he could have spent the first half of a 20-minute speach explaining this point. If had, somehow, done so, that would have disabled the objections that he was being "very clever" (I could almost hear his opponent thinking "too clever") and that he was picking and choosing evidence.
2) People kept bringing up personal experience of Jesus. Carr did a good job of using this, saying that's what happened with the first disciples. However, it might have been a signal to switch to a more informal mode of debating, to shift away from rigorous historical arguments.