This is a slightly older debate from 2008 that has somehow evaded me for the last few years. Bart Ehrman completely routs William Lane Craig in this debate. I’m not sure what other outcome you would expect, however, given that Ehrman is a biblical historian and Craig a liar for Jesus, debating the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection.
It seems fairly obvious the way Ehrman puts it. Historians have the task of piecing together what most probably happened in the past. How, then, can anyone possibly say that Jesus “probably” or even “likely” rose from the dead, performed other miracles, etc., when miracles–being miraculous and all–are by definition the least probable event that could have possibly occurred? Touche.