I recently posted a debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman arguing contesting the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. Ehrman clearly came out on top, arguing that since an historian can only piece together the most probable account of the past, and that miracles are by definition the least probable thing that can happen, then one cannot argue that Jesus’ resurrection is a probable historical event.
Now the debate topic is whether or not God is needed for morality, and ethicist Shelly Kagan is pitted against Craig. Kagan, I think quite handily, got to the root of Craig’s arguments and showed how his assumptions are completely flawed, leading to very confused conclusions. Watch the whole debate; it is very high caliber.