Stein: Dr. Bahnsen, would you call God material or immaterial?Bahnsen: That's the question I'm going to ask you. Stein: I would say no. B. Stein: Dr. Bahnsen, would you call God material or immaterial? Bahnsen: Immaterial. Stein:What is something that's immaterial? Bahnsen: Something not extended in space. Stein: Can you give me any other example, other than God, that's immaterial? Bahnsen: The laws of logic.

From what I remember (this was a discussion from long ago!), this was a great point from Bahnsen.
There were other places that Bahnsen seemed so much more on top of the arguement and Stein was "ah'ing and hem'ing. I went back and read the debate and it isn't as apparent as listening to it. I should probably go back and hear the arguements again as it doesn't read as well as hearing it. We felt that Stein, while good at written responses was not nearly as sharp in the one on one debate as we expected him to be (especially with all his credentials). We (Jews) are probably just as "predudicial" as you in our assesment that Bahnsen "won" the debate as Bahnsen counter Steins arguements so very well. I am suprised that atheists feel that Stein won. I would like to know why they feel that way.
I am not good at debating and am totally inadequate at analyzing any debate.

I just felt that Bahnsen was the agressor and supported his arguements better than Stein.