Voting reveals that William Lane Craig easily demolished Alex Rosenberg in their debate at Purdue University

I'm still at Purdue University after watching the debate between Rosenberg and Craig and I'm going to post just this brief comment (more on this debate later). As expected, Alex Rosenberg was destroyed in his debate with William Lane Craig. Even though I didn't expect a different result, I was astonished by Rosenberg's performance, specially his unfamiliarity with sophisticated arguments for God's existence, and the best replies to atheistic objections (e.g. he used Plato's dilemma against the moral argument for God's existence, an objection which in my opinion is one of the worst arguments in the history of thought, at least as used by contemporary atheists).

The official voting results of this debate is telling and are the following:

1)Audience vote: Craig (1390), Rosenberg (303).

2)Judge vote: Craig (4), Rosenberg (2)

3)Online vote: Craig (734), Rosenberg (59).

As you can see, according to the votes, the debate was a very easy, one-way, crushing victory for Craig (he won in all 3 categories: audience, judge and online votes).

Of the comments coming from people at the audience, I was expecting a wider difference (i.e. a more serious butt-kicking) between Craig and Rosenberg. The people around me just seemed impressed by Rosenberg's sophomoric, bad arguments.

I'm astonished to see that 303 persons in the audience considered that Rosenberg won! (Perhaps I shouldn't... remember Jime's Iron Law).

Also, watching Rosenberg to attack the debate format (as a desperate, last strategy of misdirection) was sad and painful to see. Why does the hell he accepted it in the first place? If you accept the conditions, stick to it and don't complain when your butt is being kicked in public. If you don't like such format, then don't accept to debate under such conditions (but don't waste your time, and the time of people watching the debate, with irrelevant complains about the scholarly imperfections of debating formats, which is not the issue at stake).

Also, watching how Rosenberg (who denies the objective existence of morality, free will, intentionality, the "self", consciousness and so forth, as you can read here) tried to argue against theism appealing to the Holocaust and suffering (which in Rosenberg's atheistic view cannot be objectively wrong), is testimony of Rosenberg's philosophical unsophistication and lack of logical coherence.

I'll post more comments when I have time.