The debate ( audio | video | 1h31m11s ) occurred in 2006 on The Infidel Guy Show between Dan Barker and Presupper Paul Manata.
3.75 stars. CHECK
Taner Edis at TSO
ML review: Manata won
Loftus talks about it in the comments
GtA brief mention with Evolution 101's Dr. Zack Moore discussing the debate in the comments
We finally get the final word on the importance of broccoli with this one, dear reader!
This debate is a weird one, at least for me. It was my introduction to presuppositionalist arguments for theism and it certainly threw my off when I first heard it several years ago.
When I first heard the debate, Manata sounded better because his arguments were novel and he spat out a lot of points - a style that was pointed compared to the more laid back style Dan Barker utilizes. Even then though, Manata came off as mean-spirited and overly-aggressive and really dropped the ball about broccoli and the talking snake.
It is kind of weird that Manata floundered on such a question because the idea of a talking snake is pretty ridic that I am surprised that it isn't just brought up more in at least informal debates. I remember when I did "ask an atheist" and a srs fundie came up to argue with us and I asked him if he believed in a talking snake all he could do is say "it was a talking serpent" OH! Well then that changes everything.
After relistening to it, Barker does a little better and Manata does a little worse. Again, he was overtly aggressive and mean-spirited, on his rebuttal period he brought up a bunch of new points, too many for any of them to sink in, and barely addressed what Barker mentioned if at all. One thing he did do was assume that Barker was a functionalist and just argued against functionalism, physicalism and a bunch of isms. Now, sure maybe you can infer this about Barker from your debate you just had and his books, but if you're going to do that, you need to demonstrate it instead of just asserting it and knocking it down as if it was his position. Furthermore, specific to Manata, he got really upset and repeatedly asked Barker to point out when in the debate he said something and dismissed Barker's argument that he could infer such a thing so it is kind of weak for Manata to do the exact same thing, in his rebuttal, no less.
Still, this is a possible quick introduction to presupper arguments in a format that is less long-winded albeit, short.
ETA 7-23-2013: I should note that I think Manata certainly sounded like he had potential. I recall listening to a debate of his with someone named Derek Sansone(?) and he sounded a lot more composed and good-natured...but Sansone was an absolutely awful debater. I don't mind saying Manata won that one.
Technical: Fuzzy but hearable AQ and the video I link to is just the audio.