This was an interesting debate. Shadid Lewis is a convert to Islam; Nabeel Qureshi is a convert to Christianity. The purpose of the debate was for them to discuss their reasons for converting. Notice that evidence played virtually no role in Shadid's conversion (he says he left the church for good when his pastor pulled out a saxophone), but that evidence was crucial to Nabeel's conversion. The reason this is important is that Shadid's case is quite typical. I've talked to several converts to Islam, and when I ask them why they converted, it nearly always has to do with social reasons (e.g. "I was sick of guys eyeing me in my miniskirt, so I put on a veil") rather than evidence. Also notice the inconsistency here. Shadid notes several things he didn't like about what Christians do in the world, but would he accept the same reasoning in reverse? "I left Islam when my Imam started preaching violence." Or, "I left Islam when I saw the World Trade Center fall." Or, "I left Islam when Muslims from countries around the world erupted into violence over Danish cartoons." Or, "I left Islam because many men in the Middle East believe it's okay to beat their wives." Obviously, Shadid doesn't think that any of these would be good reasons to leave Islam. Why then apply a standard to Christianity that he would never apply to Islam?
For a fuller discussion of Nabeel's reasons for converting, see "Crossing Over: An Intellectual and Spiritual Journey from Islam to Christianity."
For some video commentary by James White, click here.