Just come on here, so well after event. I am an atheist, so would naturally support Dr Kappel. Unfortunately (from my angle) I was not very impressed. In terms of presentation, Dr Craig was miles ahead - clear, structured, impressive delivery. By contrast poor Dr Kappel was far less structured, did not engage with the audience and seemed to admit he'd not had time to prepare - though I think Dr Craig used a ploy to wrong foot Dr K by challenging him for specific responses to his case before anything else, when he would have known his opponent would have prepared his first speech beforehand without seeing Dr C's text. But even so, Dr K's style (and the content of the first half of his talk) did not impress.
However, I thought he did score against Dr C's case with the 'Magical Stars'. On the downside, I did not like his seemingly disingenuous non-challenge theism on account its usefulness - some might say this would be one person encouraging others to hold beliefs for some general benefit, despite the one person being atheist (Sam Harris has attacked that view).
But I think Dr Kappel did provide an insightful view of such debates - that if protagonists cannot mutually agree premises (eg the necessity of scientific evidence - or (for theists) the possibility of direct revelation. This arguably shows the limits of these debates - though I think they are valuable.