1) James Crossley (skeptic) versus William Lane Craig (Christian) here
2) Richard Carrier (skeptic) versus Mike Licona (Christian) here
3) Robert Price (skeptic) versus Gregory Boyd (Christian) here (scroll down to # 94-96. Start with 96, which is part 1. 95 is part 2. And 94 is part 3)
In my judgment, all six debaters are heavily-biased (the Christians and skeptics alike) and their presentations should be taken with a grain of salt!
Also, all of these guys have debated these issues multiple times (with varying degrees of effectiveness), so you could easily find additional debates by searching their names in Google/Bing/Youtube. You can find a 2003 debate between Boyd and Price here, but the above link from Minnesota Atheists is a 2007 debate and I wanted to list more recent debates.
Personally, I'm a layman (NOT an expert) on these issues, but it seems to me that "apologists" on both sides often exaggerate and often have a confidence that exceeds what can be justified from the available evidence. Apologists on both sides can make their positions sound true, which is why these debates are interesting.
The speakers have written essays/books in which they have a lot more to say on these issues and arguments. I wish I had more confidence one way or the other, but I don't. I have a lot more to learn. (For separate reasons, I do believe in God and an afterlife, and I've always been drawn to Christianity, but I'm not confident of Christianity)
The speakers have their own web site, which can be found below:
I won't offer any substantial thoughts, but here's a very quick summary of my own thoughts on each of the debates:
1) On Crossley VS Craig: Overall, I think Craig was more effective at arguing for his position, but I take issue with some of what he said.
2) On Carrier VS Licona: Overall, I think Carrier was more effective, although I take issue with some of the things he said.
3) On Price VS Boyd: I think they were both excellent at arguing for their positions, although I feel like Price was slightly more effective because Boyd failed to address some of Price’s points (but to be fair, Boyd has addressed those points in some of his written work).
