Disclaimer: This post has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments presented. This is just my opinion on how the debate went.
While he's not a Thomist, I do think that Craig provides several good arguments for theism. In his debate with Law, he didn't use his usual five-to-six arguments for God's existence. Instead, Craig limited his positive case for theism to just three arguments: a) the kalam cosmological argument; b) the moral argument; and c) the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus.
Law, on the other hand, defended only one argument for atheism: the argument from suffering. Now, I must say that out of all the debates I've witnessed, Law's defense of this argument was quite simply the best. That's not at all to say I think it was persuasive, but I could tell that he had done his homework and was prepared for Craig's arguments.
In the middle of this post I'm going to say outright that I believe Craig won the debate. You can chalk that up to me being a Christian theist, but hear me out.
While Craig defended three distinct arguments for God's existence, Law refused to address the kalam argument, since in his own words (this is a paraphrase), "we're here to debate Craig's God, and not a deity that is consistent with not being morally perfect." Craig responded by saying that he was building a cumulative case for Christian theism, starting with the kalam. Law replied by saying that he wasn't accumulating anything, since the kalam argument has no bearing on whether God is good or evil.
The problem I have with Law's tactic here is that Craig's God is a timeless, changeless, immaterial, personal creator of the universe. That's part of what Craig means by "God," so for Law to say that he only wanted to focus on Craig's God, while simultaneously ignoring the kalam argument, undermines Law's own criterion of what constitutes a refutation of the defense of Christian theism.
With respect to the theistic arguments Craig presented, most of these were underdeveloped, since Law chose to advance his own argument from suffering more than responding to Craig's arguments. It's in the rebuttal periods that Craig usually extrapolates further on these arguments, but since Law hardly addressed them until his third speech, we weren't left with much to go on, since Craig only had his closing statement to respond to these objections and summarize his positive case for God's existence and the reasons why Law's case against God's existence was unsuccessful. It's also worth noting that even in his closing statement and during the question-and-answer session, Law still refused to address the kalam argument.
Law's argument basically ran like this: given all of the sufferings in the world, one is rationally justified in concluding that God is not morally perfect. He postulates the idea of an evil God, and states that we cannot conclude that God is entirely evil, since there are so many good things in the world. Craig's response to this was, I think, right on the money. Theists don't conclude that God is morally perfect based on the good things we perceive in the world. Likewise, theists don't conclude that God is entirely evil based on the sufferings in the world. Craig maintains that the argument for a morally perfect God and an entirely evil God provide us with no compelling arguments, since we are not in a position to know whether certain events occur for the sake of a greater good or for the sake of a greater evil simply on the basis of the good and evil we perceive in the world.
This makes the cumulative case that Craig was defending much more realistic. He defends the kalam argument in order to arrive at some type of deity, and then further concludes that this deity is morally perfect based on the moral argument. During the question-and-answer period, Law stated that he had no idea why anything exists rather than nothing. It was at this point that Craig responded that Law was being inconsistent in requiring him to provide God's morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering, while at the same time, Law was unable (or unwilling) to provide an account of why something exists rather than nothing. This received a modest laugh from the audience to which I'm sympathetic. It seemed to me that throughout the entire debate that Law was holding Craig to standards that Law himself could not adhere to.
Despite all of this, I found this debate to be a breath of fresh air. Law came prepared to debate Craig and he was determined to not lose focus. He was charming and provided Craig with one of the most difficult debates since Austin Dacey.