I watched to the half that ABC has chosen to make available so far, and I'll do the same when the other half goes up. I do have to say, though, that I didn't find the arguments presented by either side to be new, creative, or insightful.
The side presented by Comfort was predictable - it was Paley's Watch for the Universe, Paley's Watch for Natural Law, and truth as evidenced by conversion. The counterarguments were less forceful than they might have been.
I listened to most of what was posted as well, and I had the same general opinion. I was a little disappointed (although, realistically, any show touting Kirk Cameron as a debater -- from what I know about him, not necessarily just because he's a celeb -- doesn't create a lot of expectation in me to begin with) by the whole thing. It was all the same basic Level 1 style arguments I've heard before.
And there were some missteps. Kelly started well on her basic rebuttal (where she described the role of science), but in the last few minutes of it really just resorted to some personalized attacks or misrepresentations of the opposition position. I wasn't really keen on hearing things veer into Bible land either, whether it was the Creationists making assertions that could not be proven or the Atheists casting passages in dubious lights.
I'm not holding high hopes for the rest, unfortunately.
Incidentally, I'm not sure how the First Cause argument can be answered, because it's an assertion, not a derived proof. If God exists outside the realm of science and is not a victim of its laws, then we have no way to evaluate him; everything is conjecture. So I'm not even sure why it should get brought up in a discussion like this. The Creationist says, "Here's what I believe," and the Atheist can only respond, "I have no way to check that out." Argument seems a waste of time.
...man, I could use a banana right now...