Dawkins' Debate Rejections

[Esquilax]

Craig is a boring and repetitive debater. He reads from the same script in each debate. All you need to do is get him off script to get him stammering. I've heard a few atheists say Craig wins debates. I don't see how. Most public debates don't have any winning conditions. There are no judges giving points or anything close to that. Craig just declares himself the winner because his opponents don't refute every argument he makes like that is how public debates work. That's silly.

The most illustrative thing about Craig's debate scripts, for me, is that they don't change even when the evidence does. The man is still using the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as evidence for Kalam, even after being caught on tape being told by one of the writers of the theorem that he's using it inappropriately. He's content to keep throwing out that reference, knowing that very few of his fans will check up on it, and fewer still will be familiar with the debate where that happened; the veneer of respectability that having a scientific reference brings is more important to him than accurately representing the truth.

WLC isn't a debater at all, because a debate implies some exchange of ideas between parties. Craig doesn't exchange ideas; he projects his own and ignores everything else. I'm watching a debate of him and Hitchens on and off while I write lately, and his closing argument is seriously "we haven't heard any evidence tonight for why god doesn't exist, so ha!" The man's just kindergarten styles dressed up in fifty dollar words and an expensive suit.