Dr. Bill Craig's Debates: Why do Atheists lose/run away from debating him?

[Bucky Ball]

1. Christopher Hitchens is alleged to have written supposedly un-answerable arguments against Christian Theism. And yet, when he actually debated Atheism vs Christianity in fair discussion and cross-examination with Dr. Craig, even an Atheist site remarked he lost and lost badly: "The debate went exactly as I expected. Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child." ("Common Sense Atheism" atheist review).

Well, yes, Hitchens was out of his league here. And I don't say this as someone who disliked him. I actually loved Hitchens and found him to be quite humorous. He was generally very good at jabs and making snide comments about his debate opponents in a way that made people laugh and love him for it. But when you pit him against a serious and intimidating debater like WLC (as Hitchens himself implied about him), he is not going to be able to do his usual magic with him. Keep in mind Hitchens was never an amazing philosopher, but he was a great and entertaining speaker and interviewee. And I will forever like how he humiliated Sean Hannity on his own show with quick wits and charm.

2. And Richard Dawkins, another of the so-called "four horsemen of the apocalypse" ran away from debating Dr. Craig at Oxford University, though happily debating with some lesser known or less qualified Christians or Christian speakers.

I don't blame him one bit. He may have been more of an intellectual than Hitchens but he still wouldn't have fared well in a debate with WLC. I think he did the smart thing here. If you're not the best at debate tactics, rhetoric, and not exactly an expert on metaphysics and philosophy of religion, and not well-trained in logic, you have no business debating these topics with someone like WLC in the first place. You have to be really good at all these to be on equal grounds with him in terms of impression and logic. But unfortunately, many arrogant fools opted to go against him, thinking that if they have the "truth" on their side, and they're good at science, they could "outdebate" him and win, only to end up being embarrassed instead.

Some people who debated Craig did quite well, mind you. But too many did shit against him and were quite embarrassing.

That's all very true. 
Hitchens always needed to assemble a "team" which included someone who was familiar with Craig's MO, a real academic "liberal/historical" Biblical expert, 
and someone familiar with Logic and it's corruptions. A lot of them were their own worst enemies. Even Ehrman's field of expertise is the New Testament. He still routinely 
embarrasses himself talking about ancient Jewish (Hebrew) culture. Hitchen's was way out of his depth in a sense. While I may have agreed with many things he said, his presentations were vastly lacking in countering what his debaters presented.