William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[GrandizerII]

To be fair, he is a very good debater. The only atheist I know who I would say overpowered him with both good rhetoric and logic is Shelly Kagan.

I might just have different standards what makes a good debater then. When listening to Craig debating theism, every other thing he utters jumps in my face as an equivocation, misrepresentation of physics and other science, or simply wrong. If being a good debater means packaging dishonesty in an efficient form such that it can sway superficial audiences, then he is a good debater.

Rhetoric over logic is what the mainstream debates you see in the media are about.

Academic debates are a different story.