 |
| The guy had a gnarly beard...and interesting ties. |
Ridic update March 26, 2019.
Specifically the top 15 debates have changed significantly. I can't believe I was complimentary to Sam Harris...
Purpose
So here's my mini-reviews of WLC's debates, mostly video/audio debates, though. I'm sticking with LM's categories and naming format.
The debates are in this rough order: best to worst. For example, the first debate listed in the Ugly section is the least ugly debate. CHECK the bottom of the post for updates!
The Good
1. Arif Ahmed vs WLC 2005 Is Belief in God More Reasonable Than Disbelief?(video | review | 1h 50m 24s) | LM's rating: Bad
Ahmed knows how to condense his arguments and lucidly discuss them, but he is also very impassioned and charming so he has good rhetoric. Two things stood out in his performance: his example against the resurrection and reply to Craig's argument that atheists cannot condemn the atrocities of the bible or religious folk if they cannot ground objective moral values.
Two of the three arguments against theism Ahmed gives are ones I still put forward (Burden of proof argument and the POE...so I'll be a bit safer and give Law's POE which is the evidential version) but his third argument seemed awkward which made his case a bit minimalist when compared to the more intense case for theism WLC gives. Some of Ahmed's responses might have seemed too dismissive, or in need of expansion.
But it's Ahmed's ability to straightforwardly present the topics and the fact that he keeps up his end of the debate, i.e., he calls WLC out when he dropped arguments and does much better than others when it came to hammering WLC on the sketchier claims and arguments he'll usually get away with.
2. Stephen Law vs Craig 2011 Does God Exist?
(audio | video | review | 2h 3m 37s) | LM's rating: Unrated
The more I listen to this debate the more I think it's a clear loss for WLC...though I won't disagree with the fact that WLC probably won the audience over.
Law gives the evidential problem of evil followed by his Evil God Challenge which he uses to undermine many of the classic theodicies theists use and WLC employs as well.
Law's response to Craig's moral argument was great though. WLC gets away with presenting a lame evolution-fanboy based morality as the default atheist moral system and Law is one of the few to call Craig out for acting like Law held such a position. I also enjoyed his point about moral intuitionism (Craig's some things are wrong "and deep down we all know it" schtick), too. If we just went with all our intuitions we'd think the Earth didn't spin 1000 mph because I don't feel like I'm traveling that fast.
This debate has gone from almost the bottom-middle of the Bad section to Top Ten. I listen to it a lot, it really is a great one.
3. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong vs Craig 1999 Problem of Evil
(audio | video | review | 1h 25m 57s) | LM's rating: Good (though he's referring to their book more so...)
WLC was fighting against a few handicaps in this one: had a bit of a handicap in this one: S-A went first - which is rare for a Craig 'bate - it was a more informal setting, S-A had time to undermine WLC's usual rebuttal strats like saying "my opponent didn't respond to x and/or y argument..." during the dialogue portion, and the topic was specific to the problem of evil.
I wish Craig was more open to doing informal debate events and at the same time remember why it is that he isn't too fond of them.
4. Keith Parsons vs Craig 1998 Why I am/am not a Christian (1st Debate)
(audio | video 1 & 2 | review | 2h 11m 50s) | Luke's rating: Good
This is the one debate I can say, hands down, that Craig lost. Parsons had Craig on every argument and is a fun speaker - lots of passion. Parsons also kept up with Craig, though he isn't as polished. The topic limited Craig a little more though, he wasn't able to give the larger case he usually offers, busting out the KCA, MA and FTA and Parsons even nailed Craig on using his personal experience argument in a great way.
Craig got a HUGE laugh from the audience at one point, it was too much, but Parsons recovered and definitely came away from this one as the victor.
5. Sean Carroll vs Craig 2014 God and Cosmology
(audio | video | review | 1hr40min)
Sean Carroll is pretty impressive in this debate. Craig had everything going for him in this debate but Carroll was extremely well-prepared, charming, and was able to meet WLC with an equally impressive ability to pack a lot of content into short response times. WLC says something like "Wow one feels like they're drinking from a firehose" in response to SC around the end and I've only heard him say that to Parsons. If WLC says something like that, then you know you've made him work for his supper.
6. Shelly Kagan vs Craig 2009 Is God Necessary for Morality?
(audio | video | review | 1h 30m 15s) | LM's rating: Good?
Kagan is another guy who comes out of nowhere and devastates Craig. Besides the fact that Kagan knows his stuff, argues against the points made by Craig, and presents a positive case for morality without god, this is one of the refreshing examples of a debate WLC wasn't able to get away with the usual assertions and sketchy arguments.
This is another debate where WLC had some handicaps going against him: Kagan went first, it was more informal, and it seemed like WLC was unsure of what he was supposed to prepare for format-wise...he even says he winged his closing remarks.
It also seems like WLC prepared to take on the moral position Kagan is known for supporting in the literature/academically and floundered when he found himself taking on contractarianism instead.
(audio | review | 1h 33m 20s) | Luke's rating: Bad (though interesting)
Another debate I like more and more with each new listen. Cavin gives a pretty brutal opening making arguments I find myself relying on more and more, too. Cavin drops the ball on a couple things though and this isn't helped by how well Craig does in the rebuttal periods. I think Cavin gives a great opening and his rebuttals get weaker and weaker to the conclusion (he just kind of finishes what seems like a single presentation from the last rebuttal to his conclusion which looks impotent to WLC's strats and brutal conclusions AND Cavin runs out of time in his conclusion).
Another thing Cavin never makes crystal clear for the audience is the nature of his Jesus twin hypothesis. Cavin makes the case that even something as highly improbable as Jesus dying and having a twin he never knew of faking the crucifixion Jesus stuff is still more probable than the resurrection case WLC gives but he only really says this once and buried in language that makes it sound like he's conceding to WLC that his hypothesis sucks. Craig has no problem framing the debate that way for the audience too. Take this quote from Craig's closing:
"[Given all the ad hoc BS Cavin has to dish out to save his twin hypothesis] I think this shows the extremity of the lengths to which you have to go in order to deny the resurrection of Jesus.I doubt WLC would have gotten away with this even in front of an audience of undergrads.
If this is what we're led to by denying the resurrection, then if I were a non-Christian I would be shaken to the soles of my shoes by this demonstration.
[Audience cheers while hotties throw panties at WLC on stage at this part.]
Is this what I got to believe to deny the resurrection?!"
8. Raymond Bradley vs Craig 1995 God and Hell
(audio | video | review | 1h 15m 16s | Luke's rating: Good
This is another one where Craig pretty much lost.
To be fair, it's a hard argument to counter: how can a loving god send people to Hell and WLC was going against something rare: a prepared opponent. Bradley did his homework.
This one gets pretty technical; they talk about possible worlds, free will, compossible sets.... I'm still not sure if Craig's right that heaven isn't a pw, or if he conceded the point or managed to slip away from being called out on it. This debate was a little short but it emphasized cross-examination - the bane of WLC.
I agree with Luke that Bradley's concluding speech was especially weak, unfortunately.
(audio | video | review | 2h 8m 11s) | Luke's rating: Good
Dacey does better here, he sounds a little less meek (compared to his 2004 debate with Craig). They do cover the same ground in the debate they had the year prior (listed below), but Dacey is able to address Craig's arguments a bit more because he consolidated his time a little better. The thing is that Craig actually does pretty well too, his first rebuttal is especially brutal and sometimes you wish Dacey would be a bit more punchy about some things but he remains pretty demure, instead.
10. Tooley vs Craig 2010 Is God Real?
(audio | video | review | over 2hrs) | Luke's rating: Unrated
Tooley does a good job of explaining Craig's debate MO and even has Craig on the ropes a few times. What I mean by this is that you can tell Craig is working for his supper when he goes past the clock. The bummer is that Tooley's own arguments seemed really technical and it was obvious that Craig knew the audience probably felt so, as well. Craig plays that issue up in his responses and Tooley doesn't sound as forceful as one would hope.
Two things that stand out are that Tooley does a good job of pointing out how Craig hasn't taken the time to address better, non-theistic accounts of morality and drawing attention to Craig's slide from defending the Christian god to defending a more generic philosophers' god.
I would suggest checking this one out and would also mention that I am probably gonna give it another listen.
Keith Parsons vs Craig 2002 Does God Exist? (2nd Debate)
This debate is a damaged mess that a friend sent me and only the openings and Q&A are intact. Parson's opening speech is nearly flawless, however and one of Craig's rebuttals is complete and at least three of Parson's points remain unaddressed and obviously so, which is a rare feat. Further evidence that this was a good debate is that Craig starts one of his rebuttals off by saying "it feels as if I've been drinking from a fire hose tonight!" in response to one of Parson's rebuttals.
He says this for his debate against Carroll and it seems like a good sign. Parsons has since said he felt he did well in the debate and JJ Lowder concurs.
The U of I Cru copyright people won't let me get the debate and it's such a shame! I almost got an mp3 CD of it but never heard back. It's been months. I don't care, I'll email them again. They have to at least make it available on their site!
Hector Avalos vs Craig 2004 Resurrection
( audio | video | review | 1h 59m 57s ) | Luke's rating: Bad, though it sounds like he liked it when he interviewed Avalos.
Here both parties do well content-wise but suffer from poor form. Craig starts with a 5 minute attack on Avalos for arguments he made in a previous debate and Avalos' language sounded like he was attacking Craig rather than Craig's arguments.
Avalos does get specific in this one and he uses arguments that had Craig scrambling while also making arguments that Craig weakly answers. But he doesn't address Craig's arguments as explicitly as Craig, something which Craig calls out several times.
Also, despite Craig opening with a cheap shot, he just does really well in this debate, IMO. This is one of Craig's best performances.
Harris vs Craig 2011 God without God?
(audio | video | review | 2h 3m 46s) | Luke's rating: I think "Ugly"...
So Sam Harris is boring, a poor reasoner, and really whiny. The fact that people think his moral philosophy is something to take seriously staggers me.
This debate is a good debate but I'm all on WLC's side for this one. WLC mangles Harris in the debate. He quotes Harris, cites brutal critiques of Harris, quotes Jerry Fodor, and offers his own arguments against specific pieces of garbage Harris asserts in his book the Moral Landscape. It's great.
Harris seemed almost insistent on giving a crappy performance here. I wonder if that's how he approaches other things in life...
Stenger v Craig 2003 Is There a God? (1st Debate)
( audio | video | review | 2h 32m 55s ) | Luke's rating: Good
Stenger does the best job of showing the flaws in Craig's arguments concerning more mathy and sciency topics. Like Luke says, he doesn't let Craig get away with nearly as much stuff as he does in his other debates. Stenger also sounds very laid back and his arguments are pretty straight forward/interesting, especially his analogy about logical consistency and video games.
Craig comes off stronger in this one because of his rebuttal-game, however.
Eddie Tabash vs Craig 1999 Secular Humanism vs Christianity
( audio | video | review | 1h 42m 10s) | Luke's rating: Good
Tabash had Craig flip a coin to see who went first and won. Tabash comes out like a hurricane and he quotes Craig a lot from his previous debates. Such a tactic and the fact that Tabash really drove home the immorality of the Bible made it so Craig barely kept up. Craig had to address a lot of issues about Biblical atrocities that he usually gets away with avoiding, something which resulted in him wasting a lot of time and making some pretty terrible sounding arguments.
Tabash does a good job keeping Craig on the ropes but doesn't really support his own position: Secular Humanism, something Craig calls attention to.
The Bad
Bart Ehrman vs Craig 2006 Resurrection
(audio | video | review | 1h 54m 56s) | Luke's rating: Bad because...
Ehrman is full of passion about the topic and keeps his case nice and simple. He's one of the few debaters to really grill Craig for avoiding the issue of biblical inerrancy - in a way that doesn't sound borderline ad hom. He also presents scenarios accounting for the empty tomb that're more plausible than godidit - scenarios which are weakly dismissed by Craig. Craig also spends a bit too much time trying to explain Bayes Theorem that Ehrman promptly rejects.
Pigliucci v Craig 2001 Does the Christian God Exist?
( audio | video | review | 2h 34m 48s ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
Great debate. Both guys do a great job and Pigliucci really nails home the idea that Craig agreed to defend the Christian god so Craig couldn't fall back on hoping the audience gets the impression that when he uses the KCA, FTA and MA, he's not only presenting evidence for a generic god or gods, but for the Christian god. Pigliucci's morality argument is a bit weird or poorly relayed, though.
This debate is pretty fun too, lots of Q&A at the end with good back and forth.
Draper vs Craig 1997 The Existence of God
( audio | video | review | 1h 26m 25s ) | Luke's rating: Bad
This debate is pretty decent, though a little short. Draper, officially an agnostic, brings up great arguments and sticks with them as well as sticks to calling Craig out on things. The main issue is that despite presenting wonderful and damning phil articles, Draper's public debate-game is pretty mild.
So in the end, Draper ultimately doesn't come out as strong as he probably would have if given more time and if debating against only the Christian god. His positive case for naturalism is one of the more cogent and explicit ones that I have come across, however.
Price vs Craig 1999 Resurrection
( audio | video | review | 2h 32m 20s ) | Luke's rating: Good
Price has a pretty no-BS first speech, but it mostly attacks Craig's apologetic motives and barely touches on the topic. Despite showing the dishonest goals of Craig's exegeses, Craig was still able to dismiss this assault by showing how it is irrelevant to the debate.
Furthermore, Price doesn't follow it up too much and stays on topic for the rest of the debate making you wonder how much better he would have done if he shortened his criticism of Craig in his first speech and gave more arguments relevant to the debate topic. He certainly has Craig jumping through hoops in the rebuttal periods but Craig definitely swayed the audience.
Another kind of bummer with this was the Q&A in which Price really demonstrated his ability to dismantle the common apologetic line. But Price definitely had the odds against him getting skewered by the questioners and was followed up by Craig getting a bunch of softball questions and getting the last word...He gets to open debates and close them? Bummer City.
Carrier vs Craig 2009 Resurrection
( audio | video | review | 2h 31m 26s ) | Luke's rating: Disappointing
I think Carrier did better than he and others thought, but he still let Craig get away with too many things. Craig was also smarmy-er than usual in this one. Carrier runs out of time due to being flustered and not organizing his points enough, something you simply can't do against Craig.
This one is better than what others have said about it though, that's for sure. Carrier's first speech was just about flawless and he definitely was able to clarify a few things in the Q&A section.
It's a shame that Craig won't debate him again.
Crossley vs Craig 2007 Resurrection
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Bad
Crossley does well, especially at first. He has a good opening and gets the audience on his side. He went with a more humorous approach but kind of dropped it in response to Craig's rebuttals.
Again, the more content-dense presentations and organized structure of Craig's arguments has him pulling ahead. Craig's ability to give more specific and relevant arguments that cite the work of his opponents is very impressive and it is so rare that you hear his opponents do the same that it becomes frustrating.
Of course Crossley is an academic in the field so it's easier to find his work and cite it in ways that could work to one's agenda, where as most of Craig's work is already written in an apologetic format. It is easier to find things in the former that would be difficult to respond to in a debate format than in the latter, the latter is already written to conform to such a format!
Brown vs Craig 2009 Does God Exist??
( audio | review | 2h 9m 37s ) | Luke's rating: Bad
Brown starts off with a rambling opening speech. It seems like he knows what he's talking about, but he just wasn't sure what kind of debate he was in for with Craig. When Craig throws down in his first rebuttal, Brown figures it out and comes back and does a good job. He's just not focused enough to handle Craig and engages with the arguments too late in the game, however.
Dacey vs Craig 2004 Does God Exist? (1st Debate)
( audio | video | review | 1h 59m 33s ) | Luke's rating: Good
Dacey is a little more timid than he is in the debate he had with Craig a year later. He still gives a good show, addresses almost all of Craig's arguments and gives positive arguments for atheism. This one is barelyyyyy bad...maybe it should be labeled a good debate...I should give it another listen.
Hoover vs Craig 2008 Resurrection
( audio | video | review | 2h 1m 46s ) | Luke's rating: Bad
Hoover does a solid job of showing how the resurrection of someone as a concept isn't as amazingly radical (to contemporary Jews) and as groundbreaking as apologists make it out to be. But Craig is too organized and gives too many arguments for Hoover to keep up with.
I mention the resurrection in Jewish thought thing because in other debates Craig tries to show how referring to other religions having resurrection stories is irrelevant to the "very Jewish" Jesus story, but instead Craig notes that all the resurrections Hoover refers to, show a reliance on a bodily resurrection. Heads I win, tails you lose. This eliminates the spiritual resurrection argument from Hoover's debate repertoire. CURSES!*
Hoover also squanders his cross-examination time, which is a shame because that and Q&A are when Craig is at his weakest.
*7-25-2015: I forgot that I had an issue with this and see here that I don't explain it too well...Now I can't figure it out from what past-Joe wrote as it kind of makes no sense. I'll come back to it eventually.
Ahmed & Copson vs Craig & Williams 2011 Is God a Delusion?
( audio | video | review | 1h 31m 11s ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
I'm not sure where to put this as it was more of a debate between Copson and Williams. Ahmed and Craig don't really come in until the end and don't say all too much. Ahmed and Copson come off as charming whereas I can only remember Williams giving a weird analogy about socks and Craig having to deal with rather lame questions from the floor.
I guess I do know where to put it, in the bad section. It seems like such a waste, too.
Antony vs Craig 2008 Is God Necessary for Morality?
( audio 1 & 2 | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Ugly
Antony does a decent job of explaining how there are ways we can come up with a moral framework without relying on the supernatural, but she doesn't bring anything too explicit to the table (like Kagan) and it comes off as too obvious that she is reading from a script. That isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't look too hot when compared to Craig. Ultimately, her speeches sound more like lectures and she is just too vague.
Stenger vs Craig 2010 The Existence of God (2nd Debate)
( audio | video | review | 2h 12m 11s ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
Stenger does alright in this one. He doesn't seem as organized as he is in their 2003 debate. Stenger especially becomes scattered in his closing speech, however. Overall, just a disappointing debate.
The Ugly
Shook vs Craig 2008 The Existence of God
( audio | video | review | 2h 18m 26s ) | Luke's rating: Bad
Shook certainly had Craig fighting for the audience's favor and was pretty zingy, but he just didn't really present his arguments or counter Craig's arguments too clearly. They were also kind of weak and uninspired. During the cross-ex Craig seemed flustered and timid despite the fact that some of the things Shook mentioned at times sounded non-sequitur.
Shook would also take awhile to say something that shouldn't take all that long, especially when answering a question near the end about certainty and testing.
Pyle vs Craig 2007 Does the Christian God Exist?
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating:Unrated
This debate was supposed to be about Christianity, specifically, but Craig gets away with simply arguing for the generic philosopher's god. He's more organized and Pyle refuses to offer any positive cases for atheism/naturalism.
Pyle does get Craig on one thing and he really slams him about it, it's too bad that it gets lost in all the other arguments because Craig responds to it miserably, I mean miserably. But like I mentioned, it gets lost amongst the other arguments. Here's a link to what the argument discussed.
Hitchens vs Craig+EVERYONE 2009
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
Craig is barely in this one, it's all Hitch's show. When Craig does come in, he seems more like the fatherly voice of logic between the polemical Hitch, the bizarre arguments of the moderator, Doug Wilson and the other forgettable apologists.
Craig does come in at the end and gets all condescending about Hitch not answering all the arguments and says he should prepare more in their up coming debate. Shame on Hitch!...for not answering all the arguments brought up by five different opponents in less than 90 minutes...Craig says something like, "I noted that there are 10 arguments Christopher wasn't able to address..." oh come on...
Millican vs Craig 2011 Does God Exist?
( audio | video | review | 2h 23m 19s ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
Millican is definitely new to this debate schtick but he has a decent opening and, though weakly, counters several of Craig's arguments. But alas, he, like many others, just can't keep up. An interesting side note: Millican gets pretty passionate during the Q&A about evolution. Maybe cause Craig wants to debate biologists so much (Dawkins and Coyne), he should face someone who at least has such a passion for the topic, like Millican if they're not taking him up on his offers.
Slezak vs Craig 2008? Atheism v Christianity
( audio | video | review | 1h 28m 19s ) | Luke's rating: Bad
Slezak starts off strong but Craig is in good form for this debate. If it is the case that Slezak wasn't wishy-washy about his position on evidence against the existence of god, then Craig sure was convincing in arguing that he was.
Slezak just loses steam as the debate continues, he's a decent speaker though, which was such a shame.
Wolpert vs Craig 2009 Is God a Delusion?
( audio | video | review | 1h 47m 56s ) | Luke's rating: Ugly
Wolpert is all over the place in his first speech. When Craig slams him in the rebuttal Wolpert sounds down-right amazed and befuddled and just couldn't keep up and organize a defense or an offense. Another debate where someone lectures and the other guy debates.
DiCarlo vs Craig 2009 Does God Matter?
( audio | video | review | 1h 38m 32s ) | Luke's rating: Ugly
I agree with Luke, this debate was a mess. It was nice to hear Craig change up his schtick due to the different debate topic, but DiCarlo is just an awful debater and doesn't bring anything interesting to the table. DiCarlo drops the ball in another debate against other apologists, despite even having Matt Dillahunty on his side.
Rosenberg vs Craig 2013 Is Faith in God Reasonable?
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
Craig gives eight arguments for this debate! Eight! I don't see why, considering Rosenberg just had no idea what he was doing and kept trying to shame Craig about something concerning the Holocaust for some reason.
This debate was brutal.
Barrier v Craig 2000 Does God Exist?
( audio | video | review | 1h 30m 14s ) | Luke's rating: Ugly
Barrier only superficially touches Craig's arguments. Another agreement with Luke: Craig walks all over Barrier and Barrier just gets more frazzled and less coherent as the debate continues. Painful to listen to.
Dawkins, Shermer & Ridley v Craig, Geivett & Wolpe 2010 Does the Universe have Purpose?
( audio | video | review | 1h 43m 28s ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
This debate is all over the place. I only listened to it cause it semi-fulfilled Craig's dream: a debate with Dawkins.
The debate blew. The topic was stupid, the parameters were stupid, only the theists really touched on the stupid topic and it was short as hell, too.
The only kinda interesting thing was the questions from other noted folk that attended the conference, but they all sounded like they just wanted to give good soundbites and make catchy zingers. Bleh.
Zindler v Craig 1993 Atheism v Christianity
( audio | video | review | 2h 17m 32s ) | Luke's rating: Bad
Zindler gets slapped around in this debate. Craig has a bit more spit and vinegar in him in this one too so that doesn't help. He's also got a pretty heavy home court advantage and he is certainly able to take advantage of his audience with his statements concerning evolution and defining atheism. You can tell he is just trying to please the crowd when he makes fun of Zindler for musing on the existence of the three wise men in the nativity story, one that is rejected by most scholars...God impregnating a virgin with his son who is also god so he is also the father - that's perfectly reasonable. Three wise men visiting a manger a long time ago? Get real!
Crossan v Craig 1995 Resurrection
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Ugly
Again, I agree with Luke on this one. Crossan definitely came to the debate to lecture. What is worse is that Crossan is very incoherent, as well. He's absolutely scattershot, talks generally, and gives confusing presentations. Craig isn't too great in this debate either, he tries to paint Crossan into the naturalist corner throughout the debate and where a more sharp opponent would call Craig out on this, Crossan just muddles through his vague, wishy-washy view on theism. Maybe Craig knew that Crossan would miserably respond to his accusations? It still seemed like such a waste.
This debate was moderated by Bill Buckley Jr, too. The guy is certainly eloquent and sharp but his absolute reverence for god is kind of off-putting and certainly doesn't help in his ability to moderate. I don't mind if a mod is biased but they should still do their job and make sure the discussion is moving and not getting bogged down. Way too much time was spent on rather stupid questions like whether or not god existed during the Jurassic period...
Lawrence Krauss vs Craig 2011 Is there Evidence for God?
( audio | video )
I avoided this debate because of the review of it on APF. Krauss is merely petulant and uninteresting. Several times throughout the debate he assures us that Craig is wrong about something but gets too whiny to actually get around to showing exactly how that is.
I listened to this one to gear up for the more notorious later debates he has with Craig in 2013. I wish Craig could take back a crappy debate and replace it with another rematch instead...So rather than having three miserable debates against Lawrence Krauss, why not another Ahmed, Ehrman, Parsons, Carrier, and Carroll debate? Hell, give Loftus a chance instead...Whatever Craig calls upon to justify not debating those people* can't be more discerning than dealing with Krauss for four debates, right?
*Ahmed, Parsons, and Carroll I think Craig has no problems with, but I have heard tell that he won't debate Carrier again, will never debate Loftus, and I think there's something between him and Ehrman...not sure.
Discussion
Superficial observationI've heard enough of these to have a hypothesis for how to tell if Craig is up against a challenging opponent. Craig is a great speaker and debater. One of his pieces of advice for debating is that you have to watch the clock and kept that in mind.
In the good Craig debates two things relating to his appreciation of timed debate are evident. One is that the mod will have to warn Craig his time is up and he'll have to quickly summarize. This happened in his debates with Parsons, Avalos, and Tooley. Lesser instances have occurred, like in the Parson's debate, Craig had to end a rebuttal on a specific claim Parsons made rather than what he usually does, which is reiterate his main position.
The second thing is that Craig will actually comment on the speed and amount of content delivered by his opponent in their previous presentation. In the Carroll debate, Craig states, "Perhaps you feel like you have been drinking from a fire hose this evening!" for example. He says the same thing in the 2nd Parsons debate. Less obviously, he started the Tabash debate by quipping "Wow, you'd think he didn't like me?"
Other examples of this second thing are in the Carroll, Tooley, and kinda in the Ehrman debates. In those debates he's actually noted some point brought up by his opponent but won't address them, qualifying that it was because his opponent went through it too quickly that he wasn't sure if he got it all or that his opponent brought up so much stuff in general that he's not sure if he addressed it all.
Concluding Thoughts
I do not think that Craig is as formidable as Luke and others claim he is - nor do I think he's won nearly all his debates. But as you can see from the above posts, I do think he is a very formidable opponent who has bested even some of my favorite atheist thinkers (example: Hitch and Carrier).
Craig's debate style (aside from the more slippery maneuvers he utilizes) is also very impressive. It's one that I hope will inform the presentations I would make in future debates, e.g. always going first, keeping your opponent on the defensive, calling your opponent out on not addressing all of your arguments and having a denser presentation wrt content are very successful avenues to travel towards winning a debate - and Craig makes sure to always do these things.
Now, does that mean that Craig's arguments are right? No. Does that mean Craig has won most of his debates? No. Does it mean that Craig is a person who holds a worldview that we should all admire? Gods no. He's still fun to listen to, though!
I'm also not the only one who's reviewed a buttload of Craig debates, here's a few links:
Ed Turner of MSP isn't as impressed with Craig as Luke or others are.
Damion at APF is a little more charitable towards Craig's opponents.
Wintery Knight thinks that all Christians, ESPECIALLY Craig win all their debates, ever. I'll make a general comment about Christians that I am willing to take back if someone deems it as too much of a generalization: It's pretty rare that Christians will flat out say an apologist lost a debate. In fact, it seems that if you see a Christian reviewer saying the debate was a tie, that usually means that the apologist lost. With WK in particular, if you see him saying an atheist was respectful and on point and non-combative then that's a good sign that they think the apologist dropped the ball. He says this in his reviews for the Kagan, Sinnott-Armstrong, and Carroll debates. Why do I think this? Because in the debates where the atheist opponent is still respectful and on point, but gives a weak performance, he's perfectly cool with being uninterestingly mean-spirited, dismissive and snide towards the guy.
The Unseen
The following are debates that I have yet to listen to or watch. Some of them have been reviewed by Luke. Some of the above debates and those below might come up in a post if I feel they need more commentary. Be sure to check the reviews I link to for those debates I have already reviewed to see more of my thoughts and links to other reviews!
Kurtz v Craig
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Bad
Desouza v Craig
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Bad
Hardin v Craig
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Ugly
Ludemann v Craig 1997 Resurrection (1st Debate)
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Ugly
Atkins v Craig 1998 What's the Evidence For/Against God? (1st Debate)
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Ugly
Flew v Craig 1998 Does God Exist?
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Ugly
Borg v Craig 2001 Resurrection
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Ugly
Ludemann v Craig 2002 Resurrection (2nd Debate)
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Ugly
Spong v Craig 2005 Resurrection
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Ugly
Begon v Craig 2007 G?
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Ugly?
Ayala v Craig 2009 ID
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Ugly?
Hitchens v Craig 2009 G?
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Ugly?
Grayling v Craig 2005 G? PE
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
Tannsjo v Craig 2009 Moral
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
Silverman v Craig 2010 G?
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
Williamson v Craig 2011 G?
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
Kappel v Craig 2011 G?
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
Atkins v Craig 2011 G?
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
Enqvist v Craig 2012 G?
( audio | video | review | length ) | Luke's rating: Unrated
Craig debates I hope to review in the near future
Silverman 2010 - I don't know anything about him as a debater, just that he is known for being the guy in this meme.
UPDATES
7-30-2013; I rushed this post out so I went through and revised a lot of the reviews.
8-13-2013 Reviewed the Zindler debate.
9-19-2013 Reviewed the Crossan, Crossley, Tooley and Pyle debates. Of those guys, Tooley does the best.
7-25-2015 Reviewed the Krauss 2011 and Carroll 2014 debate and did A LOT of clean-up wrt content, formatting, and ranking of debates.
8-4-2015 More revisions here and there and added the Keith Parsons debate I've been sitting on forever.
3-26-2019...so long...I'm an error theorist analytic philosophy obsessed weenie now...
These are the two links I use to get WLC debates: PhilVaz and Apologetics315
