When William Lane Craig routs unbelievers in live debate, their comrades generally excuse the loss on the grounds that Craig is a better debater. But to be a fluent public speaker, to be quick on your feet, is no evidence that you’re right. They make the same excuse for Richard Dawkins’ refusal to debate Craig.
I’d simply note that this oft-cited excuse is predicated on a false premise. Let’s say Dawkins isn’t Craig’s equal in live debate. Still, Dawkins is, by all accounts, a superb writer.
I’m sure that Craig would agree to a written debate with Dawkins. Each side would have a word limit. There’d be a specified number of exchanges.
Winning or losing wouldn’t turn on who can think faster or speak faster. Dawkins could take all the time he wanted to formulate his arguments and polish his sentences.
So why doesn’t Dawkins agree to a written debate?