Is William Lane Craig dishonest?

For some reason, Chris Hallquist has a personal vendetta against William Lane Craig. He’s convinced himself that Craig is “dishonest.”

Actually, even if Craig were dishonest, I don’t see why an atheist should get so lathered up over the issue. Does Hallquist think dishonestly is intrinsically evil?

I myself don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not a blind follower or fanboy of Craig–although I salute his contributions to the cause.

Here’s a telltale example of Craig’s alleged dishonesty:

There have been debates where Craig spoke second, such as his debates with Kagan and Tabash. But he speaks first in the vast majority of the debates he does. According to this article about how the Harris debate was arranged:

http://www.religiondispatches....

Craig basically tries to dictate the format of his debates, including his speaking first, if he can get away with it. Apparently, "if he can get away with it" ends up being most of the time, but a few times his opponent (or the organizers) will be more assertive about the format they want.

http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2012/07/chris-hallquist-vs-william-lane-craig.html#comment-601644503

This is just plain paranoid:

i) To begin with, Hallquist makes it sound like a political campaign where one candidate has a commanding lead in the polls. This gives the leading candidate leverage in dictating the terms of the debate. If anything, the leading candidate is looking for a pretext to avoid debating his opponent. He’d like to sit on his comfortable lead. A debate is risky. Unpredictable.

It’s the challenger who desperately needs the debate to shake things up and (hopefully) change the momentum. So the challenger has to make concessions. If he doesn’t, that gives the leading candidate a face-saving excuse to opt out of the debate. If debate negotiations break down, the leading candidate has nothing to lose. And he can blame his opponent.

But that’s hardly analogous to Craig’s situation. He’s initiating debates, not evading debates. And he doesn’t have a mountain of bargaining chips. 

ii) More to the point, why does Hallquist imagine that giving the first opening statement is a tactical advantage? Isn’t that backwards? Seems to me that it’s not who speaks first but who speaks last who enjoys the edge.

The debater who gives the final closing statement is in a position to shore up his earlier performance. Give a self-serving précis of his argument as well as  his opponent’s argument. Because the final closing statement is unrebutted, the debater is in a position to misrepresent his opponent’s position. Make it seem weaker than it really is.

After a long debate, audience is more likely to remember the last thing they heard rather than the first thing they heard. The debater who speaks last can shape the final impressions of the debate.