William Lane Craig was on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning.  There was a discussion about why some atheists (in particular Richard Dawkins) won't debate with him.

Someone made a good point, which was that Craig makes statements that can take quite a bit of refuting, and there usually isn't time for such refutation in a formal one-on-one debate.

The main problem is that Craig makes points that pander to common sense and emotion, and uses verbal sleight-of-hand to make an impression.  In this way he can say things that are quite plainly inconsistent, and may have little or nothing to do with the debate topic, and yet he still comes across as having won because his methods can leave his opponents struggling for words. 

An example is when he raises the issue of morality in debates about the existence of God.  Craig says that without God there can be no objective morality.  Now, even if you believe in objective morality, this is clearly nonsense, but it can some explaining.  If a full explanation can't given in a few minutes, this leaves Craig's opponent looking like they are in defence of baby-killing and all kinds of horrors because Craig then comes across as someone who has moral standards!  

It's all flim-flam, but cleverly done, and it's extremely hard to deal with effectively in the emotional heat-of-the moment. When Craig is forced to sit down and discuss in a way that gives opponents enough time to deal with his arguments, he loses.  An example of this is his debate with Shelly Kagan in 2009.

But there is no point attempting to deal with Craig when what matters is performance not content.  A good debate should be about issues, not emotions.