A pair of commenters discuss the weakness of William Lane Craig.
“If folks want a less satisfying taste of what an interaction between Vox and JBP would look like, WLC plays the role of the gentlemanly philosopher who never quite goes for the throat the way that Vox would.”
Vox has pointed out in the distant past how WLC has a tendency to corner his opponents but never go in for the kill shot. I’ve had the privilege of interacting and talking to WLC on many occasions and pointed this out to him. He admits he doesn’t want to humiliate or embarrass his opponents. Strikes me that Christ didn’t have an issue with this tactic when the proper occasion was presented. However, in his more recent debates, I’ve noticed that Dr. Craig has practically accused his opponents of being idiots, in a refined but no so subtle way.
I think William Lane Craig performs a real disservice to the followers of his opponents by failing to fully expose the arguments of his opponents or complete the unmasking of the charlatans he encounters. It’s fine to not wish to humiliate or embarrass your opponents, in fact, that is the hallmark of a decent individual.
The problem is prioritizing your own sense of decency over the truth and permitting those who follow falsehood to more easily continue to do so. Civility is not the prime objective. I believe that if one knows someone is committing fraud, then one has a moral responsibility to alert those being defrauded. This is just as true of intellectual frauds as it is of financial ones. One should not handle a Jordan Peterson or a Ben Shapiro any more delicately than a Bernie Madoff or a Charles Ponzi.
Whether one is cruel about it or not, and whether one takes pleasure in it or not, one’s moral responsibility remains the same.