As for Sam's tactic in this particular debate of attacking specific doctrines, particularly his opponent William Lane Craig's doctrinal beliefs, well I can't really fault him. In such debates the mental gymnastics of your opponents and their followers (even if those followers who are only just supporting the "home team") leave you in a tricky situation. If you address specific points made by your opponent (as Sam seems to do here though I haven't seen the full debate) then you can often fail to tackle the more general issues of faith, leaving some believers to smugly walk out feeling unassailed. On the other hand, if you generalise, you can be criticised for not addressing the specific points made by your opponent leaving her/him and their followers to smugly walk out thinking that you are crass, ignorant and unsophisticated.

Keith