Regarding William Lane Craig;

William Lane Craig has nothing of substance to bring to the table. He uses the same stale monologue he's been using since the mid 90's, the same context, and a handful of debater tricks to try to win a "debating contest," but he never offers any substance. Look at his older videos, he uses the same opening monologue and premise...each and every time. Nothing fresh and no abstract reasoning, which is why Bart Erhman completely destroyed him when they instead debated the proof of the resurrection of Jesus.

One of Craig's debating tricks is to try to get the skeptic to prove his skepticism (which is absurd). Richard Dawkins is too intelligent to fall for any of Craig's sophomoric debating tricks, which is why he won't waste his time debating him.

William Craig is the one who claims to know for sure the existence and nature of a theistic god, thus the onus of responsibility and burden of proof is on him...not on those who doubt him and his beliefs.