I finally had the opportunity to sit down and evaluate the Ehrman-Craig debate transcript (
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf).
Your evaluation above is of a transcript of Craig's rebuttal, not the opening statement. No, the original comment that he makes (which I quoted above) is in the opening statement. He doesn't clarify what he means until his first rebuttal. That he devoted several pages/minutes to the "untruth" doesn't mean that it made it's first appearance anywhere other than where I said it did.
I expect that in a rebuttal, where one is addressing a number of points brought up by the opponent in a very short time, that there is going to be rapid movement from point to point to point to address the opponent's argument. And this addresses what Craig did how? Craig made opening remarks. Ehrman made opening remarks. Craig had a rebuttal. Ehrman had a rebuttal.
Trying to characterize this as Craig reeling from all the arguments presented by Ehrman is a little dishonest.
Here is the second paragraph is Ehrman's opening statement (which came after Craig's):
In my opening speech here I will not be dealing directly with the many, many points Bill has already raised. I will instead lay out my own case, which, by the way, is not exactly that case that he said I was going to make, although there are some points of similarity. I’ll lay out my own case, and in my next speech I’ll show why, in my opinion, the position that he has just staked out is so problematic.
How much of Craig's first rebuttal does he spend addressing what Ehrman said in his opening statement? Absolutely none that I could see. He spends the entire time arguing the strawman that his introduced in his opening statement (this is the part where he equates Ehrman's argument with one of Hume's works and produces the alternative authors which represents "most moral philosophers" which allegedly refutes Hume's points via Craig's math).
I also expect decent reasoning but not perfection in a rebuttal--that's such a fluid environment and it's public speaking, not written arguments. There's no way to anticipate 100% what your opponent is going to bring up in the opening statement, so the rebuttal is going to change as the opening statement evolves. Good thing that Craig was able to ignore what Ehrman actually said and move into a lengthy powerpoint presentation then, huh? Also, pen and paper for notes are usually permitted in a formal debate, but that's beside the point.
Ehrman does the same exact thing in his rebuttal--moving rapidly from point to point to point, except with less proof. You mean "with less powerpoint presentation filled with mathematical equations that really don't represent much of...well, anything".
Quite to the contrary, I feel that Ehrman actually does something that Craig does not: debate!
<snip>I’m going to break my response down into four dubious aspects of Bill’s presentation, giving examples instead of trying to be exhaustive to cover the waterfront.
First, Bill makes dubious use of modern authorities.
<snip>
Second, Bill makes dubious use of ancient sources.
<snip>
Third, Bill makes dubious claims and assertions.
<snip>
Four, Bill draws dubious inferences from his claims.
Each of these points are followed by a couple of paragraphs of support.
All he says is 'Craig's wrong' while providing some vague references to 'some historians'. Well, Craig is wrong, but I'll investigate the "some historians" part. On which page did you find Ehrman doing this (not to be confused with all the places where Craig does it)?
At least Craig quotes the author and book from which he gets his information on Hume's arguments (not 'unattributed', as you claim) The mathematical "argument" that Craig makes is his, not the author's. Therefore, presenting the argument is though it is the author's would be to falsely attribute it to him.
I expect that Craig would not go into a long drawn out discussion of the entire Hume/Ehrman problem in a rebuttal. Neither would I, knowing his habit of not addressing strawmen arguments that he introduces.
The probability equations appear to be accurate Yes, insofar as you accept all of the conditions that Craig introduces as true. In other words, if you accept his conclusions then you can follow the evidence which supports his conclusions. This is called "circular reasoning".
Equating Ehrman's argument with Hume and then quoting someone else's refutation of Hume is only a strawman if Ehrman's argument is substantially different from Hume's, and if it is, then I can concede that point. It is only not a strawman if Ehrman introduces it, which he does not (Craig does in his opening statement). In fact, Ehrman points out that he has his own argument to make (*gasp*), a statement I quoted above for your convenience.
I think your characterization of Craig as 'immoral hypocrite' (or worse) based on this rebuttal argument, which by definition is not going to be a complete argument because it is only addressing points of the opponent's opening statement, is unfair. I'm sure Craig appreciates the support.
I hope you aren't basing your entire opinion of Craig or other speakers based on this type of evaluation of speeches--you are cheating yourself in that way. Yes, in fact I do base my opinion of people on their actions and their words. Is there another method that I'm not familiar with?
PS: Whenever I post something that "requires research", I now know how to get a decent turn-around time on a response: Include a reference to Dr. Craig :)