Dr. White has already provided some thoughts on Dawkin’s comments on not debating William Lane Craig (link to Dr. White’s comments). This is not to contradict anything he said, but just to provide another perspective on it.
Recall that Dawkins’ original comment was: “… and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters. They gotta have something more than that, I’m busy.” (Whether his busy schedule was due to grammar or finishing school was not specified.) I myself have similar standards, thus:
1. I do not race people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional runners;
2. I do not play chess against people whose only claim to fame is that they are chess masters;
3. I do not play one-on-one with people whose only claim to fame is that they are basketball stars;
4. I do not set my car against people whose only claim to fame is that they have a fast car; and
5. I do not attempt to match the accomplishments of folks whose only claim to fame is that they are in the Guinness Book of World Records ®.
After all, they have to have something more than that, I’m busy.
In fact, I vastly prefer to race people who are famous for eating, to play chess against people who are famous for boxing, to play one-on-one basketball with people who are famous for chess, and to try to match the accomplishments of people who generally aren’t outstanding in the particular field of endeavor in which I’m engaged.
So I can understand why Dawkins would prefer to debate men who have ecclesiastical rank that is unrelated to debating skill (bishops, archbishops, and especially cardinals) rather than someone who is actually famous for debate. After all, who has time for sure defeat? We’re busy!
P.S. I’d rather see Dawkins debate Dr. White than debate William Lane Craig, though I’m confident that either of them (and any number of others, such as Doug Wilson) could handily defeat him. After all, debate is something that those men do well.