Why Atheists seem to lose most debates with Theists Philosphers

There have been numerous debates between Atheists and Christian Theists regarding various topics such as,"Does God exist","Can We be Moral Without God and The Problem of Evil.
Anyone who is unbiased will without doubt agree that Theists Philosophers seem to come out on top of most debates.

The most notable Christian Philosopher who most people will agree has never lost a debate is William Lane Craig.Craig has many debates.(over 40) during his 20 years career in apologetics.

If you ask me why most Atheists who have debated William Lane Craig have lost:

1.Presenting invalid arguments
2.Lack of proper rebuttals to Craig's argument.


Presenting Invalid/unsound Arguments

This is the most common mistake atheist philosophers make.It is rather shocking that people who teach logic would commit obvious mistakes in their argumentation.Take for instance John Shook (who is a philosopher) debated William Lane Craig.Frankly he has to be the worst of all Craig's opponents.They debated Naturalism/Theism.

John Shook after being pressed by Craig to present an argument for naturalism,goes ahead and presents this:

1.Nature Exists
2.We don't have evidence for the supernatural
3.Conclusion:Therefore Naturalism is true.

You are left in awe at this kind of amature mistake.The conlcusion does not follow at all.
The theme is prevalent in most of Craig's oppenents.

Craig can simply win most of these debates by default,sincfe the Atheist usually present unsound arguments.

Lack Of Proper Rebuttals

Craig has been presenting the same 5 arguments for Theism for 20 years.And yet all his opponents fail to present convincing rebuttals to his arguments.

A classic example is Craig's recent debate with Christopher Hitchens.Hitchens is used to his British rhetoric.And he thought that was enough to win debates.He had no coherent argument or rebuttal for any of craigs arguments.It was like he came to his senses too late."
Ohh,you mean i really have to present an argument in these debates instead of my usuall jabs at religion and rhetoric about imaginary gods?"

In my opinion,the best Atheist debators who really challenged Craig are: Walter Amstrong Sinnot and bradley.(all on the problem of evil).These were intellectual stimulating debates.

The problem is that,most Atheists prop themselves in high stools and think that Atheism is a given.That it should be obvious to people that Atheisim is true.but when put on the spotlight,most of these Atheist philosophers cannot defend their positions.John Shook was unabel to present a sound argument for naturalism,Luois anthony was unable to present a coherent atheistic ethical system with her debate with Craig on Morality,Hitchens was just a total mess.

Perhaps we should be listening to Theist vs Theist debates.Such as Wes Morristons Vs William Lane Craig on the Kalam Cosmoligcal Argument.Which was a very stimulating debate by the way.Or maybe William Lane Craig vs Richard Swirnburne on either the nature of God(Swirnburne holds the poistion that God can be contigent) or a debate on Moral ontology(Richard Swirnburne holds the view that Morality can exist outside of God.)

Or is there an Atheist Philospher who can fair better than the previous predecesors?We can just wait and see.