Update on the Sean Carroll vs William Lane Craig debate mentioned earlier: Sean Carroll outlines his goal:

Just so we’re clear: my goal here is not to win the debate. It is to say things that are true and understandable, and establish a reasonable case for naturalism, especially focusing on issues related to cosmology. I will prepare, of course, but I’m not going to watch hours of previous debates, nor buy a small library of books so that I may anticipate all of WLC’s possible responses to my arguments. I have a day job, and frankly I’d rather spend my time thinking about quantum cosmology than about the cosmological argument for God’s existence. If this event were the Final Contest to Establish the One True Worldview, I might drop everything to focus on it. But it’s not; it’s an opportunity to make my point of view a little clearer to a group of people who don’t already agree with me.

Sean's goal to "make my point of view a little clearer to a group of people who don’t already agree with me" is certainly achievable. Whether it is a good one to strive for (by whatever metric of goodness) is less clear. Certainly there is little chance of him changing the views of WLC or anyone else in that camp. Likely the debate itself is its own intrinsic reward. It would be interesting to compare the stated motivation of the previous debaters and whether they think that the exercise was worthwhile in retrospect.