Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" has embarrassing logical errors

Like I anticipated, my opponent chose the tactic of special pleading to shift the goal-posts, although he agreed with me completely that Dawkins has logical errors in his book.Richard Dawkins is held responsible for any illogical argument he uses in his book to support his position. Similarly, one can say that William Lane Craig's book is illogical for using Platinga's ontological argument.A special pleading fallacy usually has this form[1]... Rule: Xs are generally Ys. x is an X. x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic). Therefore, x is not a Y. My opponent commits here a special pleading fallacy in his defense of Dawkins, given that he gives the following irrelevant characteristic: The argument is not originally Dawkin's, which means that Dawkins didn't commit a logical error when he used it to defend his atheistic position. I'm not trying to change this into a semantic debate at all. But instead, I'm showing how my opponent has took a fallacious route to defend Dawkins....In his defense of Dawkin's central argument, my opponent commits another special pleading fallacy and repeats Dawkin's error in P3:"It is, of course, true that we cannot allow explanations to become infinite regresses. We would not be able to explain anything then! But something as complex as a designer needs an explanation. Laws of nature "just are". Dark matter "just is". True, we're working on it. However, the laws of nature or dark matter never designed anything. There are mindless with no conscious.""Something as complex as a designer needs an explanation" is yet anotherirrelevant characteristic of a special pleading fallacy. I ask my opponent to show me where such an exception is put forth in the philosophy of science.It is somewhat ironic for my opponent to tackle special pleading fallacies in the previous round, while making many of them in the process.It is also apparent to the reader that I have not given "dark matter" as the only example of things that don't require explanations. At this point, I have to awkwardly quote myself to respond to my opponent."Take for example a group of astronauts who discovered highly-advanced machinery on their first visit to Pluto. Their explanation could be that aliens are the designers of such machinery. Dawkins, however, would consider the temptation to believe that such machines were designed by aliens to be false because it raises the question of who designed the aliens."The aliens are (1) conscious and (2) complex. It is untrue that Peter Lipton's best explanation model is only applicable to unconscious and simple things as my opponent suggests. It is also false to follow my opponent's unwarranted exception that explanations that involve conscious, complex entities need their own explanations or else they're invalid. This is nowhere found in the philosophy of science and demonstrated to be false by the example above.Con goes further and says...""Well yes everything that can intelligently design has an explanation, but God is some kind of exception of this rule" Why is God an exception? Unless a reason is presented why God (the IDer) is the exception, we must ask who designed the designer, otherwise we enter special pleading, which is a fallacy."If God was defined as "natural" by theologians, then I would agree with my opponent that making him an exception to the regression of explanations in the natural world is logically fallacious. Nonetheless, God is defined as "supernatural." This means that what is applicable on the natural world is not necessarily applicable on the metaphysical realm. In other words, it is logically plausible for a metaphysical entity to have no explanation for His existence and yet be the source of creation of a physical/natural world. Dawkins treats God as if he is a natural entity that is not immune to regression, although that is fallacious and contradictory to God's theological definition....So far, the points of agreements are...1- Dawkins has a logical errors in book, "The God Delusion."2- Dawkins takes a rational stance against religious dogma and illogical arguments.It is important to explain why I find the above logical errors embarrassing. As I said in my opening statement, I find them embarrassing to the author himself because of the logical/rational approach that he presumes.Take for example a Literature Professor who misspells the word 'Literature,' although he presumes the role of an expert on English. His error is said to be embarrassing due to what he presumes or what others presume him to be. While Richard Dawkins is clearly not an expert on logic or a professional logician, he presumes and is thought to presume the role of an enlightened, rational scholar that fights illogical and dogmatic arguments made by the religious. Hence, why such logical errors are embarrassing in this sense....While I adore my opponent's enthusiasm in this debate and his attempts to refute me, or so I think, I'd rather he played by the rules instead of attempts to change what the debate topic means.