Craig had literally no legs to stand on and had to be corrected by Carrol many times.

Please don't insult anyone's intelligence by even inferring Craig had a chance. That was a clear loss to Craig - not debatable.

The fact Craig still uses these arguments even after Carroll explained exactly why they are wrong shows Craig doesn't care about truth and is delusional.

I am a Theist by the way.

(a)

So which of your options do you choose? Is (a) software real but not material, or (b) dogs and chairs aren't real? I assume (a), but you didn't say.

I would rather, though, get attempted answers (no matter how oversimplified) to my simple (minded?) questions.
I take it you regard the previous answers as insufficient. Yet, "simple" answers to complex questions often create greater confusion, especially so when they assume a background metaphysic that is no longer fashionable. One then reacts to the details omitted by the simplification. For example:

The question was what immaterial entities like dog are made of

That is asking what matter a generic form is made of. Suppose we had considered basketballs, soccer balls, baseballs, cannonballs, etc. and said they were all [imperfect] instantiations in matter of the immaterial "sphere". Would it even make sense to ask of what matter "sphere" is made?

Can an entity exist that is made of nothing?

I doubt it.

Weren't Platonic forms real (in fact, realer than real)?

And Plato made a good argument for them. But Aristotelian forms, as noted in the link previously given are not the same kettle of fish. However, if you are interested in a Platonic approach, there is an excellent explanation of the Allegory of the Cave here:

https://lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/28/platos-cave-image-god-and-the-atheist/

Software is a nice model of a vital form. Like all forms, it is embodied in some matter, such as a sheet of programming code or a tape or bits on a disc, et al., just 'dog' can be embodied in Fido, Rover, Spot, et al. As the medievals said, 'There is no white without a white thing.' Too bad the vitalists did not have example handy during the great vitalist-mechanist debates of the last century.

One has two options:
a) there are things in the world that are real but not material or
b) things like dog or chair are not real.

How does software fit into this scheme? Something like GMail or Excel is undoubtedly useful, and "real" in the sense that people get upset when they're not working, and people are willing to spend big money to protect their software against theft, but software isn't made of atoms. Yes, it runs on machines made out of atoms, but the software is more abstract than that.

Atheism itself is a lack of belief in gods (at minimum). There is also an atheist movement, which he references. Obviously they have overlap, though not all atheists are part of the movement.

Is there a playbook in which it instructs folks to find some irrelevancy and harp on it as if it were important?

Is there one that makes you the sole arbiter of relevance?

Ah. Apparently there is.

Now we roam even further afield and discuss where I claimed to be the sole anything, and you can explain why the unsourced quote you cited is not "plagiarism."