So Craig’s dishonest strategy would go something like this:
He begins with his usual stuff about how he agrees with Sartre and Nietzsche that without God there is no objective value, purpose, meaning, etc. Without God anything is permitted.
The consequentialist philosopher then responds by saying that we consequentialists believe that maximizing happiness really is objectively right and so we do believe in objective value.
Later on Craig manages to get the consequentialist to admit that in some weird situation torturing a child might be the right thing to do according to consequentialism, e.g. in order to prevent a terrorist from blowing up a city and killing millions of people.
The slimy and sneaky Craig then casually walks up to the stage and says, ‘well, you see friends, just as I said at the very beginning, without God anything is permitted!’.
There are two meanings of ‘anything is perimitted’ in play here: 1. without God literally anything goes and no action is better or worse than any other 2. any particular action could be permitted in extreme circumstances