There has not been a formal debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. James White and we should not expect to see one. William Lane Craig has said that he does not intend to engage in debate with fellow Christians. As for a dialogue, there is still a possibility. William Lane Craig has engaged with Paul Helm on the topic of divine providence on the "Unbelieveable" podcast with Justin Brierley. There is also the possibility that Dr. Craig and Dr. White could both participate in some sort of publication similar to Four Views On Divine Providence. However, these scenarios seem quite unlikely. I believe that the most likely way for Dr. James White to directly engage with Dr. Craig on these topics would be for Dr. White to publish his own book on the topic of molinism. I can't imagine that Dr. Craig would not respond to a book that was purported to be a fully developed scholarly refutation of molinism in the way that The Potter's Freedom was purported to be a full scholarly refutation of Norman Geisler's views on divine providence.
Given that no debate, dialogue, or publication seems likely to be forthcoming, the best option may be organizing Dr. White's critiques alongside relevant pieces of Dr. Craig's work. This way we can compare and contrast the views to see whose views seem more consistent with scripture and reason on the topics of divine providence and apologetic methodology.
Commentary will be added
I have not yet settled on a particular view of divine providence. I am currently a fence sitter seeking to understand, first and foremost, which view is most consistent with scripture. I have been reading the books and posts of Dr. White and Dr. Craig for nearly a decade (among other reading). I have, at times, been an avid listener of the Dividing line as well as Reasonable faith and Defenders (among other podcasts). I am grateful for both of these men and their respective ministries.
I am by no means claiming to be neutral or unbiased. I may be undecided on divine providence but I certainly have views on particular arguments made by adherents on all sides of this topic.
Part of the goal in writing here is to facilitate communication where I currently see gaps in communication. I aim to do this by organizing relevant quotes and resources. That said, simply posting quotes and relevant pieces of each scholar's work seems like it would be rather dry and disconnected. I will be adding my own biased comments to connect the dots as I see them but the material will also be there for the reader/viewer to make up their own mind and compare views.