I think William Lane won that debate. Not that I think he is right and not that I believe in any god but Sam talked a lot about why he think god does not exist even if that was not what the debate was about. William was good at making clear arguments and following logical steps and trying to answer to Sam. I disagree with William basic arguments and I think he is missing some insights on the subject but he was way better then Sam.

As an aside note, I think that there is no absolute moral objectivity in the world. There only is a moral that is relative to the human condition. So William is right, god is a solution to the "absolute objective" moral of the world but only because starting with something that is false (god) you can come up with something else that is false (an absolute moral ground blablabla...).

And now calling out someone is a death wish. Peoples are discovering the power of having lots of opinions about everything and being able to Gish Gallop on any subject. The more they talk, the less you can answer. Maybe in this age of communication we are using to much words and no enought actions.

Maybe we should focus a bit more on actions, errors and statistics about what works and what does not. I feel like the more we talk, the further we get from the real world.

I had someone making me a very long argument about what programming languages are the best to start with but didn't do more then a couple of weeks of programming and never tried teaching it. It's not that thinking is bad but thinking more then trying is not optimal. If your goal is to find and reproduce something that is true having lots of data point will help.

My use of facebook is limited to checking for events, checking wich events my friends are going to and connecting with peoples by real names. I don't look at my feed and use sms instead of the facebook chat.

Nothing other then facebook fills the same need and if a service was to compete in the same space it would have a massive adoption problem. So what can we do?