I'm on context, you should take some.
Like most people do these days you chose to ignore context and decided you could be confident in judging my stance on an issue based on limited information. Which is the same thing the media and politicians do to make surveys like these to get far more attention than they deserve.

The point I was arguing against, is that a theory shouldn't be held believed to be fact unless it's disproven as that just makes Science another name for God for people wrapped in a delusion that they're not religious.

Has science proven that God doesn't exist? Has science proven that everything we observe is real and wasn't just *poofed* into being by God 4000 years ago? Is that rock really 4 billion years old or did God just make it in a way that we'd think it was as some part of His grand plan? By your "if you can't disprove it, we should teach it" logic, Texas has it right and we should be teaching religion in schools as science.

Until it can survive without the host, a fetus is a parasitic infection. Denying the right to abort because that infection will eventually spawn a living human being is almost as silly as denying people the right to take anti-biotics because someday those bacteria could one day evolve into a higher life form.

Not quite. Their jobs are safe either way as California (and most other states) has far more prisoners than they have capacity.
What they are interested in is protecting themselves as a prison full of non-violent offenders who can look forward to getting out relatively soon if they behave is far safer for guards than a prison full of violent felons who will remain in prison for decades no matter how they behave. Police unions usually oppose drug law liberalization for similar reasons.

And yet the climate change sensationalists will CLING to the idea that studies like this aren't as useless as doing studies in an effort to convince the Pope to become an Atheist.
I don't need a study to know that there will be people who either don't care, are incapable of grasping the issue or are purposely duplicitous. The purpose of studies like this are not to convince climate change deniers. Really, at this point studies like this are only a way for scientist to exploit Climate Sensationalists for grant money.

Those who can be convinced climate change is occurring already have been. What few have been convinced of is what should be done to address it.
We have been convinced however, that the sensationalists' theories that driving a an electric car full of batteries that have to plugged into an electrical socket every night, putting solar panels on their roof (and more batteries in their home) that are made by some Chinese factory that produces millions of pounds of toxic waste each year and/or tightening emissions regulations in countries that already have such regulations in place and enforce them isn't going to do anything significantly positive to stop or reverse global warming worth the likely significant negative impact they would have.

Of course they're telling the truth. They just aren't telling the whole story.

"No, we didn't exploit the Heartbleed bug. You're accusing us of stealing a Ford Focus when we've got garages full of Ferraris and F-16s. Puh-lease! Why would we bother exploiting something that gives such rudimentary and fleeting access to data and could just as easily be used by the Chinese or Russians when we have the espionage skills and resources available to us to install our own secure backdoors that only we can use and give ourselves full, unrestricted access to everything on any system we want access to?"

Prop 8 violated Civil Rights. Specifically, the right to enter into a contract, which isn't a basic human right.
Marriage, so far as Government entities are concerned, is just a contract. Under Prop 8 they could still get married, they just couldn't get their marriage contract recognized by their State Government. Which means they would not be granted the legal privileges and responsibilities such a contract affords.
But under US law, denying a person the right to enter into a contract based on their gender (or national origin, race, color, religion, disability or familial status) is a violation of the Civil Rights granted to every citizen. Prop 8 would have violated that by denying people the civil right to enter into a contract based solely on gender. As a CEO, supporting contract discrimination based on gender was directly relevant to his job duties so of course it was an issue.

Free speech is a right. You can't lose your right to claim free speech. Ever. Even hate speech is protected. But, as he was reminded, the right to speak freely only protects people from consequences imposed by Government. Employers, customers, investors and the general public are not the Government and the first amendment doesn't guarantee any protection from them.

Walmart's profits come to about $7,000 per employee ($15.7B in profit, 2.2 million employees). So even if they put every single dime of profit into their employees, they could only give them all a raise of about $3/hr.

This sums up the difference pretty well. Whole Foods sells products, not science. If the product is useful to us, the crazy on the packaging or marketing materials is irrelevant.
Some of the new agey stuff is pure nutball garbage that could be dangerous to those gullible enough to buy into it (like Steve Jobs), but most of it is a far cry from the "DINOSAUR BONES ARE FAKE BECAUSE GOD SAID SO IN A BOOK SO KILL ALL THE HOMO SINNERS!!" brand of crazy the article is trying to compare it to.

Why wouldn't people accept it? I happily paid an extra $5 a month back in the 90s to get access to local Quake, Unreal and other game servers that were run on my ISP's network. Taking money from Netflix to host their service is no different than what ISPs did with gaming services back in the dial up days of the internet. But since Netflix charges their customers it makes more sense to have them pay the ISP and decide for themselves how, or if they pass the costs on to their customers.

I don't see what people are upset about. If Comcast was actively throttling Netflix traffic after it got to their network unless Netflix paid them, then it'd be something to rage over. But as that doesn't appear to be the case, the only people who have any reason to be upset are the investors and employees of current CDNs and transit networks since ISPs can now compete with them.

If you got one creationist to change their world view, it's likely you also prevented many who might have adopted their world view from doing so. That sounds good to me.
Debates aren't likely going to change a zealot's mind. But they might keep a few people from becoming zealots themselves if you have demonstrable facts on your side.

It worked. At least in some small way.

Quite a few religious people were riled up because when an audience member asked "What would make you change your mind" Ham's answer was "Nothing" instead of "God". Most Religious people are quite aware of the difference between someone who has faith in God and someone who uses God to create faith in themselves for their own personal gain and that answer made it clear to those who weren't already familiar with him which category he falls into.

Plenty of non-religious people believe in creationism. They just don't believe the Bible's explanation of creation. Even a number of religious people believe the Bible's explanation of creation is akin to how a modern engineer might explain how they build a skyscraper to a 4 year old.
Ham's views are like a 40 year old voraciously defending his belief that babies are delivered by a stork because someone he trusted told him that's how reproduction works when he was a kid.

That's pretty much how it went. It really came down to one question though.

Someone from the audience asked "What would it take to change your mind?"
Nye answered "Evidence". Ham answered "Nothing".
After someone posted the video of it online my Pastor (I haven't been inside a church since I was 15, and he's long retired, but he's still a close family friend) posted on his Facebook page that if the guy was sincere in his Christian beliefs his answer could have been nothing other than "God". And since then there's been a lot of discussion of the Book of Job. They seem to have come away giving it to Nye.

I use VisiPics to find similar images. For exact duplicates I use CloneSpy.

And since we're talking dupes, some other things I use to clean up dupes, depending on need, are AllDup which I mostly use for deduping tagged Audio files but can handle a lot of other things. For video, I've only found 2 options, Video Comparer and Duplicate Video Search. I use DVS because I got it for free legally, but it's not as stable or fast as Video Comparer.