My pick is the four-part debate on Slate between Farhad Manjoo and Evgeny Morozov. I respect both Manjoo and Morozov immensely, and I've read boatloads of each of their work, so seeing the two debate an issue near and dear to my heart – the discourse and rhetoric of tech and Silicon Valley – was a delight. I agreed with Manjoo that Morozov's book (To Save Everything, Click Here) was, in some ways, a straw-man convention, and that reflexive criticism of technological thinking is just as bad as reflexive celebration of it. But I agreed with Morozov on many of his points, too: the folly of looking to tech to solve our societal problems, the uncritical stance of the tech press, and the tendency of writers like Manjoo (and, frankly, me) to examine only whether a given tech product is likely to fail or succeed, not whether it should succeed, or whether its success would represent a net good or a net bad for humanity. I came away from their debate hesitant to pick a winner, but more enlightened and self-critical than I'd arrived. I think that means it was a good debate. —Kevin Roose, New York (@kevinroose)