interesting idea; I'd like to see this guy going up and down the abstraction levels.
In the video he described one faith while talking about another. Obviously it's not easy to put both faiths on the line at the same time and compare them from the inside of one of them. I'd like to see this guy give away the tools to do that. Other than that - this was excellent.
Also worth noting, he could be more generous with giving the position he is reasoning around but not agreeing with a "true position" when describing it. He was very careful to not allow her position to be true when he was talking about it. things like, "you believe X", "your belief is X", unreasonably take perspective on an unsuspecting person that their belief isn't 100% THEtruth. But he was still very good at what he did.
Unfortunately I don't think he used a convincing argument because religion is not dis-proveable in the conventional scientific evidence sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exmjlc4PfEQ
Anthony Magnabosco does what he calls Street Epistemology, usually applying it to supernatural (usually religious) beliefs.
The great thing about his method (and his manner, guy's super personable) is that he avoids the social structure of a debate, of two people arguing, of a zero-sum one game where person wins at the other's loss.
I've struggled with trying to figure out how to let people save face in disputes (when they're making big, awful mistakes), even considering including minor errors (that don't affect the main point) in my arguments so that they could point them out and we could both admit we were wrong (in their case, about things which do affect the main point) and move on.
But this guy's technique manages to invite people to correct their own errors (people are SOOOO much more rational when they're not defensive) and they DO it. No awkwardness, no discomfort, and people pointing out the flaws in their own arguments, and then THANKING him for the talk afterwards and referring him to their friends to talk. Even though they just admitted that their cherished beliefs might not deserve the certainty they've been giving them.
This is applied to religion in this video, but this seems to me to be a generally useful method when you confront someone making an error in their thinking. Are you forcing people to swallow their pride a little (over and over) when they talk with you? Get that out, and watch how much more open people can be.