Well it's a non-falsifiable hypothesis and as such does not belong in any scientific debate, though it is somewhat interesting to think about.
Scientists have been able to fully map and simulate the neurons of a roach - how would their simulated roach tell that it was in a simulation? I agree that there's a tangible difference between a simulation and reality, but this difference is not something that could be discerned from inside the simulation.
There's evidence that our universe has a finite "resolution" (plank scale) like you'd expect from a simulation. There appears to be tricks going on to avoid rendering things until it becomes necessary (quantum superposition; uncertainty principle) and there are interesting things like black holes that appear to potentially be holograms - in fact our entire universe may be a hologram. All this is circumstantial evidence that points to us being in some sort of simulation. But like I said - it's a non-falsifiable hypothesis - any contrary evidence can simply be claimed to be part of the simulation.
It's an interesting idea, but one that really has no bearing on anything. What does it change if I told you with 100% certainty that we were all just bits in a giant computer? You could argue that even if everything is "real" (whatever that means in this context) that we're still just parts of a cosmic computer that's simply calculating how the universe will unfold. It really doesn't change anything on a practical level since nothing that we do can impact the world outside of our simulation. At least so far as we know - and how would we know if it did?