I'm a PF debtor so this is often how our rounds go. It's whomever can make the biggest kaboom :) At least where I'm from, most judges are tech>truth meaning if you explain an argument well, it doesn't matter how far-fetched it is (someone tried to run that over fishing would lead to nuclear proliferation) just that it's well explained!
also WhatsApp is protected under section 230, i believe since it's considered a chat board or something like that.
I'm a PF debtor so this is often how our rounds go. It's whomever can make the biggest kaboom :) At least where I'm from, most judges are tech>truth meaning if you explain an argument well, it doesn't matter how far-fetched it is (someone tried to run that over fishing would lead to nuclear proliferation) just that it's well explained!
Also not a lawyer debating these kind of things never ceases to make me feel like one
Oh I'm so sorry I genuinely did not see that! I actually just had a debate on this topic today so I was a little distracted yesterday. :)
Perfect thanks!
I was a little pressed for time on that last one so if you want any more of the sources tell me and I'll get them for you.
I'd love to debate you on this topic but sadly I cannot due to it being a rated debate. Can you switch it?
If you weren't going to publish an argument why did you accept the debate?