No. What I expect is that if someone is coming at something from a wildly different perspective than the status quo - for example, “judges shouldn’t be allowed to prevent juries from hearing anything from a defendant,” then they be able to present literally any argument for that. I’ve had dozens of replies in this thread that either could not do that or could not articulate why that was not their perspective.

Instead, they want to take it as read that the status quo is wrong. The status quo could very well be wrong but everyone who has come to that conclusion through actual reason rather than unexamined emotion can say why. Of the dozens of replies I think only one person demonstrated that ability.