they're not presenting legal arguments - not citing precedent - but are rather presenting opinions that belong in a philosophy classroom, on some kind of contrived moral basis.

and i'm not even sure that most of them could explain the difference.

if you set up a conflict with lawyers on one side and philosophers on the other, and then ask lawyers to moderate, who do you think is going to win?

like i say - it's frustrating, because they should win the argument, they just refuse to actually approach the situation coherently.