I'm sure there are more worthy adversaries on the BCH side who can make better arguments, but this wasn't a debate at all. The "BCH side" of the argument wasn't even in the hunt. The only part I disagree with is where Connor (I think that is his name) says that "all BSV supporters didn't think there would be a split". I don't know if he means philosophically or not (such as the idea that ABC might have capitulated for some reason), but it was pretty clear, I thought, that there was always going to be a split. In the early days I guess we were all hopeful that the face off would have been resolved amicably before D-day, but that never happened. I now think the split between BCH and BSV (coin value and network effect aside) was the best thing in the long run. Now each group can continue their specific experiment. BCH can continue to try to perfect 0-conf and scale "safely", and BSV can work towards its mission of scaling as fast as possible in support of a commodity ledger. May the best plan win.