Sure, I get why my opponent worries about conflicts and insider knowledge; that sounds fair. But banning trading feels like a blunt fix, and lawmakers are still people who can own things. I guess I’d rather see clearer disclosure rules than an outright ban, though I’m not sure how to argue it better.
Yes, I think lawmaker should love, freedom and doing anything they want and also when you get controlled, you feel annoyed when you cannot do anything especially kids they hate studying, but the law enforcement forced them to go
Imagine someone elected who already owns a small portfolio; forcing them to sell it all just to serve seems off. My opponent makes a fair point about appearances, and I’m not sure how to answer it. I still feel clear disclosure makes more sense than a ban.
Yes, I know you’re trying to give out a lot of examples and everything at all because the matter of fact the thing that I want to tell you is that imagine poor people living on the street and hungry for food but the law enforcement say that you need money to pay for food which is that controlling when controlling people feel heartbroken like example you control robots
The other side seems to treat a ban as the only clean fix, but I think that misses that owning stocks isn't the conflict by itself. My opponent's trust concern is fair, and I'm not sure how to answer it, but disclosure still feels like enough to me.