The other side treats these shows as just storytelling, but they're built on somebody's worst day. Even if listeners mean well, the victim never agreed to become content. I can't prove it, but it feels like profiting off pain.

The other side went off about physics somehow, which doesn't really answer whether victims consented. Maybe I'm missing the point. I still think consent is the difference, and that using someone's worst day for profit feels wrong, though I'm not sure how to argue it better.

I think the real question is who owns someone's tragedy. If the family never said yes, turning their worst day into a show and profiting from it just uses them. My opponent might not follow me, and maybe I'm not saying it well, but consent still feels like the line.