It's not ad hominem to point out that these videos are being produced by an organization that has historically taken one side on the issue of tort reform.
I edited my comment to include the episodes arguments. I'll post my thoughts here:
3. The documentary does cover McDonalds scale and the fact that they received the same complaint at various levels within the corporate offices (not just franchises) but did nothing. Even a single instance has grounds for a tort case if McDonalds knew about the problem but did nothing.
4. This dances around the issue. Nebraska does have damage caps and those caps are on real damages. The panelists even say that this case is "tragic". Not sure what more to say...
5. This is simply Citizen's United vs. FEC a few years earlier. We probably disagree on this decision. :-) But the film does bring up cases where there is an appearance of influence thanks to donations.
6. Again dances around the issue. Regardless of whether the Franken amendment covers the Jones case, they fail to discuss the problems with mandatory arbitration which is what the documentary finds to be the most troubling aspect of these agreements.
None of these 'arguments' really address the concerns that the film raises. The panel nitpicks on definitions, complains that the film 'missies the point' because these are rare cases [citation needed], etc.
And again, everyone is in agreement on the panel, which usually indicates that the panel was poorly chosen, at least if you want an good presentation of different viewpoints.
I edited my comment to include the episodes arguments. I'll post my thoughts here:
3. The documentary does cover McDonalds scale and the fact that they received the same complaint at various levels within the corporate offices (not just franchises) but did nothing. Even a single instance has grounds for a tort case if McDonalds knew about the problem but did nothing.
4. This dances around the issue. Nebraska does have damage caps and those caps are on real damages. The panelists even say that this case is "tragic". Not sure what more to say...
5. This is simply Citizen's United vs. FEC a few years earlier. We probably disagree on this decision. :-) But the film does bring up cases where there is an appearance of influence thanks to donations.
6. Again dances around the issue. Regardless of whether the Franken amendment covers the Jones case, they fail to discuss the problems with mandatory arbitration which is what the documentary finds to be the most troubling aspect of these agreements.
None of these 'arguments' really address the concerns that the film raises. The panel nitpicks on definitions, complains that the film 'missies the point' because these are rare cases [citation needed], etc.
And again, everyone is in agreement on the panel, which usually indicates that the panel was poorly chosen, at least if you want an good presentation of different viewpoints.