>The only credibility being CEO of KDEN adds is that he has experience leading a large transportation organization (his previous experience in California is better to lean on).

To add to this:

It'a not even a large transportation organisation, but a transport hub. It's like a warehousing company's CEO taking over a trucking company. Yes, there is definite knowledge overlap, but that is limited as they are two fundamentally different types of businesses.

?

Then why does every single important person on the planet use it?

That's a Matter of opinion.

Not to mention they are making the absurd assumption that the UN HRC is not concerned about anything else simply they issued a statement on one issue/concern.

That flavour of archeologist would spend more time breaking half the artefacts in the cave to beat the Nazis to a particular find over wasting time creating an elaborate forgery.

Possible, but again, way too much effort for relatively little tangible gain.

More critically, why would anyone invest that kind of time and effort to pull off a prank with little payoff?

Just gaining the expertise needed to carve the right kind of runes that are era appropriate alone will require at least the equivalent of post-grad level of knowledge.

Ya know, this reminds me of the early-mid 90s when you had to upgrade your PC to play the latest game because your current one couldn't run it.

Replace "game" with "NVIDIA GPU" and you've more or less got the same thing all over again!

They can still live the remainder of their lives though. The only way you can think this is an equitable argument is if you think you can bring a dead person back to life. Do you actually think that?

And no, there really isn't any room for debate. The death penalty as a form of punishment was proven decades ago to be bullshit precisely because there is no way to make up for executing someone who didn't deserve it, and is a tool that can easily be abused by corrupt people.

Again, if there was room for debate, then why doesn't good ol' Shanmugum have the courage to challenge actual legal experts to a debate instead of a businessman who isn't a subject matter expert on the topic? We both know why - it's because Shanmugum knows other legal experts who aren't beholden to him would hand his ass back to him on a platter if he tries to seriously argue that the death penalty is still a good thing.

So you think the Singapore law minister, who wants to debate a British business and is not an expert on Singapore law, instead of another actual legal expert on things like the death penalty, is the brave one here?

Do you think the Singapore law minister would be a coward if he declined to participate in a debate with Branson on travel and tourism, space exploration, or telecom?

To be fair, you can have televised debates that can be qualitative. But the problem with formal, structured debates are that they are boring, people are literally forced to debate points, are penalised and/or boot for making personal attacks, and so on.

Point is, formal debates don't make for good TV either.

And...?

Are you seriously trying to argue that you can bring an executed person back to life? Or are you arguing someone wrongfully imprisoned for life cannot never be released if their conviction was found to be wrong?