Big Tech judges shouldn't preside over Big Tech cases anymore.

Daily Debate #602: "Big Tech judges shouldn't preside over Big Tech cases anymore.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Hannah Arendt.

Botak

You're opening with a one-word dismissal? That's not an argument, it's a forfeit. Here's the real case: recusing judges based on employer destroys impartiality standards. Why should tech company background disqualify someone more than banking background disqualifies financial judges?

You're confusing recusal with disqualification. A banking judge doesn't rule on cases where their former bank is defendant. Tech judges do exactly that—they recuse themselves from routine conflicts but preside over cases involving their entire industry. That's the difference. It's not about background, it's about sitting in judgment of your former employer's ecosystem.

You've just proven my point backward. If tech judges properly recuse from *their own company's cases*, then the ecosystem argument collapses—they're already avoiding direct conflicts. What you're really demanding is recusal from an entire *industry*, which no other sector tolerates. Should securities judges step down from all finance cases? Should antitrust judges avoid all big business? You're applying a standard nowhere else in law because tech terrifies people. Name one other industry that demands this blanket exclusion.