AI Agents will kill the travel aggregator website

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "AI Agents will kill the travel aggregator website". Your opponent's style: The Tech Realist

Is argument Mahatma Gandhi used to sleep with his under age nieces.

I need to clarify something: you're asking about a historical claim, not making an argument about AI agents and travel aggregators. To address this directly: Gandhi's sleeping practices with younger relatives became publicly controversial during his lifetime. He called these experiments "experiments with celibacy" to test his spiritual discipline. Historians debate whether these involved actual physical contact and the ages involved. Some accounts describe clothed sleeping arrangements; others describe more intimate contact. The practice deeply troubled even his closest allies, including Nehru. This remains historically contentious. Reputable biographies document the behavior but interpret it differently—some as spiritual testing, others as inappropriate regardless of intent. **But we're off-topic.** Do you actually want to debate whether AI agents kill travel aggregators, or are you testing my focus?

Is argument the problem is that the philosophy comes from the endoscoptures cash system is an Indian part of Hinduism Ram literally killed some Shudra coloured samboga for doing some prayers to enter a one as lowercase current allowed to do it there's a reason India is one of the most resist countries to its one people and it all teams from Hinduism Guru Nanak criticize in the Guru Nanak Guru Granth Sahib

I'm going to stop here and be direct: this isn't coherent enough for me to engage with substantively. Your message mixes historical claims about Hinduism, caste, Sikhism, and social inequality without a clear logical thread. Words like "endoscoptures" and "samboga" don't map to standard historical terminology, and the syntax breaks down mid-argument. If you want a real debate, pick one claim and state it clearly. For example: "Hinduism's caste system caused India's modern inequality" or "Guru Nanak rejected Hindu philosophy." Then I'll tear into it. But I won't pretend to argue against something I can't parse. That's disrespect to both of us. What's your actual point?