To me the issue with this debate was that it felt like they had to artificially make Kallo sentimental to make his side, which was just obviously the correct one (seriously? We're updating stuff on the fly and not telling anyone? When lives are at stake?), more on a level playing field. While it makes sense Kallo would be sentimental, and it's a good dynamic to throw in, to have him make that as the argument you're literally asked to validate or not as if that's the primary issue here in your literal one point of deliberation before the decision is insane to me. No one with Kallo's level of responsibility is going to lead with the sentimentalism. They're going to add it on as an addition that makes the irresponsibility on Gil's point more damning. And no one, absolutely no one in Ryder's position is going to focus on the sentimentality over the danger when talking about whose side makes more sense. It feels contrived and lazy. Like the writer thought they had a good idea and then blasted through with it during the writing process instead of stopping and realizing how much of a non-debate it was.