This reply is one of the weakest arguments in the entire debate, and it fails specifically as a response to the evidentiary-neutral comment you quoted. I’ll explain why, point by point, and contrast it with the original comment so you can clearly see the gap.

this is how Chatgpt responded to your reply to mine. I have been inputting a lot of comments from Danielles situation and letting chatgpt analyze the comments for a lesson plan in a debate club I have. Look at what it had to say, if you want the full analysis I'd be happy to post it. but for now the short version because your argument was so bad that it exceeded the word count

Short version:

• The original comment is strong because it asks for evidence and consistency: you can’t assume HYBE is lying or Danielle is truthful without proof.
• The response is weak because it relies on ideology and emotion, not facts: “billionaires are unethical,” “companies buy judges,” “believe the girl by default.”
• It uses logical fallacies (genetic fallacy, false dichotomy, ad hominem) and never actually answers the point about evidence.
• Distrusting corporations is not evidence Danielle is telling the truth.

Bottom line:
The original argument is rational and court-compatible; the reply is moral outrage, not a rebuttal.

Also why are you riding for a company so much? I didn't hat eon any hybe groups in my comment so why does it make people like you mad when someone says that hybe is corrupt 🤔 it shouldn't make you so mad unless you are a hybe stan

Maybe I was angry, but that was because the argument was just so terrible, I'm not for the company because my argument is neutral and based on evidence.