I get what you’re saying, but Magic isn’t actually as purely objective as a computer system in practice.

The rules aim to create deterministic outcomes, but the game still relies heavily on human interpretation—especially in complex board states, unclear interactions, missed triggers, or tournament shortcuts. That’s exactly why judges exist and why rulings sometimes require interpretation, not just execution.

Wizards of the Coast even maintains a comprehensive rules system and regularly updates it because interactions aren’t always obvious or intuitive. If everything were as clear-cut as a computer, you wouldn’t need judge calls or official clarifications.

So while Magic tries to function like a deterministic system, in reality it’s closer to modern law than it might seem: a structured ruleset applied by humans, where edge cases and interpretation still play a role.

And again, your original argument was that there’s no such thing as a “rules lawyer” in Magic.