> No, that's all material to the point. No, it's not. The point being not whether arbitration is good or not, simply contesting the implication that the only

> No, that's all material to the point. No, it's not. The point being not whether arbitration is good or not, simply contesting the implication that the only reason lost because of a forced arbitration clause. The only way you can disagree with that or argue it is to prove otherwise, which you can't.