Online platforms with more than 100 million users should be regulated as publishers under national media liability laws.

This debate centered on a fundamental tension in the digital age: the conflict between the need for accountability in information ecosystems and the technical realities of the open internet. The Pro side secured a victory by successfully redefining the role of modern platforms, moving the definition from "passive conduits" to "active architects."

Pro established an early lead by arguing that algorithmic curation constitutes an editorial act. By distinguishing between hosting speech (passive) and amplifying speech for profit (active), Pro effectively circumvented Con’s primary defense regarding the impossibility of manual review. While Con mounted a spirited comeback in Round 2—rightfully pointing out the economic devastation and potential for monopoly entrenchment that strict liability might cause—they struggled to maintain momentum in the latter half.

The decisive turning point occurred in Round 3. Con continued to argue that "organization is amplification," a stance that failed to address Pro's nuanced argument regarding specific algorithmic engineering choices. Pro’s ability to frame liability not as a punishment for user speech, but as a consequence for negligent product design, proved rhetorically superior. In the final analysis, Con relied too heavily on the "slippery slope" to total censorship, which Pro effectively mitigated by narrowing the scope of their proposed liability. Pro wins on the strength of a more modernized, technically specific definition of "publishing" that Con failed to fully dismantle.