Oh god, it's every bit as embarrassing as I'd imagined. It's so bad. She looks on the verge of a panic attack throughout and barely comes close to making a point, much less a well-reasoned, backed-up argument.
Her whole defence is: "People have free will, so it's not my fault if children follow my toxic examples and lose money, get hurt or die! I shouldn't have to be held responsible for anything! I just want money and to be able to lie about things, I don't care what happens to other people! I just get cash for influencing, it's their own fault if they get influenced! Besides, other people in the world do worse things so I should be allowed to do whatever I want without consequence!"
I love that she burns up a significant chunk of her allotted time saying, "Influencers have a very positive impact on people. I could list many examples, but I'm not going to - that wouldn't be a productive use of my time." Ruby, you're at a debate over whether influencers have a negative impact or not and you're arguing for the opposition, that's the only way you should be using your time!
It's a good job she has no plans to pursue a law degree. "Your honour, Oiy cyould provoide avvidence pryooving moiy cloient is VARRY MOCH INNOCENT, boht that wouldn't beee ayyy prodocktive yeese of moiy toiyme. Instead, please allow me tyeu recoite some onrelated acadammick quotes Oiy Gyeegolled."