When Legga started, my suspicion was on him because of his emotion laden and narc style "everyone is laughing everyone is agreeing" arguments. But as the argument progressed, I noticed Inquirer changing meaning of words and constantly changing positions. He repeatedly failed to provide material examples and also redefining the meanings of his words in the same conversation.
Through some irrelevant semantics arguing and meta-arguing about the points themselves it emerged that both were "chasing ghosts" but Legga painted Inquirer on the corner with definitions of evidence that Inquirer contradicted himself on.
Legga did pretty badly on explaining why he believes that the members of his list are of those nationalities resorting to copes such as "how would you know my reasoning if I did not tell you" but pointed out how Inq flipped and moved goalposts on his own definitions.
I would give this round to Legga
