Well, choosing to respond to a claim that wasn't asserted isn't a valid argument against the original assertion.

> and from there it is valid to discuss whether it might happen again.

This again is working at 'anecdote scale'. Unless you can show that the costs of these anecdotes are anywhere near the collective benefits, then it's worthless. Keep in mind, it's equally worthless to assert there actually are benefits in this system without support, but that's why I'm not asserting that. I'm just saying an isolated argument on one side or the other, especially when it just a fucking anecdote, is functionally meaningless.