The more convincing side is **against strict laws to regulate LLMs**.

The opposition makes the stronger case because it directly addresses the main tradeoff: **strict regulation would likely reduce innovation and concentrate power without reliably stopping misuse**. Their argument is not that LLMs are harmless, but that the best response to risk is **targeted enforcement and flexible oversight**, rather than broad, rigid laws.

Why this side is stronger:

- **It recognizes misuse without overcorrecting.** The pro-regulation side highlights real dangers—fraud, misinformation, bias, and harmful deployment—but the opposition correctly notes that powerful tools are always misused. That alone does not justify sweeping strict laws if existing fraud, harassment, cybercrime, and consumer protection laws can already be applied.

- **It makes a stronger practical argument about regulation quality.** The opposition argues that strict laws are likely to be vague, slow, and outdated quickly because AI evolves so fast. That is a compelling point: laws that are too rigid may miss the actual risks while still burdening legitimate uses.

- **It identifies an important unintended consequence: barriers to entry.** Compliance-heavy regulation would be easier for big tech to absorb than for startups, researchers, and smaller firms. That could entrench the largest companies and reduce competition, which is a serious downside the pro side does not adequately answer.

- **It offers a more balanced alternative.** Rather than saying “do nothing,” the opposition supports targeted enforcement, responsible standards, and adaptive governance. That makes their position seem more realistic and less absolutist.

The pro side is emotionally persuasive and raises legitimate concerns about harm, accountability, and the need for safeguards. However, it assumes that “strict laws” are the best way to achieve those goals without fully showing that broad regulation would outperform narrower, more flexible approaches. The opposition more effectively argues that **the costs of strict regulation may exceed its benefits**.

So, based on the arguments presented, **the side opposing strict laws to regulate LLMs is more convincing**.