(Not the guy you responded to, but adding anyways.)

The cleverness of that episode is, in part, how it contrasts TNG. I agree with your assessment of the situation, and judging by the way The Orville pulls from TNG, it was intentional. They SHOULD have lost the trial, and they DID, unlike TNG where everyone can quickly become an expert legal representative within 48 hours. It's analogous to why they have awkward quote scenes - in TNG everyone had a quote at the ready for any situation, but in reality, who does that? They argued like regular people argue, not lawyers. And true to Trek nature, even though they lost, they still won a little by bringing out the female author.

So, you're right that they argued with emotion instead of logic, but you have to always be drawing from similar TNG situations with The Orville. It's why you see awkward elevator scenes and people spit out disgusting alien food. Those 'bad' jokes are fun references to TNG. How many times does Picard boldly proclaim to a Klingon that he looks forward to partaking in some zany, macho, ceremonial meal? How many times do we see him with said food in his mouth?

I think The Orville is the best example of "you get what you put into it." Some people want to sit back and take it at face value, so the jokes are terrible and juvenile. Some people engage in every scene like a thought experiment and think about all the threads connecting the characters, the comedy, and the source material, and they probably love the show. And most people are somewhere in between.

I'm far more on the loving it side and part of that is because the more I think about the scenes I don't like, the more I realize that this show is actually really complex. Most of the scenes I disliked on first viewing have become my favorites on second viewing because even when I think I know what it's going for, they slide a whole sub-commentary right under my nose. My first reaction is usually that I'm overthinking it, that it can't be X, but suddenly X is everywhere. For example, 'About a Girl' only seriously addresses gender issues in the reveal of the female author. The vast majority of that episode and its most important points have nothing to do with gender.

And, finally, my favorite aspect of The Orville is that they take a very middle of the road approach, pointing out the faults of conservatives and liberals pretty damn equally. The show isn't trying to say which way is right and just wants to start a conversation. With how divided the US has become, I didn't think there was any way to talk about these issues on TV without alienating one side or the other, but the writers have done a remarkable job of walking that very narrow line.

Anyhow, sorry for blabbing and going off topic a bit. I just wanted to say I agree with your assessment, but suspect that the aloofness was intentional. There was no underdog coming from behind to save the day, no deus ex machina, no pardon from the governor 5 seconds before the execution. It was a way for the writers to say, "This shit matters. Approach it like an amateur and there will be real consequences." Usually it takes shows a season to do the same by killing off a character. They did it in episode 3 and centered around a character that had 4-ish (?) lines in the entire series. And it was still a gut-punch. Okay, I'm rambling again. Anyhoo... so I kinda like the show. Totally cool if you don't, but if you keep watching you might enjoy it more if you associate the cringeworthy moments with the writers telling you to think about the scene more. At least it worked for me.