The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Cathy Boyler should be banned from iFunny.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2014 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,484 times Debate No: 55778
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




This debate is meant only for users of the app iFunny :). My resolution is that Cathy Boyler (currently known on iFunny as Cathy_Le_Feminist) should be banned from iFunny. She is only 13 years old (the app is rated 17+); she constantly attacks groups such as gays, mentally disabled children, cancer patients, even our own military; she believes the military is evil solely because she read Divergent; and her posts are not funny at all - iFunny is a humor app. The burden of proof falls on me to prove why she should be banned, while Con must only refute my arguments.

The debate format will be like this:
Round 1: acceptance and opening arguments
Round 2: further arguments
Round 3: rebuttals and final arguments

I thank Con in advance for participating in this debate.


I too am a user of the app "iFunny ;)".
RESOLVED: Cathy Boyler (Cathy_Le_Feminist) should not be banned from iFunny. Cathy has every right to "attack" groups. While the majority of people using the app, including me, do not agree with her views they have no right to kick her/him of the FREE site. The users do not pay for this site and there is no reason for iFunny providers to ban her/his account. The following is the list of untolerated things on iFunny:
Illegal activities or materials, including but not limited to materials, including but not limited to materials that may violate another's intellectual property rights.
Promoting pornographic, sexually explicit, violent, lewd or obscene materials.
Anything that constitutes promotion of SPAM.
Anything whose intended use or purpose is the promotion of products or services through advertisements. This includes, but is not limited to, email spam and banner advertisements.
Warez or Hacker related.
Pirated software.
IRC Bots.
Attempts to undermine or cause harm to other Clients of Provider.
Any hate related material.
Any other reason that is deemed by Provider to be unsuitable.
Cathy_Le_Feminist has not violated any of the above. When it comes to "Any hate related material" she does not show that activity either. While I do not know her activities on the site, I can deem by what you have provided is that she is not committing any harm to the groups, she isn't violating any laws, she is just merely posting her opinion.
Furthermore, from a non-legal/technical standpoint, it is extremely easy to simply ignore the posts and to ignore any comments. Just down vote them if you please or just swipe to the next post/comment. Also, this Cathy person is most likely doing this for publicity and attention. If the people just completely ignore her, then she will go away!
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate and actually using iFunny, instead of going into this with no knowledge of the issue or the app itself.

I concede that Cathy's current account (Cathy_Le_Feminist) does not have any "hate-related material." However, her previous ones have had it. All her previous accounts have been "lost," as the app would say, due to the disrespect, hate, and discrimination coming from them. Here is a complete list of her "lost" profiles:

I agree that she is probably doing this for publicity and attention, but she may genuinely be trying to offend people. And besides, do you really think that thousands of users will simply ignore her, especially when many of them are very offended by what she posts? That notion is ridiculously unlikely.

I now hand over the virtual podium to Con.


So Cathy had previous accounts that have been banned. This bans the ACCOUNT not the person.
So far, as you say, she has corrected her behaviors and has not posted anything that violates the iFunny user agreement. iFunny has no reason to ban this account. They have no evidence to say that all these accounts are from the same person. The new account, Cathy_Le_Feminist, has not broken the agreement.
Debate Round No. 2


You make a good point there. It is true that her current account does not violate the user agreement, unless there are offensive posts that I do not know about. But this only includes posts. There are still offensive comments.

As for evidence that the accounts are all from the same person, there is some inconclusive evidence available to the users, as well as private information only available to the iFunny team itself.
Evidence available to users:
As I mentioned before, this evidence is inconclusive. All of Cathy's previous accounts, with the exception of the past one or two, have had the same profile picture, the same background picture, the same bio, the same views on all of the original account's "evil sinner" groups, and even the same grammar.
Evidence available only to the iFunny team:
Given the size of iFunny's servers (I'm assuming they have fairly large servers, because of how popular the app is), there is probably a record somewhere about the i.p. address used to create a new account, log into an account, etc. I can not be totally certain of this, as I do not work for iFunny and I do not have access to their data and records, but this seems like a logical assumption.

I would like to thank Con once again for participating in this debate. You have made some very good points and it was a pleasure debating you.


Thank you Pro for debating this, I love ethical debates such as this.
There is still no rock hard evidence that tells us it is the same person. Even if it was the same person, the ban is on the account not the individual (as I stated in my previous argument).
Pertaining to the comments, no comments were reference or even exampled by the Pro. These offensive comments that have been reported are going through the iFunny staff and haven't resulted in another ban so far.
Thank you for everyone looking at this debate, especailly the pro. I would like to remind everyone that the way you vote is not on personal opinion. The person who you think wins is the person that debated the topic better and made better arguments. Thank you all!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by T_parkour 3 years ago
Oh and by the way, there is exactly one discriminatory post on her current profile that she's had on all the previous ones (if indeed it is the same person). If you go to her profile and scroll down to the very bottom, it's the third one from the end. All the other posts, with the exception of one, are reposts of people trying to get her to stop.

To any readers, please only take the actual debate into account when voting. This comment doesn't count, as it is past the debating period.
Posted by MastrDebator 3 years ago
Yeah, it was a good debate.
Posted by T_parkour 3 years ago
I'm kinda curious as to who will win this. Both of us made good arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Neither debater committed conduct violations or poor conduct throughout the debate. Cheers! S & G - Tie. Neither committed any major spelling or grammatical errors that would have cost or given reason to take away or award points. Arguments - Con. Pro really let the ball drop on this one in terms of his BOP. Pro actually had the victory from Round 1. If she is really underage, then that's a clear violation of the rules therefore possibly permitting a ban. Unfortunately, Pro dropped this point for some reason... I found it a little odd actually but blame it on getting distracted by Con's extremely good rebuttals and own contentions. Con then continued to succesfully rebut every point raised by Pro. This, in turn, upheld his own job within this debate of negating Pro's burden. For this, Con wins argument points. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate. Best of luck to both of you in the future!!