The Instigator
MTGandP
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
tkubok
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points

Charles Wanless should be banned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,904 times Debate No: 8897
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (27)
Votes (9)

 

MTGandP

Con

Charles Wanless: owner of Charlie_Danger http://www.debate.org...
Banned: Not allowed to create an account on debate.org.

The basis for banning Charles was originally that he created an inappropriate debate. However, I argue that this is not enough basis to ban his account. He wrote a public apology [1] in which he explained that his friend probably created the inappropriate content. This is believable for several reasons:
-If Charles had created the inappropriate content, he would not have written an apology.
-Charles has been on DDO for about two months, and behaved appropriately during this time. He actively participated in debates and on forums.

Since Charles is probably not responsible for creating the inappropriate content, his account ought to be reinstated and he should be allowed on DDO.

[1] http://www.debate.org...
tkubok

Pro

I would have to disagree.

First off, the notion that someone who writes an apology, therefore he wasnt the one who wrote the original offensive content, is absurd. The easiest reason i can think of, is Buyers remorse; that is, Charles did it on purpose, and now he regrets doing so.

Secondly, again, it is absurd to think that just because someone has acted promptly, that he was not simply faking his behavior, or otherwise got bored and started to fool around.

However, both of these points are irregardless. Even if i were to acknowledge that this was not Charles, but someone else who did it, it is STILL his fault.
-If it was his friend who went on posing as him, it is still his responsibility. He should not have been so careless in choosing the same password, a password his friend is also aware of. This is akin to a beautiful woman walking naked in the slums of New York. He was asking for it.
-If it was a hacker, again, too bad for you. Although id say that is a very small possibility, as someone who hacks into another persons account would most likely create a post that is purposefully obscene, instead of one that can be interpreted both ways(Such as using swear words and/or other inappropriate words directly into the topic). However, again, it is still his fault. This is why passwords are recommended to be long and ubiquitous.

Charles may or may not be the one who created the inappropriate content. But he is still responsible.
Debate Round No. 1
MTGandP

Con

"First off, the notion that someone who writes an apology, therefore he wasnt the one who wrote the original offensive content, is absurd. The easiest reason i can think of, is Buyers remorse; that is, Charles did it on purpose, and now he regrets doing so."
This is an interesting point. However, it still supports the Con case. If Charles feels remorse, then it is unlikely that he will repeat the behavior, in which case there is no reason to ban him.

"-If it was his friend who went on posing as him, it is still his responsibility. He should not have been so careless in choosing the same password, a password his friend is also aware of. This is akin to a beautiful woman walking naked in the slums of New York. He was asking for it."
It is more akin to not locking one's door in a friendly neighborhood. The neighbors are trusted, so it is not necessary. If the neighbors breach their trust after years of trustworthiness, that was unfortunate, but no one could have seen it coming. The case is similar with Charles. He had no reason to think that his friend would abuse the account. On most days, Charles probably stays logged in; I do that too, and so do many other people. On that day, however, a malicious entity took advantage of his perfectly normal habit.

"-If it was a hacker, again, too bad for you. Although id say that is a very small possibility, as someone who hacks into another persons account would most likely create a post that is purposefully obscene, instead of one that can be interpreted both ways(Such as using swear words and/or other inappropriate words directly into the topic). However, again, it is still his fault. This is why passwords are recommended to be long and ubiquitous."
My opponent does not back up this claim. How could it be Charles's fault if he gets hacked? If he chose a bad password, sure, but there are many ways of hacking besides trying to guess the password.

My opponent's attempts to give responsibility to Charles are inadequate. In every case he was either acting as expected, or there was nothing he could have done about it. Charles is not to blame for the misuse of his account. Resolution negated. Vote Con!
tkubok

Pro

"This is an interesting point. However, it still supports the Con case. If Charles feels remorse, then it is unlikely that he will repeat the behavior, in which case there is no reason to ban him."

Congratulations. Now youve made the argument of "That man murdered someone, but hes really really really sorry and has promised never to kill again, so lets let him go scott free!" Sorry, but no. Thats not how any judicial system works. Thats not how most civilized systems for anything work. We dont let people go off just because theyre really sorry or promise never to do it again, because the punishment is there for a reason, and the punishment should stand regardless of how much regret the person feels.

Charles knowingly made his password easy enough so that his friend could figure it out.

Its his mistake.

Its his responsibility.

This is his punishment. Now all we can do is hope that he learns his lesson, so that the next debate board or forum he visits, he will not make the same mistake twice.

"It is more akin to not locking one's door in a friendly neighborhood. The neighbors are trusted, so it is not necessary. If the neighbors breach their trust after years of trustworthiness, that was unfortunate, but no one could have seen it coming. The case is similar with Charles. He had no reason to think that his friend would abuse the account. On most days, Charles probably stays logged in; I do that too, and so do many other people. On that day, however, a malicious entity took advantage of his perfectly normal habit."

If you keep your door unlocked because you trust your neighborhood, and one day, after returning home from work, all your stuff is stolen and you suspect your neighbors hand in it, clearly your trust was misplaced.

You see, this is the thing about Trust. There are different degrees of trust, and there are things you should never do, even if you trust someone implicitly. I trust my friends. I still wouldnt lend them anything over a grand of money, nor would i lend them my car. If this website is important to Charles, he shouldve put a lock on his computer, or changed his password. Cause clearly, his trust in his friend was misplaced.

But the real issue is, that it is still Charles fault. It is still his fault. He is the one who trusted his friend. It was his choice to make. Nobody forced him to trust his friend. Clearly it is still his fault.

"My opponent does not back up this claim. How could it be Charles's fault if he gets hacked? If he chose a bad password, sure, but there are many ways of hacking besides trying to guess the password."

My opponent has failed to read the original apology letter. Let me restate the key phrase in his letter, here.

"I shouldn't use one universal password which had, incidentally enough, been hacked before"

This is akin to using your birthday as your bank account PIN. Every time Ive created a new account, the bank manager always, always warns me not to use easily guessable numbers, such as 1234 or my birth date as the Pin, as these are the most simplest methods of getting access to a bankaccount.

"My opponent's attempts to give responsibility to Charles are inadequate. In every case he was either acting as expected, or there was nothing he could have done about it. Charles is not to blame for the misuse of his account. Resolution negated."-you

I do agree with my opponent on atleast one of his claims. Charles acted like what a normal person would do. This is the reason why so many banks have to tell people not to use their birthdays as Pins. its very common. But just because its common, doesnt mean its not your fault if you get caught. I mean, what percent of the population, do you think, have jaywalked? 80%? 90%? Its a very common occurance. But guess what? Its illegal. And if you get caught, there is only yourself to blame.

As for my opponents claim of there being nothing he could have done, my opponent is flat out wrong. There are a million things Charles could have done. He himself admits, and again, i quote;

"I shouldn't use one universal password"

Which is clearly something he should not have done, something he couldve fixed, and something he recognizes as something he could have fixed.
Debate Round No. 2
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
I was referring to my argument with Sadolite.
Posted by tkubok 7 years ago
tkubok
..except for the fact that you lost this debate. :D
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
"http://en.wikipedia.org......
Essentially, the offer to sell you swampland was an attack on your gullibility. It's a joke that's before our time =D"
Aha. Good point. But the fact that I missed that reference does nothing to negate my arguments. So I win. :)
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Essentially, the offer to sell you swampland was an attack on your gullibility. It's a joke that's before our time =D
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Maikuru, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
The Everglades comment was an old joke about gullibility...unless you realized that and were just poking fun yourself. I've been offline too long, I need to re-acclimate myself.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
"Do you really ?"
Yeah. Really.

"Is it really. How come no debate is allowed. "
What do you mean, no debate is allowed? What about this (http://www.npr.org...)? This (http://personals.galaxyinternet.net...)? This ()?

"And all that even think to challenge it are vilified."
I wish. Even though that's not true, let's assume it is. So I pose a question: how much respect would you have for someone who believes that the theory of gravity is a leftist conspiracy?

"If you think john McCain was a conservative you are way way off when it comes to being conservative. McCain was a flaming liberal if you ask me."
How, exactly, was he liberal?

"And you actually belive that man can control the climate. I live in florida, I have some prime realestate in the Everglades I'll sell you for 100 bucks an acre."
How is that the least bit relevant? First of all, I don't really want real estate. Second, how is agriculture NOT controlling the environment? Third, global warming does not limit itself based on who owns the land.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
RoyLatham is against gay marriage on the grounds that marriage should not be redefined. I respect that perspective. Do you really ?

"Global warming is a scientific theory supported by real facts and evidence" Is it really. How come no debate is allowed. And all that even think to challenge it are vilified. That alone should make bells go off in your brain!

" half the country is conservative," You don't know what it is to be "Conservative" Being a Republican in no way makes anyone a conservative. Nor does voting for a Republican. If you think john McCain was a conservative you are way way off when it comes to being conservative. McCain was a flaming liberal if you ask me.

And you actually belive that man can control the climate. I live in florida, I have some prime realestate in the Everglades I'll sell you for 100 bucks an acre.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
"Being against anything that liberals think is great already makes one a racist a bigot a homophobe and uncaring."
That's really not true. For example, RoyLatham is against gay marriage on the grounds that marriage should not be redefined. I respect that perspective.

"I mean you tell a lie long enough about anything and it becomes true in the eyes of the gullible. Take global warming for instance."
Global warming is a scientific theory supported by real facts and evidence.

"One has to believe that man can control the climate. How moronic is that?"
Argument from incredulity combined with ad hominem. Not valid.

"But still people actually believe that man can keep the climate the same or make it warmer or cooler. Talk about complete gullibility."
I've spent months researching the issue of climate change and have weighed the evidence carefully. I would not call that "complete gullibility". But nice job on another argument from incredulity/ad hominem.

"I of course don't care about the planet because I don't buy into this stupidity"
That doesn't follow.

"Conservative speech will be banned in my life time, It will be deemed hate speech, hell it already is."
Evidence please? That's strange, because about half the country is conservative, yet you act like you're an oppressed minority.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
"You don't get banned just by being conservative." Time will tell. Being against anything that liberals think is great already makes one a racist a bigot a homophobe and uncaring. I mean you tell a lie long enough about anything and it becomes true in the eyes of the gullible. Take global warming for instance. One has to believe that man can control the climate. How moronic is that? But still people actually believe that man can keep the climate the same or make it warmer or cooler. Talk about complete gullibility. I of course don't care about the planet because I don't buy into this stupidity and I am considered an out cast to society with no clue. Conservative speech will be banned in my life time, It will be deemed hate speech, hell it already is.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by YouImpossibleChild85 6 years ago
YouImpossibleChild85
MTGandPtkubokTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:31 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
MTGandPtkubokTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
MTGandPtkubokTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
MTGandPtkubokTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
MTGandPtkubokTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
MTGandPtkubokTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
MTGandPtkubokTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
MTGandPtkubokTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
MTGandPtkubokTied
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