The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dylancatlow
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Debates on this site that are used to publicize Members own websites should not be deleted.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,384 times Debate No: 26881
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

The thought that any member of this site would shamelessly use a debate to plug their own personal website makes me feel sick to the pit of my stomach, but to do so would not contravene Debate.org's terms of service which states that Members will: "not use the Service to artificially generate traffic or page links to a Website or for any other purpose not intended for personal, noncommercial use of the Service." (1)

This means that while I, as a Member of this site, couldn't post a link for my company's website, which is a commercial enterprise, there is no reason why I couldn't post a link to my personal website: http://www.break-in-news.com... - the hilarious "burglars bulletin board" which features spoof news stories that have only the most tenuous connection to the house-breaking profession but which will make you chuckle, if not laugh out loud - because I don't make any money out of that site.

Obviously, if any case of cynically using a debate on this site to plug a personal website ever came to light I'd be the first to condemn it but, currently, members who do so are not in breach of Debate.org terms of service and, therefore, any such debate should not be deleted.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow

Con

I thank my opponent for his argument. I have two main points. They are as follows:

1) Failure of my opponent to define “should” in the title

My opponent has made it clear that he opposes users advertising their own websites on this website. My opponent’s title, “Debates on this site that are used to publicize Members own websites should not be deleted,” does not clearly define what he means by should. This is not an arbitrary distinction because 'should' could refer to two things: morality and rules. He would agree that users ought not to advertise their personal websites and thus they “should” be deleted. If debate.org suddenly claimed that no user with black skin could join the website, would he claim that they “should not be allowed to join” in the sense of rules AND morality? I sure hope not.

2) Debate.org clearly states that any unauthorized soliciting is illegal

In the terms of service agreement under "Content Posted and Code of Conduct" in section D:

"Will not upload, copy, distribute, share, or otherwise use unsolicited or unauthorized advertising or promotional material, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation. To protect our Members from such advertising or solicitation, Juggle reserves the right to restrict the number of emails that a Member may send to other Members in any 24-hour period, to a number that Debate.org deems appropriate in its sole discretion."

Debate.org clearly states that unauthorized soliciting, spam, or any form of advertising is not allowed. This includes all forms: personal and business. If users posted their own website without a direct request from a user, this would qualify as promotional material and soliciting and 'should' be deleted in every sense of the word 'should' i.e. rules and morality.


Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

With many thanks to dylancatlow for accepting this debate I would like to respond to his rebuttals as follows:

1) Failure of my opponent to define "should" in the title
---------------------------------------------------------------
To clarify my position: I personally believe using debates as a promotional device for private websites is highly distasteful, but that"s not important; my argument is that such a practice does not breach DDO"s T&C"s.

2) Debate.org clearly states that any unauthorized soliciting is illegal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The clause my opponent refers to relates to spam e-mails (such as the love spam messages most members receive on a regular basis) as the sanction for such an activity is as follows: "Juggle reserves the right to restrict the number of emails that a Member may send to other Members in any 24-hour period, to a number that Debate.org deems appropriate in its sole discretion."

So, we can see that, as the T&C"s stand, morally-bankrupt members of DDO who wish to use debates to advertise their personal websites are not currently prohibited from doing so.

Vote Pro.

Thank you.
dylancatlow

Con


Rebuttal 1 :
"1) Failure of my opponent to define "should" in the title
---------------------------------------------------------------
To clarify my position: I personally believe using debates as a promotional device for private websites is highly distasteful, but that"s not important; my argument is that such a practice does not breach DDO"s T&C"s.
"

I never said that your opinion constitutes what people should and shouldn't do, I merely used it as an example of people not in agreement with the rules or lack of them. Just because there is no rule regarding advertising one's website in their terms of service does not mean that these kind of posts shouldn't be deleted. You have already argued against yourself in that these types of posts ought to be deleted by saying that you think they should. You would have to prove that rules trump morality and you have failed to do so.

Rebuttal 2:

2) "Debate.org clearly states that any unauthorized soliciting is illegal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The clause my opponent refers to relates to spam e-mails (such as the love spam messages most members receive on a regular basis) as the sanction for such an activity is as follows: "Juggle reserves the right to restrict the number of emails that a Member may send to other Members in any 24-hour period, to a number that Debate.org deems appropriate in its sole discretion."


My opponent is using a false dichotomy here by stating that users can either not send spam emailsor they can spam posts which aren't emails but are still spam. This is not the case at all as seen in the terms of service:


"Will not upload, copy, distribute, share, or otherwise use unsolicited or unauthorized advertising or promotional material, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation. To protect our Members from such advertising or solicitation."

As you can see, DDO does not even make the distinctions between email spam and other kinds of spam. Posting one's own website on a debate WITHOUT a request WOULD qualify as advertisng, promotion, and "other forms of soliciation".

Even if users could post their own websites on DDO, my opponent still has not fulfilled his BOD by not arguing why rules trump morality, BUT THEY CAN'T!



VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Which one of us?
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
Just arguing for arguing sake...it was a bit of a joke (I used the debate to publicize my own website!)
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Brian, are you just arguing for arguing's sake after I proved you wrong or do you actually still hold that conviction?
Posted by natarajan.subramanian 4 years ago
natarajan.subramanian
Any Business that makes of users passions to cash out to their benefit, should also allow them to use the same platform for users personal benefit. The rules in a website cannot infringe on the freedom of individuals to give links their business etc. in a discreet manner. I think the rules set forth will not stand in the Courts and could be dismissed as one-sided exploitation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.