The Instigator
ItsTheBaconDoge
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Himan360
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is YouTube going downhill?

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 3 votes the winner is...
ItsTheBaconDoge
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 87136
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

ItsTheBaconDoge

Pro

10,000 words per every round.
2 Week voting period
72 Hour argument

Round 1 (Pro): Rules and claim
Round 1 (Con): Claim

Round 2 (Pro): Reason, Evidence, Elaboration #1
Round 2 (Con): Optional Rebuttal, Reason, Evidence, Elaboration #1

Round 3 (Pro): Rebuttal, Reason, Evidence, Elaboration #2
Round 3 (Con): Rebuttal, Reason, Evidence, Elaboration #2

Round 4 (Pro): Rebuttal
Round 4 (Con): Rebuttal

Round 5 (Pro): Closing Statements
Round 5 (Con): Closing Statements

Claim: I think that YouTube is going downhill because of the fact that all of the community guidelines are being broken at this current moment, and there is nothing being done about it.
Himan360

Con

So much people like YouTube! Everyone would be mad at Google if they took away YouTube .
Debate Round No. 1
ItsTheBaconDoge

Pro

The reason I feel that YouTube is going downhill is, like I said, all of the community guidelines are being abused by certain YouTubers. For example, there are channels like SoFlo that will re-post their old videos to get fresh views and more money. This breaks the Anti-Spam policy of YouTube, but nothing is being done about it. Re-posting videos is like making counterfeit money, because you are taking your own hard work and re-using it. This seems rather lazy of someone, right? Another channel by the name of PrankInvasion got his videos age restricted, which means that he can no longer make money off of his videos. He was enraged, so he deleted all of his videos, and then re-posted them. This is a cheap, scammy way to make money off of YouTube without being caught. It seems as if there is a pattern that it follows, that people will only make videos if they get paid, and that's fine; but to take it to the level of ignoring YouTube's community guidelines is a new level, is what is causing YouTube to crash down harder than ever. If I were to be subscribed to a channel like SoFlo, and see that same video that I saw 2 weeks ago re-uploaded, I would think that since there is no new content being posted, and they're probably lazy. Me being the server of justice I am, would most likely unsubscribe because if there's no new content being posted, then why stay around and watch something I've already watched. Remember that every time you click on someone's video, it is considered a view, and that can go directly to the YouTuber's sallary, as long as there is no third party claim on the video or they're not in partnership with YouTube.
To add to all of this horror, there are channels that are being punished for no reason at all, like Eli the Computer Guy, his channel was taken down without warning, and he follows the community guidelines. Now note, the reason for this was a video that he made 2 and a half years ago. If YouTube does that much extensive research, then why have they not caught the lazy channels that spam their videos for fresh views? This could cause a lot of devastation to the subscribers of the channel, especially if none of the community guidelines are broken, right?
So there's a lot happening with YouTube that is not being fixed, we need to fix this so that YouTube can actually thrive, but the way it is headed now, it has the potential of collapsing.
Himan360

Con

Google wouldn't want to take away YouTube. It's one of their most popular sites, and without it there would be less people using Google. Google wouldn't want that.
Debate Round No. 2
ItsTheBaconDoge

Pro

You're right on that point, Google doesn't want to take down one of it's most favored sites, but if you were to observe my last piece of evidence, you're overlooking the fact that statistically, looking at the downhill rate of good, legitimate, and non-repetitive videos, we could assume that YouTube could actually be losing money because of the video recycling. YouTube is supposed to be a place where you can be someone other than you, but when we see those repeated videos, there is nothing being done about it, which is, like I said, is causing it to collapse. So it's not essentially the fact that they could take it down, it could even have the possibility of shutting down if it loses too much money from these recycled videos.
Now let me guide you over to another YouTube channel by the name of Joseph Costello. This person likes to record videos of him doing public pranks, and getting people riled up. Now, say we were to watch that video, and somebody thought: "Wow, I can get money from making people angry at me? Well I'm going to get my video camera and throw a pile of poop at them and seeing what happens, that's definitely quality content, yes?" But it's not! If people were to do this, do you know how bad it would make other people feel? Not to mention the fact that this breaks one of YouTube's community guidelines, the one that deals with extreme amount of social violence and profanity. Do you find this to be funny, quality or even a video for that matter?
The point I am trying to get through to you is the fact that recycled videos and social harassment videos are causing YouTube to go downhill, and Google might lose money from this fact, which could cause YouTube to have the probability of collapsing in on itself.
Himan360

Con

O.K. I get it.
Debate Round No. 3
ItsTheBaconDoge

Pro

There is nothing for rebuttal, so this round is a pass for me.
Himan360

Con

Himan360 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ItsTheBaconDoge

Pro

In conclusion, YouTube's infrastructure is collapsing due to the fact that the community guidelines are being ignored, and people are recycling videos and logically stealing money from YouTube.
Himan360

Con

My conclusion is that taking away YouTube will not be a smart decision. Vote for Con!
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: U.n// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro wrote detailed arguments; Con just typed a few short blanket statements, therefore Pro had the more convincing arguments. Con forfeited a turn so conduct to Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter insufficiently explains arguments. Merely having more detailed points doesn't automatically make someone's arguments more believable, nor does this meet the standard of evaluating specific arguments made by both sides.
************************************************************************
Posted by NothingSpecial99 1 year ago
NothingSpecial99
Not to mention the fine bros tried to copyright the work "react"
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
ItsTheBaconDogeHiman360Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
ItsTheBaconDogeHiman360Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro claims that YouTube is going downhill due to recycled videos and online harassment videos. He offers up examples to support his argument. And claims this could eventually lead to YouTube losing money. Cons response was that people would be unhappy and Google would lose users if YouTube went away. While these are both mostly speculative statements, I found Pros argument to be more convincing as he provided examples (such as SoFlo and Eli) to support his argument, whereas Con never elaborated. Additionally Con's 3rd round argument of "ok. I get it" could possibly be interpreted as conceding the debate. Con forfeited a turn; Pro participated in all rounds, therefore conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
ItsTheBaconDogeHiman360Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.