The Instigator
Minddagger
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
baneofthecivilized
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Logan Paul Needs to Leave You tube

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
baneofthecivilized
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2018 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 337 times Debate No: 106358
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Minddagger

Pro

Logan Paul has gone too far this time, if you haven't heard of him, boy, do I have some stories to tell you...

Logan steals songs:

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

Recorded an ACTUAL dead body, AND LAUGHED:

http://www.independent.co.uk...

not to mention he is a KIDS CHANNEL and is making UNBELIVABLY inappropriate content, like for example, in his "Santa disstrack" he said that he had an affair with Santa's wife.

this man should not be welcome on the platform and is constant proof that the people in charge are corrupt.
baneofthecivilized

Con

Logan Paul, while irritable, obnoxious, and as he puts it "chotchy", my opponent has listed no valid reasons why Logan Paul should be removed from YouTube

Firstly, Logan is NOT a kids channel, contrary to popular belief. The minimum age to watch YouTube videos is 13 years old - with a parents permission. Although it would behoove Logan to post material that is appropriate for any age, Logan is technically not required to do so.

Secondly, Logan Paul is entitled to say anything he wants as an American citizen, so long as it also complies with YouTube's guidelines. While there can be repercussions for the things you say, Logan Paul cannot be faulted for exercising his freedom of speech. Logan Paul has done very few things to the degree of which would offend the YouTube content rules. So few, that the only example I can think of (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) is the video of the dead body. My opponent has cited the song "Handlebars" and says that Logan Paul's song "I Can Ride Your Girl With No Handlebars" is a rip-off, a copy of that song. However, upon analyzing the song, apart from them having a similar title and chorus, there is little else in common. The beat and word flow are completely different between the two songs, except for the "handlebars" part. Even the phrasing and tones of the beginning of the songs are different enough to be warranted not a copy. Surely, Logan's song may have been inspired by the Flobot's song, but they are not one and the same.

As for Logan's suicide video, it was at the very least a terrible lapse in judgment. While his apology sounds fake, we must take into account the fact that he is a stupid 22-year-old who does very stupid kids. He is in shock over the negative reaction to his horrible video, feels remorse, but is challenged with how to express himself. But let's say he posted the video purely for popularity and he is only apologizing so people will stop slamming him. This is not a reason to throw him off YouTube. Logan Paul, however thoughtless, has not truly done something so terrible that it requires him to lose his job.

What has he done? Shown the hands of someone who has committed suicide? Acted in a disrespectful way toward the body, purely because he was shocked. Laughed nervously to relieve tension. Logan Paul had a natural human reaction, and put it online. Should he have marked it as 18 plus? Sure. Should the video have been taken down? Absolutely. But should he lose his livelihood based on one incident? No.

YouTube's own policy states he is not liable to be terminated. The only things one can be removed for are:

Repeated violations of the Community Guidelines or Terms of Service
A single case of severe abuse (such as predatory behavior or spam)
Accounts dedicated to a policy violation (hate speech, harassment, impersonation, etc)

He has done none of these. He has only one known offense. It does not constitute an abuse of any person/s or the service itself, and he is certainly not dedicated to policy violation (despite whatever else he may do).

In short, Logan should not be removed from YouTube because he has not done anything sufficient to warrant that punishment. The only legitimate violation (of which I am aware) is the suicide video. That is only one offense and although it may seem large, it is but one offense and a minor one considering the terrible repercussions he would suffer.

Sources:
https://support.google.com...
https://support.google.com...
https://support.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Minddagger

Pro

I have Indeed put valid reasons, for a while now, you tube has been demonetizing for placing edgy joke's in their content, and yet Logan shows a real life BODY who COMMITED SUICIDE, and you tube put it on trending, while it is true Logan took it down, it just goes to show that you tube just cares about the ones that give them the most money.

I will agree that he is not a kids channel, my opponent has failed to mention a majority of the dubbed "logang" is 10-8 years old, and Logan indeed knows this, this is true that Logan can do it, and like I said, many youtubers were demonetized for putting down edgy jokes, while Logan got his video on trending

I would also like to remind my opponent that while there is freedom of speech, he was in a whole other country, one that has less patience of speech, and even if he was not, his freedom of speech does not allow showing a hanged dead body, in front of millions of kids, also, you say that only the beat and the word flow are the same, you have forgotten to add the similar lyrics, and similar video, as you can see, the flobots handle bars starts with a bike, right? Well same goes for Logan's song, the music videos are extremely similar, this is not a rip off, this is downright robbery, Logan's song is almost getting as much views as flobots, in fact, I'm surprised they are not suing him as we speak, and it may have been inspired by flobot's handle bars, but inspiration is where you take small elements from the thing your inspired from, not like ninety percent.

being 22 isn't an excuse to be stupid, age 22 (or possibly 23) is the year where your brain fully develops, that is the worst year to pull the age card in my opinion.

first of all, I see that we both agree that the suicide video he did was stupid, but think it like this: he has broke multiple regulations with that video, and he did not even get a slap on the wrist, no strike, Logan had to take the video down himself because you tube didn't for some reason, It wasn't even Censored for mature audiences, and I will admit that its not Logan's fault for not being punished, he still broke multiple regulations, don't you think he deserves at least a warning?

"should he lose his livelihood based on one incident? No."

it wasn't one incident, it was mutable, and in none of them did you tube raise their hand at him.

Did they punish him for terrifying a puppy by putting him in a bucket on a rope down a small mountain? No.

Did they punish him for using his dog as a fake service dog, just to keep him and his apartment room, also affecting other people with Actual blindness badly? No.

Did they punish him for saying in his Santa diss track that he was going to have an affair with ms Claus, who is portrayed as an old woman? No!

day after day he violates the law, while he is getting the easy life, other channels suffer the other end of the stick, take super Mario Logan for example, while Logan is making sex jokes and showing bodies and gets away with it, super Mario Logan has to face restriction, even on his most family friendly videos:

https://www.youtube.com...

"What has he done? Shown the hands of someone who has committed suicide? Acted in a disrespectful way toward the body, purely because he was shocked. Laughed nervously to relieve tension. Logan Paul had a natural human reaction, and put it online."

yeah, he edited it, took enough time to make a thumbnail, uploaded it, (which usually takes hours, and not once did Logan think that it was a good idea to delete it) that is totally a natural human reaction, and by the way, the acting of his "nervous laugh" was worse than that of his apology video.

you missed some there buddy, what happened to the "no graphic violence" guideline? I'm pretty sure a dead body hanging on a rope is pretty graphic don't you agree? And yes he did abuse, in a whole different, older video, as I said he put a dog in a bucket on a rope that could break, and threw it down a small hill.

he has made multiple offences, though not admittedly as much as his brother, he still has made some disgusting stuff that you tube just rolls their eyes at, just because they are taking down videos that mock their golden boy.
baneofthecivilized

Con

Firstly, don't call me buddy. It's not in good form for debate and just in general.

My opponent has suggested that YouTube has, in some way, deliberately placed Logan Paul's video on trending while actively demonetizing videos of similar nature. This is simply false. YouTube puts nothing on trending. Viewers do. More people watch Logan Paul vlogs than other edgy content, so he shows higher on trending. YouTube did nothing deliberately. It is just what people are watching. I would also like to make a notice that my opponent has not said anything about whether Logan should be removed in his first statement; he has merely stated that YouTube favors money makers. They are a business, whether you like it or not, but that's a different debate entirely and not related to the question of whether Logan Paul should be removed.

My opponent agrees with me that Logan is not a kids channel, but states that Logan has a kids audience and thus he should censor himself. While this is true, this does not mean Logan should have to alter his content to a younger age range. That is like saying South Park should be more child-friendly because some 8-year-olds have seen it, despite the fact it is 18+. Technically, he only has to assume that 13-year-olds are the youngest people watching and that their parents are approving of each video they watch. Sure, he ought to be more considerate, and sure what he is doing is not a good thing. But the question we are asking is whether or not he should be removed from YouTube. To determine this, we need to look a YouTube's rules. External morality can be entirely subjective and this debate wouldn't exist in entertainment if we were going on the morality of his actions. It would be philosophical and religious. YouTube's rules allow us to make the assumptions I have listed above and thus the fact that kids watch it has nothing to do with whether his general content should be permitted.

My opponent has reminded me that Logan Paul was in Japan at the time of the suicide video. However, I mentioned the suicide as the only exception. In all the countries Logan has been to, Logan has only been to one country in which the freedom of speech was not granted fully (UAE). Therefore, my logic can be applied to all videos not filmed in the Dubai series. So all of those lewd jokes and other relative comments don't matter so long as they are in alignment with YouTubes policies. YouTube says that content that is sexually explicit may be removed. Logan Pauls content doesn't qualify as sexually explicit. It merely qualifies as sexual. There is a large distinction.

As for the suicide video. I have never argued that was entailed in his freedom of speech. This is one infraction, and as stated in YouTube's policy, there must be multiple infractions to warrant a termination of an account. A single case of severe abuse can also warrant this as well, but this is not abuse. The suicide video abused what? The dead person's body? No, the abuse has to affect either a person or YouTube itself. The identity of the person is not revealed and the person is not affected because they are dead. The YouTube system has not been abused either. The examples given of a substantial abuse to the system are not comparable with Logan's video.

first of all, I see that we both agree that the suicide video he did was stupid, but think it like this: he has broke multiple regulations with that video, and he did not even get a slap on the wrist, no strike, Logan had to take the video down himself because you tube didn't for some reason, It wasn't even Censored for mature audiences, and I will admit that its not Logan's fault for not being punished, he still broke multiple regulations, don't you think he deserves at least a warning?

As for the other things that the opposition has mentioned, while they are indeed terrible, they are not violations of YouTube's policies and thus are just irrelevant things my opponent has mentioned to detriment Logan Paul. And while Logan Paul deserves the detriment, the judges should recognize they are still irrelevant.

As for 22-year-olds being stupid, there is no other way to say this, but yes they are. 22-year-old males have the highest car insurance rates. Why? Because statistically, they do more stupid things. While it is just a generalization, I believe this applies to Logan as well. The brain does not mature until after 35, that is why the American president must be over 35. To say that 22 years don't frequently do stupid things is naive and absurd.

While Logan did indeed edit the suicide video, as I just stated 22-year-olds do very stupid things. He was probably still in shock when editing and lacked proper judgment. A truly terrible ridiculous mistake, for which he has apologized and whether believe it to fake or not has nothing to do with whether he should be removed or not. He has only had one substantial violation and it is not applicable to YouTube's policies for him to be removed.

And as for the dog video, I will repeat, while terrible, it is still not a violation of YouTube's policies. And Logan Paul has stated that all of the crazy things he does with his dog are done with proper safety measures. Whether this is true is mute. You cannot assume otherwise because there is no reason to believe otherwise.

I end this entry with a final note. Not once did my opponent mention a single violation of YouTubes policy rules other than the suicide video. He can't because there is none. Because there is only one, he cannot be removed because his offense is not in line with the types of major offenses users are removed for.
Debate Round No. 2
Minddagger

Pro

My opponent says that you tube doesn't choose what's on the trending page, when that is not true, you tube has OPENLY CONFESSED that they sometimes pick what's on trending, and the fact that:

A) videos that spoke against Logan Paul have been deleted, this is rather suspicious do to the fact that they never deleted videos like that before. This link to the tweet below me is from an actual member of the you tube staff supporting this, and don't think its a "error" they each had their different titles, so it does not count as "spam" in any thing the "stop hating on Logan Paul" videos should count as spam, since their titles are more similar.

https://twitter.com...

B) it was on trending almost immediately, usually it would take half an hour, maybe even a full one for it to be on trending, and Logan's video just appeared as soon as it popped up, while you could argue that everyone is currently looking at him. Plus, the fact that they are deleting videos criticizing Logan is proof enough

I would like to remind my opponent that I did not say why he should be fired in the "first state meant" if you read farther down, you can see that I said that he has broken the no graphic violence policy, don't you think that a hanged body is graphic? My opponent also states that none of the other incidents with Logan Paul are taken down worthy, when this is not truth.

Terrifying a puppy? You can report for abuse.

the fake service dog? I will admit that there is no terms of service regarding this, but I hardly doubt that you tube should let Logan get away with an actual CRIME.

Saying he had an affair with Santa's wife? Sexual content, and believe me, they have broken this law more times than I can count.

another main policy is to not show harmful and dangerous content, which is to upload videos that do not hurt children, and guess what, Logan's suicide video HAS, I think you'll find this video to prove my point.

https://www.youtube.com...

in this video, you can see that this poor boy is traumatized by seeing an actual hanged body, sure there was a warning, and he would have listened to it, if Logan hadn't click baited similar occurrences and them turning out to be jokes.

and speaking about the terms of service, why haven't you countered this argument, especially after you said this:

"Repeated violations of the Community Guidelines or Terms of Service
A single case of severe abuse (such as predatory behavior or spam)
Accounts dedicated to a policy violation (hate speech, harassment, impersonation, etc)"

south park is animation, the children watching it know its not real, the children watching can handle seeing private parts, what they cant handle, however, is seeing an actual hanged dead body, may I remind my opponent that the animated deaths are just paper, and the kids know it, that body in the suicide video is legit.

laughing at a dead body is not freedom of speech no matter what country your in, not only does this offend the suicide victim's family, but it also can be seen as psychopathic.

Logan was not still in shock when he uploaded that video, the video has utterly ridiculous tags, such as "dead guy" and even promoting their own merch in the tags, when a man died! Here is the video as proof, also, please start the video at 1:31 of the video the rest of the video is just stuff I already told you.

https://www.youtube.com...

even if 22 is not when your brain fully develops, it is a good 60% of the brain that is developed, while statistically 22 year old's do stupid stuff, car crashes from drag race is no where near stupid as posting a dead body in front of a public fan base in my opinion.

I will also end my turn of this round with a question I asked last round, why did Logan get away without a mature rating, or even having his video taken down, while super Mario Logan gets even his most family friendly content taken down?
baneofthecivilized

Con

My opponent has brought up a valid point, which is that they have the capability to pick which videos are on the trending page. Note that when YouTube puts a video on trending, it is usually something that they need to promote for themselves or a cause they support, not a video that will make it to trending anyway. This point is irrelevant because it says nothing about whether Logan Paul should be terminated or allowed to remain on the platform. This has nothing to do with Logan and is irrelevant and neither are his points A and B because they pertain to YouTubes malpractices (which are not proven to be in effect in the case) and nothing about Logan's violation of policy.

My opponent has quoted me wrongly. He wrote, "first state meant" when I really said "statement". Just in case anyone was confused about what I or he was referring to.

My opponent says he has broken the no graphic violence policy. And I have never denied it at any point in my arguments. My argument is that this is one offense. In order for a YouTuber to be terminated, they must qualify the following

1.) Numerous violations (I disagree on my opponent on this and I will explain further later)
2.)A serious abuse of YouTube. The YouTube is implied by the examples YouTube has provided (spam, predatory behavior)

My opponent misunderstands the meaning of abuse in this context. Abuse does not refer to terrifying animals. However inhumane that may be, the abuse that YouTube is referring to is spamming comments, videos, or cyberbullying and other nefarious methods of coercion. Since my opponent has brought up these irrelevant issues, I will eliminate them to provide further clarity to the reader.

Terrifying a puppy? Well we don't know if the puppy was terrified (and I can't verify as I don't know which video we are talking about.) Also, proper safety measures are supposedly put in place to protect the animal.

But the biggest problem with this example is: that it is not a violation of YouTubes rules and is thus irrelevant (if you are not sure why it is irrelevant, you can look at the end of this entry or in my previous entries).

The fake service dog. Not a crime. Listen, I have personal qualms with this action. I have raised service dogs for blind people, and I know the level of training and dedication these dogs are trained to have. But Logan Paul had the dog registered at a city/state department. In order to have a service dog registered in the state, you must list a disability. We cannot know if Logan Paul has a disability that Kong assists him with. But we can't assume otherwise, especially since the state approved it.

But the biggest problem with this example is: that it is not a violation of YouTubes rules and is thus irrelevant (if you are not sure why it is irrelevant, you can look at the end of this entry or in my previous entries).

Saying he had an affair with Santa's wife? Sexual content. I agree, but it is not sexually explicit. Sexual content is welcome on YouTube. References, innuendos, even plain out discussing it is fine. But sexually explicit content is not. The difference is that the sexualness is explicit. I am not sure the ages of all people reading this, but anyone who is old enough will understand where I am going with this. It is not a violation of YouTubes rules and is thus irrelevant.

My opponent loves to get back to the suicide video. I agree this is a violation. But it just one, and as shown by my arguments above (and below if you keep reading) it is not the type of violation to require one's account to be deleted.

My opponent is trying to use the terms of termination as his evidence claiming I have not countered his argument (not sure what argument so I will just display my construction.) I have. Numerous times. It is the crux of my argument. To lay it out and set it in stone here is my logic.

Logan Paul has one known violation: suicide video. Repeated violations can't apply because we only know of one.

We also know he is not a spam account (if you like his videos which I do not) so we know he is not dedicated to a policy violation (hate speech, harassment, impersonation, etc).

He does have one policy violation. But a policy violation is not equivalent to an abuse. All abuses are policy violations, but not all policy violations are abuses. We know an abuse must directly abuse YouTube as a service by directly attacking members and tremendous spam. As far as I know, Logan Paul has not tried to attack anyone. So he is not guilty of this either.

The rest of my opponents points are unrelated but I will cover my bases and attempt to answer.

I mentioned South Park as an analogy. The content is vulgar and obscene, but there are people under 18 watching would technically shouldn't. Should South Park have to change? I am merely saying that Logan Paul is fine to add his little innuendos and references as long as it doesn't cross the border to explicit.

Laughing at dead bodies is freedom of speech, but that is a different argument. The suicide video should never have been posted, but it was one offense and not warranting removal based on YouTubes termination policies.

Logan uses default tags in all videos because of branding. Almost all creators do it. Even websites do it (I know because I do SEO) and this is standard procedure. It may sound bad, but there is nothing wrong with this. It is also irrelevant because it doesn't violate policy.

Car crashes from drag race are nowhere near stupid as posting a dead body in front of a public fan base in my opinion. Your opinion, while valid, is shared by very few. The numbers of people killed by DWI's, drag races, and other stupid trouble 22-year-olds (and others that age) is vast. And these stupid things cause suicides by causing depression etc.

To answer this question. Because Super Mario Logan needs to be age restricted. In the first video I saw, he described and motioned violent sexual behavior. The puppets give an allure to innocence and to prevent children from stumbling on these inappropriate videos, they have been age restricted.

But regardless of whose content you think is more inappropriate. it is irrelevant because neither is a policy violation, nor answers whether Logan Paul should be removed.

To demonstrate my logic once more. Logan Paul's suicide video does not count as an abuse just because it is a policy violation. The distinction makes it so that Logan Paul's video does not require him to be terminated. And because of this, he should not be terminated.
Debate Round No. 3
Minddagger

Pro

my opponent says that my points so far do not count in order to get banned from you tube, but sexual explicit and hate speech is, if you look at one of his latest vlogs in Tokyo, here is a link that shows what exactly how he treated Japan:

https://twitter.com...

as you can see in the video, he is wearing the most stereotypical Japanese clothing, while mocking Japanese people for not speaking, which should act as low-key hate speech, he also showed his genitals in the middle of the street, the censor isn't even good.

that's 3 violations including the suicide video listed, I'm about to add one more.

my opponent has countered almost all of my arguments, ALMOST, remember when he traumatized a child? possibly MULTIPLE children with a video, which is against community guidelines, here is the link of the video again, just to remind you.

https://twitter.com...

that's 4 offences on his list, you say you disagree that multiple offences equals no ban, but I have a question for you, if someone broke a law 4 times in just a few weeks, shouldn't you put your foot down and give him a punishment?
baneofthecivilized

Con

The Logan Paul montage my opponent put in his statement obviously shows terrible behavior, but it shows no policy violation. Surely a valid point if we were arguing whether Logan Paul is a stupid chotchy person but no one would ever take the negative (contrary) on that one.

As for the genitals in the street. I saw skin colored boxers correct me if I am wrong, but I would like to see the evidence. Regardless, censored out nudity (even if it doesn't have the best censor) is not prohibited by YouTube and is not a policy violation.

I have eliminated all three of my opponents violations, but they say they have one more.

"Remember when he traumatized a child? Possibly multiple children with a video." This just goes back to my argument about not having to alter content for children. Although Logan knows children are watching, he is within his rights to assume only 13-year-olds whose parents approve of all video they watch, are the only minors on the platform. This means Logan doesn't need to account for little children who may be watching his videos. And someone being traumatized by a video is absolutely not Logan's fault. Unless it was the suicide video (which has a dangerous nature) this is also not a reason.

To show me the video, my opponent has sent me the same link as before. I am sure this is just an error by my opponent and will be resolved next round.

My opponent made a mistake when reading what I said. He said (this is a source quote) "that's 4 offences on his list, you say you disagree that multiple offences equals no ban, but I have a question for you, if someone broke a law 4 times in just a few weeks, shouldn't you put your foot down and give him a punishment?"

This shows a clear lack of understanding as to my point. Multiple policy violations do allow a ban, but Logan Paul only has one we know about (the suicide video). YouTubes usage of repeated means "multiple times in a small duration of time." The only person who would know if Logan had violations is Logan. I highly doubt he has any because I don't know of any of his videos being taken down.

Now he says Logan Paul broke the rules 4 times. However, as I have just shown, he is only guilty of the suicide video which no one is denying. So Logan Paul has one policy violation. And as we know, a serious abuse (with that being the key word) is the only one-time action that can warrant a termination. However, not all policy violations are abuses. We know an abuse must directly abuse YouTube as a service by directly attacking members and tremendous spam (attacking the users directly). As far as I know, Logan Paul has not engaged in predatorial behavior or spam. Since he has not, nor done anything that constitutes as an abuse of YouTube the system or YouTube's users (directly), he is not liable to be removed.

I have said this repeatedly and I am not sure if my opponent understands my logic. I know many of you are biased for your own reason. And I suspect there are not many Logangsters who are here on this site to upvote me. That is the reason I picked the debate. Because it is a hard position to defend. But looking at the logic, you cannot deny that Logan Paul shouldn't be removed. The policy says he is fine. At the end of the day, that's what matters.
Debate Round No. 4
Minddagger

Pro

This just goes back to my argument about not having to alter content for children"

I countered that argument, animated censored genitals is no where near as bad as seeing an actual dead human corpse, and their is physical evidence that a child is traumatized, so you tube can take it as an offence. and yes, it was the suicide video.

their are 2 offences actually, one graphic violence, and 2 traumatizing a child, and these are major offences in the community guidelines in just one video. and he did abuse you tube as a service, he used their tags with unstoppably stupid tags, since that is a you tube service. it counts as an abuse

I'm pretty sure that the policy would gladly make him not ok if the entire website was in danger, which is what is happening right now take a look at this:

https://www.wired.com...

"The policy is vague, and requires a bunch of value judgements on the part of the censor," says Kyle Langvardt, an associate law professor at the University of Detroit Mercy Law School and an expert on First Amendment and Internet law. "Basically, this policy reads well as an editorial guideline" But it reads terribly as a law, or even a pseudo-law. Part of the problem is the vagueness."

so its possible that the people can sue the website into making it a law to not show a censored real, dead body. and it also means that while it is true that you tube's policy is fine with it, the entire websites (and the American and Japanese government) policy is not, which is what you tube works for.
baneofthecivilized

Con

You keep missing the point about South Park. I am not comparing South Park with looking at a dead body (though I would take the position South Park is worse). I am merely saying that they aren't being censored, despite there being a substantial kid fan base. And the principle applies to Logan. Just because there are children who are watching his vlogs doesn't mean he has to alter his content to suit them. Now the suicide video is obviously a violation of policy, and that's not what I was referring to with this analogy. I was using this analogy to show how Logan Paul's references and other inappropriate behavior is not a reason for the video to be removed.

Also, my opponent says there are two offenses: graphic violence and traumatizing a child. What he fails to recognize is that he has just listed one offense and one product of that offense. See, as terrible as this may sound, a child being traumatized by a YouTube video is not a policy violation. A child can be traumatized by anything. Like a dog barking can be traumatizing regardless of the nature of the bark. The dog is not at fault for traumatizing the child, it barks because that is a natural reaction for a dog. Sure the YouTube policies exist to prevent people from being traumatized, but even the slightest of things can traumatize a person given the right setting and mood.

So being traumatized is not an offense. It is the result of the graphic content. If Logan had put a dog viciously barking at him as he walked by, it could also traumatize someone. If someone was traumatized, it is their own issue. Now the suicide video shows something that can be traumatizing in nature. YouTube's policy rules are designed to stop traumatizing content and this is why the gory content is an offense. But someone being traumatized is not an offense.

To make sure I am extra clear, someone being traumatized is an effect of a rule being broken, not a rule itself.

My opponent brings up Logans's tags. My opponent is using this as a last-ditch to provide a policy violation. The tags that were put were relevant to the video. You may not like the tags, you may find them disrespectful, but they are relevant to the subjects of the video: Logan Paul, and the suicide victim.

My opponent gives an interesting comment that can really help you see why his position is wrong (source quote)

"I'm pretty sure that the policy would gladly make him not ok if the entire website was in danger, which is what is happening right now..."

Okay, he is implying that the policy can change from one instance to another. The opposition does not realize that the policy is like a law book. You can add new editions, you can revise it for major law changes, but you can't change what book says for different people. Sure, after this they could change the policy. But that would only affect Logan if he did it again. Only the policies in effect when Logan committed a certain violation matter. The policy can't just "make him not ok". When Logan did anything wrong (except the suicide video), he was inline with the policy. And the suicide video isn't an abuse according to the policy.

My opponent then cites a legal expert saying that YouTube's policies are vague as don't even serve as good "pseudo laws" But my opponent is still missing the point. They are still, to be colloquial, the law of the land. And the laws are still descriptive enough to assist us in this question. What is an abuse? An abuse is the improper use of something. YouTube is a video-sharing site. While the video's content may be terrible, he is not abusing the platform because he is still using it correctly; to share videos. So while the policy rules are vague, if you look at everything objectively, you will see that the policies are descript enough to make judgments about actions on the site.

My opponent then gives a very confusing statement, which I will analyze. (source quote)

"so its possible that the people can sue the website into making it a law to not show a censored real, dead body. and it also means that while it is true that you tube's policy is fine with it, the entire websites (and the American and Japanese government) policy is not, which is what you tube works for."

He first says that it is possible to sue YouTube into making it a policy. This is not only far-fetched but irrelevant. If the policy is changed, Logan has already made that video and it wouldn't count as a violation (remember, actions in the past can't be punished because of rules made in the future). Plus he has already taken it down himself.

Then he says as for the suicide video "the entire websites (and the American and Japanese government) policy is not (fine with it), which is what you tube works for."

The governments don't care. It is not a crime. And YouTube works for no one. It is owned by Google. Its business practices must not be illegal but that is it.

So I have defended against all of my opponents points, and he has managed to refute none of mine. But to provide clear logic to the reader, here is my argument.

Logan Paul has one known violation: the suicide video. Repeated violations can't apply because we only know of one. (I just knocked off all the ones my opposition has been talking about)

We also know he is not a spam account (if you like his videos which I do not) so we know he is not dedicated to a policy violation (hate speech, harassment, impersonation, etc).

He does have one policy violation. But a policy violation is not equivalent to an abuse. All abuses are policy violations, but not all policy violations are abuses. As we know an abuse is the improper use of something. Logan Paul must have a serious abuse to warrant removal. But all he has done is share a video. This is not abuse. The video's contents are policy violation but his video doesn't constitute a dictionary definition of abuse, nor the one which can be reasoned from YouTube's policies: that it must directly affect YouTube as a service or a user/s.

I would also like viewers to note that at some points, the number of grammatical errors and the bad structure of his arguments has made it difficult/impossible at some points to understand what my opponent was saying. And while (after much proof-reading and analyzation) I was able to determine the meaning of most of his arguments, this lack of structure clearly indicates the minuscule amount of thought my opponent has put into this. He continued to cite bad things Logan Paul has done, without ever stopping to consider whether or not they were policy violations. He listed loads morally questionable thing Logan Paul has ever done, without considering their relevance to the question "Whether Logan Paul Should Be Removed From YouTube".

I know many of you will possess biases against Logan Paul, and in turn my position. I personally think his videos are crass and obnoxious. But we must simply look at the facts. He hasn't violated policy enough to warrant removal. And thus he should not be removed.

Thanks to Minddagger for participating in this debate and interacting in a cordial way. I know debates get intense, and I respect Minddaggers attitude. I believe it is all too common to find name calling monkeys online on this debate site and I respect the fact he was committed to a serious debate.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Debating_Horse 4 days ago
Debating_Horse
Yes, Logan Paul is a scumbag.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 6 days ago
Ragnar
MinddaggerbaneofthecivilizedTied
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: "Logan Paul is a stupid chotchy person" pretty much sums up the debate, which does not prove any need for action (they certainly should take action, but they don't NEED to). Forgiving the topic error, and treating this as YouTube needs to fire him, as opposed to he needs to quit (as it was written). ... The pattern of violations, did not pan out, nor did any negative consequence for YouTube (pro's own source reminds us that his subscriber count went up). The main video in question was not shown to be predatory (the links pretty clearly stated YouTube defines that as going after kids), nor to be spam (same with the racist video). If YouTube is taking down other peoples videos to protect him, well it sucks, but it's not only off topic, it goes against them having a true need to get rid of him.