The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
59 Points

Resolved, Imabench should be banned for violating the TOS

Do you like this debate?NoYes+14
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 14 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,688 times Debate No: 25088
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (49)
Votes (14)

 

imabench

Pro

Ladies and Gentlemen, I will be acting as the prosecutor in this debate and I will be advocating the banning of the user known as "Imabench" from DDO for violating the Terms of Service numerous times during his presence on the site.

Here are the portions of the TOS that Imabench has violated:

- 1) Section C of the code of conduct
Imabench has uploaded many pictures that were used against conservative beliefs in debates. He has also uploaded content that is defamatory to politicians and pop culture figures in debates as well.

- 2) Section O of the code of conduct

Imabench has mentioned that he has used DDO to try to hit on Thett's sister in real life.

- 3) Section T part 1 about the use of profanity.

Imabench has said the word f*ck 347 times, sh*t 493 times, dumba** 128 times, and b*tch 77 times which is in blatant violation of the TOS

- 4) Section T part 2

Imabench has humorously attacked the opinions of members and members themselves numerous times both in debates and in the forums

- 5) Imabench has also been involved in behaviors detrimental to the site which includes but is not limited to

- A - Making various sexual remarks in his debates and on the forums, at one point he even explained in detail what a "Cleveland Steamer" is to a 13 year old girl on DDO, claimed that 16kadams enjoys deep-throating large black dildo's, and that he tricked his grandmother into watching a video of a girl violating another girl's behind with a ping pong paddle handle.

- B - He has trolled and derailed numerous debates which not to get personal is a real a**hole thing for him to do. Once he derailed a debate about there being Poop in DNA and he somehow won even though he in no way should have won that debate....

- C - He unwillingly triggered the Ima incident of 4/28 to 4/29 where 11 multiaccounts were created in his name (kind of) and went around DDO attacking members and calling for Imabench's death

- D - He has spammed debates that are beyond stupid, including but not limited to,
- "DDO should have a massive sex orgy if the world ends in 2012"
- "Having 1 testicle is better than having 3 testicles"
- "Women should be given free large breast enhancements"
- "Imabench should be banned for violating the TOS"
and numerous others as part of his former "Weekly Troll debate" campaign

That being said it has been in the interest of many people that Imabench should be banned from DDO for the reasons mentioned above. I selected to be the one advocating for the banning of myself, and I promise to not let the fact that I am prosecuting myself compromise my handling of this debate as prosecutor.

As part of Imabench's demands, Imabench has called on his right to a speedy debate for his banning, thus the debate will be limited to four rounds. Imabench has also requested that the position for defending himself will be open to the public and has waived his right to appoint someone to represent himself. Therefore, whoever accepts this debate will argue on Imabench's behalf.

Lastly Imabench has requested that the jury be made up of those who vote on this debate, meaning the final score of this debate will determine if Imabench will be banned or not. I will try my best to show why Imabench should be banned, whoever accepts this debate shall argue why he shouldnt be banned.
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank Imabench for starting this vital and very topical debate. First, I would like to quickly define some words...

Should [1] - "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness..." This is the first listed definition and is the most common definition when "should" is used is such context.

I would like to point out that as Con for the resolution, I am not arguing that Imabench should not be banned, or that that he should remain on DDO. What I shall be arguing is that the TOS creates not obligation for Juggle or the DDO moderators to ban members that violate the TOS. As such, there is no "should" involved.

Evidence) A simple look at the TOS [2], namely Section T of the Code of Conduct. It reads as follows, "Will follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines MAY result in termination of a member's account."

By violating the TOS, Imabench has left himself open for banning, and any such ban would be justified by the TOS that we are all responsible to. Let us now look at the definition of this word "may" [3], "Expressing possibility..." We can see that the definition imposes no obligation, nor requirement.

I will leave this short, since this is the only needed argument to negate the resolution. As stands, Imabench may be banned, but not necessarily should.

Thank you,


[1] https://www.google.com...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

The crux of the defenses argument comes down to the fact that violation of the TOS does not guarantee being banned, it only subjects a person to the possibility of being banned.

People do break the TOS all the time, as brought up by one of the jurors in the comments section. However everyone who can recall the Izbo trial of 2011 knows that individuals end up being banned for violating the TOS consistently despite being given warnings to improve their conduct on the site. If someone breaks the TOS numerous times and continues to do so despite being warned, then that justifies banning that individual because it is apparent that they will not change and their conduct will remain the same.

Now is was not questioned by the defense that Imabench's conduct on DDO has violated the TOS numerous times and has been ongoing for months now, that will count as a concession. It is also not questioned by the defense that Imabench's conduct has violated numerous parts of the TOS and it continues to do so. Even as we speak Imabench is debating that Fox News anchors are dumb as rocks, and in his debate he has gone on record claiming that people who watch fox news are less informed then people who dont watch the news at all. This (completely accurate) claim is being used to attack the beliefs and opinions of people on DDO just for sh*ts and giggles (I apologize for my language).

Imabench has violated the TOS numerous times and it is apparent from his debates and conduct that this will continue. Other members in the past have been banned for violating the TOS despite being given warnings to improve their conduct, Imabench has done the same thing. Other members have been banned simply for creating sexually explicit debates, Imabench has done the same thing. Other members have been banned for insulting the beliefs of other people over a long period of time, Imabench has done the same thing (in a more humorous manner)

The only reason Imabench hasnt been banned is because people like him for some reason. He is here only because there is a double standard that he benefits from which allows him to partake in detrimental behavior that if almost any other member imitated the public would call for their banning.

The system should not make exceptions, Imabench has long been an exception to being held accountable for his behavior only because people like him. That is not fair to the true a**holes on this site who do the same thing Imabench does and gets banned quickly. We must ban Imabench for his behavior or allow anyone who has been banned for doing something Imabench has done to come back to DDO. I opt for the former, and I hope that DDO agrees with me.

The prosecution rests.
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for their previous round. I will admit that I am dropping the points that my opponent listed, for the very reason that they are un-related to my argument. As my opponent has said "People do break the TOS all the time..." Therefore, the breaking of the TOS is not the determining factor as to being banned. As such any arguments that rely on TOS violations, are already refuted and don't need to be addressed.

My opponent's new main argument is, "The system should not make exceptions..." I will address this in two parts.

1) Why?

Why shouldn't exceptions be made? Rules are meant as guides, however, it is known that it is not possible to create 100% all encompassing rules that are absolute. Because this limit is known, we know that their must be exceptions to those rules. Now, one could argue that while we could not make the TOS cover 100% of everything, we could definitely make it more thorough so that few exception are needed. Of course, that is a double edged sword, in that making the TOS too long and too full of legalese will mean less people will read and understand them, thus undermine the very purpose of the TOS.

2) This is not a case of an exception anyway.

People are not banned for violating the TOS. They are banned for ultimately causing more harm to DDO than good, and TOS violations are just the justification that is being used. Before any member is banned, it is discussed about how their violations may be harming DDO, how that weighs against any potential good that they do. Another factor that is looked at is the likelihood of them being rehabilitated. This is were warnings come in, in an attempt to correct the behavior without having to resort to banning.

This was one of the issues with the banning of Askbob and why it had such a polarizing effect with some members. Because, believe it or not, he did do a lot of good for DDO. He just did a lot more harm.

With this being said, it is clear that Imabench's violations actually do little harm to the site, while he actually does contribute quite a lot. Under that, it is perfectly reasonable and consistent that he ought not be banned.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

1) "Why should we follow the rules"

If you allow exceptions to be made then it creates a loophole that others will try to exploit. If I dont get banned it will send a message to other members on the site that says "Hey, you can spam debates, derail debates, piss off just about anyone you want, and raise hell and wont get banned as long as you do it humorously". IMAGINE what would happen if people tried to emulate my style on DDO because they thought it would give them immunity. The Ima incident of 4/28 to 4/29 already shows what happens when people try to act like me, they organize and try to kill people!!!!

Rules exist to maintain order, if we make huge exceptions to every rule then others will try to exploit that loophole for their own gain and compromise the integrity of the site.

2) Not an exception?

"People are not banned for violating the TOS. They are banned for ultimately causing more harm to DDO than good"

Name as many good things that Imabench has done for DDO that you can think of, I cant think of anything and I AM Imabench....

"Before any member is banned, it is discussed about how their violations may be harming DDO"

Trolled debates, relentless cursing, derailing of threads, poking fun at what others believe in, spammed debates, numerous sexual references, hitting on other member's older sisters. We established that the a**hole known as Imabench has harmed DDO (which the defense has conceded)

"Another factor that is looked at is the likelihood of them being rehabilitated"

Ok ask yourself then, Is there anyway in hell that you think the guy who has gone on record saying that Manatees can suck their own dick without bending over, could ever be rehabilitated??? I for one think not.

Manatees can suck their own dick without even trying

"This was one of the issues with the banning of Askbob and why it had such a polarizing effect with some members. Because, believe it or not, he did do a lot of good for DDO. He just did a lot more harm."

Askbob was banned for doing more harm then good, how is Imabench any different? I can list many instances of how he has harmed the site but I cannot think of any good he has done recently at all.

"With this being said, it is clear that Imabench's violations actually do little harm to the site"

Based on your opinion!!!!! You cant go look at all the forum threads by members that says "Imabench should be banned", "please ban imabench", "Imabench molested me" because you as a moderator eliminated all those threads knowing they would harm your case!!!!!!

"while he actually does contribute quite a lot"

Examples please....

Imabench is nothing short of a complete a**hole. That mother f*cker has done far more harm than good to DDO and the only reason he gets away with it is because people see him as a funny moronic brainless cousin f-cking southern liberal douche who just happens to be funny. The defense has argued that we can just make an exception, but we cant make exceptions to the rules because if we do other people will try to exploit those loop-holes and over time bring down the quality of the site.

Imabench is a troll, that is not disputed. The defense claims that Imabench has benefitted the site but has provided no evidence suggesting this is true in any way. He causes more harm then good which by the Defenses own arguments suggest that Imabench should indeed be banned.

The prosecution rests
Ore_Ele

Con

1) My opponent is shifting words to create a strawman fallacy. If you look at the start of his section on this, he says, "If you allow exceptions to be made..." but ends with, "If we make huge exceptions to every rule..."

We can see where he is twisting the argument into something that it is not. I never argued that huge exceptions should be made for every rule. I said that no set of rules was absolutely perfect and so sometimes, personal judgement needs to be used and the occasional exception allowed. If one finds oneself making too many exceptions, that is when you think "maybe the rules can be improved."


2)a) Good things that Imabench has done? He's an active member in the Inner-Circle with Airmax and myself. He's recommended letting Freedo take over the blog so that it would get more views (probably a good idea). He has actively helped Airmax deal with trolls and aggressive threads by combating them with humor.

Here's one particular quote, "Im trying to derail it [Hitchslap flame war thread] with humor but nobody seems to notice, deleting it is a good move in my opinion."

Imabench has even made proposals for how to help DDO get more votes for debates (an issue that has been a pain to counter for almost a year now), a proposal that is actually very likely to be implemented.

And all of this? Just in the last week.

b) Pro has listed some negative things that he has done, but has not shown how they've "harmed" the site. Can he show that he's chased any distinguished members of the site? Can he show where he's trolled any debates started by senior members? Most of his "troll debates" are either, 1) Started by him (in which case, he is not trolling), or 2) Started by a new member that is showing an elevated level of ignorance with said debate.

Many of his debates are like this one.

http://www.debate.org...

We can see that he lightly "trolled" it, but he presented complete and solid arguments and then just posted political satire pictures.

c) Given how much Imabench helps with proposing new ideas for helping the site, and how he has not harmed DDO any more than a hair cut harms your head, there is no need for him to be rehabilitated, he is great just the way he is (I'm not hitting on him). Currently, he is just throwing out random sentences of extreme comments, not in an effort to actually harm any member, but in an attempt to portray himself differently than he really is for this debate.

d) I've listed some, but not all, specific examples.

e) My opponent claims that a moderator eliminated all those threads. However, moderators cannot eliminate threads, they can only close them (which they would still be visible). This is also highly illogical since DDO admins sometimes take sexual assault seriously (if pictures are not provided), as seen in this thread.

http://www.debate.org...

I myself was banned on the mere accusation of sexual assault. Yet we are to believe that accusations against Imabench will be ignored because he is "funny"? Imabench even agreed that this was the "Best Mod Ever."


My opponent can point to violations, but no actual harm. I can point to actual benefits. However, none of this really matters, because none of this implies a duty or obligation.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

Closing statements (arguments will not be carried on, just a statement will be given by each side regarding the banning of Imabench)

Imabench is a troll, there is no questioning that. Hell even in serious debates he will stop in the middle of his own arguments just to insert sexually explicit pictures for a quick laugh.












Imabench has and will continue to violate the TOS. He will keep trolling, keep spamming, and theres no f*cking way he'll ever stop f*cking cursing f*ck. Other people have been banned for behaviors similar to Imabench's, and we mustnt make an exception just because some people like him. Some people liked Izbo, he was still banned. Some people liked Askbob, he was also banned. Some people like Imabench, but that shouldnt be enough to not ban him for cursing so f*cking much and other things that violate the TOS.

The Prosecution rests.
Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate on whether they should be banned or not. While I fear that the comical value of arguments may end up out weighing the logical value of them, there is little that can be done about that now.

I will not add any arguments but point out some old arguments that were never addressed.

1) Imabench has not shown a single distinguished member that has been harmed, nor any member that has been harmed by his actions.

2) Imabench has not attempted to refute any of the ways that he has helped the site.

3) Imabench has not shown how providing occasional exceptions harms the site, he has only presented a strawman fallacy and dropped it.

Without defending that exceptions harm the site, simply violating the TOS does not imply that one should be banned (as an obligation that was pointed out in R1), only that they may if they so choose.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 4
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
this debate is so ironic, considering how ima was later banned for violating the ToS (not permanently tho). But still. Lol
Posted by babyy 4 years ago
babyy
Hello dear, my name is Ester, i came across your profile now.So I decided to stop by an let you know that I really want to have a good friendship with you. Beside i have something special i want to discuses with you, but I find it difficult to express myself here, since it's a public site. I will be very happy, If you can get back to me, through my e-mail iD(esteredmond(at )ymail.c o m)
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Im a massive attention whore who wanted to do something insane :3
Posted by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
Are there any other ways?
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
That's one way of interpreting this
Posted by THEVIRUS 4 years ago
THEVIRUS
I think imabench started this as a way to tell his enemies he will never stop making their lives a living hell :)
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Behold Ima's, this is where I was granted innocence, immunity, and immortality. It is from this debate that I draw my power from, therefore you shall ALL be crushed for your ignorance >:D
Posted by imasidewalk 4 years ago
imasidewalk
IT MUST HAPPEN!

nac
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
And so, DDO has spoken
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
I gave an approximate guess :P
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
imabenchOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FK YA'LL
Vote Placed by daytonanerd 4 years ago
daytonanerd
imabenchOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: 13th Voter- Chamberlain. Cuz, you know, YOLO.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
imabenchOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: If imabench leaves, who will the 11 Ima-clones and Joseph_Kony have to troll? NO ONE THAT'S WHO!
Vote Placed by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
imabenchOre_EleTied
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 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: While Pro manages to Prove that there are sufficient grounds for banning him, he does not establish why DDO should ban him. Clearly a person is banned from DDO when there is a demand to ban to them from members affected by TOS violations.
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
imabenchOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins for two reasons, 1) More convincing arguments (obvious) 2) I dont want Imabench banned. Seriously, who would?
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
imabenchOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Imabench must not be banned!
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
imabenchOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: "Imabench has requested that the jury be made up of those who vote on this debate, meaning the final score of this debate will determine if Imabench will be banned or not." This prevents me from voting to ban Ima.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
imabenchOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter some of those extremely obvious VBs :)
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
imabenchOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: If imabench leaves, then what do we have to live for?
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
imabenchOre_EleTied
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 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: CON showed good case for that no one cares about that part of the TOS, at least when in application to imabench. Therefore if no one cares action should not be pursued.