The Instigator
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
ClashnBoom
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: My opponent has broken the law.

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 1 vote the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,470 times Debate No: 78883
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (53)
Votes (1)

 

lannan13

Pro

In this debate I intend to show that Clashnboom has broken a law, whatever it may be.


Rules

First Round is rules and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con.
Round 2 Pro is to ask Con questions, may refuse to answer some personal, but must answer the questions truthfully (under penalty of purgery)
Third Round is charges and defense
Forth Round is Reubuttals.
No trolling.
No k's.
No counter-plans.
These will be US laws.
If any of the above rules are violated the violator forfeits the debate.

NOTE: In order for Pro to win he must prove that Con has broken the law. For Con to win (s)he must prove their innocence.


Break the law- to fail to obey a law; to act contrary to a law (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...)


ClashnBoom

Con

I accept this debate and prepared to lie my heart out.
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Pro

I would like to remind my opponent and ALL voters that even though my opponent is from a foreign nation (so his profile says) he is to abide by ALL US laws as stated in the rules.

1. What is your name?
2. Where do you live?
3. Have you wrote fiction on the internet.
4. Have you done torrenting?
5. Have you done cyberbullying?
6. Have you watched movies or shows online for free?
7. What's your username?
8. Have you conntected to non-public wyfy.
9. Do you have ad blocker?
10. Have you ever used a meme?
11. Have you clicked "Save image as" ever?
12. Have you shared your password with any one?
13. How you been underage register on DDO or facebook or anytype of social media?
14. Have you watched Disney movie with 3 or more people that wasn't in a threator?
15. Do you mow your own lawn?
16. Have you uploaded stuff on to youtube? If so then what?
17. Have you played internet games at your school?
18. Have you been drunk?
19. Have you smoked?
20. Do you possess porn?
21. Have you had sex?
22. Have you connected to public wyfy?
23. Have you wrote a fanfic?
24. Has someone on DDO not like something you've said?
25. Do you possess a weapon?
26. Do you like ducks?
27. What color is the sky?
28. Have you spoken about sex on the internet?
29. In your opinion, does God exist?
30. Are you insane?
31. Why am I asking you all these questions?
32. Do you own a horse?
33. How old are you?


Your turn.
ClashnBoom

Con

1. Timothy.
2. The Philippines
3. It ended in a period so I don't need to answer.
4. No.
5. How do you define it?
6. Not for free.
7. ClashnBoom.
8. Yes.
9. No.
10. I don't think so.
11. Yes.
12. No.
13. No, I don't even have any social media accounts.
14. No
15. If I had one.
16. Comments but not videos.
17. Yes, but I was home schooled.
18. No, never even drank anything alcoholic.
19. No.
20. Food porn??
21. No.
22. Did this question get repeated?? And yes.
23. I didn't complete it and it was more original than a fan fiction.
24. Only the stupid comments or people.
25. Yes, knives.
26. Yes.
27. Blue.
28. Never.
29. Yes.
30. Am I?
31. Cause your weird and want to win.
32. No.
33. As old as I want to be.
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Pro


Congratulations! You just admitted to breaking several laws! Let’s begin.



Piracy


Congratulations! You’re a pirate. Just yesterday you were sporting a Pokemon Justice League profile picture and now you are sporting some other thing… The reason this is pirating is that you have gotten it off the internet, probably using a “save image as,” and downloaded it to DDO. Let’s look at the Supreme Court Case ruling on this topic.



"Distributing unlawful copies of a copyrighted work violates the copyright owner’s distribution right and, as a result, constitutes copyright infringement. . . . . [Unlawful distribution occurs where] [f]iles of [copyrighted] information are stored in the central system, and subscribers may either ‘download’ information into their[computers] or ‘upload’ information from their home units into the central files . . . ."


Playboy Enterprises v. Russ Hardenburgh, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 503 (N.D. Ohio 1997).


"[The Copyright Act] provides that an owner of a copyrighted work has the exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies . . . [and] to distribute copies of the work to the public . . . . [A]nyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner … is an infringer of the copyright."


Playboy Enterprises v. Webbworld Inc., 991 F. Supp. 543 (N.D. Tex. 1997).




We can see here that my opponent has gotten his image from the internet and more likely then not he was not the creator of the image nor did he patent that image. He is thus, by law, guilty of pirating by distributing images across the internet that is not his to distribute. He does this with every post, ever opinion, poll, and debate he does. Bringing forth more and more violations of the Federal Law.



This even violates DDO’s TOS, be careful or Airmax will ban you.


Will not upload, copy, distribute, share, sell, create derivative works of, or otherwise alter or use any Content, in whole or in part, for any purpose whatsoever except as expressly authorized in this Agreement; and to do so in any manner exceeding the scope of your rights to use such Content (e.g., license rights associated with premium content or subscription-based materials), without permission from the Content owner, or otherwise in violation of another person's rights to such Content. [1]



Harrassing and Stalking XLAV


Yes you heard me write. XLAV. Let’s look at some of the comments that they exchanged on their profiles.



Posted by XLAV 1 month ago


XLAVWTFF WHY WOULD l STALK MY OWN SISTER?



YOURE SICKKKKK!!!!!!



AND IM NOT A STALKER IM NOT A STALKER IM NOT A STALKER!!!






Posted by XLAV 1 month ago


FYI, MY SISTER IS WHITE.



AND WTF WHY WOULD I PUT A PIC OF MY SISTER AS MY PROFILE PlC?



AND NOOO!! I AM NOT A STALKER






Posted by XLAV 1 month ago


WHAT?!!!?!



NO


MAYBE



WHATS IT TO YOU?


LEAVE ME ALONe.






Posted by XLAV 1 month ago


Maybe






Posted by XLAV 1 month ago


Its me, obv, lol






Posted by XLAV 1 month ago


STALKER!!!!



Nac [2]


Here we can see that outright not only was ClashnBoom harassing XLAV, but causing him some serious emotional issues. Here we can see that XLAV confirmed this issue and we have seen that by his response to his accusations from ClashnBoom he was distraught about the fact that he was accused of stalking his sister and even possibly going into an incestuous relationship. This again is another violation of TOS shown bellow.


Will not use the Service to harass or "stalk" anyone. [1]


Fake name on the internet


Yes you heard me right. My opponent is being charged with fraud due to his username. He stated last round that his name was/is Tim Rodriguez, unless he was lying then he would be charged with purgery, meaning that he is in violation of the FACC. This federal law provides that people may not enter the internet using fake names, this includes usernames. We can see that this is blatently obvious as my opponent’s username is ClashnBoom. Thus he is clearly in violation of this law and is subject to federal punishment. [4]


Another thing that he has admitted to is connection to private wyfy that was not his. Again in violation of the same federal law.



Sources




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




  2. (http://www.debate.org...)




  3. (http://www.debate.org...)




  4. (https://www.law.cornell.edu...)



ClashnBoom

Con

"In this debate I intend to show that Clashnboom has broken a law, whatever it may be."

You are right Timothy Rodriguez has broken laws but he is not ClashnBoom. He uses the account but is not its owner or creator, he hacked it and stole it. I am the real owner of the account ClashnBoom, I created it, named it and thought of it and I didn't do anything illegal and never posted in this site.
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Pro

As this debate comes to a close we have to observe a key thing here. First let's look to the resolution. "Resolved: My opponent has broken the law." We know what "broken the law" means, but what of my opponent?

Opponent- a person who is on an opposing side in a game, contest, controversy, or the like; adversary. ( http://dictionary.reference.com...)

We can see that even is ClashnBoom never accepted this debate and someone else did for him we can still see that the other person who accepted for him is still "my opponent" meaning that the person who "hacked" his account is still concidered my "opponent" meaning that they are still liable to the same law. My opponenet would have to provide hard proff evidence that their account was hacked. One key reason we can see that is the key reason as to why my opponent is lying about his hacked account is that his IP address was the same at the beginning and the end of the debate. How do I know this you may ask? We simply just Ping his account and we can see that it has the same IP address in the Phillipeans as it did in the beginning of the debate then at 9:32 AM Central time 8/23/15. So with that we can see that it would be impossible for someone to actually steal his IP address and more likely than not we can see that my opponent is lying, and hence shall now be charged with purgery, and (s)he has still comitted those crimes.


My opponent has dropped all arguments and I extend those across the board and we see that he is a hard bitter crimminal that needs to rot in jail. I thank you for your time and please vote Pro.

ClashnBoom

Con

Good argument if it wasn't for you saying in the full resolution that your opponent was indeed ClashnBoom.
"In this debate I intend to show that Clashnboom has broken a law, whatever it may be."

Also about the IP address take a look at this.

Profile Card
airmax1227

airmax1227

So there's some unusual data that points to you potentially using an Alt account....

if its just an active account you haven't used in awhile it's not the same as an Alt... what I'm referring to is two accounts that are both used

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 @ 8:47:54 PM

Posted by:

Profile Card
ClashnBoom

ClashnBoom

What's the deference between an alt and another user? Cause I'm not making an alt though I do have another account I made before that's still active but I couldn't deactivate it because I used 10 minute mail to make it.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 @ 8:49:16 PM

Posted by:

Profile Card
airmax1227

airmax1227

what is that other account?

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 @ 8:50:39 PM

Posted by:

Profile Card
ClashnBoom

ClashnBoom

I do not have an alt.

Ian Fernandez.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 @ 8:51:17 PM

Posted by:

Profile Card
airmax1227
airmax1227

okey doke

link me to that account please

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 @ 8:54:55 PM

Posted by:

Profile Card
ClashnBoom

ClashnBoom

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

BTW. There are multiple people who have the same IP address because my apartment building gives free WIFI so many people use it.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 @ 8:58:25 PM

Posted by:

Profile Card
airmax1227

airmax1227

alright, thanks.

As you can see that was way before this debate and as I've stated in the PM "BTW. There are multiple people who have the same IP address because my apartment building gives free WIFI so many people use it." I have never said that I do not know who my hacker is. I do know Timothy he is my next door neighbor. Also I don't know what this has to do with purgary.

Conclusion:

I conclude that I have nit committed a single crime but Timothy Rodriguez has but he isn't who you are debating.
Debate Round No. 4
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by krayracker 1 year ago
krayracker
Don't pay attention to @robertacollier, it's not like he/she would actually vote properly, the two debates that he/she did were forfeited...
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
It also seems @robertacollier wishes to play the role of being a defense attorney for Timothy.
@lannan13 If I were you, I would accept his challenge. After all, if he doesn't finish the debate, it would just be a free win. It could be a rather interesting debate. Don't you think?
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
Hm.... it seems impossible for Con to win this. Either he was hacked, and the hacker who accepted the debate has basically forfeited, or Con wasn't truly hacked and couldn't give a proper defense for himself. Either way, I don't see how Con can win this.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: The-Voice-of-Truth// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Well....... In round 3, Pro effectivly showed that Con did, in fact break the law, and cited several Supreme Court cases to support these claims -- seems reliable to me. Thus, both the Sources and Arguments point goes to Pro; Cons arguments surrounding his IP address was weak, as, if Timothy did indeed accept this debate, then Timothy was still Pro's opponent, and is supported under the resolution. Need clarification? Let me know.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter justifies their decision sufficiently, explaining how the sources informed both point allocations and generally assessing what made each argument strong and weak. Not much time is spent distinguishing the logic of the two cases, but while that would have improved this RFD, it is not necessary for sufficiency.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: asi14// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments), 2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: By the end of the debate, I was confused into what was going on. The pro cited various rules he claims the con broke, but none of these rules appeared on the 1AC. I don't see how the con broke any of the given rules. I vote con on presumption.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) No explanation given for sources, S&G, or conduct. (2) The explanation for arguments doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The voter seems to be conflating rules with laws, the latter of which don't have to appear in the opening round. It's unclear why the voter is presuming Con without examining the burdens in this debate as well.
************************************************************************
Posted by Biodome 1 year ago
Biodome
Robertacollier, just because you think that Pro has failed to meet his BoP, doesn't mean that you are automatically allowed to vote against him. Please remember that these comments should not have any impact on the outcome of the votes whatsoever. It is up to Con, not you, to demonstrate that Pro's case is not sound. If he does that, then you can vote against Pro, but you cannot do that if Con doesn't negate Pro's case. Nor can you actually threaten Pro that you would vote against him before the debate has ended. It would qualify as a biased vote, based on a predisposition.
Posted by robertacollier 1 year ago
robertacollier
Then I recommend everyone vote against you. The burden of proof is on you, and you have not shown it. You have not cited any specific law broken by Timothy. Citing a court case is not how it's done. You have to cite the exact offense and the exact statute. BTW, breaking the terms of service does not count.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Then you come back and put all 7 points against me. I don't care, because it won't make a difference and besides you can't vote anyways.
Posted by robertacollier 1 year ago
robertacollier
Your computer ain't the only thing that's laggin' bub. Unless you come up with any evidence against Timothy, then I'll be back later to vote against you.

Oh yeah. Stay in school.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
My computer is laggin' and doing some stupid stuff. You're too new. How am I suppose to know if you'd even finish the debate?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
lannan13ClashnBoomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Well....... In round 3, Pro effectivly showed that Con did, in fact break the law, and cited several Supreme Court cases to support these claims -- seems reliable to me. Thus, both the Sources and Arguments point goes to Pro; Cons arguments surrounding his IP address was weak, as, if Timothy did indeed accept this debate, then Timothy was still Pro's opponent, and is supported under the resolution. Need clarification? Let me know.