The Instigator
thett3
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
GMDebater
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Resolved: That catspwnclubpenguinrules was unjustly banned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-6
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 7 votes the winner is...
GMDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,397 times Debate No: 17314
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

thett3

Pro

GMDebater and I were arguing this on one of his debates, so I decided now we try it for real. My Opponent can state his opening argument in the first round if he wishes. Cross Examination is allowed.
GMDebater

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. I shall point out that caswnclubpenguinrules is the same user as catsrule as he admited on his profile.

Catspwnclubpenguinrules opened up more than one account!

According to the DDO standings, you are not allowed to open up more than one account. Catsrule did that. He admited, on his PROFILE that he opened up another account.

http://www.debate.org... code of conduct letter A

Catsrule/catspwnclubpenguinrules creted multiple SPAM debates!

Whether you agree with the moderators choice or not, the mods have decided that the debates that catsrule/this new user created were considered spam. Those debates he created are as followed:
  1. Sunglasses do more harm than good
  2. We should change to a feudal theocracy
  3. Racial purity is desirable

Catsrule/catspwnclubpenguinrules created a hate debate!

Ladies and gents, may I please have your attention here http://www.debate.org...

this user is pro that "Racial purity (genocide) is soemthing to be desire

Catsrule/catspwnclubpenguinrules was misrepreseting himsef/herself

We all know and love the user known as iownu, I believe that the evidence is clear that iownu=catsrule/this new user.

Thank you and good luck to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 1
thett3

Pro

Observation: My Opponent is claiming that catspwnclubpenguinrules (known as CPCPR for the rest of the debate) is the same person as catsrule. He has no proof for this.


=More than one account=

1. I see no proof that he stated that, and even assuming that he did it's unjustified to ban him for it because:
2. A simple statement on his profile isn't enough proof to show that he DOES have multiple accounts, perhaps it was mis-interperated.
=Spam debates=

1. We do not know where these debates could've gone, because CPCPR was unjustly banned before he/she had the chance to actually debate a single round. How can this site expect to get new members if it bans people for reasons such as these? I'm sure we've seen many obscure resolutions that turned out to be good debates. These might have as well.

=Hate Debate=

Racial purity: "Racial hygiene (often labeled a form of "scientific racism") is the selection, by a government, of what it considers the most physically, intellectually and morally superior people to raise the next generation (selective breeding) and a close alignment of public health with eugenics."[1]

While I agree that such an idea is morally wrong, that's not a bannable reason, after all people on this site debate morality all the time.

Furthermore, as you can see with my definition racial purity =/= genocide.

=The relationship between catsrule, iownu, and CPCPR.=

1. No evidence that they are the same. Even if you sould show that iownu and catsrule are the same person, it isn't relevant because theres no proof showing the CPCPR is catsrule.

=Cross Examination=

1. What exactly was said on CPCPR's profile that led you to believe that he was catsrule?
2. Can you provide any proof that anything WAS said?
3. Do you believe that breaking the lisence agreement once is enough to justify banning?
4. If a new member is confused as to the rules, is it justified to simply ban them without explaining to them how what they did was wrong?

=Source=

1. http://www.google.com...
GMDebater

Con

Thank you for your timely response.

==More than 1 account===

May I remind you that there is something called an ip. I feel that if the moderators think there is sufficent evidence for this, then they have the right to ban this user.

Furthermore, my opponent suggests that it was mis-interpreted. How can this be a mis-interpretation? The profile stated the following:
"I am a returned banned user although I have no guilt." or something like that.

==Spam Debates==

My opponent contends that it was an obscure resolution. However, it is interesting to note that CPCPR had the same resolutions as catsrule. We all know where that went!

==Hate debate==

My opponent contends that this is debated all the time. Let's take a look at the TOS.

  1. 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.
    1. No use of profanities or swear words.
    2. No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.
    3. No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.
    4. No threats or implications thereof.
There was a similar debate not too long ago that was removed for the reason highlighted in bold.

==CPCPR Rule =/= catsrule==


I believe that there is sufficent evidence to show that CPCPR=Catsrule.

A. Similar debates
The debates were very similar with almost the same exact resolution. In fact, some of them WERE the same exact debates. Coincidence?

What is more likely, CPCPR=catsrule or a random debater admited to being banned and having the same debates. Coincidence?

1. What exactly was said on CPCPR's profile that led you to believe that he was catsrule?

He stated that he was a banned user.

2. Can you provide any proof that anything WAS said?

Not at this time. I can request the moderators for a screen shot if you'd like. I tried to take a screen shot, but it was too late.

3. Do you believe that breaking the lisence agreement once is enough to justify banning?
No. Warning first. However, he broke it more than once for the liscence.

4. If a new member is confused as to the rules, is it justified to simply ban them without explaining to them how what they did was wrong?
Yes. Ignorance is no excuse.

Cross Examination


1. Do you honestly think that juggle won't know a returned user by ip?
2. If CPCPR=catsrule, should he be banned?
3. If I can provide evidence, will it be enough for you to resign the debate?
4. This user is stirring up trouble in the forums indirectly, how do you respond?
5. Do you believe that if a user agrees to the TOS that ignorance is a excuse?

Back to you.
Debate Round No. 2
thett3

Pro

=More than one account=

1. Yes, if he had more than one account than his IP would be able to link to it, however if he was a previously banned user who's account is now gone, the Moderators could not figure out the multiple accounts through the IP.

2. Never mentions a return to DDO, could've been from another site or maybe CPCPR just wrote that to freak everyone out or who knows? No one does, this is not enough of a justification for banning.

3. My Opponent concedes in cross examination that a banning after one offense is not justified, so even if CPCPR was a returned user, only one rule was violated.

=Spam Debates=

1. Similarities between the debates do not stand. Many many resolutions are similar, in order for this point to stand my Opponent must show how the resolutions put forth by catsrule that were considered spam were still spam when CPCPR wanted to debate the topic.

=Hate Debate=

No racial slur was used in the debate you linked, therefore this point falls.

=CPCPR & Cats rule=

A.
Many many resolutions are similar, you must show the uniqueness of catsrules resolutions for this point to stand.

Furthermore, catsrule took on his challengers and debated whether or not he was a troll and is currently winning[1]. So we cannot, out of hand, assume that all of catsrules debates are worthless spam.

=His answers to cross examination=

1. he stated that he was a banned user, not necessarily of DDO, and a simple statement like that isn't enough proof it could've been a joke or something.

2. I would like that, but I understand that it's a difficult thing to get so obviously I can't expect you to get it.

3. Absolutely no proof that CPCPR has violated any rules.

4. Then how can you expect to ever get new users if they're treated so poorly?

=Responses=

1. I believe it's possible, but given the short lifespan of CPCPR (looking at the debates in the challenge period, it seems that he was only around for 30 minutes, maybe.) and large amounts of users on this site, and the complexity of each IP address I don't believe it happened in this situation.

2. No, because the only offense would be multiple accounts and you've already stated that it's unjustified to ban someone after one offence. Furthermore catsrule eeven being a troll has been called into serious question as you can see in the debate I've linked.

3. If you can prove that he has broken more than one offense.

4. I was not aware of that please link me! And that's irrelevant, if it wasn't intentional than it is not CPCPR's fault.

5. It depends on the situation. If it is a common sense rule (such as no swearing, no linking to pornography, ect.) than obviously not. However many sites DO allow for multiple accounts so in that scenario, I do believe that ignorance is an excuse. And yes, he signed the agreement but most of us cannot honestly say that we read it.

I look forward to my Opponents reply.
GMDebater

Con

Thank you for your timely manner

==More than 1 account==

My opponent concedes that his ip will be able to be linked. Additional info: Not long after this, the user in question returned as catspwnclubpenguinrules returned as catspwnclubpenguinrock. Coincidence?

Yes, he has mentioned a return from DDO. I paraphrased this to be honest.

Yes, one offense isn't. However, when we look at the other evidence; the evidence is OVERWHELMING against this user.

==Spam Debates==

My opponent neglects to ask the question how they can be the EXACT SAME DEBATE!

==Hate Debate==

Really? No racial slurs. Perhaps. However, this was a pretty racial debate. Therefore; it has no place on DDO.

==CPCPR & Catsrule==

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

May I please direct your attention to that debate. If you all remember correctly, I did the same exact debate with him. What are the chances that another troll will come on using the same EXACT debate?!

==Cross Examination==

1. I believe it's possible, but given the short lifespan of CPCPR (looking at the debates in the challenge period, it seems that he was only around for 30 minutes, maybe.) and large amounts of users on this site, and the complexity of each IP address I don't believe it happened in this situation.

Don't believe what?

2. No, because the only offense would be multiple accounts and you've already stated that it's unjustified to ban someone after one offence. Furthermore catsrule eeven being a troll has been called into serious question as you can see in the debate I've linked.

Wow! Catsruled actually made an argument! A sucessful troll is sucessful. He spammed many debates.

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

This debate was removed. However, catsrule won that debate on the rickroll video.

3. If you can prove that he has broken more than one offense.

And I believe the evidence is clear. He violated the same rule more than once.

4. I was not aware of that please link me! And that's irrelevant, if it wasn't intentional than it is not CPCPR's fault.

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

Askbob, of course. Thus the reason I stated indirectly and not directly.


5. It depends on the situation. If it is a common sense rule (such as no swearing, no linking to pornography, ect.) than obviously not. However many sites DO allow for multiple accounts so in that scenario, I do believe that ignorance is an excuse. And yes, he signed the agreement but most of us cannot honestly say that we read it.

True--However, that makes him a liar and mis-represented himself. "By checking this box, I certify that I have read and agreed to the ToS."

Case proven. Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
thett3

Pro

You're welcome for the timely manner, it's best for both of us this way.

=More than one account=

1. I actually meant to say "clubpenguinrocks" in the resolved, because I have never heard of "catspwnclubpenguinrules" on this site before.

2. I conceded that an IP trace was possible, only a fool would not concede to that. It is not, however, likely to have happened in this case.

3. ""I am a returned banned user although I have no guilt." or something like that."-that is what you testified he said. Now you're claiming: "Yes, he has mentioned a return from DDO." -however given your own evidence, no mention of DDO was made.

=Spam debates=

"My opponent neglects to ask the question how they can be the EXACT SAME DEBATE!"- My Opponent misses the point of my statement, he must prove how having a similar resolution to a spam debate automatically entails that the debate it spam. There have been MANY spam debates about valid topics, so topic similrity proves nothing. Furthermore, he hasn't shown any dbeates to be the exact same so the Pro wins on this point.

=Hate Debate=

1. A debate based on the idea of race does not mean that it is a hate debate. Indeed, the idea of race is something that ought to be discussed more often than it is. People shy away from it because people like you view that any mention of race is racist. The debate was about whether or not having raical purity, I.E. people not marrying outside their race was desirable. No racial assault.

=CPCPR & Catsrule=

1. The debate you linked to is "not found" when I clicked it. However, as I've already explained resolution similiarity does not mean that CPCPR was catsrule, or that his debates were spam.

=Cross Examination=

1. That the user was IP tracked.

2. Catsrule being a troll is not topical because you haven't provided enough evidence to indicate that they're the same person. Furthermore, if you would've read the debate I linked in the comments, catsrule being a troll has been put into serious question.

3. That was iownu, you still haven't provided any evidence than iownu=catsrule OR iownu=CPCPR, and you've provided very weak evidence that CPCPR=catsrule.

5. You, too have broken the TOS, let me bring this thread: http://www.debate.org... your attention. Furthermore, you conceded that one offense is not enough to ban.

=Conclusion=

The Con has not provided any evidence that CPCPR was a troll. He's provided some evidence that he was a returned member, however even if he wins on that point he still loses because he conceded that one offense was not enough to justify a banning.

CPCPR was banned without a chance to prove himself, and not only is that unjust, but I wonder how this site can expect to get new members if they do things like this? I'm certian that CPCPR certainly will not be reccommending this site to ANYONE.

Vote Pro for justice, vote Pro because my Opponent has failed to prove that CPCPR violate more than one rule (he hasn't even proven that he's vilated one rule), vote Pro because mass bannings like this cannot go on.

Thank you to my Opponent for a good debate, and such quick responses.

GMDebater

Con

==More than 1 account==

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

Could this be the new account? catspwnclubpenguinsrocks is now catspwnclubpenguinrules....fishey eh?

I conceded that an IP trace was possible, only a fool would not concede to that. It is not, however, likely to have happened in this case.

My opponent has not yet justified this.


5. You, too have broken the TOS, let me bring this thread: http://www.debate.org...... your attention. Furthermore, you conceded that one offense is not enough to ban.

The link is broke. Furthermore, you forget that it is not my account that is in question, it is CPCPR's!
You are correct for the second part. Let me give you this statement

This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while you use the Debate.org Services or are a Member. You may terminate your Membership at any time, for any reason, by following the instructions on the Member's Account Settings page. Debate.org may terminate your Membership at any time, without warning.

Note that if juggle feels that one is in violation, they have the right to terminate without warning. Whether you agree with it or not, that is how it is.

==Questions for Readers==

1. Is it plausible that a random new account came on with a similar username and made exact same debates?
2. If you agreed to juggle's ToS, isn' their decision final?

==CONCLUSION==

I feel I have gave good evidence that CPCPR was in violation of the ToS. Furthermore, I have shown that he has broke the rules more than once.

==Reasons for voting==

Conduct: Please put "tie." We both had good conduct.
Spelling and Grammar: I noticed no mistakes from either side. Please vote "tie."
Arguments: Vote con. I feel I shown good evidence that CPCPR was, in fact, justifiably banned.
Source: No-one used a ton of sources outside of DDO. Please vote tie.

Thank you for your quick responses and I am hoping to be debating with you again. Have a great day.

Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
forgot to link it..source:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
thanks you too!
Posted by GMDebater 6 years ago
GMDebater
good luck!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
thett3GMDebaterTied
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: Counter Vote bombing Bozotheclown
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
thett3GMDebaterTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Totally agree
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
thett3GMDebaterTied
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: X
Vote Placed by Andromeda_Z 6 years ago
Andromeda_Z
thett3GMDebaterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by ohnoyoulost 6 years ago
ohnoyoulost
thett3GMDebaterTied
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: The evidence presented was not enough to justify a banning, especially after GM conceded that one offense did not warrant a banning.
Vote Placed by YYW 6 years ago
YYW
thett3GMDebaterTied
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: I tend to agree with Cliff. I find debates of this nature to be petty and unbecoming, though.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
thett3GMDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was clearly on the defensive the entire time. Con would not have carried this on the BoP, see for example the "I am returned" part, but there was no was Pro could and he had it for this debate.