The Instigator
hect
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

There needs to be less censoring in the poll section of DDO

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 4 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,122 times Debate No: 76216
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (4)

 

hect

Pro

This is addressed to the moderator of polls. I want to give PetersSmith a chance to publically defend herself and what's more if she wins by presenting a stronger case and the voters vote fair and I lose I shall leave DDO for good.
imabench has requested the debate so ill challenge her.

Rules should you accept:
1st round is acceptance only
2nd round arguments only
3rd round rebuttals and arguments
4th conclusions and rebuttals only
imabench

Con

I accept hect's debate challenge and look forward to her arguments. Remember everyone that If I win then hect will have to leave DDO for good as she promised.

You may present your case, ma'am
Debate Round No. 1
hect

Pro

To start the debate I would like to ask a question.
Who of the voters here thinks it should be the responsibility of someone else to decide for us what we should read, to decide for us what we should learn? This is to give the responsibility of thinking for ourselves over to someone else. It is the first steep down a dark path that only leads to totalitarianism and dictatorship. To control the people you must first control the information. So hands up anyone here who thinks it should be the decision of someone else to decide what knowledge other people should know, and if anyone feels foolish enough to say I, then I think you are the poorer.

DDO is I thought when I signed up a place to have thoughts and ideas challenged, to be taught not to think the way we have always been told to think. But clearly my opponent feels otherwise, only the moderators version of what is appropriate may be told, only the moderators idea's of what is not offencive may be told. And if we are to challenge them then it is usually too late, the poll has been removed and there is nothing we the users, the lifeblood of the website can do about it. Where is the fairness in that, the system is corrupt and broken, and my opponent is perfectly ok to go along as though nothing is wrong. However that's not quite true imabench has been an advocate for my side previously; (1) did a rather poor job I will admit as she was humiliated in defeat by her opponent, but nonetheless the hypocrisy is clear:
"site rules SHOULDNT be more strictly enforced", "DDO is conducted in a way where when someone's profanity does become a problem, then moderators can address these instances on a case by case instance" (which is a form of less censorship), "people with mod powers can become immune to other mods, they could censor people they dont like and opinions that they dont agree with, etc", "Youre proposing massive censorship on anything that you deem an insult". These are just a few examples of what my opponent has previously said on the issue of censorship. Once an advocate for the side of truth and justice (in the words of George Gallow in possibly the most famous debate of our time when referring to his opponent "the first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly back into a slug") my opponent has either betrayed herself or is a major hypocrite. So I have to ask which one is it imabench? Are you for or against censorship? And if you the humble voters side with imabench she is inviting you to be hypocrites and liars as well.

Often in the poll section one may post a comment and without a reason it is 'submitted for moderation' which never actually get's moderated. One time my comment was submitted for moderation and the only change I had to make was putting a question mark at the end of it, what is the point of this mindless time wasting censorship?

Another frequent visitor of the poll section is user TBR who has also vented frustration towards the moderators of the unfair inconsistent moderation of the poll section when three of his polls were removed which did not breach any ToU's Example 1) lady chatterley's lover, Example 2) Classic art, Example 3) and a picture of an assault rifle, he debated with the moderator with reasoning and logic, but her word was final she was the final authority the supreme leader on the matter and cannot be challenged. "It should be noted though that it is the USERS that are the commodity, not the moderators. The site owners want more eyes on advertisement, not pleasing the moderators" - TBR (2), (Don't be surprised if reference 2 get's 'censored' though). Thus if we are to increase the number of user that visit the site then perhaps the users should have a say, maybe a community driven moderation, like the jury system, if censorship must take place, instead of the current obviously floored system where censorship is rife and completely one sided.

This is my opening argument. Thank you.

source
1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://www.debate.org...
imabench

Con

First off the fact that Pro thinks I'm a girl only shows how disconnected from reality he is about both the censorship in the polls section and everything else in life.

Now then, the only types of polls that get deleted in the polls section are only ever one of the following:

1) Racist polls made by frequently banned users to try to cause a stir
2) Call out polls made to attack another member on the site
3) Spam polls meant to advertise a product or are just the same type of poll made several times by a single user
4) Graphic polls that feature graphic pictures, nudity, or pornography

Those are the only types of polls that ever get deleted, and all of these are types of polls that people would likely believe should be deleted. Pro however would like to have you believe that what actually gets censored in the polls section are perfectly legitimate polls that don't fit into any of the 4 categories listed, and simply clash with the personal beliefs of the mods themselves. Rather than actually provide any evidence that any of the asinine things he is claiming is true, Pro has instead decided to only insist that what he is saying is true, fail to provide any evidence at all, and has instead opted to:

- Put words in my mouth that I have never even said and fabricate false evidence against me

- Already resort to ad-hominems by calling me a hypocrite and a liar before I even posted anything in this debate

- Resorted to digging deep into my debate history in a cowardly attempt to discredit me rather than actually focus on his own lack of a case for his side of the debate. (By bringing up one debate from years ago that pitted me against Roy Latham)

============================================================================================

Since Pro has decided to not use any facts, evidence, or logic for his side of the debate and instead basically forfeited the first round, I'll have to go ahead and compensate for it by structuring my case around an abundant use of those things.

To start, the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of polls that are made on DDO do not get deleted. On any given day at least 50 polls are made while in any given month hundreds of polls are made, almost all of which are perfectly fair and reasonable polls that some of which would have been deleted if Pro's idea of rampant censorship in the polls section was even remotely true. However some of the most divisive and controversial polls on the site are literally the most voted on polls on all of DDO..... Polls in the first group are polls that have been around since the polls section was first made and have not been deleted, even though they convey knowledge and information that the mods may disagree with, establishing that there is no history of over-censorship of the polls section. The second group of polls are like the first group but have been made far more recently, which suggests that over-censorship of the polls is not an issue in the present the same way it has not been an issue in the past

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

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

All of the polls listed above feature controversial issues that as you can plainly seen have NOT been deleted. So any claim by an idiot like hect that perfectly fair information and knowledge is being covered up on DDO cannot possibly be true, since the polls that touch up on deeply divisive issues that may disagree with the moderators own personal beliefs are literally some of the most voted-on polls on the site.... In some cases the polls in question have been made very recently and still exist, indicating that the moderators are not trying to whitewash information they don't like from the polls section like hect tries to imply.

Even the polls that ask if the moderators are corrupt and opinions on censorship have not been deleted, which completely torpedoes and falsifies whatever garbage it is that hect is crying about.

In addition to an adequate list of polls indicating that over-censorship of the polls is not an issue, I present the actual policy on the moderation of the polls section:

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

If the polls were being censored purely at will by the mods based on their own personal beliefs, a claim not supported by any evidence at all while tons of evidence against such a notion has been presented, then there would be no reason to have a formal list of rules about the moderation of the polls section be posted, otherwise users would then have legitimate grounds to call out the moderators about their actions in the polls section. The thread even warns of how buggy the comment filter built into the site coding (and out of the control of the moderators) can be, and how to get around it.

If there was a rampant abuse of censorship on the polls section of DDO by the moderators, then why would those same moderators tell you how to get around moderation in a thread detailing the very rules they abide by when moderating the polls?

Rather then face the actual facts and the reality of the situation, hect has instead made a mass appeal to voters hoping that they are stupid enough to take everything he is saying as fact and blindly vote for him... Anyone who has actually been to the polls or has 5 functioning brain cells can clearly see though that hect has not made a case, and cant debate to save his life.
Debate Round No. 2
hect

Pro

"Pro thinks I'm a girl only shows how disconnected from reality he is about both the censorship in the polls section and everything else in life" first of that's a non sequitur, second I just assumed anyone with the DP of a frozen character would have being a 14 year old girl... My apologies.

Now to start it should be noted that already my opponent has no intention of debating fairly as he has already breached the rules with his half baked rebuttals in his opening argument, obviously giving him an unfair advantage, but he clearly feels he needs all the help he can get.

My opponent has admitted that there is censorship for polls the mod may view as racist, how is this fair? Especially when sexism is rampant in the poll section (1) (2) (3) (4) (5). Thus by allowing biased censorship it is actually creating a rod for the back of censorship supporters by suggesting sexism is perfectly fine but racism not. The only solution without turning the poll section into some sort of frivolous joke section of DDO where everything is censored and the only polls put up are ones like 'who would win the fight?' 'Taco' or 'grilled cheese' (6), would be to ease up on censorship.

My opponent has outlined the only 4 reasons polls may be removed, which is also false. One of my first polls that started this whole issue was asking if people supported my side or the moderators side, I did not single anyone out or attack anyone, but it was removed. Anyone who has been to the poll section will know what I am talking about.

"Put words in my mouth that I have never even said and fabricate false evidence against me", this is a blatant lie, anyone can check I provided the source and evidence for it, which another lie you have accused me of not doing. So thats twice I have caught you out with and I say it again a blatant lie and it was only your first view lines of your opening argument. For my opponent and the voters I will provide the source again (7). You have said those things I quoted you saying so it is not an ad hominem when I say you are a liar and a hypocrite. It's also disgraceful and cowardice behaviour. So far you have lied to the voters and attempted rebuttals in the opening round when it went specifically against the rules; how can anyone be expected to trust my opponent with anything he says now.

Now to my opponents sources, most of which are 'big issue' topics which are encouraged to ask about by DDO, so it would be highly hypocritical if these were censored and would likely cost the mods there position if they were to. Also one of them is my own pole (and the source I already provided) only still allowed because I have been challenging airmax on the issue for days now after he contacted me and raised the issue of apparent spamming. And again why can we talk about what religion is better but not what race, again the hypocrisy is clear.
Also and my opponent probably knows this, I cannot provide the deleted polls because they have been DELETED, anyone with some common sense would know this.

This is where I must thank my opponent for providing the policy on polls, as it clearly outlines some of the reasons you may be censored for example and I quote "reasons such as words that the filter does not recognize (usually usernames), quoting too much, or having too many single characters... If you write a long paragraph". As I have already said this is a pathetic waste of time and this form of censoring needs to go.

It should also be noted that even with his head start my opponent's half baked rebuttals did not really address my issues, and dogged nearly every motion I put forth. So again why does my opponent think it should be the responsibility of someone else to decide for us what is offencive or what we should be able to read or learn? Are you for or against censorship? Because even though you may lie about it, you have said previously you are against it and provided reasons why. But it appears my opponent attempted to address the major censoring issue of 'submitted for moderation' with "The thread even warns of how buggy the comment filter built into the site coding (and out of the control of the moderators)", the debate question is "Should" not not how. So my opponent has already admitted that this form of censoring is annoying, which is a major step back for him.
I also provided 3 examples of polls made by user TBR which were censored that did not breach any of my opponents outlined 4 conditions, or breach any of the ToU's.

Back to the issue of racist polls, how do we even truly know something is wrong, how do we know something is true if we have always just been told it is true. Should'nt people with seemingly odd worldviews be given the chance to say what they want to say. It must have taken them some effort to come up with, it could possibly contain a shred of truth and we or the speaker could learn something, but not when as soon as it comes up in the pole section it is removed. It used to be taught in many prestigious universities that blacks were by inferior (8), obviously completely wrong but it begs the question how do we truly know what is true or moral if we have always just been told so, thus everyone should be given the chance to express their ideas, especially when they are the minority.

I know I am not the only one to express these views may other in the poll section have been complaining about the censoring, and it needs to stop.

Thank you

source:
1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://www.debate.org...
3. http://www.debate.org...
4. http://www.debate.org...
5. http://www.debate.org...
6. http://www.debate.org...
7. http://www.debate.org...
8. https://www.socialpsychology.org...
imabench

Con

"my opponent has already breached the rules with his rebuttals in his opening argument,"

The concept of 'no rebuttals' doesnt apply to making personal attacks against your opponent like you did when you tried to paint me as a hypocrite. You voided your own rules by trying to hit below the belt the first chance you got.

"My opponent has admitted that there is censorship for polls the mod may view as racist, how is this fair?"

Because racist polls are bad you giant imbecile. It qualifies as hate speech, gives the site a bad image, always incites flame wars, and never leads to reasonable discussions.

"suggesting sexism is perfectly fine but racism not"

All that is suggested is that racist polls are worse than sexist polls, not that sexist polls are perfectly fine. Try to join the rest of us in reality rather then try to stretch the truth about everything that doesnt fit into your view of the world.


" The only solution..... would be to ease up on censorship."

Allowing racist polls to be posted for a problem that does not exist is not a 'solution' hect.... It's asinine.


"One of my first polls that started this whole issue was asking if people supported my side or the moderators side"

Which was one of several polls you made in a short period of time and also was one where the comments section turned into a host of personal attacks against the poll mod. Those qualities of your poll warranted its deletion since it did fit into one of the requirements for a poll to warrant deletion.


"it is not an ad hominem when I say you are a liar and a hypocrite"

The debate you are quoting from came from a year ago, I'm allowed to change my views from that point and I have. Therefore I am not a hypocrite nor a liar like you claimed, and I was more than within my right to rebuttal against your cowardly claims since you insist on attacking my character rather then produce a single coherent argument for your side of the debate.


" how can anyone be expected to trust my opponent with anything he says now."

It will be pretty easy considering i'm not the one who already made an idiot out of himself by thinking that I'm a girl, and believing that incredibly racist polls should be allowed on the site as a 'solution' to over-moderation.


"And again why can we talk about what religion is better but not what race."

Because loads of intelligent conversation can be had about principles of religion but nothing good can come out of a poll titled 'why are whites better than blacks?'. It's not hypocritical to allow polls about religion but not polls about race that are racist because religious polls are far more likely than racist polls to spark a decent exchange instead of a flamewar.


"I cannot provide the deleted polls because they have been DELETED"

That's your problem though because simply alleging that hundreds of polls have been unfairly deleted by the mods and pointing to their alleged non-existence as evidence isn't sufficient as evidence. What pro is doing is the equivalent of someone claiming that Odin is the one true god since Odin claimed to kill all the ice giants, and pointing to the non-existence of ice giants as proof.

You can't point to the lack of proof of evidence as evidence that what you are saying is true.


"As I have already said this form of censoring needs to go."

And as I have already said, the word-filter that causes some comments to be 'submitted for moderation' is something that is built into the coding of the site, and is NOT something the moderators can control. In fact the moderators literally gave advice for how to get AROUND the filter, which shoots down your claim that the mods are running wild out of control since moderators wouldnt give advice about how to get around moderation if they were over-censoring the polls section.


"my opponents rebuttals did not address my issues"

You didn't provide a single coherent point to begin with, in fact you spent more space on your character assassination of me then of the actual topic we are debating here.


"why does my opponent think it should be the responsibility of someone else to decide for us what is offensive or what we should be able to read or learn?"

It's not being decided what is able to be read or learned though, what is being decided is if something is spam, racist, hateful, or an advertisement. Those 4 things are all that is decided, as it should be, which is why there doesn't need to be less censoring of the polls section.


"So my opponent has already admitted that this form of censoring is annoying, which is a major step back for him."

It is most certainly not a major step back since, and im saying this for the fourth time now:

The mods have outlined tactics for how people can get around this problem, and did so in the thread detailing the rules that mods abide by when censoring the polls.

The fact that hect continues to stick his head in the ground on this point only shows that he has no rebuttal to the evidence that the moderators are not over-censoring the site and are in fact providing tips for how to get around some built-in moderation of the site, and thus is conceding the argument.


"I also provided 3 examples of polls made by user TBR which were censored"

All three of them were made within the same few hours, all were titled almost the exact same thing, and qualified as spam polls, warranting their deletion.


"Shouldn't people with seemingly odd worldviews be given the chance to say what they want to say"

Not when what those people want to say is pure hate speech, which is what racist polls always result to be.


"many others in the poll section have been complaining about the censoring and it needs to stop"

Your own poll and others like it show that a majority of people disagree with you:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

Moderation within the polls section of DDO is safe, guided by rules, and done at an acceptable level. I extend all other arguments that Pro has forfeited
Debate Round No. 3
hect

Pro

"You voided your own rules by trying to hit below the belt the first chance you got" the rules are at the top, I suggest my opponent re-reads them, he has lied again. So my opponent has admitted to cheating and then tried to justify it by making up his own rules. Lets just hope he does not cheat again by adding new arguments in the final round.

"racist polls are bad" sexist polls are also bad, but you go on to say that they are fine, so it's not an "attack" when you are obviously being a hypocrite to try to defend your weak argument.

"racist polls are worse than sexist polls" in what world is that true, offence is purely subjective, again hence why it should not count as a reason to censor, I could be offended at any poll I want are we going to start censoring them to, why is what the moderator view as racist the be all and end all.
"incites flame wars" this isn't club penguin, that's the point. What's more you are taking away others responsibility again they can just as easily choose to ignore any poll they want, just because the poll is up does not mean you must comment on it. Btw petty insults aren't actually an argument so keep them coming it's a waste of time.

"Allowing racist polls to be posted for a problem that does not exist" Of course my opponent does not see supporting sexsim as a problem. But to me and many other people it is a major problem, and the only way to change a bigot's mind is not by constantly blocking your ears and saying i'm not listening, but to engage in a thought provoking discussion, which is not being allowed in the poll section. This site is called debate.org for a reason, "come to debate online and read the opinions of others. Research today"s most controversial debate topics and cast your vote on our opinion polls" this is from the home page of DDO at the top, racism is a controversial topic, I want to read the opinions of others, so according to the web pages quote we should be having these polls, but not according to my opponent because someone might get offended.

"I'm allowed to change my views" so my opponent has finally admitted that he did in fact say those words, even though he denied it originally, I have to ask my opponent do you know what the definition of a liar is?
"within my right to rebuttal against" I refer you back to the rules again, you were not within your right to jump the que and cheat. You don't get to make up your own rules after the debate starts.
"single coherent argument for your side of the debate" does my opponent realize that just saying 'I don't think it is an argument' is not a rebuttal, a debate works by explaining why that's the case, which my opponent repeatedly fails to do.

"It will be pretty easy considering i'm not the one who already made an idiot out of himself by thinking that I'm a girl, and believing that incredibly racist polls should be allowed on the site as a 'solution' to over-moderation" more cheap insults and non sequiturs. Agian this still is not an argument.

"religious polls are far more likely than racist polls to spark a decent exchange instead of a flamewar" http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
have a look at these polls and tell me if they aren't extremely bigoted, and tell me about 'flamewars'. Now it's obvious my opponent is just making any excuse up to support his crumbling argument that somehow racism is the only exception of topics that honest discussion cannot be had.

"NOT something the moderators can control" this is still a form of censorship just because it is not controlled by the moderators doesn't mean anything, it is pointless annoying censorship, not once have I said the moderators are the only problem I have with the censoring in the polls. In Fact this was in my opening argument.

"You didn't provide a single coherent point to begin with" dodging my points again, just saying "I don't think it's an argument" is not a rebuttal.

"It's not being decided...Those 4 things are all that is decided, as it should be" So you admit again with hypocrisy that decisions are being decided for us, but again you failed to say why these ones should be decided for us. We should be able to make our own judgment call on what is spam or racism. Most people can think for themselves.

"all were titled almost the exact same thing" how is lady chatterley's lover, Classic art, a picture of an assault rifle even remotely similar? Which still begs the question, why were they deleted?

"majority of people disagree with you" Not according to this poll
http://www.debate.org...
where not a single vote went towards the option "No, censorship is completley okay"
or on this poll
"http://www.debate.org...;
and unlike my opponents these ones were actually about censorship.

"I extend all other arguments that Pro has forfeited" I literally addressed every argument you raised.

So voters throughout this debate we have seen my opponent, lie, cheat, use non sequiturs, create his own rules after the fact, use petty insults instead of rebuttals and not give a single reason other than "it's bad" as to why he supports censorship.

I however have with honesty and actual arguments rebutted my opponent, provided reasons as to why offence is not a reason to censor, provided reasons as to why censorship is harmful, demonstrated the flawed system of 'submitted for moderation', outlined the hypocrisy often used by moderators when censoring, demonstrated how we can deal with racism in a more effective way and how we can learn. A vote for con is a vote for dishonesty and ignorance. A vote for pro is a vote for knowledge, free speech, honest discussion and the right to think for ourselves.

As always Thank you.
imabench

Con

"So my opponent has admitted to cheating and then tried to justify it by making up his own rules"

Its common debate etiquette on the site that if you sling ad-homs in the first argument round, than the opponent is justified to rebuttal against those claims even if it was stated no rebuttals were allowed. You would know this if you were an actual debater ;)


"sexist polls are also bad, but you go on to say that they are fine"

I never said sexist polls are fine, but go ahead and keep putting words in my mouth ;)


"racist polls are worse than sexist polls" in what world is that true"

The one we live in.


"petty insults aren't actually an argument."

Thats funny because petty insults have been your entire argument up to this point XDDD


"the only way to change a bigot's mind is not by constantly blocking your ears and saying i'm not listening, but to engage in a thought provoking discussion"

Bigots dont participate in thought-provoking discussions though. You being exhibit A for that


"according to the web pages quote we should be having these polls"

Actually the Terms of Service explicitly states that users "Will not upload, copy, distribute, share, or otherwise use Content that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, harmful, hateful, harassing, pornographic, threatening, racially or ethnically offensive, abusive....."

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

So your claim is fraudulent.


"my opponent has finally admitted that he did in fact say those words, even though he denied it originally"

I figured it would be a great way to get you to blow half your character space in your arguments on irrelevant side-issues not even related to the debate itself. What I said in another debate a year ago isn't relevant to whether or not there should be less moderation in the polls section silly ;)


"have a look at these polls and tell me if they aren't extremely bigoted, and tell me about 'flamewars'"

I said that religious polls are LESS LIKELY to spark flamewars than racist polls, not that they are incapable of making them. If English wasn't pro's second language he might have understood that.


"it [the word filter] is pointless annoying censorship"

It prevents users from using curse words as often as they otherwise would have, so its arguably not 'pointless'. Furthermore the mods themselves have given tips for how to get around it if the filter catches words that aren't actually curse words, indicating that the mods are not over-censoring the polls.

But you keep ignoring that, dont you hect? :3


"We should be able to make our own judgment call on what is spam or racism."

The Terms of Service of the site suggests otherwise, since it explicitly forbids racist stuff


"Which still begs the question, why were they deleted?"

They were all titled 'Should this poll be deleted' and were made in the course of under an hour, thus constituting spam and warranting their deletion.


"Not according to this poll"

That poll asks if censorship is harmful or beneficial, not if there needs to be less censorship on DDO

Your second link doesn't even work stupid.


"I however have with honesty and actual arguments rebutted my opponent"

Crying and sh*tting yourself round after round doesnt count as honesty and actual arguments, loser ;)


"A vote for con is a vote for dishonesty and ignorance. A vote for pro is a vote for knowledge, free speech, honest discussion and the right to think for ourselves."

^ There is the crying I was talking about before. He is just pandering to idiots who havent even read the debate to vote for him here

==========================================================================

For those of us just joining, this debate has so far been 80% personal attacks by both sides, 10% ramblings of an irrational madman (pro), and 10% actual arguments against the notion that there needs to be less censoring in the poll section.

Of the 10% portion of this debate that were actual arguments, Here is a list of arguments that Hect has either completely ignored or failed to address time and time again:

1 - That the moderators have a specific set of sound guidelines that they follow when moderating the polls

2 - That the moderators do not over-censor the polls section and in fact give tips for how to get around some forms of censorship

3 - That an overwhelming number of polls that are made on DDO do not get taken down

4 - That the only 3 polls he could point to as polls that were unfairly deleted more then qualified as spam

5 - That racism and posting of racist things is specifically outlawed as stated in the TOS

6 - That it's impossible for the moderators to be running wild with censorship if they voluntarily tie themselves to a set of rules used when moderating the polls section

7 - That a number of controversial polls are already allowed on DDO and have plenty of votes, indicating the mods do not have a history of censoring polls just because the polls disagree with their own beliefs

8 - That the existence of arguably sexist polls on DDO does not justify allowing racist polls to be made as well

9 - That an overwhelming majority of people do not find censorship on DDO to be problematic, therefore suggesting that there does not NEED to be less moderation

==========================================================================

The simple facts are that there isn't over-censorship in the polls section, that moderation is justified, and that allowing racist polls to be posted is a net negative for the site if allowed. So here is how I recommend voters vote:

Spelling: I dont care, vote however you want

Conduct: Tied, considering the conduct on both sides of this debate was equally atrocious

Arguments: Me, since Pro forfeited and dropped a huge number of arguments that I made throughout the debate while I provided sufficient evidence that moderation in the polls section is just fine and that less is a bad thing

Sources: Me, since many of Pro's links either dont work, arent relevant to the debate, or were part of a misinterpreted response he made to one of my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by emporer1 1 year ago
emporer1
The random numbers apparently replaced my thumbs up emoticon.
Posted by emporer1 1 year ago
emporer1
Good bye @hect. I will not miss your obsurd conspiracy theories or your insanely out of proportion ramblings. Not to mention immaturity. Thank you, @Imabench for winning this debate. Now we just have hope that some other moderator hating extremist doesn't show up. As for the current moderators and censoring...👍keep up the good work.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Forthelulz // Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Imabench made a good showing, while hect surrendered and was destroyed.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Lack of explanation for the sources point. (2) Arguments point too generic.
===========================================================================
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
i'll have my vote up by tommorow
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Will vote by the end of this week.
Posted by hect 1 year ago
hect
The voters have a right to know that the only reason that link doesn't work anymore is because it has now been censored
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 1 year ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
The sad part for you hect is that the votes on this debate (when it's over) are going to be censored too. I don't expect a majority voting for Con will occur without substantial flagging/reporting going on.
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 1 year ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
I don't think he's taking a bad approach. His audience is privy to the way things go here and they have most certainly witnessed or experienced it enough themselves to not need further references. By putting in references, imabench, you've tried to bias the story more than he.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
We could say "Atleast he tried..."
Posted by PatriotPerson 1 year ago
PatriotPerson
Yeah imagine if George Washington went to England and told the king, "Hey, f*ck off."
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
hectimabenchTied
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 made several cases about how many polls are removed due to innappropriate content, while bringing up how many bad and often offensive polls make it through, showing that even with all the censorship, bad polls still made though. Showing that if anything, censorship isn't high enough. Pro made no real case about how censorship is bad, since he fails to show any evidence of unfair moderation. His best argument is that bad polls still get though, which only enforced Imabenchs side. Imabench also brought up that many polls are call out threads and flame wars.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
hectimabenchTied
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: Okay, this was a tough read. I'm going to leave better conduct a tie, because both sides were immature about the debate. Spelling and grammar is a tie. Convincing arguments go to Con. Con successfully shows the voters that there are polls that are made that are offensive and cause much problems. Con also shows that poll's that are unnecessary i.e (drama or crude) get deleted because these polls either cause problems and or are just unnecessary. Con's main argument is that many polls are made either to call out on others or to start a flame war which is un-beneficial to the site. Thus, censoring the polls would lower the rate of bad polls being added to the site. Con argues having censoring for polls helps keep the site safe.
Vote Placed by Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
hectimabenchTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct on both sides was terrible, with various insults and baseless accusations of "lying" and "cheating" being thrown about without warrant, so I tie it. Pro fails to actually provide any evidence of polls being unfairly deleted, aside from anecdotes from himself and a single other user. On the other hand, Con presents the real policies which guide poll moderation, showing that only certain polls, which have little to no potential for productive discussion, get deleted (and justifiably so). Pro primarily responds by showing that some other polls are also stupid enough to get deleted yet don't -- however, this shows that the polls section needs *more* moderation... not less. As for the comment-filter argument, Con points out that there are very easy ways to get around it, and that it otherwise does serve a useful purpose. By the end of the debate, I am unconvinced that less censorship would be beneficial, much less that there's a "need" for it. Thus, I award arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
hectimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was atrocious on both sides as imabench pointed out, however, Round 2 Con was insulting not only him, but voters who may or may not think he has a legitimate argument. That deserves a loss of conduct points. Spelling and Grammar are practically a tie. Sources I go back and forth on, thus I will leave it a tie. imabench had many points that went unaddressed by hect, as stated in Round 4. Due to this, I will give Con more convincing arguments since not even hect could think of a rebuttal for them.