The Instigator
adidas
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Cliff.Stamp
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

This website is like a dictatorship

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,368 times Debate No: 16385
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (8)

 

adidas

Pro

I was reading some of the forums and whenever someone was doing something wrong, askbob would put there personal info up. It is not right.
Cliff.Stamp

Con

Resolution : This website is like a dictatorship

"I was reading some of the forums and whenever someone was doing something wrong, askbob would put there personal info up. It is not right."

Adidas, I can understand your frustration, resentment and possibly even anger at askbob's methods and I fully agree that it is not right under any sensible standard of what could be argued to be right. However consider the following :

dictatorship : form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. [1]

Now you are implying that askbob is the dictator in question, and if he was in fact the owner then you would have a decent argument but consider the following thread :

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

Recently askbob took similar action to a minor, mvpbob, for rather minor infractions which askbob decided he was guilty of, and acting yes as judge, jury and executioner he tracked down said individuals personal information and posted them on the forum and then as he commonly does, encouraged harassment of said member.

However, DDO is not a dictatorship and the members have the freedom and ability to act if they feel such behavior is not justified and have many methods at their disposal. The standard response would be :

1) Said members need to note that the behavior is not appreciated and they you wish it to stop. This is fundamental in any harassment claim, if you do not say you are being harassed then the other side can claim it was not harassment, so prevent that defense. Note that if you notice it and you feel strongly then make post of that nature supporting the individual and being clear that you do not support such harassment towards them.

2) If it continues then contact the moderators.

3) If the moderators do nothing and the behavior continues then contact the site owners/representatives.

No one in this age will tolerate harassment due to the increasing crackdown on harassment laws. Plus there is absolutely no need for it, DDO is supposed to be about debating not threats and personal wars.

In short :

1) DDO is not ran like a dictatorship because you have these freedoms to voice your opinion including making debates such as this one.

2) DDO is not ran like a dictatorship because of askbob's behavior as he does not represent DDO. It would be like saying the US is a dictatorship because of some vigilante who was imposing personal justice.

In short, relax, don't let the behavior upset you, don't let it create a negative opinion of DDO and the many great members - take action as you are able to do and resolve the situation.

[1] http://www.britannica.com...
Debate Round No. 1
adidas

Pro

You have no freedom. You post something and if he doesn't like it he puts up your info. The website needs to do something about this even though they said they would. They need to ban him. This is borderline criminal on what he is doing.
Cliff.Stamp

Con

"The website needs to do something about this even though they said they would. They need to ban him. This is borderline criminal on what he is doing."

Pro has dropped both arguments in the OP, they are thus considered conceded. They have simply repeated their OP and added the extra sentance as quoted which will not be further refuted :

Contention 1)

"The website needs to do something about this even though they said they would."

Now looking at the above this appears to have merit on the surface (the without limits part of the definition), but again consider the definition clearly. This argument only works if said individual (askbob) is actually part of the government, i.e., he is employed and/or represents the owners.

Thus to fully supply warrant for this argument it has to be shown that this is the case. If he is acting simply on his own then the most that could be said is that they are passively supporting him, i.e., by not doing anything they are in fact encouraging it.

However even this is not a trivial argument to make, to fully warrant that it has to be shown that their expected behavior should be different than what is seen.

Contention 2)

"This is borderline criminal on what he is doing."

Even if it is true, and even further if it was shown to be fully criminal, this does not actually support the resolution. Again for this to be relevant it has to be argued that said member has at a minimum the support of DDO - and to make an extremely solid case they need to be shown to actually be in their employ or at the least represent them.

In summary, given a community, company, web-site, anything which is lead/controlled/governed etc., in order for the claim to be supported that it is a dictatorship because of the actions of an individual or group of individuals such people have to at a minimum have the support of the controlling party and ideally work for or represent them. This contention has not been fully warranted here and thus the resolution is negated.

As we have some space/time, things you learn from the new Thor movie :

1) Just because you used to be able to pick up a hammer does not mean you always will be able to.

2) Gods do not need to shave

3) Even women warriors have to be saved by the men folk when a truly bad situation develops

4) Ice is cold

5) Giants are actually not really giant sized

6) Odin gets really cranky when he doesn't sleep

7) Shield agents can not tell science from magic

8) Real scientists don't use flash drives, network backups, keep equipment schematics, or apparently have any long term memory

9) Just because you can see everything doesn't mean you can see everything

and of course

10) Vikings would destroy navy seals in the UFC
Debate Round No. 2
adidas

Pro

He has brought down so many accounts just because he disagrees with them.
Cliff.Stamp

Con

"He has brought down so many accounts just because he disagrees with them."

Credit has to be given for my opponent for steadfast and headlong assertions, no amount of argument appears to dissuade them even in the slightest. With that in mind it is time for a new approach, so onto the argument.

I will start with a quote from Clarence Darrow, the famous trial lawyer of the early 20'th century [1] :

"Every one knows that the heavenly bodies move in certain paths in relation to each other with seeming consistency and regularity which we call [physical] law. ... No one attributes freewill or motive to the material world. Is the conduct of man or the other animals any more subject to whim or choice than the action of the planets? ... We know that man's every act is induced by motives that led or urged him here or there; that the sequence of cause and effect runs through the whole universe, and is nowhere more compelling than with man."

followed by :

"The principal thing to remember is that we are all the products of heredity and environment; that we have little or no control, as individuals, over ourselves, and that criminals are like the rest of us in that regard."

The most famous use of such arguments was in the defense of Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb in which Mr. Darrow was able to keep his clients from receiving the death penalty in spite of the fact they confessed to the brutal murder of a minor. Darrow's argument was straightforward - his clients were not responsible for their actions, they were just "broken machines".

This philosophy of determinism can be summed up neatly in the following :

"the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature" [2]

Simply put, things are the way they are and could not be otherwise.

"It is hard to see how, if the state of the world 1000 years ago fixes everything I do during my life, I can meaningfully say that I am a free agent, the author of my own actions, which I could have freely chosen to perform differently. After all, I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past! So in what sense can I attribute freedom of choice to myself?" [2]

Thus let us consider the above in light of determinism, from this perspective askbob "has brought down" nothing. He was born babybob, he grew up littlebob, became teeniebob, eventually aged to askbob and even if he does seek to be OZbob, then all of this, from the point of conception to the point of death is determined. askbob chooses to do nothing, he acts as his has to act according to his nature which is prescribed by the heredity traits which are physically present in his biological makeup. He will act as we all will act according to that which we are and could no more do otherwise than water could refrain from turning to ice when it gets cold or turning to steam when it gets hot.

If this does not convince you then consider the following, and in fact try them out as social experiments :

1) Enter into an thread and ask about rights, within 30 seconds Cody_Franklin will post verbatim :

""Rights" don't actually exist. I don't really have a right to life, or to liberty, or anything like that. Rights are just the label we give to specific large-scale agreements among agents. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. I don't steal from you, you don't steal from me. They're a social convenience whose enforcement is basically a requirement for (mostly) peaceful coexistence."

2) Make a post about anything remotely grazing on the spiritual and you will get the following from Cosmic :

"That is not true spiritualism, that is gibbery-do. True spiritualism, or as I like to call it - artistic physics is about exploring the outside of the inside of your nature. It is about seeing what is not for what it is. It is about tasting the colors of life. It is about seeing what a sound feels like. It is about painting a picture with a grapefruit and realizing that you are actually singing to snowflakes."

3) Even hint at a criticism of anarchy and you will get hit with a deluge of "Come at me Bro!" debate challenges from the Kenyon.

4) Mention the bible and you will get a never ending stream of biblical verses from DAT.

These things are as they are for that is how they are and they can not be how they are not for things can not be as they are and as they are not - that way lies to madness, and FREEDO.

In closing, askbob is as guilty of his actions as rain is as guilty as falling, as the wind is guilty of blowing and as reptiles are as guilty for running the world in secret from the invisible UFO's in an orbit around a star in the center of this hollow earth.[3]

[1] http://www.sfu.ca...

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...

[3] http://www.reptoids.com...
Debate Round No. 3
adidas

Pro

"askbob chooses to do nothing, he acts as his has to act according to his nature which is prescribed by the heredity traits which are physically present in his biological makeup. He will act as we all will act according to that which we are and could no more do otherwise than water could refrain from turning to ice when it gets cold or turning to steam when it gets hot."

His genes suck than.
Cliff.Stamp

Con

"His genes suck than."

Now I could cry foul and exclaim my esteemed opponent has shifted the goalpost and thus his resolution is negated by default - but I will not, as where would the fun be in defending an argument so trivially. Thus to continue, the resolution now seems to be something akin to :

Resolve : askbob should be removed as his genes suck than

C1) askbob has mad hacks and doesn't afraid of anything

From a pure utilitarian stance it has to be obvious that elite computer detective skills and innate +5 brave has to be a greater value than over zealous modding. The argument for this is as trivial as follows :

Yes it is true that his actions will, and do, result in increased risk and liability of the site owners, admins/mods and even members to harassment, defamation and endangerment claims - BUT - if any member ever forgets the number and address of their ex-girlfriend/boyfriend then it is just one PM away.

Truly can you put a price on that? While the threat of big brother is always looming around the corner, there is no need to wait and it is not just the seven deadly x's either that can be so revealed. Weather it is a friend that ate your last poptart and replaced it with a horrid toaster strudel or the much desired, and well hidden, diary key of your over bearing jealous big sister, there is no need to suffer such indignation in silence no longer.

C2) we are a normative species

You may look at askbob now and see a mighty villain but when he is removed will you be so content. Will you now no longer get aggravated if a member voices disapproval, does your volume knob no longer go to 11? No, there will always be in you the potential for maximal frustration and you will have the same frequency of net rages, they will just be allocated for lesser and lesser evils as the banhammer keeps falling.

And in the end when the dust settles and order is maintained, after they have come and come and come again - who will be left but you alone, sitting in silence pleased with what has been achieved. Basking in the order and stability in the zero point vacuum of a dead forum and page after page of self-debates. Is this the ideal, is this the american dream of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

C3) that way leads to nothing but a quantum of solace

It is well known that acting in violence breeds violence, for was it not said by the great prophet Alphonzo the Cosmic "An eye for an eye makes all the world blind, but a smile and some lube makes everyone a froody dude." So calm down, breath the good air in, let the bad air out. For do not follow the part of anger, for anger comes from fear and fear leads to hate and hate leads to the dark side of the moon and there be dragons.

C4) you can't build something by destroying part of it

If you care about the site, if DDO means anything to you then focus on improving it not removing the parts you object to. Just as you can not make a fruit pie if you get rid of all the fruit you do not like then what would a site be if you removed all the members you think are nobs.

Ok, well you could still have a fruit pie but the only people that would like it are the people that like the same fruit you do and what about if you like some strange fruit like the ones that are full of spiders and when the spiders come out they shoot bees out of their mouths. Who is going to eat that hell crazy pie?

In short there are four solid reasons to reject the modified resolution, I give credit for my noble opponent for continuing but warn him not to proceed for if he does I have no choice but to release the kraken.
Debate Round No. 4
adidas

Pro

" you can't build something by destroying part of it

If you care about the site, if DDO means anything to you then focus on improving it not removing the parts you object to. Just as you can not make a fruit pie if you get rid of all the fruit you do not like then what would a site be if you removed all the members you think are nobs.

Ok, well you could still have a fruit pie but the only people that would like it are the people that like the same fruit you do and what about if you like some strange fruit like the ones that are full of spiders and when the spiders come out they shoot bees out of their mouths. Who is going to eat that hell crazy pie?"

He gets rid of people he doesn't like, that is what I'm trying to say.
Cliff.Stamp

Con

"He gets rid of people he doesn't like, that is what I'm trying to say."

Again I could cry foul and exclaim my esteemed opponent has shifted the goalpost but in one final act of defiance I will continue to refute the new and improved resolution.

Let us take the first part of the resolution :

"He gets rid of people ..."

C1) he is not a decision maker

Askbob at most can do either one of two activities to remove people :

1) he can report them

2) he can harass them

If he exercises the first option then it is not askbob but the moderators who remove the people as they are the ones who close the account thus it is they would are doing the "getting rid of".

But wait you exclaim, if he exercises the second option then surely it is he who is "getting rid" of the people. but no I counter for two reasons

1) the people are deciding to leave

2) the membership as a whole tolerates and even encourages such behavior

Thus under the first paradigm it is the individuals who decide to leave which are responsible. While this may seem unfair on the surface, as exemplified in "The seven habits of highly effective people" by Stephen Covey, the first habit is :

"Be Proactive"

This means that you have to take responsibility for your life and not put it in the hands of others, realize that you and you alone have the ability to make the decisions that you need to to obtain your desires and needs. Thus the people who leave under harassment do not need to, they can take actions to stop it and the website does provide for such behavior.

Second, as was noted in the cinematic masterpiece "The Accused" those people who watch and encourage an act can be held just as liable for those that perform the act, thus it is the membership who tolerate and even encourage such behavior that is the cause. For just consider if the entire DDO community was openly against such behavior and made this clear - could askbob actually continue - obviously not.

C2) that he does not like them is an unwarranted claim

It is simply stated without support that his motivation is to act out against those he does not like - now this may be true, but warrant has to be provided. On the face of it, it seems unlikely as he could not possibly know these people as many of them just joined. How could any rational person form an opinion to like or dislike someone that fast?

C3) it is all the fault of the twinkies anyway

It is not commonly known, but for quite some time askbob was a pure vegan and would not even partake of the humble egg. This was mainly because he was trying to catch the attention of askshaniqua, whose rapturesque beauty can not even begin to be described in mere words, especially by one such as myself - maybe badger.

But such was not to be and after being rejected for the last time askbob fell into a fit of depression and ended up eating a steady stream of twinkies which lead to diminished capacity from highly oscillating blood sugar levels and mood swings.

If you read the packaging no where at all does it warn that excessive consumption will lead to fixation on radicalnet-copping and thus the fault has to lie obviously with Hostess.

Resolution(s) Negated
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
OreEle`Askbob's actions were more like what would happen from Anarchy``

Ok, that is really funny considering recent threads. We should debate that, it would give bob`s ego a decent boost anyway.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Have to give you credit for giving in there man, I made a decent effort but you kept plugging away.
Posted by adidas 6 years ago
adidas
How is askbob not a waste of server space? Harrassing ppl.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"This is one time I agree with askbob, take him out."

Want to debate that?
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
This is one time I agree with askbob, take him out.
Posted by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
Adidas is a waste of server space.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"His genes suck than."

Ok, this was kind of funny, points for that - argument coming on our nature for absolute judgements made on a sliding relative scale.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
I did not want to do this, really I didn't. But I am giving this one more shot and then I am dropping the hammer and will unleash the reptoid defense.
Posted by adidas 6 years ago
adidas
askbob has no life reporting debates and reporting people. Is he ever off for more than an hour? askbob is just a waste of everybody's time. Someone could have been born instead of him.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"Are you not an Atheist"

No I am not an atheist.

"Surely you could have come up with something better."

Of course I could, and don't call me Shirley.

"it must have taken a lot of intellect to come up with such a clearly witty response"

Don't worry, I have a lot to spare.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
adidasCliff.StampTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Shall I state the obvious....
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
adidasCliff.StampTied
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: Not really that hard to decide. Con's points were better
Vote Placed by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
adidasCliff.StampTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Not much of a debate. However, in an interesting way, Cliff did manage to debate the points. I gave pro a point for :he has bad genes then"
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
adidasCliff.StampTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: lol, Askbob's actions were more like what would happen from Anarchy.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
adidasCliff.StampTied
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: assertians are not arguments
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
adidasCliff.StampTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wasn't trying at all
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
adidasCliff.StampTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty obvious: Pro's arguments were brief blurbs that didn't address anything Con said. Con's rebuttals went above and beyond what was necessary and dismantled Pro's entire perspective.
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
adidasCliff.StampTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Blowout