The Instigator
ThebigB
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
sherlockmethod
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

You cannot steal virtual goods, and it is not morally wrong to do so.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 6 votes the winner is...
sherlockmethod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,964 times Debate No: 10988
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (6)

 

ThebigB

Pro

Hello this will be my second debate.
The grounds for this debate will be over my said topic. Now all of my information will be from the video game World of Warcraft. There is a large industry that takes and sells virtual items in this game so that is what I am basing this off of. And with that let us start.

Although many dangerous creatures inhabit the lands of Azeroth none are more reviled than ninjas (Who are people who steal items from others in game).

For all the trouble they cause, it's very difficult to say exactly what it is that ninjas are doing morally wrong. It may look like ninjas are no different than real-world thieves. And since stealing in the real-world is wrong then they are wrong. How can anyone steal a virtual good when said good DOES NOT EVEN EXIST? Clearly you cannot steal something without taking it, and we can no more take said good than we can clone virtual people or shake hands with a virtual person. So how can a ninja steal an item that is non-existent? It's reasonable to assume that thieves are real people who take real items that belong to other real people, and ninjas are virtual characters who virtually steal from other characters. Is this analogous in a morally relevant way?

I will now define where some of my evidence comes from: I will be using Utilitarianism and De ontology. We will be using the Act Utilitarian. Here is how they work. The Act does not care if the ninja wanted the item for money or otherwise. He only cares if it maximises happiness. It is a matter of Happiness vs unhappiness. I will give more after I hit Deontology. They believe that actions are good or bad regardless of consequences. All that matters is the underlying goodwill. 1. Only act in such a way that it is logically possible for universal laws to be formed from our acts. 2. never use a moral agent merely to achieve a goal.
So they believe that stealing is wrong. A moral law licensing theft cannot be universalized.
Now a Act utilitarian can say that ninjaing is unfortunate because it causes pain. The small pleasure generated by the ninja is easily outweighed by the very real pain and frustration real people feel when they are ninjaed from. However there is no moral agent in this instance. As such they cannot say anything.
The deontologist faces the same problem. Ninjaing if real would violate both things said earlier. It's not universalizable because no one would want to play if people could ninja. The ninja if he was a moral agent would be using the other person merely as a means to collect an item: this would wrong them by denying their moral autonomy. But, there is no moral agent. And if we cannot find a moral agent then neither theory will be able to treat ninjaing as immoral because there is no entity to hold morally liable. Ninjaing will be as morally benign as a natural disaster.

As such there is nobody to hold morally liable for ninjaing. Therefore ninjaing cannot be wrong because there is no moral agent to hold morally accountable.

If my opponent wishes me to state why there is no moral agent I will. I hope for a good debate on this topic and am waiting for someone to pick up as my opponent.
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank my opponent for offering this debate and look forward to his arguments. I am a World of Warcraft player, hereafter WoW, and I am familiar with the game play and much of the terminology used in reference to the game so I will use it as an example also. Virtual goods can be stolen and do so is morally wrong.

Definitions:
World of Warcraft – A Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORG); the game is a virtual community comprised of millions of players. The players interact on the game via avatars of their choosing and solo or team their way through the virtual world by fighting each other or virtual creatures. The game is in a fantasy setting with dragons, orcs, elves, and mages to name a few.

Ninja – The term is used in conjunction for the most part i.e. ninja looters, ninja raiders, etc. To ninja someone is usually assigned to acts, while permissible in game play, that involve rolling virtual dice for an offered item when said item cannot be used by the person rolling. In game items have certain statistics on them and these statistics generally benefit a few types of characters (mages, paladins, etc). When a player rolls on an item so as to sell it in game to a vendor and deny other players its use or takes the item and offers it for sell to the players in a group then the term "ninja looter" is applied. The community usually shuns such players and the result is to kick the ninja from the group and let the community know what she did via the on line chat channel.

Stipulation:
Although ninja looting is an annoying aspect of the game and one WoW has been working to prevent, such players are usually dealt with by the community and as such I do not intend to argue the moral implications for such players. Looting an item simply to sell it for gold is beneficial to the ninja. Just like a real world community, no one is obligated to be nice when dealing with others, nor does one have to give up something because others can use it more proficiently.

Argument:
Pro, in his opening round, took the term "ninja" to a much fuller prospect by applying the term to stealing virtual materials from players. I don't use the term this broadly, but I see no need to battle semantics and several friends use the term in this capacity also. The point I will address is the people and actions given by pro, "[P]eople who steal items from others in game." I readily agree such actions as I listed under the heading "Ninja" are annoying, but Pro is speaking of a much more egregious act – stealing from another avatar using illegal acts in real life as there is no other way to do it.

If WoW designed a component allowing rogues to pickpocket avatars in town, then I would not only make a rogue, but would have no problem with such a feature. At present, the ability to steal items from an avatar, once the avatar has placed the item in her bag or bank, requires access to the player's account. Accessing another player's account is a violation of the terms of service one signs when starting the game. Accessing another person's private, paid for, account is a violation of agreed upon rules and such actions require a real person to make an overt act to steal password information by gaining unauthorized access to another player's computer, or private information secured by Blizzard Entertainment.

*Using subversive means to access a person's private information is a violation of the law, regardless of what the criminal does with such information.

Stealing from an avatar usually involves key logging or phishing http://en.wikipedia.org...
Once the person accesses another's WoW account, the thief has the relevant information needed to steal, such actions are criminal as WoW passwords are information. http://legal.practitioner.com...

Pro contends that items in the game do not exist so they cannot be "stolen". I disagree. The [shield of female repulsion] with +50 strength and +80 parry rating may not be a real shield, but it does have value. If such items had no value, we would not have a massive market illegally selling such pixel candy. The value comes from its use in game. Players value the item because such items help the player see harder content. I would love to fight the Lich King, but my lowly +20 agility [boots of lonely Saturday nights] will not help me very much. As a player, I will value the much more proficient +100 agility [boots of social inadequacy]. Pro cannot say such items are not real as they are real in the sense of how they are used. In game items have a use in game even if they are useless in the real world for similar acts i.e. I can't wear my [chest plate of wasted hours] for protection but my avatar can.

Due to the nature of use for these items, the in game avatar is simply a tool helping one steal and is, in this sense, an extension of the person. When an item, an idea, a code, a string of numbers put together for some meaningful purpose is taken or used without the owner's permission (in this case Blizzard Entertainment) and such item is no longer usable by the person who obtained it then I conclude it is stolen. The fact the item can be retrieved is irrelevant to the act.

In addition to violating terms of service and needing to commit computer crimes in order access an avatar to steal from it, thieves take the one thing a player does own – access to the account. When a person steals my private information, I cannot play the game as he is stealing my stuff so I cannot log on to my virtual world. Once the thief is finished selling all my good loots and purple gear, I am left with a semi naked, broke avatar. I will not be able to access the content I worked so hard to see. The fact that blizzard will, sometimes, return the items to a compromised account in no way alleviates the moral wrong for the thief as weeks will pass before all is settled and I lose the ability to play a game I pay 15 dollars a month to play. By accessing and robbing my account, the offending player does not just play their game, they are taking mine away. I paid real money to play the game, and stealing the service I paid for out of pocket is no different than stealing 15 dollars from me without the use of an avatar.

Combined with the above points, I must add that selling any item in WoW for real money is a violation of the terms of service for the game. Every player must agree to the ToS or they cannot play. One cannot sell items for real money without violating this agreement.

Utilitarianism
If we weigh the monetary gain a thief receives against violations of laws that must be committed and the very legal promise a thief must break in order to gain access to such materials then the greatest good is not served by the thief's actions as the loss of security in one's papers, electronic or otherwise, and the degrading meaningfulness of keeping legal promises will far outweigh the thief's personal gain. Using act utilitarianism as a guide, the actions of a moral agent (the player) in denying the paid for use of virtual items solely for illegal monetary purposes is immoral as such acts must be preceded by illegal activates causing harm to a great number of people. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Deontology
If I am reading correctly, then the moral agent (the player) in performing such actions as selling goods for real money in knowing violation of the agreed rules of the ToS then the action cannot be deemed moral. http://en.wikipedia.org... The moral agent is the player violating the law and the ToS. The avatar is simply a tool. The player did not have good will in mind when taking the ToS and is operating under a bad maxim, "I will cheat". Using this theory the act is still immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
ThebigB

Pro

Thank you for your response. "Pro contends that items in the game do not exist so they cannot be "stolen". I disagree. The [shield of female repulsion] with +50 strength and +80 parry rating may not be a real shield, but it does have value. If such items had no value, we would not have a massive market illegally selling such pixel candy. The value comes from its use in game." Please allow me to give an example as well.
We have Mrstabby a level 70 rogue. Although Mrstabby cannot own items in the real world perhaps he can virtually own items. This is not the place to offer a robust theory of virtual people and property, but it's likely that any such account will treat Mrstabby as a virtual person and a [Warglaive of Azzinoth] as his virtual property. So when Mrstabby ninjas, I will call the ninjae Mcstabsalot, [Warglaive of Azzinoth], there won't be any real world or didgital theft taking place. At best there will be virtual theft. Does it follow then that there is no moral dilemma? I think so.

Let me now defend that there is no moral agent. There are only two plausible candidates for moral agency: the real person playing Mrstabby, and Mrstabby himself. Suppose the person playing Mrstabby were morally responsible for everything done by Mrstabby. The player would then be morally responsible for all the creatures killed by Mrstabby. My opponent might distinguish between NPC's and PC's, and hold that players are only morally responsible for actions against PC's. But I don't think this is a principled distinction to use when considering questions of existence or morality. The PC Mcstabsalot is no more real than the NPC Thrall: they both "exist" in the same virtual world and are subject to the same limitations thereof. NPC's are indirectly controlled by Blizzard's programmers; PC's are directly controlled by other (human) players and sometimes by (non-human) bots.I just don't see how this relatively minor difference could motivate such a substantial moral distinction. Moreover, treating players as moral agents yields conclusions counterintuitive to the spirit of the game. For example, PC's regularly kill one another in BG's like Arathi Basin, in contested zones like Shadowmoon Valley, outside instances, and in major cities like Ironforge. It would be absurd to hold players responsible morally or criminally liable for the thousands of PC's they've killed.
Mrstabby is no more viable as a moral agent. It doesn't make sense to talk about holding Mrstabby accountable for his actions because Mrstabby isn't the kind of person, virtual or otherwise, that makes decisions. If you ninja your friends sword it's no defense to claim that it was Mrstabby, not you, who took it: your friend won't simply insist that you play as a different character, but rather he will refuse to play with you altogether. But he won't hold you morally culpable- it would be unreasonable for your friends to worry that yes steal items from their real world homes. It would be quite understandable if they stopped playing with you or thought you were a lousy friend, perhaps claiming that you take the game too seriously or ruin other's fun. But they could not accuse you of being an immoral thief who should be locked away. Neither you nor Mrstabby is a viable candidate as a moral agent. As such, there is nobody to hold morally liable for ninjaing. Therefore, ninjaing cannot be immoral. In-game ninjas can do no wrong because there is no moral agent to hold morally accountable.

What I'm saying is that there is no way to hold a character or it's player responsible for ninjaing. Therefore you cannot be held in morally responsible. Also to argue that the item's are not real. They may have value to a player however this does not mean they are given an existence as a real item that can be stolen.

I hope that this A. clears up some more of what I said and B. Refutes my opponent sufficiently.
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank my opponent for his quick response. A review of Pro's second round will show he only referenced the lack of a moral agent. At this point, all points from my round 1 contention float. I addressed the issue of a moral agent in round 1 and will elaborate more fully and rebut Pro's argument.

Moral Agent:
Pro tells us the avatar and the player are the only two potential moral agents. I will stipulate here that the avatar is in no way a moral agent. The player, on the other hand, is a moral agent. Pro attempts to disengage the player from the avatar by asking rhetorically whether we would hold a player morally responsible for "killing" avatars in the game. This, however, is a false equivocation. I made clear in Rd 1 that allowing players to steal via a special ability like pick pocketing would be fine. The player is simply playing the avatar and using the tools the game provides. In this case, stealing is simply part of the character class so no moral implications could be found to be violated by playing the avatar thief. Stealing from an avatar by means of accessing account information illegally does have moral implications.

The two ways a person can steal in game items from another is by accessing the account of the targeted player (which is also a violation of the ToS) or committing an in game scam, violating the ToS. http://www.wow-europe.com... Accessing another person's account is a violation of the terms of service for WoW and using software to learn another's private information is a violation of the law. In game scams are a violation of the ToS even though they require a remarkable level of stupidly on the victim's part. I see no other way to steal from another person in the game. The moral agent is indeed the player and the avatar is the tool and is especially so when the thief sells the items for real money. The tool in no way alleviates the player from responsibility. I stated this in Rd1 and Pro alluded to this concept in Rd2.

Voters, Pro must show how a player who uses illegal methods to access another's account, then uses that account to get items to sell for future monetary gains is not making moral decisions. "Killing" avatars in game is very different than stealing account information. The ninja cannot get items FROM another player without this information or without violating the ToS. I have a level 80 Hunter. I have 4 pieces of tier 9 armor on my avatar and I have over 20,000 wow gold. Tell me Pro, how can anyone take these items from me without accessing my account?

In addition, Pro specifically mentioned selling the items for real money. Selling in game items for real money is a violation of the terms of service. http://us.blizzard.com... See 8c. The player agrees to these terms of service before playing the game. Using the criteria pro offered, I showed the player commits an act starting with a bad maxim, "I will cheat". Killing players in game is not cheating as it is a portion of the game. I in no way indicated that game play acts such as killing, rolling on non usable items, or stealing by use of in game abilities can be said to be morally wrong.

Pro, again, brings the point forward that the items are not real; therefore, they cannot be stolen. Pro dismisses value as a criterion to show the item can be stolen. I disagree and so does the Model Penal Code:
Section 223.0 (6) "property" means anything of value … tangible and intangible personal property."

The in game items belong to Blizzard Entertainment and the items can be sold outside of the game so they have value; therefore, they can be stolen. They need not be tangible.

Lastly, the thief is stealing my paid for time on the game by accessing my account which prevents me from playing. Pro never addressed this point and numerous others from Rd 1.

Virtual goods can be stolen as I have shown, and stealing virtual goods requires a player to gain unauthorized access to another's account thereby violating the agreed upon Terms of Service for the game and the law or committing an in game scam violating the ToS. The person committing such acts is morally wrong as I have stated clearly in Rd 1 and the player is indeed a moral agent as she must make the decision to break the law in order to gain access to the virtual goods. The entire process must be examined in totality and such an examination will show the moral agent – the player, to be morally wrong. Pro cannot satisfy himself by looking at the transfer of virtual goods only and declare such items as imaginary. At this point in the debate, Pro has not met his burden, has not addressed many of Con's contentions, and has not upheld the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
ThebigB

Pro

The two ways a person can steal in game items from another is by accessing the account of the targeted player (which is also a violation of the ToS) or committing an in game scam"
I believe you may be misunderstanding me. I do not mean hacking of an account. That is wrong and a violation of the ToS. I agree there. What I am talking about is ninjas. In the game you must roll for items. You can need-roll on the item if you need it or you can greed-roll if you don't. I am saying a ninja is the the guy that needs what he does not need and takes another players item that they may have needed on by rolling need himself.
Now onto the selling of game items for real world cash. I state "How can anyone steal a virtual good when said good DOES NOT EVEN EXIST? Clearly you cannot steal something without taking it, and we can no more take said good than we can clone virtual people or shake hands with a virtual person. So how can a ninja steal an item that is non-existent? It's reasonable to assume that thieves are real people who take real items that belong to other real people, and ninjas are virtual characters who virtually steal from other characters" What this means is that since the item is a game item made of numbers and codes that it does not exist in the real world view. While you may be able to sell it that in no way makes it real or gives it real value. If a real person could own the item in the real world then it would have value. However they cannot and so it is not of any true value. Therefore since it does not exist then it cannot be stolen.
Now to defend my moral agent idea. My opponent states " The player, on the other hand, is a moral agent. Pro attempts to disengage the player from the avatar by asking rhetorically whether we would hold a player morally responsible for "killing" avatars in the game. This, however, is a false equivocation. I made clear in Rd 1 that allowing players to steal via a special ability like pick pocketing would be fine." I agree if this was a rule that you could ninja then it would be okay. However it is not a rule it is just a personal choice. My "rhetorical" argument about the moral killing aspect should not be taken in this matter.
What I mean by it is that if you hold a person in moral contempt by stealing a non real item then you must hold them responsible for killing non real people. Killing people is wrong in the real world, so is stealing, however in the game world it is not wrong and people cannot be held in responsibility for it. Same goes for ninjaing an item. There is no rule in game about it. Therefore it is not against the law or a moral code. It may get you bad rap with the rest of the game world but that matters not in this debate.
So to conclude, you still cannot own the ingame item therefore you cannot steal it. You also do not break a rule or law by ninjaing the item. Therefore you cannot be held responsible. Also like killing people in game no one could you morally responsible , nor could they do so for ninjaing.
sherlockmethod

Con

I think Pro for his response and will present my final round of argumentation before concluding in the next round.

After a review of Pro's third round, I am struggling to find an area I have not addressed in my previous rounds as he has left many contentions unaddressed. I need only address the misunderstanding Pro presented as a new argument in this round.

Misunderstanding:
Pro states that he was never referencing the matters I am addressing i.e. stolen accounts and scams, but is addressing "ninja looting" via the need/greed dice rolls. If Pro is indeed referencing this very legal, albeit annoying, practice then I fully agree that such actions should not be assigned a moral value as the game is a role playing game and the player may wish to role play a thieving crook; this practice is perfectly acceptable to me. As such, voters must determine if Pro's initial argument suggested a different definition and whether I was reasonable in my view of this definition.

1.In the first sentence Pro referenced the huge market for selling virtual goods for in-game use.
2.Pro is an experienced WoW player and is familiar with the terminology as evidenced by referencing "ninjas", he was familiar with the name of the land in WoW (Azaroth), and his profile page lists clearly that he does indeed play WoW.
3.Pro specifically said (in reference to ninjas), "Who are people who steal items from others in game."

This is what I had prior to making my first round rebuttal. I am also an experienced WoW player and I am very familiar with rolling for gear (I gave a brief description for voters in round 1) and I know that need/greed roles are up to the group and basically qualify as "house rules" within the group. I am familiar with several different methods for gear rolling so this could not be what pro was referencing because such items are up for a roll and are not in the possession of the avatar; therefore, Pro, a knowledgeable WoW player, must have been referencing something else as he clearly stated, "[P]eople who steal items FROM others in game" (emphasis mine) Stealing from others so as to sell the items for real money is the position Pro appeared to take.

In my opening round, I gave definitions for the terms and clearly indicated that "ninja looting" was not the basis of my rebuttal and that Pro's use of the term "ninja" appeared to be much more broad than "ninja looting" so as to include stealing FROM other players. I made all of this very clear in the opening paragraphs of my first response. I ask voters to review these paragraphs and even a cursory examination will reveal that I am being honest in my evaluation of Pro's terms.

After presenting my first round, Pro responded and did not challenge any of the definitions nor did he elaborate on his initial meaning. He did not offer one response to my abundant use of terms dealing with account compromises and the illegality of obtaining passwords via subversive means and selling items for real money. He addressed the moral agent argument and repeated his claim that the items were not real. At this point, I concluded all definitions and stipulations as accepted. Why should I have thought otherwise? I have no idea how I could have been any clearer.

Pro had ample space and time to rebut my definitions and my review my stipulations so as to determine whether he would accept them in round 2. I was reasonable in concluding that Pro's position involved stealing FROM other players as he clearly made this reference.

I have addressed all other points concerning:
1. The moral agent
2. The means one must use to steal from another player
3. The act utilitarianism position
4. The deontology position
5. The legal definition of property via the Model Penal Code
6. Violating the ToS

Pro has either left my contentions unaddressed or in this last round, repeated (not supported), his earlier positions without addressing the many rebuttals offered. Any confusion over the terms used must lie with Pro as he had ample opportunity to address the matters prior to this round. Pro has not upheld this resolution. I reserve the right to address any new argumentation Pro presents in his final round.
Debate Round No. 3
ThebigB

Pro

1.In the first sentence Pro referenced the huge market for selling virtual goods for in-game use.
2.Pro is an experienced Wow player and is familiar with the terminology as evidenced by referencing "ninjas", he was familiar with the name of the land in Wow (Azeroth), and his profile page lists clearly that he does indeed play Wow.
3.Pro specifically said (in reference to ninjas), "Who are people who steal items from others in game."
I believe that #3 is where we get the confusion from. By the stealing I meant via the rolling system. When a person rolls on [cloth of wasted Saturdays] and need-rolls for it, then another person who does not need it rolls need it is considered in game to be stealing or ninjaing from the person. I concede I should have made this clearer. I thought it was please forgive there.

Now I will refute the argument about selling the "stolen" item. People in game who roll like this and take the item from someone who needed it, will often then go and sell it to people who want it. I still contend that this in no way makes them real or makes them liable for theft.

I will address other points that my opponent brought up, in the order he stated.

1. The moral agent: I enumerated on this in my previous argument. (Mrstabby is still a cool name.) What I said was that there is no moral agent. If you intended to use the person for the moral agent then you must also hold them responsible for everything else that happens. Such as the killing of other players I addressed.
2. The means one must use to steal from another player: As I have also addressed. Now my opponent brings up the point of ToS violation. I agree that violating the ToS is wrong. However I say nothing nor do I mean nothing with the ToS on my theft of virtual goods. I have now addressed this as well.
3. The act utilitarianism position: As I have addressed and disproved that they can say anything in the situation given that there is no moral agent.
4. The deontology position: See my 1st argument and 3.
5. The legal definition of property via the Model Penal Code: Definition of intangible, "existing only in connection with something else, as the goodwill of a business."[1] What this means is that the item is only real when in conjunction with something else from its world. Such as a character. However since the character does not exist and can be completely deleted then the item still does not exist. Therefore it cannot be considered for a moral law breaking.
6. Violating the ToS: I agree with my opponent about the ToS. Any violation of this can be held in moral contempt. However since there is nothing about ninjaing in the ToS then it cannot be held in moral contempt.

So I have now completely addressed all issues brought up. I have defended the resolution completely. It is not possible to steal virtual items via the ninja definition. It is also not morally wrong since you cannot have a moral agent and it does not violate any laws/rules.

Therefore for all the above reasons and the fact that I have defended my entire case. I must urge a Pro ballot. Thank you.
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank my opponent for his final round and a fun debate. My conclusion will be short as my review of the positions offered by my opponent have been addressed and refuted. I see no way for Pro to uphold the resolution given the contentions I have offered. Yes, Mrstabby is a cool name.

WoW is a fantastic game. I play with several lifelong friends now living in various parts of the US. We can get to together, drink some beers, and kill bad guys. It is not poker night, but close. Three of my friends have had accounts compromised and now we require the additional authenticator tool before acceptance into our guild. I don't care for thieves, in game or not, and anyone caught buying/selling anything for real money will be removed from our group. Any violation of the ToS will result in us removing the person. We don't need the GMs to do this for us.

My entire position rests on the phrase Pro used concerning stealing "from" other players. I fully stipulated that "ninja looting" via the need/greed system was not in question. Pro and I agreed on that point. I was reasonable in my evaluation as I showed in my third round. My case is bolstered by the fact that Pro did not refute my definitions in the second round.

I properly showed the moral agent to be the player, and showed how violating the ToS and the law by the actions of the moral agent were morally wrong using Act Utilitarianism and the Deontology philosophies Pro offered. In addition, I showed that in game items have value outside of the game as they are sold for real money so they meet the MPC definition for property as being "anything of value". Pro offered a rebuttal to the MPC in his final round, but did not leave a source so I cannot comment on it at this point. I have a hard copy of the MPC and I did not see the definition of "intangible" within section 223.0. I have rebutted all points and urge a solid vote for Con.

As a side note, I usually attack debates from different angles so definitions are very important. Anytime a definition is offered, I recommend addressing the definition immediately in the next round. I was fully under the impression that the definition was accepted. I thank Pro for a fun debate and look forward to debating again soon.

Very Truly Yours,
SherlockMethod
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ilovemeat 5 years ago
ilovemeat
lol talking nerds on WoW
Posted by DylanFromSC 7 years ago
DylanFromSC
I just wanna make a point.

"You cannot steal virtual goods." - That's a fair opinion/fact, whatever.
"And it is not morally wrong to do so." - It can't be "not morally wrong to do so." if you cannot steal the virtual goods in the first place.

I just happened to notice, so keep that in mind. Ha.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Is it not wrong to steal time from one's employer? I rest my case.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
I dislike when people say "said _______"

its an attempt to sound sophisticated....
Posted by ThebigB 7 years ago
ThebigB
Thanks crappy. Also I did not mean stealing or hacking an account. I am sorry if i came off as this. We still have 2 more rounds so i hope that misunderstanding can be fixed.
Posted by CrappyDebater 7 years ago
CrappyDebater
I see the idea ThebigB is proposing, and that is since the item being "stolen" does not technically exist *IRL*, it is not morally wrong.
problem with that is...
It's no different than you stealing my Credit Card number over the internet.
My credit card number is just as pixelated as the item *weapon of superness* being stolen
Is stealing a credit card number morally wrong? Yes
Is stealing a wow *item* morally wrong? Yes.
I don't believe this to be a non-sequitor.

I do however like the argument ThebigB states about the killing of creatures ingame.
But your not technically "killing" them insofar as ending life, only deleting pixels.

deleting pixels =/= stealing pixels

Nice debate!! You are doing better in this one. Keep it up!
Posted by ThebigB 7 years ago
ThebigB
O i also feel it is neccesary to say that i believe that it is wrong to ninja. I wanted to argue this case because i thought it would be a good topic and a lot of my friends have opinions on it. This entire case is one. Thank you for accepting.
Posted by ThebigB 7 years ago
ThebigB
No no. That actually violates the terms of service. THAT is wrong.
Posted by Illumination 7 years ago
Illumination
You could just as easily be saying it would be ok for someone to hack your account and trasfer all of your gold to their character and that would be wrong in now way.
Sorry, but I go for con.
Posted by ThebigB 7 years ago
ThebigB
Okay then...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Cloudburst2000 7 years ago
Cloudburst2000
ThebigBsherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 7 years ago
kingofslash5
ThebigBsherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by onetwothree 7 years ago
onetwothree
ThebigBsherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by Procrastarian 7 years ago
Procrastarian
ThebigBsherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by ThebigB 7 years ago
ThebigB
ThebigBsherlockmethodTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
ThebigBsherlockmethodTied
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