The Instigator
Ped-X-ing
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Hushed
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

you need to be careful with what you say on this website

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Ped-X-ing
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 983 times Debate No: 6097
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Ped-X-ing

Pro

3 rounds. 72 hour reply period. 8,000 character max. 3 month voting period.

I will let my opponent start.

X
Hushed

Con

You need to start the debate.
1) Your pro, you have the burden of proof.
2) You challenged someone, have an arguement to challenge with.
3) In order to make the debate more fair we need to have the same amount of speaking time, if I were to post my case then I would have three slots for speeches, while you only have two. I want a fair debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Ped-X-ing

Pro

this is a pointless statement, but you used the wrong form of you're.
you said, "Your pro, you have the burden of proof"
the correct way to say that would be you're pro, not your pro. what about my pro?
you cannot tell me what I need to do until you use proper english.
and as for the burden of proof, there are many different styles of debates. just because I am pro does not mean I have the burden of proof, being the instigator, I get to choose who I would like to start, and I chose for you to start. (there is much controversy on who has burden of proof on this site)

"You challenged someone, have an arguement to challenge with" I asked my opponent to start, my argument would have come after yours. you accepted this debate after reading what I posted, so you agreed by accepting, that you get to start this debate. I specifically stated that I would let my opponent start.

"In order to make the debate more fair we need to have the same amount of speaking time, if I were to post my case then I would have three slots for speeches, while you only have two. I want a fair debate."
Though I do appreciate the gesture of fairness, I believe that you didn't make a very smart move. extra speaking time gives you more time to convince your audience, the voters.
besides, I like to debate in the format of presenting the topic, and letting my opponent present the first argument.

anyway, all of that was off topic, I guess I will humor my opponent and start this debate.

the topic is you need to be careful with what you say on this site
____________________________________________________________________________
need- must, of urgency

careful- cautious, take care

say- refering to what words you post on the website.

this site- http://www.debate.org...

____________________________________________________________________________

since my opponent failed to present an argument when I gave him the opportunity, I will present my argument.

simply put, it is dangerous to say certain words, or to be rude toward another user of debate.org.

in the user's agreement on this website, it states:
"Will follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's account.
No use of profanities or swear words.
No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.
No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.
No threats or implications thereof."

the site directly tells you that you need to be careful. the link is right here, http://www.debate.org...
it is section T

there was a user named CoronerPerry, whose account got deleted... http://www.debate.org...

the reason his account got deleted is because he created a debate titled "VoodooChild belongs in hell" ... http://www.debate.org...

unfortunately, you can't actually read what the whole debate said, because customer support removed the debate, along with CoronerPerry's account.

although, if you go to www.google.com, and type into the search - VoodooChild belongs in hell debate - ...

then you get this page... http://www.google.com...

on it, the top two options send you to debate .com, but the second option which is slightly indented gives you CoronerPerry's first part of the argument...

Definitions- VoodooChild- http://www.debate.org... belongs- To be a part of something hell- where satan lives. ie: "go to hell" VoodooChild is a ...

in it, CoronerPerry used the statement "go to hell"

that is likely one of the reasons his account got deleted.

thankyou.

to my opponent

X
Hushed

Con

My bad for saying your instead of you're, silly mistake. Was it worth writing a paragraph on? Not really. You lack capital letters. Am I going to nitpick about it? No. Thanks for humoring me and starting first. Was it a 'bad' move on my part to make the debate fair? No, I think all debates should be fair, with equal speaking time.

-------- Opponent's Case:

1) Section T doesn't explicitly state to be careful. It does say what you can, and can't do, but does it really require 'care' not to do these things? When these things occur in debate the users generally do not get in trouble, this is because it is on a debate context. These are things that you normally wouldn't 'stumble-upon' in conversation. You don't need to be careful in order to not use racial slurs, since people commonly don't make racial slurs (At least not out in the open.). You do not need to be cautious since this behavior is outside the normal scope of behavior, thus you don't need to use caution. Using profanity generally does not make the administration terminate a user's account; numerous debates use profanity, and talk about controversial things but its all in the scope of the debate and thus these accounts don't get deleted:
- http://www.debate.org...
- http://www.debate.org...
- http://www.debate.org...
- http://www.debate.org...

In addition to this the User's Agreement does not say that the user will be terminated, but that the user may be terminated. The administration doesn't hunt down Agreement breakers and disable their accounts, they do if there are multiple infractions, or lethal infractions: Both of which you don't need care to avoid.

The main point is that normal behavior doesn't require administration intervention. Many people break the User's Agreement, yet only people who break it multiple times, or lethally break it have their accounts deleted. You don't need to watch what you say unless you are outside the scope of 'normal'.

2) Onto CoronerPerry, funny you mention him. I happened to be the one who accepted his challenge, and I assure you he wasn't deleted because he said 'go to hell', as I accepted the challenge on the pro side and have to prove he should go to Hell, yet I wasn't deleted. From what I know there was animosity between them, and among other people, because what else causes people to debate about whether a member should go to Hell? First off this point doesn't work, since I wasn't deleted and I was debating that he should go to Hell. Secondly, we don't know for sure if this user deleted himself, or why the administration deleted him. Even if we did, we can't judge this based on extreme situations: we should view it within the scope of normalcy, and thus even if we did know he got deleted for saying 'Hell', then it still wouldn't prove that everyone else needs to be cautious.

-------- My Case:
Definitions:
Need implies that it is a necessity.

1) Users of this site do not need to do anything. They do accept consequences for what they do.
I don't need to be careful what I say, it is not a necessity. Following the User's Agreement is a qualification for debating on this site, and when the terms of service are broken I am disqualified for debating on this site. I can do both though, and many people do. Many use profanity, and are allowed to debate.

To be more clear: I need water. It is a necessity to my life. I die if I do not have water. The pro argues that it is a necessity to be careful about what you say on this site. Yet, I am not careful about what I say and I am still a living, and debating human. If I was deleted I would still be alive, my life would go on: thus it is not a necessity to be careful about what I say.

2) Regular users do not need to watch what they say as they have proven their maturity. New members have a clean slate, and thus don't need to watch what they say. However, people who receive numerous warnings will obviously get deleted. Normal people do not need to watch what they say, as normal people don't have major anger issues, major racist issues, etc., and don't share them with other people.

3) Debating is educating. By trying to watch what we are saying we will be lessening the value of education. The pro proposes that we all watch what we say yet I see no reason why. Debating on this site isn't about winning, and losing its about benefiting from education. Sure, its nice to win but that's not why we debate. If we start being careful about what we are saying then it lessens the educational value of the debate.

Ultimately it is the owner's of the site who have the final say. They can delete anyone's account, for any reason. Yet, knowing that there is a lot of effort put into managing the site I think we can safely assume that they are also passionate about debate. This being the case I would like to think that they would prefer an educational debate that breaks the rules, over a debate filled with just insults.

Thanks for the round!
Debate Round No. 2
Ped-X-ing

Pro

you're right, it wasn't worth writing a paragraph, but was it worth writing a paragraph in reply? not really. I only pointed it out because it bugs me extensively. And I realize that I leave out capitals, I get so into typing, that sometimes I fail to stroke the shift key.

though it may be true that it does not state to be careful, it is still true that you cannot say racist or derogitave terms. I know many people who use profanity constantly, and also racial slurs. the reason it is not said AS MUCH on thhis site is because they are being careful. because you have to be careful with what you say. I did not just make this debate to say I'm right, I made it to help people.

the reason I made the comment about CoronerPerry is because that WAS my account. after getting deleted, I realized how careful you had to be. I know anybody could say that they were coronerperry, but I created this account they day after I found out my account was deleted

for proof of that statement, how else would I know about the debate about voodoo child. and for further proof, you made a comment that hell is a city, and voodoo child could become governer or whatever. the debate is deleted, so I cannot see that anymore, but you said it.

for farther expounding, the link for mine and voodoochild's scuffle is http://www.debate.org... it was in the comment sections, a few days ago. he told my friend, knick-knack to go to hell, and to burn in hell. that made me mad. I had never used any profanity prior to that, and the only word I used was hell.

sadly, and I know I will be penalized for this, I have very little time left, so I will let you expound on your arguments.
Hushed

Con

----------- Opponent's Case
So we're good on the whole grammar thing, one mistake isn't that big of a deal on either of our parts.

<<>>
As ive proven you can say derogative terms on this site and still be allowed to have an account. Numerous debates focus on this issue, as I have shown above. Its all well and good to help people, but the regular scope of people are not openly, and blatantly racist, or threatening.

<<< for farther expounding, the link for mine and voodoochild's scuffle is http://www.debate.org...... it was in the comment sections, a few days ago. he told my friend, knick-knack to go to hell, and to burn in hell. that made me mad. I had never used any profanity prior to that, and the only word I used was hell. >>>

Yet many of us have used Hell on this website, including VoodooChild and I, yet we have not been deleted. In addition to this the only consequence you faced was having your account deleted, and you can still debate on this site. You don't need to be careful with what you say since in the end you are still allowed to debate, even if it is on a separate account.

The main point is that normal behavior doesn't require administration intervention. Many people break the User's Agreement, yet only people who break it multiple times, or lethally break it have their accounts deleted. You don't need to watch what you say unless you are outside the scope of 'normal', and we can't look at this debate at any scope besides normal. My opponent also gains no offense on the CoronerParry argument. The first voting issue is that the whole Pro case extend no offense.

----------- My Case
You can extend my whole case.

1) It isn't a necessity to life, thus the users do not need to do anything. You can vote con because no one needs to be careful about what they say since its not a necessity.
2) The only way to receive a deletion on this site is through breaking the rules multiple times, or having an infraction upon a serious rule. Those who are in the normal range of people will not be openly racist, openly threaten people, and are usually of a certain maturity level. Those who are not in this normal range will eventually get deleted anyway, regardless of whether they are careful with what they say.
3) By watching what we are saying we are devaluing the educational aspect of debate, and in essence 'killing' debate since it wouldn't be about education, but about two mild people being very politically correct without any argumentation.
4) The owners of this site are passionate about debate, and would prefer a good educational debate rather than a debate filled with insults. We do not have to be careful if we are not loose cannons, which are a majority of the users on this site.

Vote con:
1) Pro extends no viable offense
2) Con extends all offense.
3) Education is paramount to debate, and without that aspect debate will die. Being careful about what we say may lead to the downfall of debate, which is all about expression and education.

Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Chuckles 8 years ago
Chuckles
i'm honored to have my debate be considered controversial haha...
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct - Tie - Pro criticized Con's grammar and Con criticized Pro's request that Con go first.

Spelling and Grammar - Con - Con's punctuation and capitalization was superior to Pro's, ironic giving Pro's pet peeve regarding your/you're.

Convincing Argument - Con - Pro's resolution implies that a slight misstep in language could result in a ban. Con successfully argued that only repeated or extreme cases are banned, which negates the necessity for caution.

Reliable Sources - Pro - Pro was very thorough in his hunt for sources, particularly when he used Google to cite a deleted debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Enduring_Freedom 8 years ago
Enduring_Freedom
Ped-X-ingHushedTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Ped-X-ingHushedTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Ped-X-ingHushedTied
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:24