Debate.org should maintain it's policy of deletion

Thanks, Con.=Plans=Let's look first at Con's proposed changes. The problem with this argument is that despite members being overwhemingly in favor of having the front page debates decided by "likes" for several months at least, no action is currently occurring. Unless negating the resolution causes Juggle to suddenly take an interest in this site, he gains no advantage. Moreover while this would mitigate the impact of making the front page look bad, it still fails to outweigh the negative impact of the forums degenerating into flame wars and public call out threads, nor does it solve for bullied and harassed members leaving the site. The argument is nonresponsive to most of the disadvantages coming off the neg position. Con offers another suggestion and that is to create a "troll" section of the site. I have three responses: The first is opportunity cost. The time Juggle spends developing a "troll" section could be better spent coding something that the members actually want like a team debate option. There's no reason to create a specially mandated section for trolling if we can simply remove debates and threads that are too offensive or devoid of merit. Secondly, this suffers the same flaw as his previous objection in that it's operating in a fantasy land where Juggle will actually implement the changes he wants. Basically what the resolution is going to boil down to is an analysis of how best to deal with the problems of spam and trolling with the resources we currently have--unless, that is, Con gives you a compelling reason to think his changes will actually happen. Third, the entire point of trolling is to get attention and to push the boundary. A specific "troll" section would just get ignored by people wishing to troll--and we have proof of this in the status quo. The "funny" section, the one most anaglous to what Con suggests, lies dormant and ignored. Moreover, Pro gets no solvency if he doesn't give moderators the ability to delete troll posts outside of the troll section. Given his position in the debate, attempting to respond to this objection by giving moderators deletion power in this circumstance would amount to a concession of the debate. =Gentlemans agreement=I assume Con is referring to TUF when he says "TUC", but the problem with Pro's argument is that TUF is not a moderator, so his opinion is no more important than anyone else's on this matter. Even if TUF were a moderator, this is just a baseless appeal to authority but if Con wants this debate judged by who the ultimate authority on this site agrees with, you're going to vote Pro. The fact that things get deleted in the status quo proves that much. =Agenda=First, take Cons argument here about how we should value discussion as an implicit concession of my framework. Vote for whoever best allows for discourse on this site. Con strawmans my position by suggesting I want debates banned because I disagree with them, but if he actually read my arguments he would understand that my position is based on some debates such as personal attacks harming discourse by encouraging division between members and essentially poisoning the site, or spam drowning out any meaningful dialogue. Pretty much every day Airmax is forced to deleted dozens of identical spam threads created by members advertising their products, such as the infamous caste system hotline spammer.Wanting to create an atmosphere friendly to debate on debate.org is hardly unreasonable. =If you ban one you must ban them all=This contention is just patently absurd. Con gives *literally* no warrant for his assertion that either everything is okay on the site or nothing is. The fact that we have a policy of deletion in the status quo disproves this entire contention because controversial topics are discussed *all* the time. We just don't allow Malcolmxy a soapbox to attack other members.I can't emphasize this enough: You can throw out this entire contention because if it were true, we would already see these impacts happening and we don't. Where is this widespread censorship following the deletion of spam that Con predicts?=No one is harmed=Con says that no one is mentally harmed by debates because he's never seen it happen. Apparently Con doesn't believe that cyberbullying on this site exists because in his whopping two months here it's never crossed his path. Unofrtunately for Con and the site, it very much does happen. As a typical example, the member Beverlee was essentially bullied off the site after a member went on a personal attack laced tirade against her for several pages[1]. This once active member has only made 6 posts in the 8 months since the incident. Once moderation was tightened to preclude personal attacks like this, the member who went on the tirade has not engaged in this kind of behavior since. This proves that moderation works.Another example can be found in the history of the notable troll izbo10. As bluesteel explains[2]:"izbo *has* successfully convinced at least one new member to leave the site (although probably countless others as well). Izbo harassed and vote bombed Ninja_Tru for an RFD that Ninja_Tru left on one of izbo's debates. Izbo wrote Ninja_Tru the following RFD: "Reasons for voting decision: I didn't really read the debate, but then again neither does ninja before he votes, so i think he should lose a debate based on my vote as he did to me."... Ninja_Tru left the site shortly after izbo's harassment started. He has not logged in for 5 months." Izbo's harassment of members stopped only when he was subjected to the ultimate form of censorship: banning.Con basically engages in victim blaming when he says that the victim of personal attacks is making the choice to come to the site even though they're going to be attacked if they do so. This is true, but it's a choice they shouldn't have to be forced to make because DDO shouldn't become a platform for abuse. That Con seriously contends that the moderators should not intervene to stop people from being harassed is as good a reason to vote Pro as any. Cons position would force us to stand by idily as a child gets sexually harassed by an adult and indeed, when the notable troll "rationamadman" came back under a multiaccount a member who will remain anonymous disclosed to me that rationalmadman subjected them to sexual harassment in PMs. In the DDO truthbox, several disturbingly sexual and dark messages about an underage member had to be deleted. This kind of stuff happens *all the time* as the internet gives people a layer of anonymity to attack people. This is why we need moderation.Pro contends that there is no clear mechanism to determine what is or isn't offensive--this is a disadvantage that I have to live with because it's true that there is some degree of subjectivity in these things. The problem for Con lies in the fact that this simply doesn't outweigh at all--if protecting members from being verbally or sexually harassed and fostering an environment that leads to productive discourse has the drawback of a few mod slip ups, I'll consider it a bargain.Con shows that he doesn't understand free speech when he ends by saying that it has no limits. Not only does the right to free speech not exist in the private realm, and even in the public sphere is limited by such tests as the "clear and present danger" or "fighting words" doctrines. The resolution is affirmed. 1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://www.debate.org...