Logan Paul Needs to Leave You tube

The Logan Paul montage my opponent put in his statement obviously shows terrible behavior, but it shows no policy violation. Surely a valid point if we were arguing whether Logan Paul is a stupid chotchy person but no one would ever take the negative (contrary) on that one. As for the genitals in the street. I saw skin colored boxers correct me if I am wrong, but I would like to see the evidence. Regardless, censored out nudity (even if it doesn't have the best censor) is not prohibited by YouTube and is not a policy violation. I have eliminated all three of my opponents violations, but they say they have one more. "Remember when he traumatized a child? Possibly multiple children with a video." This just goes back to my argument about not having to alter content for children. Although Logan knows children are watching, he is within his rights to assume only 13-year-olds whose parents approve of all video they watch, are the only minors on the platform. This means Logan doesn't need to account for little children who may be watching his videos. And someone being traumatized by a video is absolutely not Logan's fault. Unless it was the suicide video (which has a dangerous nature) this is also not a reason. To show me the video, my opponent has sent me the same link as before. I am sure this is just an error by my opponent and will be resolved next round. My opponent made a mistake when reading what I said. He said (this is a source quote) "that's 4 offences on his list, you say you disagree that multiple offences equals no ban, but I have a question for you, if someone broke a law 4 times in just a few weeks, shouldn't you put your foot down and give him a punishment?" This shows a clear lack of understanding as to my point. Multiple policy violations do allow a ban, but Logan Paul only has one we know about (the suicide video). YouTubes usage of repeated means "multiple times in a small duration of time." The only person who would know if Logan had violations is Logan. I highly doubt he has any because I don't know of any of his videos being taken down. Now he says Logan Paul broke the rules 4 times. However, as I have just shown, he is only guilty of the suicide video which no one is denying. So Logan Paul has one policy violation. And as we know, a serious abuse (with that being the key word) is the only one-time action that can warrant a termination. However, not all policy violations are abuses. We know an abuse must directly abuse YouTube as a service by directly attacking members and tremendous spam (attacking the users directly). As far as I know, Logan Paul has not engaged in predatorial behavior or spam. Since he has not, nor done anything that constitutes as an abuse of YouTube the system or YouTube's users (directly), he is not liable to be removed. I have said this repeatedly and I am not sure if my opponent understands my logic. I know many of you are biased for your own reason. And I suspect there are not many Logangsters who are here on this site to upvote me. That is the reason I picked the debate. Because it is a hard position to defend. But looking at the logic, you cannot deny that Logan Paul shouldn't be removed. The policy says he is fine. At the end of the day, that's what matters.