Airmax was justified with his ban on Jifpop

Friends, DDOians, debaters, lend me your eyes. I come not to praise Jifpop, but to bury him.My opponent has conceded that he has the burden of proof in showing that Airmax was justified in banning Jifpop.You'll also notice that he has not even touched any of my arguments. This is unfortunate, since I won't be able to respond to them in the next round.Since I won't be able to respond to them in the next round, and my opponent is essentially attacking an opponent who is unable to speak, I ask that the voters not put as much emphasis on his rebuttals, since of course, they are rather one-sided.My opponent's argumentMy opponent's argument is actually extremely weak. While he has presented it excellently, and is a fantastic debater, the argument itself is actually very bad.Let me formalize it for you to show what I mean.First of all, we all know what the conclusion is that my opponent is driving at.P1: ???P2: ???C: Banning Jifpop is a justifiable actionWhat are the reasons, or premises he gives for this conclusion?Because Jifpop broke the TOS.So...P1: ???P2: Jifpop is a member who broke the TOSC: Banning Jifpop is a justifiable actionNow our first premise, the major premise, is very easy to fill in.P1: Any members who breaks the TOS can be justifiably bannedP2: Jifpop is a member who broke the TOSC: Banning Jifpop is a justifiable actionNow please note. I am NOT saying that Jifpop should be banned. This is not what my opponent is arguing either. All he's arguing is that it's justifiable.So, as my opponent admits, he has broken the TOS. Thus, if Juggle wants to ban him, such an action is justifiable.So far so good.However, the reasons that my opponent gives to believing P1 in the argument outlined above are because DDO is privately owned, and Juggle can make the rules as they please.This is important to the argument, so we better make this argument a polysyllogism.P1: Whatever rules Juggle state for DDO are justifiedP2: Juggle states that members who break the TOS may be bannedC1: Members who break the TOS may be justifiably bannedP3: Jifpop broke the TOSC2: Jifpop may be justifiably banned.Aha! Now we have my opponent's entire argument written out.Note that he spends most of his time defending P3, which states "Jifpop broke the TOS".I won't be disputing this. Yes, Jifpop broke the TOS.However, the premise I shall attack will be P1.An attack on premise 1My opponent has essentially argued that whatever Juggle states as rules for DDO ought to be followed. However, this is question begging. You might say: How is this question begging?The logician S. Morris Engel explains that question begging can occur when the justifications for a premise are even more questionable than the premise itself [1].Now this premise is actually very controversial. You'll notice my opponent doesn't once defend it. He merely asserts it over and over and over again ad nauseam.My opponent states,"Juggle owns DDO and this is a privately owned site. They are allowed to set up and rules and regulations that they please."Well, yes, they are allowed to do as they please with their site, but does that mean it's justified? Not necessarily.Simply because something is allowed to go on, that doesn't mean it's justified at all. This is a red-herring. The two have nothing to do with one another.Essentially, my opponent is trying to justify his already controversial premise by appealing to another even more controversial premise.Well it doesn't work that way.Having the property of being private property doesn't mean everything is acceptableMy opponent's argument is that since Juggle owns DDO as its private property, then they can do as they please with it. This includes setting terms of service, which they will ban members for.I see no reason to accept this.Merely having the property of being owned by someone doesn't necessarily mean you can do whatever you want with it. After all, why should it? Can I do whatever I want with my property if it directly or indirectly harms someone?Does the right to private property over-rule the principles of justice?Essentially I'm arguing that the fact that DDO is owned by a company is irrelevant. True, but irrelevant.In other words, my opponent is assuming that the right to private property trumps everything else, and thus Juggle has the right to ban members, even if this is done unjustly.I just don't accept this. This is a controversial assumption which we need more evidence before we accept.Explicit vs. implicit agreementMy opponent also argues that since Jifpop has accepted the TOS when he joined the site, he doesn't have anything to complain about.But this simply raises the question... If I sign a paper and don't read the fine print, have I "agreed" to it?How can I agree to something, if I don't even know what that thing is in the first place?In order to agree to something, I need to first know what it is I am agreeing to."Agree" is defined as "to say that you will do, accept, or allow something that is suggested or requested by another person" [2]It's quite obvious that knowledge of what you are agreeing to is a necessary condition for agreeing to it.I seriously doubt that Jifpop read all the terms of service. I didn't read all the TOS when I joined. Did you, the reader, read through all the TOS when you joined? Did my opponent?Thus, the argument that Jifpop has agreed to his ban by making an account on DDO is completely debunked.My argumentsNow that I've completely debunked my opponent's arguments, I'll procceed to rebolster my own.Ore_ele and not AirmaxOnce again, this argument remains untouched as are all my arguments.I argued here that Airmax was not justified in making the ban, since this would cause (as it already has) unneeded drama which could very very easily have been avoided. I have suggested that there is a much easier course of action, and that is that Ore_ele is to be the one doing the ban. Just so that Jifpop and his followers cannot play the victim card.This argument stands.A potentially valuable memberHere is what I am arguing to be more exact:Jifpop has greatly impacted DDO and all the users of this site. Peoples' opinions on him differ.Since he has impacted DDO as a community it is most reasonable to say that DDO as a community should respond. Especially when his impact is controversial. And it is.Despite Jifpop's youth, he has already shown a great deal of intelligence. I've named numerous prominent and semi-prominent debaters he has debated.So I don't see how it can be said that he doesn't have a very potentially valuable future on DDO.Yes, moderators do have their place. However, it just makes so much more sense to let the DDO userbase deal with it. That way we avoid all the controversy of "So and so banned my favorite member blah blah blah wah wah wah".Let's connect the dots.Jifpop has..I. Impacted DDO greatly.II. Is very controversialIII. Has shown intelligence by debating serious topics with prominent debatersIV. Caused drama by his ban.And then on the other hand we have my opponent's complaints...I. He broke the TOS in regards to ad hominemsII. He broke the TOS in miscellaneous regards...III. He spammedIV. He ignored the mods and attacked themNow you can see why this is controversial.Which is why a debate trial is the justified course of action.Not a moderator ban.ConclusionIn conclusion, I have given many arguments which remain untouched. I've also refuted every single one of my opponent's arguments. When we are asking what should be done, we shouldn't go and say "Well what does the law say?" or "Well what do the terms of service say?". Why? Because laws and terms of service are made by men. They're fallible.On the other hand, I've argued that Jifpop shouldn't have been banned, and should instead have been put on trial. He has impacted the users of DDO. Let the users of DDO deal with him.Furthermore, even if a moderator ban were justified, the ban by Airmax would not be, as I have argued and at this point remains untouched.Now here's why my opponent has lost this debate.1. Pro has taken the burden.2. I've refuted all his arguments.3. Even if my refutations of the arguments do not work, if my arguments are put on the same level as my opponents, he has not met his burden.Remember, Pro has the burden here. Which means that he has to show that his skyscraper reaches higher into the sky than mine. I don't even have to build a skyscraper. All I have to do is destory his. However, I have still chosen to build.If our skyscrapers remain level at the end of this debate, my opponent has not met his burden.To win, he must show that his skyscraper is higher. But I have drilled out the supports of his skyscraper and have built my own.Thank you.[1] With Good Reason, 6th edition, pg. 164[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...