Logan Paul Needs to Leave You tube

My opponent has brought up a valid point, which is that they have the capability to pick which videos are on the trending page. Note that when YouTube puts a video on trending, it is usually something that they need to promote for themselves or a cause they support, not a video that will make it to trending anyway. This point is irrelevant because it says nothing about whether Logan Paul should be terminated or allowed to remain on the platform. This has nothing to do with Logan and is irrelevant and neither are his points A and B because they pertain to YouTubes malpractices (which are not proven to be in effect in the case) and nothing about Logan's violation of policy. My opponent has quoted me wrongly. He wrote, "first state meant" when I really said "statement". Just in case anyone was confused about what I or he was referring to. My opponent says he has broken the no graphic violence policy. And I have never denied it at any point in my arguments. My argument is that this is one offense. In order for a YouTuber to be terminated, they must qualify the following 1.) Numerous violations (I disagree on my opponent on this and I will explain further later) 2.)A serious abuse of YouTube. The YouTube is implied by the examples YouTube has provided (spam, predatory behavior) My opponent misunderstands the meaning of abuse in this context. Abuse does not refer to terrifying animals. However inhumane that may be, the abuse that YouTube is referring to is spamming comments, videos, or cyberbullying and other nefarious methods of coercion. Since my opponent has brought up these irrelevant issues, I will eliminate them to provide further clarity to the reader. Terrifying a puppy? Well we don't know if the puppy was terrified (and I can't verify as I don't know which video we are talking about.) Also, proper safety measures are supposedly put in place to protect the animal. But the biggest problem with this example is: that it is not a violation of YouTubes rules and is thus irrelevant (if you are not sure why it is irrelevant, you can look at the end of this entry or in my previous entries). The fake service dog. Not a crime. Listen, I have personal qualms with this action. I have raised service dogs for blind people, and I know the level of training and dedication these dogs are trained to have. But Logan Paul had the dog registered at a city/state department. In order to have a service dog registered in the state, you must list a disability. We cannot know if Logan Paul has a disability that Kong assists him with. But we can't assume otherwise, especially since the state approved it. But the biggest problem with this example is: that it is not a violation of YouTubes rules and is thus irrelevant (if you are not sure why it is irrelevant, you can look at the end of this entry or in my previous entries). Saying he had an affair with Santa's wife? Sexual content. I agree, but it is not sexually explicit. Sexual content is welcome on YouTube. References, innuendos, even plain out discussing it is fine. But sexually explicit content is not. The difference is that the sexualness is explicit. I am not sure the ages of all people reading this, but anyone who is old enough will understand where I am going with this. It is not a violation of YouTubes rules and is thus irrelevant. My opponent loves to get back to the suicide video. I agree this is a violation. But it just one, and as shown by my arguments above (and below if you keep reading) it is not the type of violation to require one's account to be deleted. My opponent is trying to use the terms of termination as his evidence claiming I have not countered his argument (not sure what argument so I will just display my construction.) I have. Numerous times. It is the crux of my argument. To lay it out and set it in stone here is my logic. Logan Paul has one known violation: suicide video. Repeated violations can't apply because we only know of one. We also know he is not a spam account (if you like his videos which I do not) so we know he is not dedicated to a policy violation (hate speech, harassment, impersonation, etc). He does have one policy violation. But a policy violation is not equivalent to an abuse. All abuses are policy violations, but not all policy violations are abuses. We know an abuse must directly abuse YouTube as a service by directly attacking members and tremendous spam. As far as I know, Logan Paul has not tried to attack anyone. So he is not guilty of this either. The rest of my opponents points are unrelated but I will cover my bases and attempt to answer. I mentioned South Park as an analogy. The content is vulgar and obscene, but there are people under 18 watching would technically shouldn't. Should South Park have to change? I am merely saying that Logan Paul is fine to add his little innuendos and references as long as it doesn't cross the border to explicit. Laughing at dead bodies is freedom of speech, but that is a different argument. The suicide video should never have been posted, but it was one offense and not warranting removal based on YouTubes termination policies. Logan uses default tags in all videos because of branding. Almost all creators do it. Even websites do it (I know because I do SEO) and this is standard procedure. It may sound bad, but there is nothing wrong with this. It is also irrelevant because it doesn't violate policy. Car crashes from drag race are nowhere near stupid as posting a dead body in front of a public fan base in my opinion. Your opinion, while valid, is shared by very few. The numbers of people killed by DWI's, drag races, and other stupid trouble 22-year-olds (and others that age) is vast. And these stupid things cause suicides by causing depression etc. To answer this question. Because Super Mario Logan needs to be age restricted. In the first video I saw, he described and motioned violent sexual behavior. The puppets give an allure to innocence and to prevent children from stumbling on these inappropriate videos, they have been age restricted. But regardless of whose content you think is more inappropriate. it is irrelevant because neither is a policy violation, nor answers whether Logan Paul should be removed. To demonstrate my logic once more. Logan Paul's suicide video does not count as an abuse just because it is a policy violation. The distinction makes it so that Logan Paul's video does not require him to be terminated. And because of this, he should not be terminated.