Censorship is alive and well on debate.org.

I'm just going to tackle the big things my opponent said. >>To me censorship by definition is unfair.<< That is where you and the rest of the world disagree. If you post child porn, like you suggested in your other post, do you expect that to be able to remain? It's someone else's server! Also, using your analogy, is charging someone rent also automatically unfair? There's a house (apartment) and it says (on a contract, not on the door) that you need to pay X per month to live there. It's not unfair or ridiculous by any means. Debate.org wants to cater to a certain audience, and so they don't allow you to do certain things on their site that would steer these audiences away. You expect to just be given the automatic right to post whatever you want, hateful, profane, whatever. The site wants this to be a certain atmosphere, you have agreed in the ToS to comply, and you complain when they don't allow you to post things that are against the ToS? >>[me] "They don't decide when and if the ToS is breached. You do, by breaching it." That's circular. Why did the page get taken down? Because I broke the TOS. How do you know? They took the page down.<< No, you know if it's against the terms of service by reading the terms of service. Each member agreed to the terms of service upon account creation. We also specifically agreed not to resort to personal attacks or profanity. Not complying with this means we breach the ToS. >>Right, which they enact by using selective interpretation. Look, I'm not saying it's not tidy I'm saying its still censorship. A rose by any other name, and all that.<< I have put forward a much more likely case. A case where it is not the whim of the webmasters, but that of a user who contacted customer support. The more controversy you stir up on here, _the better_ from the view of the site's owners. Also, you're purely speculating when you say they're interpreting. It could have been something quite uninterpretable, such as using profanity or personal attacks. You haven't given any information on why it was shut down except 'they probably just didn't like the topic.' >>"Censorship is not alive, therefore you lose." Don't be pedantic. If you wish to play that game I can easily show that life is a meaningless and arbitrary term.<< Go ahead, but it doesn't change the fact that censorship is not alive, which you claim it is. Debate.org does not censor ideas, they simply limit the way you express these ideas on their site. And they fairly tell you the limits beforehand. In the cases where they might suppress your ideas, it is because they are forced to by law (if you had a debate on how best to assassinate the president, for example). While my opponent is trying to argue that debate.org will simply censor at its whim, it has no motive. He's also arguing that censorship is by its nature unfair. This is obviously not the case. If I own a site, I get to decide what goes there. If I make an agreement, such as a ToS, with members of my site, I am expected to uphold it, as are my members. If my members breach the terms they agreed to, it's not unfair in the least for me to remove the users and/or their ToS-breaching content from my site.