Trolling is Wrong

IntroductionIN1) I will first address PRO's conclusion, as I do believe it gets to the heart of this disagreement.PRO believes that I am attempting to "redirect the blame from the troll to the online community." In order to believe this statement, one must already assume that "trolling is wrong" and that there must be blame to assign. In this sense, PRO's arguments assume the argument, making his assertions nothing but redundant tautologies that do not explain WHY trolling is inherently wrong. He is essentially stating that "what is wrong is wrong" without attempting to figure out what makes it wrong in the first place, which is the point of this debate.I bluntly asked in my opening of the prior round "what makes this "wrong"? What ethical dilemma or issue of undesirability makes [trolling] "impermissible"?" PRO has not answered this question - instead, he has brought numerous examples of the consequences of "wrong" behavior, without demonstrating how any of this behavior is relevant to trolling specifically. Instead, I will answer the question - the answer is "There is nothing inherently wrong with trolling", and I will explain presently in [IN2].IN2) PRO's definition of trolling is extremely general with all kinds of loopholes present - it is easily possible to find cases where "trolling is not wrong". 1. Troll - a person who deliberately uses harassing or insulting language or who uses inflammatory language with no other purpose but to sew derision and to upset people. It is "e-defamation" or internet defacement.For example, "a person who deliberately uses...inflammatory language with no other purpose but to sew derision and to upset people" may be doing these people a great favor. If someone was looking to commit a crime (let's say a crime of passion, maybe beating up his wife's brother over an insult) and motivating himself and some buddies to do it, and a troll comes in to deliberately upset this potential criminal (let's say describing the mess of a corpse the victim would have become) thereby defusing his motivation, wouldn't this troll be doing all of society, this potential criminal, and especially the potential victim, a huge favor? This is clearly "trolling" per PRO's definition, and clearly "not wrong". The resolution is thus simply negated. Trolling is amoral - there are moral cases of trolling, and immoral cases of trolling. That does not make trolling "wrong" because in some situations, trolling may well be "right".I will readily concede that such cases are rare, but in the end, this debate is not about propensities and general tendencies, but PRO's stance of a firm, unequivocal moral assertion that trolling is wrong, period. I assert that PRO's stance is simply unreasonable.IN3) I will also state that I do believe PRO has burden of proof in this debate, so it matters little whether or not I bring my own case out. Regardless...at this point, I do believe I have negated the resolution, and have also proffered a case to support my stance.RebuttalI will now address the 5 points:C1 - What makes groups vulnerable is totally irrelevant to trolling. Their vulnerabilities stem from all kinds of concerns found in the real world, and it would behoove these communities to address their vulnerabilities - for example, maybe a group of rape victims want to discuss how they can cope with rape, but for whatever reason, they find it proper to have this kind of discussion on a public forum where the topic is typically about Paris Hilton's make-up. The forum, in disbelief, ridicules this group thinking they're just nut-cases with a victim mentality - why? Because they're simply in the wrong place. To scapegoat these kinds of failure to an outside problem that had nothing to do with these vulnerabilities in the first place (the troll) is just that - scapegoating. PRO then states that "The point of the argument is that trolls not only destroy the trust that does exist (however minimal) but it also crucially prevents trust from forming, and thus impedes communication altogether," which again assumes that trolling is wrong without stating what is wrong with the behavior, or what makes the troll responsible for this situation. People in vulnerable situations will be subject to all kinds of compromising situations that destroy or prevent trust because, well, they are vulnerable. The point is to address these vulnerabilities in the people, not to scapegoat such vulnerabilities on external variables. PRO does not even explain how a troll would break or prevent trust...he just assumes the troll is wrong, and that the troll must be to blame.PRO then asserts that "People should not be forced to change the way they communicate by cruel comments", assuming that people must change the way they communicate when met with insults. This is simply not true. As I have already stated, the troll can be ignored, and thus there would be no problem.C2 - Here PRO is essentially saying that someone who finds freedom in not being constricted to their physical form is somehow going to become malevolent and thus "wrong". No - simply put, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with an anonymous screen name. PRO then continues to state that "[trolls] are unlikely to experience feelings of regret, sympathy, or compassion toward the victim," which again assumes the resolution is true without questioning if this is the case. Now, I doubt that most people feel regret, sympathy or compassion towards a whole myriad of things they are not aware of in real life...perhaps there was a car accident 5 blocks away, or a large warehouse fire in the commercial district. Does this make such people trolls?? Does this make them "wrong"??C3 - IMHO = in my humble opinion.C4 - PRO drops this point. Disruptions may very well be "good". Indeed, trolling may well be "right" given certain (rare) situations. This dropped point, along with my analysis in the introduction of this round, negate the resolution.C5 - PRO here adds another unwarranted qualifier to being a troll - being a liar. There is nothing in the definition of trolling that would make a troll a liar. This line of argumentation is irrelevant to the resolution.I understand PRO has some serious beefs with trolls, but IMHO he is exaggerating the category and placing all kinds of boogey-men in there that do not necessarily merit the classification of "troll".---PRO then ends with two simple statements:1) Deontology - trolling is wrong because it violates the rights of others not to be defamed.2) Utilitarianism - trolling inflicts harms on individuals1) What necessary part of the round #1 definition of trolling involves defamation? For example, upsetting people is not defamation... therefore, trolling does not involve defamation when it involves only upsetting people. PRO's statement is simply false.2) I have already established how trolling may actually result in net-benefits in certain situations, which in a utilitarian calculus would conclude that such trolling is "right" or "good". Trolling does not necessarily inflict harm on individuals, and at times may actually be doing them a service.ConclusionPRO is attempting to stretch the definition of trolling to all of the evils of the world. Trolling can be annoying, no question...it can involve insensitive insults and other sorts of undesirable behavior. This alone does not categorically define trolling as "wrong".I understand my arguments may be difficult for readers to imagine, as the negative connotations of trolling are ever-present. Regardless, per PRO's definition and a careful analysis and deconstruction of it, I do believe I have proven that trolling may well be "right" in certain scenarios, and thus that trolling is not "wrong" but rather irrelevant to an ethical or moral position in general.