Trolling is Wrong

IntroductionI will also lead by thanking bsh1 for instigating this debate - this has been a most civil discourse about a topic that is anything but civil, and I think it is to bsh1's credit that he can take an accusatory position without being coarse or vulgar. This debate has also been quite challenging, which I also do appreciate.RebuttalI will lead with a quick discussion, argue against PRO's 5 points, and then discuss PRO's ontological and utilitarian characterizations on trolling.R1) To my disappointment, PRO again assumes the argument:"Let's assume someone is trolling in a vulnerable forum, and is doing so in a way that truly is unethical."The entire point of this debate is to ask "Is trolling unethical?" PRO AGAIN assumes that it is, without justifying his stance. He is assuming he has won this debate without a debate. This is simply not how one debates.PRO then accuses me of stating that "In other words, the vulnerable are at fault for being vulnerable," which is an insult to the vulnerable. This is not about assigning blame - it is about solving problems. The problem to be solved is to get these vulnerabilities addressed, not to scapegoat problems that arise from these vulnerabilities onto some external factor, like trolls. R2) PRO then states: "Con begins by challenging the definition of trolling itself--claiming that trolling can be used for good." I DO NOT challenge the definition of trolling. I challenge the resolution, that "trolling is wrong" - indeed I have demonstrated a case where trolling is "right." There is nothing in the definition of trolling that precludes trolling being used as a force for "good". PRO continues to assume the argument, meaning that PRO is not debating the resolution, but is only discussing the consequences that would arise IF his stance on the resolution is correct. That is simply not what this debate is about.R3) PRO misinterprets my example of the crime of passion: "In the example forwarded by Con, Person A's intent was not solely (or even primarily) to mock, upset, or to encourage others to mock Person B. Rather, Person A's intent was to persuade Person B from committing a crime." Wholly false. The troll's intent was indeed solely to "mock, upset, or encourage others to mock [the potential criminal]" with the specific purpose of dissuading one from committing the crime. Again, per this example, trolling can be used for good.---Now, onto PRO's 5 points:[C1] I will first apologize that much of my argument for this point is highlighted...but I have found that PRO has grossly misrepresented several key aspects of my argument and his definition on trolling.a) I do not state that "trolling is just scapegoating..." I state that what PRO is doing IS scapegoating, by blaming trolls for the vulnerabilities the groups in question may have. Groups with vulnerabilities need to find a solution to these vulnerabilities. Scapegoating the problems that arise from their vulnerabilities, which may have nothing to do with trolling at all, onto trolls, is unreasonable and unwarranted.b) I did not state that "groups should [] have to be forced to change their mode of communication by trolls." These groups need to change their mode of communication BECAUSE OF THEIR VULNERABILITIES, most of which stem from real world concerns, and not trolling. Similarly, you perform open-heart surgery in a hospital, not in your friend's garage, because the patient is vulnerable. These vulnerabilities were not caused by the dirt and diseases in the garage...these vulnerabilities were caused by other factors inherent in the patient. To blame trolls for the problems that vulnerable groups face on the internet is the same as blaming diseases inherent in a dirty garage for the complications a patient experiences while being operated in a garage. Ridiculous, irresponsible, and unproductive. The solution here is to find a controlled environment for the vulnerable, like a hospital room for patients requiring surgery, or a face-to-face venue for vulnerable groups. To do otherwise is irresponsible for those in charge of care for these vulnerable groups.Therefore, whether or not face-to-face contact is or isn't viable will more than likely determine the success of this vulnerable group. If they cannot, the chance of their group succeeding decreases. None of this has anything to do with trolling. It has everything to do with recognizing the special needs of the vulnerable.c) PRO AGAIN assumes the argument: "Yet, even online forums have rules and terms-of-service, and the troll has undermined those rules and TOS to the point that he has forced the community to either disband or reconfigure itself." How has the troll undermined the rules and TOS? PRO does not explain himself here.d) I will reiterate that nothing in C1 by PRO explains why trolling is wrong - PRO is just assuming that trolling is wrong without explaining why. Without an explanation, PRO has not met burden of proof for this debate.[C2] a) To become upset does not connote victimhood. A mother may become upset if her child does not do his or her homework...does this make the mother a victim?b) Defamation occurs whenever someone takes a devil's advocate stance in a debate, as I am doing here. There is nothing inherently wrong with defamation.c) Regarding a deontological calculus, PRO's statement that "the nature of the act of trolling is inherently negative" is not true. As per my case regarding the crime of passion, all trolling does is to contort whatever positive assertion is made into a negative light. If the positive assertion is itself immoral, such as a crime of passion, then turning this assertion into a negative light would become moral. Thus, trolling can be right.[C3] I cannot view this source, so I cannot analyze the material in it.[C4] The point on "disruption" is IMHO extremely important, especially on this website. Many times, like what I am doing here, people will take a devil's advocate position, advocating something they may or may not believe. They do this for the sole purpose of "disrupting" the arguments presented by a prima facie strong position, such as this debate. Such "disruption" will naturally upset those who have a strong disposition towards the other side of the argument (although I find it somewhat ridiculous to think that these upset people are victims, as PRO would like us to believe). Does this make such advocacy "immoral"? I contend not - such advocacy, such "trolling" if you will (since it fits under PRO's definition), strengthens arguments on both sides. Like boxers sparring in a ring, the introduction of "disruption" into a line of argumentation, while at times painful and most certainly challenging if both opponents are decent, not only improves the skills of argumentation, but also clarifies the line of argumentation, leading to a much more potent argument overall. Such "trolling" is thus beneficial, and occurs all the time on this website.[C5] I've addressed defamation above.On PRO's point about me dropping naivety, that simply is not the case. I ask that viewers review my round #2 point [C5], where I explicitly state that "Honestly naive questions will be rejected anyway as, well, naive," and that "This point is irrelevant to trolling."PRO's point about cherry-picking is irresponsible. I cannot cut-paste all of PRO's argument to rebut, and PRO cannot do the same for mine; he is thus the pot calling the kettle black.---Deontology - I will first correct myself in the prior round and acknowledge that trolling does involves defamation (although IMHO that portion of the definition is not congruous with the rest of the definition). Regardless, as I have stated in [C2] and [C4] this round, defamation occurs whenever someone takes a devil's advocate position and is not inherently "wrong".Utility: PRO's statement: "Utility: the harms of trolling include ruining reputations, psychological damage, and violating rules. These harms outweigh what Con calls "rare" benefits," has zero substantiation. PRO does not quantify the "ruining reputations, psychological damage, and violating rules," thus all we are looking at are two qualified arguments for and against the resolution without any weighing critical for a utilitarian calculus. Therefore, PRO has not met burden of proof from a utilitarian standpoint.ConclusionI understand my position is difficult to accept...however, one must acknowledge that it is a perfect example of disrupting the popular argument that "trolling is wrong". Regardless of whether or not you agree with this point or that point in my position, my devil's advocacy, my "trolling", serves to strengthen both sides of the argument and is a perfect example of the positive benefits that may arise from such "trolling", which proves that in certain situations, trolling is not wrong.Out of room. Great debate. Thanks to bsh1 for hosting.