Censorship is alive and well on debate.org.

"You gave PROOF that there was 'censorship,' so I didn't figure you truly wished to debate whether or not it was happening." So are you saying you agree with me that censorship is alive and well here? Or not… That is the point of the debate I thought. I'm confused. What I'm saying is that no matter what the EULA/TOS says, no matter what I was forced to agree to, or whether or not I did, the contents of the TOS allow for censorship and that allowance is being exploited for censorship. Like imagine a club house that says "Entry means you owe me a nickel." I'm saying that entry costs a nickel, and you're saying "It was clearly posted therefore you choose to pay a nickel." The nickel is censorship, the TOS is the sign, and the club house is debate.org So, yea you're right, but that's not a refutation of my point. I don't see your core argument yet. Do you have one? I grant that the TOS allows for censorship, but that's not the topic of the debate, I didn't say that it was absent from or against the TOS. I simply said it was alive and well. 'unfair censorship.' To me censorship by definition is unfair. "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. "If you breach it, it's your fault." No, as any lawyer will tell you almost any language is subject to interpretation. Every forum or chat room rule list, TOS or EULA includes subjective prohibition on abuse and other highly subjective terms. And their interpretation is the only one that matters, thus allowing them to act unilaterally. The TOS is just a CYA like any other. "Censorship of the type you're arguing that they use - censorship where the site removes content simply because it disagrees." 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. "Why would you call regulatory agencies? Of course you don't have free speech if you're actively limiting it yourself." ?! Uhhh, To illustrate that there is no such thing as free speech on American servers? I wouldn't have to make the report if you removed your time limit, eventually the secret service would show up. And how is me calling the Gov limiting my freedom of speech. If my speech were unlimited the calling wouldn't matter. By your logic there is no drug law unless the DEA finds out. Which I suppose is true in a extremely strict existential sense. But I was talking about prohibition independent of consequences. Potential consequences are enough. "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. "You were debating in round 1 that debate.org is censoring people on its own whim, though I've presented a much more likely scenario." As explained above, your scenario does not contradict my point. So it still stands. "Please provide further proof for your claim." The mere fact that they will pull a page for any reason proves my point. I merely made this debate to make people aware of that fact that if they post something the admins don't like (for what ever reason, TOS violation or not) they have the option of censoring it, and have used such an option in the past. "You tried to change the topic to 'they censor because of the ToS,…" No, I merely added that the TOS is the excuse they use to justify their censorship because you tried to use the TOS justification as some sort of refutation of my core point, which it is not.