Debate.org should maintain it's policy of deletion

The vision of what DDO should be My vision on what DDO should be isn’t too different then what it is now. DDO in the past has defended people’s right to free speech on the principle of ‘Free Debate’. You should debate anything that is debatable. Only by debating it will you know more about the subject. What am I proposing? I am proposing that one should have the right to ‘Free Debate’ which is the Entitlement to question, discuss, argue, dispute or contest any topic, concept or subject matter of one’s choosing without exception and not to be impeded, delayed, marginalised, edited or banned due to the subject matter within the debate being considered offensive, controversial or sensitive. Two moderate proposals A suggestion is instead of making the ‘most popular’ debates be a part of the front wall I would instead make the ‘most liked’ debates be a part of the front wall which was why the ‘Rape Debate’ was there as long as it was. DDO should support these two moderate changes to the site which would be much more preferable then deletion of the sensitive, offensive or controversial debating. The alternatives to the current system is for a debate section to be implemented for those who want to have rather unintellectual and controversial discussions. The surreal, absurd, off topic, pointless, nonsensical or humour related debates should have a place on DDO. The alternative is to the current system is for a surreal debate section to be implemented for those who want to have a rather unintellectual and controversial discussion without much substance being attached to the debate itself. There are currently ‘Troll Debates’ and ‘Rap Battles’ which to some should not have a place in DDO as they are not really considered debates. There are arguments that it in some way the fact that these exist on the site, devalues DDO because it has a right to be held. These debates may not have substance attached to them or contribute intellectually, to the possible very surreal discussion, the instigator and contender are having. By DDO making this change by first officially recognising that ‘Rap Battles’ and ‘Troll Debates’ exist and secondly making changes to incorporating these types of debates into the system where these debates can be held and a place people will know what to expect will ensure that DDO presents itself as a place where one can and should freely debate anything and everything debatable without prejudice, interference or censorship. The principle of free debate already exists The gentleman’s agreement, the unwritten rule, the principle of ‘Free debate’ already exists. TUC which is responsible for monitoring debates to see if they are offensive or break any terms, code of conduct or general rules of the site. TUC said in the Wylted’s response to the rage forum that ‘this shows what our site is about’. This shows a moderator formally agreeing with Wylted’s right to hold such a debate and already shows the unwritten rule exists but the next step is to formally recognise the principle of ‘Free Debate’ in the system. When does a debate about DDO become an agenda? When you stop debating and start demanding. The discussion stops and this becomes an agenda for censorship. If you demand censorship on a site called debate. org and you are someone who gets easily offended and you want a debate taking down because you disagree with the debate then maybe the site isn’t for you. The difference between Freedom of speech and an agenda are as follows. Free speech is the right to say I disagree with you. An agenda would be the goal to ban the subject or person you disagree with. The principle of free debate is clear. Saying you disagree with someone is fine. The agenda of censorship is not. If you ban one offensive controversial debate you must ban them all If one debate is censored due to the sensitive topic of rape for example then other issues need to be censored as well. Anything related to genocide, abortion, religion, race and culture. Once you start giving into one group because they are offended. You must therefore give into other groups because are offended. You cannot make an exemption for one controversial topic and not for another controversial topics, you cannot priorities one controversial topic and put it above another. They are either all ok to talk about or none of them are. Once you ban one debate then that will open Pandora’s Box and all hell will break loose and more restriction will follow. The purpose of the whole site is for Free Debate if you start banning one offensive debate after the next, the site can become unworkable. If you keep presenting new rules, the subjects you can debate might be so particular that you won’t be able to debate anything important. Evidence that no one is harmed in debates In my experience of this site since I have joined I have never seen a debate that has physically harmed an individual or mentally harmed them at home unless the individual chooses to personally take great offense to an issue debated. The offended individual sat at home must take an active decision to sit down and take time to read both sides of the debate instead of taking the sensible position of ignoring the debate if they do not believe the debate should exist at all. Below are a few topics that some would find offensive. Race- Arguing whether black or white people are better . http://www.debate.org... Genocide- The contender argued that the holocaust was a good thing . http://www.debate.org... Dead babies- Deciding who had the best dead baby jokes . http://www.debate.org... Religion- This debate concentrates on the subject about wiping out religion . http://www.debate.org... Islam-The next debate discusses whether Islam is hateful. This would be deeply offensive to Muslims. . http://www.debate.org... What is offensive is in the eye of the beholder. How do you determine what’s offensive? The word offensive can have different meanings to different people. Who decides what is offensive? How do measure what is offensive or and what isn't and how offensive is it? Is it by the number of people who are offended? Do we measure it by cultural significance and if so which culture? How do you poll how offended people are in a poll? Is it only the most vocal that matter because they are the only individuals we hear? A test on what is offensive that can be testable and verifiable I have created a very simple test below to gain evidence for the claim that what each individual finds offensive is different to what another individual finds offensive. I predict the evidence will show that not everybody will be offended by the same thing so therefore you can’t really define what is offensive to the community because what offends one person won’t offend another and like such you should not put what one person finds offensive over another and impose censorship accordingly. I'm going to name 10 sensitive topics and you rank which is the most offensive to talk about, make fun of or debate. I want you to rank them in order respective to which subject you are most offended by to talk about, make fun of or debate and a number from 1 to 10 how offensive they are to you. 911. The holocaust. Muhammad's cartoon. Rape. Murder. Race. Religion. Disability. Abortion. Paedophilia. The point of this exercise is to show that what one individual may rank in order what is the most offensive to them will most certainly be different to you. Reasons why someone maybe would find something more or less offensive then you, this maybe due to cultural reasons, personal experiences or family reasons. You might find for example 911 will be far more offensive to New Yorkers in America suffering first hand and higher on the list then to those in another part of the world. There is no limit to censorship like there is no limit to freedom of speech.