On Balance, the new DDO site policy reform is generally good.

RebuttalsCon "Argument 1: Some things in said policy are not even personal attacks"My opponent here in this claim states that if something negative about a specific member can be proved objectively, then it is not a personal attack, but is, however, under the policy, a ban-able offense. But my opponents argument does not satisfy the burden of proof in the following sense: he fails to provide an example of a personal insult/attack being objectively proved. You cannot objective prove that someone is an "@ss" or an "idiot. "My opponent claims "If [direct attacks] can be justified objectively, [they] shouldn't be banned" and expects us to simply accept that personal attacks are justifiable without providing a single example of a case in which personal attacks are justified. Finally, if a person makes a claim about a specific member that is objectively proved, then it is likely not a trait that is inherently negative. Here is an example of a ban-able personal attack and a non-ban-able statement on a person. Member X is very upset with member Y, because member Y subscribes to an ideology that member X does not agree with. Member X writes:"Member Y is a f*cking RETARD IDIOT with HALF A BRAIN! !! " None of the claims made in this statement can be proved objectively. You cannot objectively prove someone to be an "Idiot" or that they have "half a brain. " These are terms of belittlement alone, and serve no purpose. You can objectively prove that someone is "retarded" in the medical sense. However, if the person you are attacking is legitimately retarded, you are harassing someone based on a trait that they cannot be held accountable for, and that is incredibly cruel, and therefore ought to be a ban-able offense. If the person is not a "retard" in the medical sense, then you are making a false claim in writing about a person as if it is a statement of fact which is slander/libel. Now here is an example of a trait that can be proved more inherently. Member X is very upset with member Y, following a series of negative votes that member Y cast against member X. Member X writes:"Member Y, this is now the third case in which you have cast a vote against me in one of my debates where you have ignored the facts presented in the case, and instead based your vote only on your own opinions. Your RFD was not based on the arguments made on either side. In fact, your RFD was an argument that you yourself invented all on your own! This is a bad vote, and it has significantly upset me. I have reported your votes against me. If you would like some tips/suggestions on casting more thorough RFDs, I would be happy to provide some. If you wish to cast votes based on your opinion, rather than facts presented in a case, I suggest you visit the polls section. "Notice here how member X has cited specific evidence that objectively proved that member Y was indeed casting votes based on personal opinion, rather than case facts. This is not a ban-able offense under the new site policy. It is never even implicitly implied that the statement was made in malice. SummaryIf what you state is the objectively verifiable truth, then it is not a personal attack. Yes the truth does hurt at times, but it is not a ban-able offense to speak about the truth (except in cases when the truth is then used to belittle others in ad-hominem attacks i. e. . calling someone a "faggot" "retard" or "fatass"). Con "Argument 2: Limits the threshold of debating"My opponents second contention is essentially this: "since direct attacks are a topic that can be objectively verified, they are debate subjects, and there should be no limitations on debate subjects on DDOs"The first claim has been effectively proved false by my first rebuttal in this round, which does immediately invalidate this contention, but I will still attack the secondary portions. I rebut the idea that there should be no limitations to debate subjects on this ground: limitations can be placed on subjects of debate for the sake of civility. In order to maintain the erudite nature of the website, civility must be maintained through limitations on appropriate debate topics. There are cases of debate topics that are simply not appropriate for example, truism. Truism resolutions are statements of fact. Though truism is not grounds for banning, creating a truism topic is grounds for a 7-point loss (as is reflected in national circuit competitive debate). Examples of truism include: "X=X" or "The president is Barack Obama" or "You will die if you cut out your heart. " These are all statements where there is no ambiguity as to which side is true, and are not appropriate debate topics. Another case of inappropriate debate topics would be topics that are incredibly offensive/vulgar. Examples would include:"Hitler did nothing wrong""N*ggers smell""All Muslims must die""Women deserve rape"Again, these are technically not topics of truism (as many are based in morality, a topic of ambiguous objectivity) but are obviously not appropriate debate topics, as they are both offensive and repulsive. SummaryMy opponents case is totally dismantled. His contentions are fully rebutted, and without merit.