Debate.org should maintain it's policy of deletion

=How to judge=Con is basing his entire strategy for winning this debate on the question of subjectivity--since Con contends that there's no real objective definition of what could be considered pornography or a personal attack mod slip ups are inevitable. This argument has to be ignored for third reasons: First, Con never demonstrated why this is bad. Sure, Airmax has to make judgement calls sometimes and he sometimes makes decisions that are questionable, but Con never showed how this is damaging to discourse. Where's the censorship? Second, like I said in my last round this is outwieghed by creating an intelligent and safe atmosphere for members. Third, this argument applies equally to all human laws even something as simple as moderation on a website. I could just as easily argue against criminalizing murder because there is no objectively agreed upon system of morality so what's really a murder? What separates human society from animal groupings is judgement, human societies implement and enforce rules and laws and while our systems do not ensure perfect outcomes, they're better than saying "screw it" and not even trying. Compare this nebulous argument to the weighing system I've advocated throughout the round: that we should encourage a system that best allows for intellectual discourse. Con tries to brush this off as being "elitist". Reject this because even if this were true we should defer to Juggle's stated mission for this site over Cons calls for equality for spammers. Con *does not contend* any impact, all he has to offer is that there is no precise definition of what is an intelligent debate. This may be true, but any reasonable person can conclude that whatever your opinion of what an intelligent debate is, fostering a community where Malcolmxy can get on a soapbox to take over the forums (and knock down other conversations) and attack members runs contrary to it. Con strawmans this to mean that I want to go on a purge of people who have differing opinions or dissenting votes, but all I'm advocating is the *status quo* where we have these things but delete personal attacks, spam, and pornography among a myriad of other things. It is not my obligation to come up with a utopia that perfectly defines intelligent debate and enforces that, all I have to do is show that the status quo is better than Cons plan and I have.Keep in mind as well that all of Con's arguments can be considered prima facie false unless he proves they are happening in the status quo because we don't have his system. Thus you vote Pro because Con has utterly failed to show why his system is superior. =My case=I. SpamVote Pro here for two reasons: First, the definition *Con provided* of his free debate policy clearly says that *nothing* gets deleted. This clearly covers spam. Con shows his unfamiliarity with the DDO community by suggesting that spam is an isolated incident--several days in a row members have had to bump threads on the main page as it became awash with spam. Second, vote Con down here for trying to shift the goal posts. This is incredibly unfair to me as I've been arguing against the definition he provided for this entire round and now he tries to backpedal and say "oh nom that isn't what I meant" even though its *clearly* included in the definition. This kind of argumentation is bad for debate and should not be tolerated. II. Offensive debates Cons only response to my personal attacks argument is that he proposes on top of free debates to reform the way that things are displayed on the main page. Unfortunately for Con, he made absolutely no response to my argument that unless negating the resolution causes Juggle to implement these changes, he gains no advantage. In policy debate, there is an established principle called "fiat" which basically means that we wave a magical wand and assume that the resolution, and the affirmatives plan regarding the resolution, can actually be implemented--otherwise debates would become vote counting and arguments would sound like this: "Senator Reid supports the plan, card. Senator Hagan supports the plan, card". However, Con is *not* granted fiat for nontopical plans. His plans regarding a troll section and making front page debates be decided by upvotes are not moderation changes, so he doesn't gain any impact from them unless he proves that they're actually going to happen. That Con is relying upon nontopical plans to bolster his plan into feasibility shows how it isn't going to work. Vote Pro because I provide the best plan for solving the problems of trolling and spam within the contraints of reality. Con also made no response to the argument that a troll section would be useless as trolls would just ignore it and that it is useless without moderation to force them to keep their nonsense out of the main forums.Indeed, Con never disputes that causing the forums to be awash with personal attacks if there was no deletion and I showed an example of this. Con gives no reason why we should prefer his misreprentation of the right to free speech over creating a safe atmosphere for members. Con cites the YouTube comment section and their (always ignored) mantra of "don't feed the trolls" as ideal. This is literally a better argument to vote Pro than anything I could've come up with. Con wants to take a special and unique site like DDO and turn it into the absolute mess that is the YouTube comment section on virtually every video. It's an unfair burden to throw upon our members to expect them not to respond to people attacking them and their character. Perhaps Con is right that fighting fire with fire is not always the best idea. I think, however, that we can agree that fighting fire with things that put fire out is better than ignoring it. By Cons own analogy, we ought to have moderation.Con argues that Juggle should appeal to the widest audience possible and that the status quo is "a very stringent system which is not helpful to their overall appeal to a new young vibrant market." Again, Con shows that he knows absolutely nothing of the community he's recommending changes for because the *vast* majority of active members fall into what would be considered by any definition "young". Con does not prove that young people are turned off from the site by a moderation policy that protects members like Beverlee from being mercilessly bullied by an older man, or one that protects people from sexual harassment. Con tries to argue against my pornography point that there is a grey area and therefore we should tolerate instances that are clearly not grey. Cons position would allow me to accept a debate from a 12 year old girl and post as my "argument" a video of two girls one cup. Con contradicts himself when he says he wants "peaceful diversity" and then rejects the only means a website has to keep peace: moderation. Cons only real argument for why the status quo is bad is that it's untenable because "You cannot expect a few moderators to control the behaviour of about 200k members of DDO." Once more, Con shows he knows literally nothing about the sites community because the VAST VAST VAST majority of those 200k accounts are unused. The active community likely constitutes, at most, 150 members. The resolution is affirmed.