Logan Paul Needs to Leave You tube

You keep missing the point about South Park. I am not comparing South Park with looking at a dead body (though I would take the position South Park is worse). I am merely saying that they aren't being censored, despite there being a substantial kid fan base. And the principle applies to Logan. Just because there are children who are watching his vlogs doesn't mean he has to alter his content to suit them. Now the suicide video is obviously a violation of policy, and that's not what I was referring to with this analogy. I was using this analogy to show how Logan Paul's references and other inappropriate behavior is not a reason for the video to be removed. Also, my opponent says there are two offenses: graphic violence and traumatizing a child. What he fails to recognize is that he has just listed one offense and one product of that offense. See, as terrible as this may sound, a child being traumatized by a YouTube video is not a policy violation. A child can be traumatized by anything. Like a dog barking can be traumatizing regardless of the nature of the bark. The dog is not at fault for traumatizing the child, it barks because that is a natural reaction for a dog. Sure the YouTube policies exist to prevent people from being traumatized, but even the slightest of things can traumatize a person given the right setting and mood. So being traumatized is not an offense. It is the result of the graphic content. If Logan had put a dog viciously barking at him as he walked by, it could also traumatize someone. If someone was traumatized, it is their own issue. Now the suicide video shows something that can be traumatizing in nature. YouTube's policy rules are designed to stop traumatizing content and this is why the gory content is an offense. But someone being traumatized is not an offense. To make sure I am extra clear, someone being traumatized is an effect of a rule being broken, not a rule itself. My opponent brings up Logans's tags. My opponent is using this as a last-ditch to provide a policy violation. The tags that were put were relevant to the video. You may not like the tags, you may find them disrespectful, but they are relevant to the subjects of the video: Logan Paul, and the suicide victim. My opponent gives an interesting comment that can really help you see why his position is wrong (source quote) "I'm pretty sure that the policy would gladly make him not ok if the entire website was in danger, which is what is happening right now..." Okay, he is implying that the policy can change from one instance to another. The opposition does not realize that the policy is like a law book. You can add new editions, you can revise it for major law changes, but you can't change what book says for different people. Sure, after this they could change the policy. But that would only affect Logan if he did it again. Only the policies in effect when Logan committed a certain violation matter. The policy can't just "make him not ok". When Logan did anything wrong (except the suicide video), he was inline with the policy. And the suicide video isn't an abuse according to the policy. My opponent then cites a legal expert saying that YouTube's policies are vague as don't even serve as good "pseudo laws" But my opponent is still missing the point. They are still, to be colloquial, the law of the land. And the laws are still descriptive enough to assist us in this question. What is an abuse? An abuse is the improper use of something. YouTube is a video-sharing site. While the video's content may be terrible, he is not abusing the platform because he is still using it correctly; to share videos. So while the policy rules are vague, if you look at everything objectively, you will see that the policies are descript enough to make judgments about actions on the site. My opponent then gives a very confusing statement, which I will analyze. (source quote) "so its possible that the people can sue the website into making it a law to not show a censored real, dead body. and it also means that while it is true that you tube's policy is fine with it, the entire websites (and the American and Japanese government) policy is not, which is what you tube works for." He first says that it is possible to sue YouTube into making it a policy. This is not only far-fetched but irrelevant. If the policy is changed, Logan has already made that video and it wouldn't count as a violation (remember, actions in the past can't be punished because of rules made in the future). Plus he has already taken it down himself. Then he says as for the suicide video "the entire websites (and the American and Japanese government) policy is not (fine with it), which is what you tube works for." The governments don't care. It is not a crime. And YouTube works for no one. It is owned by Google. Its business practices must not be illegal but that is it. So I have defended against all of my opponents points, and he has managed to refute none of mine. But to provide clear logic to the reader, here is my argument. Logan Paul has one known violation: the suicide video. Repeated violations can't apply because we only know of one. (I just knocked off all the ones my opposition has been talking about) We also know he is not a spam account (if you like his videos which I do not) so we know he is not dedicated to a policy violation (hate speech, harassment, impersonation, etc). He does have one policy violation. But a policy violation is not equivalent to an abuse. All abuses are policy violations, but not all policy violations are abuses. As we know an abuse is the improper use of something. Logan Paul must have a serious abuse to warrant removal. But all he has done is share a video. This is not abuse. The video's contents are policy violation but his video doesn't constitute a dictionary definition of abuse, nor the one which can be reasoned from YouTube's policies: that it must directly affect YouTube as a service or a user/s. I would also like viewers to note that at some points, the number of grammatical errors and the bad structure of his arguments has made it difficult/impossible at some points to understand what my opponent was saying. And while (after much proof-reading and analyzation) I was able to determine the meaning of most of his arguments, this lack of structure clearly indicates the minuscule amount of thought my opponent has put into this. He continued to cite bad things Logan Paul has done, without ever stopping to consider whether or not they were policy violations. He listed loads morally questionable thing Logan Paul has ever done, without considering their relevance to the question "Whether Logan Paul Should Be Removed From YouTube". I know many of you will possess biases against Logan Paul, and in turn my position. I personally think his videos are crass and obnoxious. But we must simply look at the facts. He hasn't violated policy enough to warrant removal. And thus he should not be removed. Thanks to Minddagger for participating in this debate and interacting in a cordial way. I know debates get intense, and I respect Minddaggers attitude. I believe it is all too common to find name calling monkeys online on this debate site and I respect the fact he was committed to a serious debate.