Charles Wanless should be banned.

"This is an interesting point. However, it still supports the Con case. If Charles feels remorse, then it is unlikely that he will repeat the behavior, in which case there is no reason to ban him." Congratulations. Now youve made the argument of "That man murdered someone, but hes really really really sorry and has promised never to kill again, so lets let him go scott free!" Sorry, but no. Thats not how any judicial system works. Thats not how most civilized systems for anything work. We dont let people go off just because theyre really sorry or promise never to do it again, because the punishment is there for a reason, and the punishment should stand regardless of how much regret the person feels. Charles knowingly made his password easy enough so that his friend could figure it out. Its his mistake. Its his responsibility. This is his punishment. Now all we can do is hope that he learns his lesson, so that the next debate board or forum he visits, he will not make the same mistake twice. "It is more akin to not locking one's door in a friendly neighborhood. The neighbors are trusted, so it is not necessary. If the neighbors breach their trust after years of trustworthiness, that was unfortunate, but no one could have seen it coming. The case is similar with Charles. He had no reason to think that his friend would abuse the account. On most days, Charles probably stays logged in; I do that too, and so do many other people. On that day, however, a malicious entity took advantage of his perfectly normal habit." If you keep your door unlocked because you trust your neighborhood, and one day, after returning home from work, all your stuff is stolen and you suspect your neighbors hand in it, clearly your trust was misplaced. You see, this is the thing about Trust. There are different degrees of trust, and there are things you should never do, even if you trust someone implicitly. I trust my friends. I still wouldnt lend them anything over a grand of money, nor would i lend them my car. If this website is important to Charles, he shouldve put a lock on his computer, or changed his password. Cause clearly, his trust in his friend was misplaced. But the real issue is, that it is still Charles fault. It is still his fault. He is the one who trusted his friend. It was his choice to make. Nobody forced him to trust his friend. Clearly it is still his fault. "My opponent does not back up this claim. How could it be Charles's fault if he gets hacked? If he chose a bad password, sure, but there are many ways of hacking besides trying to guess the password." My opponent has failed to read the original apology letter. Let me restate the key phrase in his letter, here. "I shouldn't use one universal password which had, incidentally enough, been hacked before" This is akin to using your birthday as your bank account PIN. Every time Ive created a new account, the bank manager always, always warns me not to use easily guessable numbers, such as 1234 or my birth date as the Pin, as these are the most simplest methods of getting access to a bankaccount. "My opponent's attempts to give responsibility to Charles are inadequate. In every case he was either acting as expected, or there was nothing he could have done about it. Charles is not to blame for the misuse of his account. Resolution negated."-you I do agree with my opponent on atleast one of his claims. Charles acted like what a normal person would do. This is the reason why so many banks have to tell people not to use their birthdays as Pins. its very common. But just because its common, doesnt mean its not your fault if you get caught. I mean, what percent of the population, do you think, have jaywalked? 80%? 90%? Its a very common occurance. But guess what? Its illegal. And if you get caught, there is only yourself to blame. As for my opponents claim of there being nothing he could have done, my opponent is flat out wrong. There are a million things Charles could have done. He himself admits, and again, i quote; "I shouldn't use one universal password" Which is clearly something he should not have done, something he couldve fixed, and something he recognizes as something he could have fixed.