Airmax was justified with his ban on Jifpop

I accept. I don't think it was stated, but since my opponent is taking the affirmative stance, and claming that a certain statement is true, he should have the burden to prove this. This is for my opening argument. Very well, let's get into it.Burden of proofI can already smell what my opponent is going to say by looking at his past debates. He's going to argue that since he is arguing in favor of the status quo, then he cannot be expected to solely carry the burden. However, I see two problems with this. Let's just formalize this argument quickly.P1: Whenever something is the status quo, the one arguing against it should at least have half the burdenP2: It is the status quo that Airmax was justified in banning JifpopC: The one arguing against "Airmax was justified in banning Jifpop" should at least have half the burden.First, premise 1. What does the "status quo" mean? Does it mean what most people generally think? If so, how is this anything other than an ad populum fallacy?But why should anyone believe P2? Do most members on DDO believe that Airmax was justified in banning Jifpop? Yes? No? Maybe?My opponent has not stated in R1 who has the burden. So I argue that since he is taking the affirmative, he should have the burden. Why? Because if I start a debate, and make an affirmative about anything I should have the burden to defend it. My opponent's argumentMy opponent's argument will most assuredly have this form:P1: Any member who meets negative XYZ criteria may be justifiably bannedP2: Jifpop meets negative XYZ criteriaC: Jifpop may be justifiably bannedHowever, I'd like to point out that these premises contain built in assumptions.To begin with, it pressupposes that DDO users who meet a certain negative criteria should be banned. In most arguments, this major premise is *never* stated, and is simply assumed. So in addition to my opponent presenting lots of negative things about Jifpop, he needs to show why this is ban-worthy in the first place. Furthermore, he needs to show why a statement which begins with "Any member" is true, not a statement that begins with "Some members".If he were to argue...P1: Some members who meet negative XYZ criteria may be justifiably bannedP2: Jifpop meets negative XYZ criteriaC: Jifpop may be justifiably bannedThen this would be a formal fallacy, and have the form IAA, which is invalid [1].Now here's another point. My opponent is going to have to define these XYZ criteria very very carefully. Why? Because if he makes these XYZ criteria too broad, then it will include other members who obviously shouldn't be banned. if he makes these XYZ criteria too narrow, then it won't include Jifpop. So he has to make these XYZ criteria the perfect size... not too big, not too small. And he also has to adequately defend that these criteria deserve a ban.Then he has to show how Jifpop fits into these criteria.My argumentsNow I'll briefly state my arguments.Ore_ele and not AirmaxTo begin with, Jifpop has claimed..."Airmax has a personal grudge against meI"m sure he will probably deny this, but there is no hiding the fact that I wasn"t his favorite person on this site. I have called out his effectiveness as a moderator more than a dozen times. Usually met with a long response over PM or forum post demanding a public apology. Now, you might be thinking in your head, Airmax is a good guy, he would never do something like that out of pure spite.You're absolutely right. But can we agree it might of swayed his hand? None of us like having our reputation and integrity brought into question. I was doing that, and it's become obvious to me why Airmax would resort to a ban , and not the 1000 more evident problems on this site. You guys may not believe me here, but a person can usually tell beyond a doubt when they"re on someone's bad side, and I definitely wasn"t on Airmax"s good one." [2]Jifpop felt that Airmax had a grudge against him, and that Airmax was influenced by this emotional status.Thus, for Airmax to be the one to ban Jifpop, would, understandably, cause drama and anger.However, there is a better solution. Let Ore_ele ban Jifpop.My argument...P1: Whenever there are two courses of action, one which would cause unnecessary drama, and the other not, the first course of action is unjustified.P2: In this case there are two courses of action, one which could cause unnecessary drama (Airmax banning Jifpop), and one which would not (Ore_ele banning Jifpop).C: Airmax was not justified in banning JifpopI can just imagine what any user who likes Jifpop is going to say. "Airmax didn't like Jifpop! That's why he banned him!!". However, this could easily be avoided by a very very simple action. Just have Ore_ele ban Jifpop.Jifpop's youthP1: No member who is young and has promise to be a good DDO member should be banned by a moderatorP2: Jifpop is young and has promise to be a good DDO memberC: Jifpop should not be banned by a moderatorJifpop was admittedly very young. We all know that. However, in addition to this, he had promise to be a prominent and decent DDO member.He had participated in 108 debates. He had an ELO of 3,850 (which you either consider high or low depending on your own ELO;). Furthermore, he has had serious debates with members like whiteflame, Romanii, CJKAllstar, Zaradi, Tophatdoc, SeventhProfessor, bluesteel, Kleptin, tylergraham95, etc.Furthemore, he has participated in numerous forum discussions regarding serious topics.Now I'm not arguing that a young and promising member should never be banned. There may be times when this is necessary. However, I am arguing that a young a promising member should not be banned by a moderator.Essentially what I'm saying is that when there is a member who is well known, is not afraid to debate some of the greatest debaters on this site with serious topics, has serious discussions, etc. should not be banned by a mod.Instead, I am arguing that a member who has shown potential to be an excellent DDO user should be evaluated by other DDO members.This means that there would be a public trial in which the members of DDO could vote.Jifpop's reason for being bannedAirmax stated,"Jifpop has been indefinitely temp banned for several conduct violations. He ignored many warnings which culminated in my contacting him today. Rather than acknowledging this, he instead made several mass PMs, making this a public issue and justifying this thread."Now while I certainly don't justify everything Jifpop has done, (from reading over his stuff I can see he was rather annoying) I can still argue against Airmax's ban.Jifpop has explained his ban.Jifpop claims Airmax banned him for four reasons."1. I called a conspiracist a fool. I added my signature -_- next to it.2. I sent out a mass PM (One, but the PM glitch copied it 6 times).3. One of my polls had a picture of a English women in a swimsuit.4. Personal Attack Forums"Airmax replied,"That list ignores the context, and there are at least a dozen problems with what is written above otherwise. I could spend at least an hour replying to all those issues but I don't see the point. Jif was given many warnings and he decided to ignore them. When I brought up the issues of just that specific day, he decided to ignore me entirely. His judgement there was terrible, and it reflects his behavior/judgement in general."Now I don't know for sure about Jif's behavior and Airmax's ban. However, the arguments I have given above stand completely regardless of what Jif's behavior was.Furthermore, Jifpop's behavior and ban seem controversial at best. This once again, shows that this topic is not really status quo, and that my opponent should have the burden. He made a positive statement, he should defend it.Or else he should have clarified in R1.ConclusionIn conclusion, I've given numerous reasons why Jifpop should not have been banned by Airmax.Over to Pro.[1]http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com...[2]http://www.debate.org...[3]http://www.debate.org...[4]http://www.debate.org...[5]http://www.debate.org...