Google+ Integration: The harms outweigh the Benifits.

About the Quote reply: Con has yet to prove any improvements of the update 1. As shown by previous arguments, people would not want their personal information/life intruded on by youtube. For my last refutation, this is not only forced upon them all at once, this wasn't done with warning, and so mass transits of subscribers wouldn't do too well. The problem here is that it's forced upon them, losing subs and losing a channel. 2. I pointed you lower down the page in the comments: you really did just try and deny my source based on where you think it should be. You make no attempt to defend the info as presented by my source, carries over. 3. I think that you are missing the points of the sources. #3 clearly redirects to a missing notification page, and I said that #4 lost notifications indirectly, by grouping it with other notifacations you would get on google that are prevalent for youtubers. 4. It's not moot if #1: Bots flag wrong posts and cannot be removed, as shown in video #2, and that the only other way is to find each individual offender and keep on banning them over and over and over and over and over and over... Also, the line doesn't remove the content, that would be like saying that you have to view replies, so 85 replies hitting the button crashing your browser isn't a problem. (Which I have already mentioned as one.) 5. It wasn't marked as spam by the user however. So not being able to remove it removes legitimate discussion, which is a definite harm. 6. Thus update was never argued to be a bug fixing update, a straw man on the point. Con does not counter that destroying millions of comments was worth the absolute nothing that my opponent has presented. 7 & 8 See poll here [1]. Also see poltico argument. In addition, comments on the video and petition show this quite well. 9. The point of a timestamp was so you didn't have to do it manually, making it that way makes the feature pointless, which would just be another harming failure of this update. 10. It's selective triggering on large amounts of replies to comments, something that is rare due to the already harmful grandfather clause. 11. It's a harm not a convenience [2]. The idea that the cesspool of the internet that you want exclusive is forced to interact with your social life is degrading google+ while not adding to youtube. People react differently to youtube comments due to the nature of them. Three con sources under the sky, Seven Non-Video sources set my arguments in stone, Nine for Round 3 doomed to die, One for the Best argument on the throne In the Land of DDO where noobs go to die. One Round to rule them all, One Round to find them, One Round to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of DDO where noobs go to die. My final Argument that rules them all: The Google+ update was done without user consent. There was no beta for youtubers to give feedback, no way of knowing ahead of time of the change. The forcing of this upon youtubers without their consent is "ethically wrong to force these changes unto an unwilling userbase as it alienates them while devaluing the quality of the site and tarnishing your credibility." [3] The Idea that a company should ignore the people that give them the money they earn devalues them as a company and treats consumers as only a means to money and artificial boosts for google+ money. We "typed in youtube.com, not plus.google.com" [3] This says it all. When a company ignores an overwhelming majority of it's base [1], then they are harming the long term of the site, as well as the consumers who get the negatives of the update. It's for these reasons and many more I ask for a ballot in affirmation for today's debate. Also, extend all arguments Extend all arguments [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.kayemills.com... [3] 2nd comment on source #1 on my 2nd round