PetersSmith Works for Juggle

Direct Responses to R3"Wylted, your arguments did not convince me that Peters Smith doesn't work for Juggle"Good for you. I'd like the judges to keep in mind that pro believes Peter Smith is not a Juggle employee. "Anyone who judges this debate must consider that Wylted broke the rules of "no personal insults" that he agreed to when he accepted this debate."I made no personal attacks on Peter Smith. Personal insults was not mentioned in the op. Luckily for me Airmax has made an entire thread on personal attacks. It defines them, and discusses the punishments. The thread is the reason for about 5 members leaving the site, some of which have returned, but Imabench and Conservativepolitico are the two names that stood out in my mind, because they had shows that could be misconstrued as personal attacks. Here is what Airmax has to say about personal attacks: "A personal attack, in the context of this site, is not "anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable". Not only would such a definition be absurd, it would stifle exchange and debate. If someone is being dishonest, calling them out on it could be considered by the literalist to be a "personal attack". You are, after all, saying something negative about them, personally. But that's not what's intended by the policy."Here we have Airmax defining what a personal attack is not. Peter Smith being offended by what I say in the debate does not make it a personal attack. Her feelings do not determine what is and isn't a personal attack. It also doesn't make it a personal attack for me to say something negative about Peter Smith given I have good reason to do so, such as providing premises for my statement or using some scenario which may or may not be true to illustrate a point. Here is what Airmax says regardin the types of personal attacks: "DIRECT ATTACK, This is where, outside the context of a discussion on the topic or of behavior in the course of that discussion, someone posts something negative about a specific member. Generalized complaints about generalized behaviors are not direct attacks....(Ex.: A forum post saying "You're an idiot", or a debate with the resolution "User123 should be kicked off the site".)"This is something I have not engaged in. No direct attacks were made. We did touch on Peter Smiths "heir of authority", but pro mentioned it first. Besides pro mentioning it firs, it is a generalized complaint of Peter Smith's behavior, and not a personal attack.Airmax: "MERE INSULT, A step below even the Ad Hominem fallacy in terms of argument: Simple unjustified insult. "Stupidity" is not something that can be objectively justified. Nor can other insults with subjective meaning. (A**hole, etc.) Some things which may be insulting can be justified. "You are saying something dishonest" can be justified objectively, by demonstrating dishonesty. If it isn't justified, though, then it becomes a mere insult. Mere insult of ideas is allowed--mere insult of people is not....(Ex.: "You're an a****le", " You f**")"No mere insult has occurred. Peter Smith has not been insulted at all, even if they feel insulted. Airmax: "AD HOMINEM, Should be the easy one, on a debate site; ad hominem is a logical fallacy which every debater should be aware of. Formally known as the Argumentum Ad Hominem.Ad hominem attacks are not valid rebuttals. Which is not to say that the every statement about the person in relation to their arguments is an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that of course a politician would deny cheating, whether they did cheat or not, is not an ad hominem. Claiming that of course someone cheated, because they're a politician, would be....(Ex.: "Well, you're a cop, so your opinion is wrong")"Didn't happen. I made no Ad Hominems in my post.Airmax: "CROSS-THREAD CONTAMINATION, Another kind of personal attack is where a member with whom you've had heated exchanges in the past posts something unrelated, and you feel the need to bring up their actions there against them. Unrelated discussions are just that. Sometimes new discussions do directly relate to the old ones. Then, it may be acceptable to bring up the old ones. Otherwise, if it's not related to the current discussion, it's just you attacking them to attack. That doesn't help the current discussion/debate--it only hinders it. Comment on the arguments presented, and the way they're being presented. Not about the member or your own general opinions of them....(Ex.: In a forum about the relative tastiness of cheeses, User A opines that smoked gouda is by far his favorite. User B says "Yeah, smoked gouda is delicious. But you think that leveraged buyouts are legitimate uses of corporate financing, so your opinion is worthless!")"Other threads are relevant to this discussion, so this obviously does not apply here because the exception is noted. While we're on this it may be of benefit of my opponent to learn that cross thread contamination is a conduct violation, as she has given examples of herself doing just that in this very debate.Airmax: "ACCUSATIONS AND THREATS, Accusing a member of misconduct (such as votebombing) is serious. Obviously, misconduct is bad. But likewise, baseless accusations are bad.If you're going to accuse a member of something, remember that serious accusations require serious evidence. Egregious misconduct of the kind likely to warrant immediate banning should be reported to airmax1227, rather than complained about in the forums. However, if you want to discuss something like an accusation of a supposed vote bomb, you may bring up the vote for discussion, provided you actually have cause to make the accusation. Without that evidence, an accusation is as stifling to discussion as a threat.It should be noted that, even with a justified accusation, stating what consequences will result would be a threat. Which brings us to threats.Threats are, for the purposes of this policy, personal attacks. They are not tolerated.....(Ex.: "I'm going to hunt you down and break your legs", "I'm gonna get you banned for this!")"The only person making accusations in this debate is pro so........ConclusionThe site does go through the trouble of defining personal attacks, I have shown that I have made no personal attack. If my opponent wants to concede the debate and it looks like she does than fine, but I should win points for it. I also want to take the time with what little space I have left to point out that my opponent's theory is that Peter Smith is a freelance writer who has Juggle as either a client or as a tool for gaining clients. A freelancer by it's very definition is not an employee. Here is the definition of freelancer to prove my point."Working on a contract basis for a variety of companies, as opposed to working as an employee for a single company. Freelancers are often considered to be self-employed"sources1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://www.businessdictionary.com...;