Instigator / Pro

Any Topic


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 4 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Pro will waive round 1. Con will post a topic in r1, they are con and I am pro on the topic. They will define the terms and outline the ideas, posting arguments as they wish. Con will waive round 4. The topic must be debatable, not a truism. Pro can win the debate by proving his side beyond a shadow of doubt to be unarguable (preventing con from taking an incredibly biased topic).

Round 1
I waive, and remind con that the debate topic has to be winnable for pro and con. If I can prove I cannot win my side (no logical/trusted arguments in favor), I still win this debate.
Resolved: This house believes that the most recent 42-day ban on RM was based on accurate accusation, as opposed to twisting of truth and/or pure lies.

The first contention I would like Pro to explore is whether RM commited targeted harassment towards the user Seldiora, as this was a prominent piece of evidence used in the ban.
Round 2
I object that this is not arguable from pro's stand point of view. The moderators were given the power to judge based upon their own ideas and their beliefs to what was appropriate to DebateArt. The Moderator has believed this to be somewhat close to doxxing...

Better get ready to do their homework and braid some hair, otherwise the clique will reject you while they blow air on their elitist nail varnish.

Oh, the horror of not being in the cool kids club.
As well as RM's "somewhat concerning" post:

Glad to see you've never changed your mind on anything. Also glad to see that your brain can't comprehend criticising something and using it anyway. I don't care but your ban isn't based on me saying that.
And his confusing "threaten to reveal" post:
You just gave me permission to reveal things about you that I don't want to reveal. It involves revealing your face and voice, among other things to explain the extremely blatant link between you and quantumhead. I am not threatening anything, I am showing restraint in the face of permission to expose and provocation to lash out. Those who want to know can PM me and have a long chat about you with me if they please.
RM has already conceded that what he said to Ramshutu was inappropriate and not with the best thought in mind. Whether it is actually enough to warrant a ban is entirely up to the moderator's opinions and as such, pro side cannot be won unless I was the one who banned RM.
I'm going to basically paste a recent Forum post I made as my entire Round 2 argument. Before I do that, I'd like to say how hilarious it is that what my opponent called doxxing is me saying that a clique is braiding hair and getting uncool people to do their homework... This is blatantly a Mean Girls reference and in no shape or form is doxxing.

I furthermore would like to note that Pro themselves is Seldiora and never tried to say I was harassing him. I thank him for his honesty but would like this to apply to the fallacious nature of my ban. I was already banned by Bsh1 earlier on for the third comment to Ramshutu, combined with other things and this was all pre-amnesty of Virtuoso.

It is very hard to make this thread without living up to the completely false depiction of me that the guy who now goes by 'David' and went by Virtuoso before, has laid out via his sock-puppet Ragnar. I am not worried about being banned for this, after all I was quite literally banned over pure lies so cleverly drawn that even an intelligent member like Discipulus_Didicit ended up mocking me when the evidence he was mocking was literally what I said it was. This goes deeper than simply abusing authority and twisting things to avoid admitting that they banned me simply for being courageous and not easy to tame, Virtuoso has lied to you throughout about his very role in moderating.

Ragnar is the alpha male of this website, so Virtuoso asked him to ban me for 6 months. I have this on good authority and while my sources remain secret, I am not afraid of the mod team interrogating some of their members to find out who told me this. It was already 100% known to me that Virtuoso was the spineless coward behind this entire thing because of something very interesting that I completely forgot to bring up in the original thread where I pointed out that all the accusations were lies:

Virtuoso promised us all when he became chief moderator that we had our slates wiped clean of any previous mishaps under the Bsh1 regime, yet 90% of the evidence they hint at or try to drag me through the mud with when called out on proof was prior to this Tabula Rasa.

On top of this, the multi-accounting, doxxing and all of it are complete and utter fabrications as I never once did them on this website. 

I am not okay with my username being dragged through the mud and I am fully aware that the 'most mature' way to handle this would be to quit the site permanently without posting this thread but I had to just post this to both clear my name and make very fucking clear to 'David' that I know what he did to me and that others should be extremely weary of his backstabbing weasel who will abuse any and all trust you give to him.

I did not ever do 'targetted harassment', if any one single member came close to receiving something like that from me, it was when they'd severely bully me and/or others and I wouldn't stand for it. There are three examples given and the most severe one that remotely was something I should regret and do, it was with a user who himself was completely against my ban and told Ragnar not to ban me. This user has been in some contact with me since and we are on amicable terms so to speak. I don't know who the fuck the mods think they are but you do not just ban RM based on pure lies and think he won't tell you about all your mishaps afterwards.

  1. Seldiora - This is the biggest joke I have seen in a while, I am not sure what to say but Seldiora doesn't feel harassed by me. I asked a member of the website to fully ensure this was the case and I will now tell you that this member was Supadudz. It is up to him to step up to the plate and reveal the corruption and lies regarding both the 'harassment' and 'multi-accounting' which Ragnar and Chris both silenced him on and pleaded ignorant when he demanded proof.
  2. Lunatic and 'DuhHamburgler' - Both on amicable terms with me, were against the ban vehemently and said they did not feel harassed by me and accepted it was a 2-way exchange where I was reacting to them.
  3. 'Other people constantly', yeah? Like who? I can name a few and help you justify my ban better for you. Some people I did not harass but did engage with in a hostile manner on a regular basis were serial bullies Zeichen, Ramshutu and... ? Maybe Zarroette but that was very, very much me being harassed as were the other cases involved. These were members who were abusing me under the Bsh1 regime that Virtuoso explicitly promised to stand against and give us all forgiveness for what we did. I neither agreed with this 'flat out forgiveness' nor am I shocked that when it suited his agenda he forgot he promised that and used Ragnar as a shield to make people not realise who was going back on whose word but David, I see you man. Get some fucking balls and admit you were behind this, let's talk it out here in the open, no more shady PM chats or backstabbing yeah?

As for the idea that I multi-accounted, that's just a lie, literally. Ragnar has been lied to by Virtuoso AKA David. The latter has told the former that me, the guy who single-handedly exposed Sparrow for being Type1 because I let mods be privy to information and clues in what Sparrow was rapping and debating about (as well as his typing style) that he was the user Type1 who he ended up not just using a sock puppet to abuse verbally with but exchange votes, wins/losses etc. I am apparently the guy who later on 'arranged' with the guy I had exposed to the mods to feed me free wins. I cannot even being to explain how utterly irrational you must be to conclude this but furthermore where is the proof?! I happened to be online when Type1 made an alt and posted some debates about veganism vs raw meat or whatever else and I knew it was Type1 based on that, so I admit I accepted the debates knowing it was him. Then the mods banned the account (which I told them was him) and then what? What are they saying? Make it clear.

As for the last thing, I apologise to Ramshutu for the perceived threat. In technicality I literally asked him permission, he even gave it and I still kept asking permission at which point the chief moderator Bsh1 told me that this was not the thing to be doing and I never did anything. I am sorry for the distress but do I like Ramshutu? Well no, however I do take back what was said. I am sorry for being potentially abusive to someone I severely resent. The resentment doesn't justify my loss of self-control. I did not actually lose self-control in actions but in speech I somewhat did. I am aware that the line is important and true anger management would mean I'd be controlling my words, I do that but sometimes it is indeed healthy to get things 'out there'. Regardless, Ramshutu and I no longer have bad blood between us and that's largely in part due to him opting out of using the website which he made very clear by saying 'hi' when I got banned.

Let's see what Virtuoso says to this because trust me, I think him and I confronting one another is long overdue. No Ragnar, No voting moderator that got promoted out of nowhere to site moderator 'MisterChris' AKA Christopher_Best, just you and me David. Come now and tell us the truth. If you want proof that he explicitly promised the clean slate upon being crowned Chief Moderator, you need to do your own digging for the full depth and context of the promise as it was a lot of drama at once but here was the thread he mentioned it in, explicitly:

It is important for us to explore the actual ban's reasoning so I'll quote some of it:

"Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest."

Per the consequences section of the CoC"The specific consequence will depend on the severity and frequency of the violations, along with user history, context, and other relevant factors"

"Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited."
Technically forgiven, but still of note with recent complaints of it not being more rewarded (over a dozen debates from an obvious fake account to give free wins were deleted).

"Doxing is strictly forbidden. Without their express permission, you may not post, threaten to post, nor encourage others to post, anyone’s private or identifying information no matter how it was obtained." 
I would furthermore like to note that not only at all of these lies as I have not done them on DART but that when I have been warned away from someone who felt offended, I not only did that but encouraged that to be a rule in the first place and have made sure the mods protect others from harassment.

Round 3
Con forgets that I can win this debate by proving it is impossible to win as pro, as set in the description and in round 1. His arguments prove me correct, that his premise is rigged towards con, and as such, I win. He has not proved pro has any way to prove its truthfulness. This debate is guided by my rules set, to prevent truisms and incredibly biased topics. Vote for pro.
I misunderstood Pro's argument. I assumed Pro was arguing that it is impossible for Con to win as the ban was indisputable just according to Pro since the mods have discretion to ban as they please:

I object that this is not arguable from pro's stand point of view. The moderators were given the power to judge based upon their own ideas and their beliefs to what was appropriate to DebateArt. 
Pro has decided to completely flip around what they said in Round 2 by arguing that it is impossible to win as Pro.

I will now prove that this is debatable and that Pro is not only completely contradicting themselves by turning on which side is the undebatable one from Round 2 to Round 3 but explain the lines along which debating can occur.

Firstly, my ban really happened, it's not imaginary or something I am suggesting that would never really have been believed by people. The debatability of Pro is rooted in what the mods believed being correct and their punishment, even if too severe or lenient, being based on solid reasoning. To add to this, Pro himself decides to bring 3 accusations to me in Round 2 with evidence backing it up that I tear to shreds in Round 3 as the third I'm already punished for (and it isn't doxxing, which is what they said it was in my actual ban), while the other 2 are clearly not what they say it is. Pro himself was part of my ban's reasoning as a victim of targeted harassment from me and has gone to the length of going completely back on what he says in Round 2 as he now decides that it's the opposite side (his own side) that is the one that's impossible to debate, whereas he originally said it's undebatable because of the discretion mods have that entitles them to ban me as they please.

Second of all, there's a plethora of arguments that could have been brought forth by Pro but which they are too lazy and/or incapable as a debater to bring forth. Pro tried to bring 3 of them in Round 1 but failed to expand on a single one or hold any as valid since they now decided to pretend their side is impossible to debate. The entire 3-4 pillar of my ban are in my second quote of Round 3, Pro could go ahead and back them up, yet opts out of doing so. There's quite literally hundreds of ways to expand and then justify a variety of philosophical, logical and parallels-to-legal arguments that Pro could bring up to explain how my ban was justified and based on truth.

Third of all, the fact that so many in the community support my ban and hold the mods as entitled to their position after this severe injustice combined with how Pro originally said it's my side that's the undebatable one, is proof that the Pro side has grounds to be debated on. The alternative would be that the community is so utterly stupid and incompetent at analysing moderation that they allowed a ban based on complete lies to be subjectively deemed valid while objectively being false. This is what Pro is saying it is, conceding the entire debate, but Pro had so many ways to begin to counter me, which Ragnar himself has done in two separate threads as well as in the post I quoted second (which is snippets of the original ban justification). It's not my job to argue for Pro to prove that Pro's side can be argued, only to prove it can be debated (which Pro themselves said is true as Con can't be debated according to what I quote from Pro's Round 2).
Round 4
I didn’t say con was impossible to win, if you carefully read round two. Anyways I will allow you to post a r4 since you abstained r1.

That being said, Ragnar felt he was justified and con felt like Ragnar was just being a puppet. Ragnar has his personal reasons for banning you. Due to personal bias occurring with your personality and posts I think he just felt you went too far and accepted all other accusations. As such I think it’s reasonable to say as a bystander, pro side cannot be won unless I am Ragnar (because of his beliefs, standard of enforcement, etc.) from any objective standpoint con is completely correct with truism that the ideas. He did not threaten me personally and he only insulted Ramshutu. Therefore con is right that he was banned over pure lies, and that I had no way to argue my side, as I am not Ragnar so I do not know truly what limited info he had to work with, true or false. Vote for pro
Pro has conceded but this was entirely debatable.

I waive this Round.