Instigator / Pro
10
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic

I should not have been banned

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
21
Sources points
2
14
Spelling and grammar points
4
7
Conduct points
1
7

With 7 votes and 39 points ahead, the winner is ...

Ramshutu
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
49
1758
rating
42
debates
94.05%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
Number one "should" is subjective so any claim that I should be banned is arbitrary. The reason why "should not" is not arbitrary is because the natural state of things is for me to not be banned, and it is the ones banning me who are imposing their subjective sensibilities onto the world.

Number two I didn't do anything other than cuss out people who deserve it, and the way they lie and distort information is worse than any insult I can throw their way.
Con
Code of Conduct

While you may not like it, this website has a code of conduct that you acknowledge that you will abide by.  At the time of writing, you don’t appear to have read it: as you don’t have the law abiding citizen medal.

The code of conduct sets out what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behaviour - and what is not.

As this is a privately run community orientated website - moderators have both the prerogative and the duty to remove bad actors, the abusive, the disruptive or the racist from a site where that behaviour is deemed antithetical to  the purpose of the site.

In this case, this site is not 4chan - it is not an unmoderated cesspool of personal attacks, racism and ridiculous insults - it is a community debating site - and as such, moderators should ban individuals who break the rules of the website for the sake of the community.

So let’s look at some of your behaviour:


Anti-Semitic speech

From the code of conduct:
https://www.debateart.com/rules

“Slurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited.”
Let’s look at some examples:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/633

“Jews are descended from fallen angels and run the Illuminati”

This entire debate is little more than a crazed anti Semitic rant.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/89

“Judaism is a Hebrew race cult which is fundamentally racist and modern "Jews" are descended primarily from people the Hebrews would have considered savages”
“Jew”

Used as an insult in the final round.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/631

“the Jewish culture and belief system has directly done more damage than almost any other.”

“The majority of 1% types who are corrupt bankers and wall street types are caucasian Jews, and they are greedy and elitist not because of some inherent racial thing about Jews but because of culture.”

Personal attacks.

From the code of conduct:


“A personal attack is any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse.”
“Learn basic biology you incessant plebian crotch guzzler.”

“I am getting impatient with your insane stupidity”

“Please go learn some basic anthropological facts before you put your imbecilic fucking fingers upon the keyboard presuming to spew more ignorant drivel such as this.”

“Fuck you, I hate you because you are a retarded lying c**t and your misinformation should be a greater blow to your conduct than my rudeness is to mine if the voters have any sense. You are an ass licking fuckwit and I hope your step-father molested you.”
“People like you shouldn't be allowed to vote because you are just an anti-intellectual douche and a troll. You are voting against me even though it is clear how intellectually dishonest my opponent was just because you are a partisan shill and nutsack gobbling dumpster goblin”
“Actually you are a lazy, intellectually dishonest cretin looking for ways to reframe my arguments rather than dispute them.”

“Debating you is pointless because you are a cheap pseudo-intellectual weasel trying to avoid having to actually win by debating.”

“You should probably not be smoking crack before you post in a debate.”

“The way you debate makes me seriously wonder if you have a learning disability.”
“Anyone who takes this seriously is a retard who should be in psychiatric ward to begin with.

No, people should not be obligated to "remove ideas they don't agree with" you stupid Orwellian wank biscuit.

Now go bother someone who gives a rats ass about your whiny, annoying finger wagging BS.”

“Listen up you fucking barrel of monkey cunts.”

“You are an ignorant neo-liberal cock holster that thinks being a leftist is about feelings and virtue signaling meanwhile you support the same capitalist establishment that is gang raping the earth and the human race. You know what you are? You're just a fucking conservative with a testosterone deficiency.”
Your history here is primarily just name calling and varying degrees of abuse in lieu of an attack or argument against the position of the individuals you’re insulting.
Trolling:

As well as repeatedly and invariably engaging in personal attacks at some point in almost all your debates, and your repeatedly anti-Semitic debates and language: these both additional make you a Troll.

According to the code of conduct:

“Trolling is the use of inflammatory language or extreme and unsupported claims aimed at provoking a negative emotional response”
Bans

“Bans may be issued for sustained misconduct, particularly when a user fails to demonstrate remorse and/or a willingness and ability to reform. Bans may also be issued, without being preceded by warnings, for one or more egregious violations of the site’s code of conduct”
From the CoC

Whether or not you were warned about your behaviour (I strongly suspect you were) is largely irrelevant as the above repeated and sustained infractions were over a period of multiple months, and at no point have to ever given any impression that you were changing or wanted to.

Conclusion

Given the sustained and repeated infractions on multiple aspects of the code of conduct - including hate speech - the necessity and warrant for a ban is clear cut and unassailable.

Indeed the only part to your ban that any rational human could possibly question - is why it wasn’t permanent.


Round 2
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Extend all arguments.
Round 3
Pro
Forfeited
Con
And extend to the end!