RationalMadman

also turn the default app size to around 125% or whatever your computer offers, it is my personal opinion that all default icons and proportions are basically 80% of the size that they should be for a proper relaxing experience. Again, there's no substitute for glasses, ask the optician for antiglare if they don't offer it (in this day and age they should always ask if you spend a lot of time in front of a screen). If you don't need glasses, all my solutions will work for you, guaranteed. Try playing around with text size a little but don't mess around with the text contrast, imo.

If using a phone, similar techniques work but on a phone I suggest truly increasing default font to largest and even making colours more pronounced (but not the most extreme vibrance, that will strain your eye differently).

If you want to have a dark mode on sites, 'darkreader' is the most trusted one. Do note they are always problematic as to alter your screen to dark, they need to record every single piece of text that they then turn white or whatever you customise it to, so I personally will never ever get this addon/extention type as it's not like adblock where they promise that they discard anything that isn't inside and 'ad frame' as soon as they 'read it', same with VPNs and such. Screen alterers are very dangerous business and it's why no browser in its right mind will allow a 'theme' to alter your general site display, it's simply too large a security threat. They know many naive users would go for a theme they find appealing and not realise what they're signing up for, that's why both Chrome and Firefox (and basically all browsers) have made it so that to alter the display of websites, you either need to do it on your actual control panel on your computer or agree to the terms and conditions of an additional addon that explicitly is for that and states what it reads and alters, in order to achieve that appearance.

This is the dark theme that is most trusted in terms of street cred:

Chrome (doesn't work on smartphones): https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dark-reader/eimadpbcbfnmbkopoojfekhnkhdbieeh?hl=en

Firefox (works on Android browser as well as computers, not sure about iPhone and never will care): https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/darkreader/

https://darkreader.org/privacy/

it promises that it doesn't store, but it definitely reads every word on the page as it goes along and has to temporarily fully store it in some capacity to alter it and present it back to you.

Finally, I give the arguments to RationalMadman. Exile argued that "Rights are still being infringed, and even if that person did commit a rape it still causes a skew in the college "judicial" system because the punishment will be more severe for the guy being accused." but doesn't actually specify which constitutional rights are being infringed, especially the alleged victim still has to prove the alleged rapist guilty.

Exile arguments about how "an immunity policy does not only do damage to the accused, but also the accuser. As the science of addiction tells us, someone who had been doing illegal drugs/consuming alcohol once will most likely do it again, and keep doing it. Eventually, regardless whether or not a victim gets justice, there's no incentive/motivation for a victim to stop doing drugs or decreasing alcohol consumption. This evidently puts the victim in more danger, as now the victim has the idea that he/she can still do drugs and be protected by the administration. What if another rape happens to the victim? What if their health gets worse and is now in danger?" - The problem with this is that Exile is blaming immunity policies for something that isn't their fault. An immunity policy JUST makes it so that you don't get punished for something if a rapist was doing it with you, and/or also sexually assaulting you. An immunity policy can't do anything about people who want to keep using drugs/alcohol, it isn't meant to be a "motivation" for people to "stop doing drugs". The victim chose to put themselves in danger, not the immunity policy.

Exile has, and I quote, "a lot of sympathy for those who are unfairly held in contempt by a college, and not even given a chance to defend themselves." - Again, they don't need to defend themselves. The accuser just needs to prove them guilty. If they cannot, the accuser could get into trouble for slander/defamation, so it is risky to just randomly accuse strangers of sexual harassment.

Besides, regardless if people are treated "unfairly" in this case, the fact of the matter is they shouldn't be using drugs in the first place.

So I award arguments to RationalMadman, since his arguments were overall better and made more sense, logically.

Both sides had pretty good arguments, pretty reliable sources, great spelling and grammar (probably better than my own spelling and grammar) and good conduct, It's going to be quite difficult for me to decide who to award the points to.

I will start with spelling and grammar since that seems to be the simplest. Most people who vote in debates do not actually seem to care if there are spelling/grammar errors as long as there aren't too many, which, I suppose would make sense, since, it's not really possible for even the best debaters in the world to spell perfectly all the time, and it would be stupid to vote against someone just because their spelling/grammar wasn't 100% perfect. I've had debates where I myself made a few spelling errors, but the voters either missed it or they caught it but decided it wasn't a big deal, and they still either tied it or voted in my favor. Not only that, but, the spelling of certain words often changes in different countries. For example, words like color and armor are spelled COLOR and ARMOR, but in other countries, there is a U towards the end of the word, so it's spelled COLOUR and ARMOUR. Most voters won't penalize debaters for spellings that vary in different countries.

I'll admit I saw a few VERY minor spelling errors from both sides, but these we very minor, and both sides still put forth a great effort to be as professional as possible, so I tied it.

Next is conduct, which I gave to Exile, although both sides could have conducted this debate better.

Unlike RationalMadman, Exile took the time to define most terms so that it would be easy to understand and follow, while RationalMadman barely does that.

Exile listed things that "Con has to do" to win:

"Prove that an immunity policy does not hinder and obstruct the rights of someone being accused of sexual assault and/or rape." - I would say that the burden of proof is actually on Exile to prove this, not RationalMadman. After all, Exile is the one claiming that "College administrators should decline immunity to victims" and the burden of proof generally lies in the one making the claim. If I say that there is a teapot orbiting around planet Saturn at this very moment, it should be my responsibility to prove that, not for someone else to disprove. The same thing applies here.

"Show how game theory is an integral factor for a victim coming forward." - Not only that, but RationalMadman also should have actually explained what game theory was, to begin with, which he did not do, so I was left confused about that.

"Show how the various methods of rape that exist on college campuses today (like the student-professor rape and vice versa that Con points out) could warrant the use of an immunity policy." - RationalMadman did do this thought. He said, and I quote, "when males are raped (especially by females but regardless), which almost always is date rape especially with stronger-built men, it's far harder for them to come forward. If the female is attractive or whatever, it's extremely humiliating for them to come forward about it they struggle to come to terms with the fact that they, manly as they are, were raped by this psycho bitch who often can be charming during it if she wants to, especially if she wants him to get hard. It's disgusting, vile and deeply scarring just as much as rape to any female victim. The humiliation associated with it, teasing from friends 'you wanted it man', 'wow what a pussy' etc are so utterly brutal, unbearable that they'd rather keep their mouth shut. Now, imagine that on top of that they need to get a drug charge and what-not, they're blatantly not going to report it unless they are some saint with a hero complex seeking redemption for their soul or something."

"Prove that the immunity policies that exist don't help the victim overcome drug abuse." - This is not something that EITHER debater has to prove, though, since nobody was really claiming this.

"STILL prove how a student-professor rape warrants the use of an immunity policy (like Con mentioned in his opening)" - RationalMadman did not prove this. All he did was bring up student-professor rape and then drop it without going into more detail about it further.

"STILL prove how game theory is an integral factor in keeping immunity policies on college campuses." - Also needs to explain what that is.

"prove why the rights for the victim are far more important than that who is accused in the first place." - This, RationalMadman does not need to prove since, at the end of the day, people who are accused are innocent until proven guilty, so, regardless who has more "rights," the victim still needs to prove that a rape happened.

"Understand the difference between a plea bargain and an immunity policy." - Yeah, I actually agree with this. RationalMadman seemed to have kept confusing the two. To clarify, an immunity JUST means that, if both the alleged victim and the alleged rapist were doing some other illegal thing like drugs or whatever, then the alleged victim would be forgiven for that, while the alleged rapist would be punished for that, and also punished even harder if it turns out to be true that a rape or sexual assault happened.

"Show why the presence of a net-detrimental outcome for someone who is accused is a good thing for victims, and how this solves the status quo." - Neither side bothered to explain was a "net-detriment" even was, leaving me confused.

Next up will be sources, which I award to Exile. RationalMadman's first 2 sources were a NYTimes article and some random healthday article, both of which have nothing to do with immunity, and have nothing to do with the debate. RationalMadman's other sources were a bit better, but they still go off topic, and RationalMadman doesn't even quote the part of his source, that is actually related to immunity.

1. This is to become the official thread for all 'extras' in debates. You are absolutely free to keep using comments but this is to stop a need for one to dox themselves via Google Docs as well as avoiding the security risk of a random person getting access to editing the pastebin, or even the original person editing the Doc later for the Sources list, debate and/or vote.
   
2. If you want to post a debate after it's due and justify it inside a debate, you should post it here when/if you've posted it to the Docs so as to establish that you haven't further edited it since.
   
3. This thread is to be used for source lists only in debates where it is agreed by both debaters that Character Count shouldn't restrict it.
   

Discord is monitored by the government because of white supremacy accidents, I dont have an account anymore

for DA to really be a competitor we should have an art section as well. That ain't happening soon

If you create an iframe, your site becomes vulnerable to cross-site attacks.

• You may get a submittable malicious web form, phishing your users' personal data.
  
• A malicious user can run a plug-in.
  
• A malicious user can change the source site URL.
  
• A malicious user can hijack your users' clicks.
  
• A malicious user can hijack your users' keystrokes.
  

Steer clear of using the iframe tag. Don't put your visitors at risk to the XSS attacks.