Should people be able to ban others from a debate before they even post anything
This has happened to me a few times. What do you think?
Yes
Side Score: 6
|
No
Side Score: 20
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
Absolutely YES! If you've had trouble with that person or they are an enemy, why would you want them to disturb your debate in any way and why give them another opportunity to down vote you? I do not wish to debate people who are nasty or who never look anything up in order to back up their debates and then GET nasty if you ask them to. Not me brothers and sisters...I've had enough of it. I have no problem when it goes the other way either as a matter of fact there are some people I never debate with if they put something up. I am no longer interested in Jack-Ass remarks. TYVM! I just read your remarks Jake and take grave exception to them. When all that mess was going on with you, Wolf and the person who had the audacity to create a debate with my name on it...I made the three of you enemies. As soon as Wolf and I talked it out, I not only took the enemy tag off but invited him to be an ally. He accepted, graciously. I did the same thing with you Jake. But did you, at least, have the good sense to take your enemy status off of me? NO! I asked you to be an Ally...NO there either! Yes, there are things we never agree on but I have lots of allies that I don't agree with and I'm sure that works both ways. Yet, I respect them. With all your rants you respect nothing. When you first came here I tried to help you and you took kindly to that help. When you continually went overboard on your debates and comments I did NOT make you an enemy. You simply think one way and I, another. I don't need to debate you and if you wish to ban me that's fine with me. If not, then be prepared to be questioned for I will play your Achilles heel like a banjo every time you start your BS! Side: yes
3
points
what if you are taking away an extremely good point? You are taking away an opinion that hasn't had a chance. If someone gets nasty with you during a debate by all means ban them but I do not see the point in doing so before hand. As the debate creator you should give everyone a chance, at least a chance in every debate to prove themselves a good debater. Who knows maybe what your debate is on that person wrote on for his phd you could be taking away an opinion changing post! Side: No
1
point
1
point
|
I think you should be punished after the crime. Preemptive punishment is illogical. In this case, the "crime" is being a bad debater or being abusive or annoying. The punishment is being banned. Give everyone a chance to be smart before you ban anybody. So far, I have yet to ban anybody from any debate and I hope to keep it that way. :) Side: No
3
points
I strongly say that they should not. I find it very stupid. To ban someone who is 'off subject' or 'bad mouthing' is perfectly acceptable but to take away what could be the top scoring debate post is just wrong. Everyone should be entitled to their own opinion on the site and if they cannot post their opinion what is the point? Side: No
1
point
1
point
I would like people to at least have a chance at every debate. If you don't like the person debate them and try to win. Don't just ban them from your debate because of their beliefs. I could not post on the Palin 2012 election debate(for obviouse reasons) So I will, post here. I don't see why Sarah Palin running for president is foolish. The only people I have heard say that are people that hate her. I have some questions for them: 1. How is she not ready to be president? 2. What experiance does she have that Obama doesn't? 3. Say she was unprepaired to be president, What would happen? Would she just read a telepromter? Go on Jay Leno or something? For the record she would not be my first pick I would rather vote for Duncan Hunter or Mitt Romney. Side: No
2
points
I think that people being able to ban others from their debates once they've made an argument if fine, but before anything that offends the debate moderator is said, then no, everyone should have a chance to say something, even if their bad reputation precedes them as someone who may say something rude, stupid, or naive. Side: No
|