-->
@Polytheist-Witch
you should quote the post you reply to, I'm not sure what you mean without context.
They don't and the debate should have been deleted anyway regardless of either user's consent.But the mod team here has opted to voluntarily neuter itself as their style of moderation.
Hypothetical interpretations are irrelevant
You ignorantly assumed that the debate was meant as advocating suicide, when I made it clear I was advocating for mortality. I can't control your interpretation of the title. I do make titles for debates that sound more interesting than the debate itself. It is something I do almost every single debate I create.
You are essentially saying that because somebody could interpret the title of the debate as violating the COC (something they could only do by ignoring the comment section and not reading the first round of the debate), that it should be removed.
No title would have sufficed in that situation. If I titled it something like "Society should implement a Logan's Run law and kill everybody at 30" , it would be the same debate and yet could be interpreted in a way that makes it a violation of the COC.
It is not the mod's job to use twisted logic to see if something can be interpreted as violating the COC,
it is their job to make sure the spirit of the rules are obeyed even if that means some actions would technically not violate the rules, but should be punished, or if somebody technically violated the letter of them but should go unpunished.
Honestly, I can't control what you ignorant interpretation of the title is despite me framing the debate to be impersonal in the comment section and just a few hours after it was removed it would have been framed in round 1. Maybe we should debate whether BSH1's original decision not to remove the debate was correct, though you would clearly lose. Your whole argument is that if something can be interpreted as hateful that it should be interpreted as hateful. You sound like one of those SJW who interpreted the Geico Caveman commercials as racist.
Good luck showing me in the COC where a debate about mortality is a violation. Especially when you said the Logan's run debate which was the same debate titled differently, doesn't.'m assuming nothing about what you meant by the debate title because what you meant by the debate title is irrelevant to the CoC:"[The nature of the comment] is not based upon the intentions of speaker
Flip that, reverse it. The mods should only ever enforce the letter of the law. If the letter of the law is insufficient, it should be modified.
Good luck showing me in the COC where a debate about mortality is a violation. Especially when you said the Logan's run debate which was the same debate titled differently, doesn't.
That so wrong as to be laughable. The reason that most countries leave laws up for interpretation by courts and modified by courts is because the spirit of the law is important and takes precedence over the letter of the law. Take the speed limit for example. It is technically illegal to speed, but when you do so to take your child who got bit by a poisonous snake and is turning blue to the hospital, even if giving a ticket for it, a judge would normally interpret that you violated no such law.Enforcing the letter of the law is the worst way to go, and it would lead to even more injustice in the court system than already takes place. Enforcing to the letter, the COC would have a similarly negative result.
Not to mention, if I am okay with people making personal attacks against me than it causes no harm. It is beside the point but absolutely true and would not be challenged as true by an intelligent person.
Your rules also don't take into account special people. Let's say you can label driving ability 1 to 10, and most people drive like 7s, but when drunk drive like 5s. If I normally drive like a ten while sobor but can provably drive like an 8 when drunk, it is ignorant to lock me up for reckless endangerment when my driving skills are still above normal. So looking at the letter of the rule unjustly punishes people who the rule should not apply to.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.