In the context I'm gathering from this thread, justification is used to mean "attempting to excuse a behavior" when excuses are irrelevant to the behavior's unacceptability.

Behavior can be given an excuse, reason, or justification, but that doesn't mean people will accept it.

What if one is giving reason for a behavior and others call it justification, while also justifying their own stance?

I would say the difference is in intent, and that pretty much sums up how I would distinguish between justifying and excusing. I would be excusing (or perhaps explaining my motivations) if I were to say "Sorry I said that, I've had a rough day, you caught me at a bad time". I would be justifying it if I were to say something like "I've every right to say that, if you don't want to hear it go somewhere else".

One is an explanation of why, with a suggestion that you weren't exactly in the wrong, one is a statement that you are in the right.

Irrelevant.

If I justify not eating babies, while you justify eating babies, the absurdity still rests on the baby eater.

I eat babies because they're delicious and nutritious.
That's disgusting! You're just justifying atrocities. Babies are innocent and should be protected!
AHAH! You're just justifying not eating babies!

Sounds good to me......what if you don't speak so good and come off as the latter while trying to come off as the former? What would you recommend?
Yes but only if the baby eater is truly attempting to justify.....and not just explain themselves. They'd still possibly be wrong but it wouldn't still be justification right?

Also what if the issue being argued isn't so clear cut as being truly wrong like baby eating/killing/etc but something that's in a more grey area of morality?

Sounds like semantics.

Just FYI, you we'ren't banned for arguing, but for the implicit admission that you're a pirate.

Now, frankly, I don't care about debates, they're supposed to be heated, but a rule for #gog since day one is that pirates = gone.

You just got caught admitting that you do something banned by our community, not that you were arguing

Quality of debate is not and never will be a justification for banning someone from IRC.

As for your argument, we do not need to justify anything. People do not need to justify lawful behaviour, they do need to justify the opposite, simple as that. The fact is, that your arguments are commonly held and ones that are believed by many to be held by those who think themselves able to do things they shouldn't because it's "not a big problem" or "is a victimless crime".

So yes, we rejected your justification, just like we would if it came from any other person.

Apologise and clarify. People that have trouble articulating their intentions clearly just need to spend a bit of time reading through their post / message and considering how others are going to interpret it.

Sounds good. I guess i'd also need some good speaking classes as well?
So there is no difference between explaining one's reasons for doing things and justification? Or is there?

The terms are often used interchangeably. Colloquial and personal distinctions may still exist.

Ye verily......this dost hold highest honors for being the best post so far.

BTW did you get my reference in the first post?

It is inconceivable that I could have possibly missed the reference. ; )

Now you really make me want to join the IRC. An IRC channel that bans pirates?

My heart be still.

I wonder if that word means what you think it means.....;)
They also troll everyone, so don't go unless you're used to that sort of stuff or have a weak heart. :)