The Instigator
True2GaGa
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

It is ok to recycle arguments.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Cody_Franklin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2010 Category: Technology
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,607 times Debate No: 10633
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (22)
Votes (8)

 

True2GaGa

Pro

I think that it is ok, since you are the one who wrote the information. You should have the right to do what you want with your work, as long as you use it wisely. I mean, you don't want to use the same things over and over again do you? I thought not. you should NOT be looked down on just because you use the same work twice! I wish to thank whoever takes this debate, that this should be interesting.

Definition:

Recycle-cause to repeat a cycle
use again after processing; "We must recycle the cardboard boxes"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Cody_Franklin

Con

I thank Pro for starting this interesting debate, but before I continue, I would like to clarify the burdens for the round:

As the one purporting the claim, Pro is required to universally justify the recycling of arguments, as her claim that it is okay to recycle arguments is clearly a universal one; on that note, Con only needs to provide a single situation in which it would be entirely unacceptable to "recycle" material that has already been used, as this would poke a fine hole in Pro's burden of universality.

To further clarify the debate, I offer my own definition of "recycle":

"to use again in the original form or with minimal alteration"

This definition ought to be accepted because Pro herself discusses using "the same work" on multiple occasions, so it's clear that there is, indeed, minimal alteration, if any at all.

Now, though I only have to provide a single scenario in which recycling arguments is unacceptable, I will provide multiple instances for the sake of fairness.

Instance 1: Plagiarism

Though Pro discusses reusing one's own material, nothing in the resolution, nor in the definitions, suggests that the arguments being used are necessarily one's own. Plagiarism, as we all know, is intellectual theft, making it not only illegal, but patently immoral. An example of plagiarism is in one of my opponent's previous debates [http://www.debate.org...]; as soon as one's eyes hit the phrase "The purpose of this essay is...", it's clear that the following arguments are plagiarized.

The idea of plagiarism, or making use of another's intellectual property without proper citation, negates the resolution because "recycling" an argument in this case encourages intellectual theft. In the case of my opponent's previous debate, she attempts to pass stolen arguments off as her own intellectual property. You can call it what you want: plagiarism, "recycling", or a divine revelation, but none of that changes the fact that intellectual theft is immoral, unacceptable, and definitely not "ok".

Instance 2: Redundancy

Recycling arguments within a single debate round is also not "ok". When one's position is attacked in a debate, repeating one's arguments, even with minimal alteration of wording, is merely a tautology which provides no further analysis. On a debate website, of all places, it's unacceptable to repeat oneself ad infinitum without actually providing a logical warrant for one's statements. Just because an argument is "recycled" does not make it any more valid the second time.

In short, recycling to the point of redundancy isn't ok. Being excessive is bad. Repetitiousness is objectionable. Superfluousness is ignominious. Verbosity is dreadful.

I hope I've made my point.

In closing, recycling arguments isn't "ok" on a universal basis. Universalizing its acceptability can lead to repeated intellectual theft, and fallacious, tautological reasoning.

I haven't debated in a while, so I might be a bit rusty, but I hope that I gave Pro enough to chew on in Round 2. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
True2GaGa

Pro

I want to thank con for joining the debate.

Just to clairify. I NEVER said ANYTHING about plagiarism. I CLEARY said.........

"You should have the right to do what you want with your work, as long as you use it wisely."
Nothing in my post of round one said anything about plagiarism. I will message you the reason that the incident ocured. Hopefuly, you will then understand. First of all, it was my first debate.

Claim One:

I said that it is ok to recycle YOUR arguments, did I not? Right. So, if you alter it, really it is not the same thing. And just because I said it, does not automaticly mean that it is true. Bellow i have posted a site to give an example.

http://www.supercollege.com...
Cody_Franklin

Con

I'll skip the formalities this round, and get right on to the good stuff!

1. Plagiarism

a. My opponent claims to have never mentioned plagiarism; I agree to this, however, this does nothing for her side of the debate. The resolution is clearly worded, "It is ok to recycle arguments." This does not specify that we are only discussing one's own arguments. Notice that my opponent has entirely dropped the point that I made on plagiarism, from which I would like you to pull one key argument: even if we accept that recycling one's own material is acceptable, recycling somebody else's arguments without proper citations is not at all "ok".

b. Peripherally important to this argument is the fact that Pro hasn't addressed the burdens set forth in Round 1. Even if we can agree 100% that recycling one's own work is okay, conditional affirmation of the resolution will still leave you voting Con. Remember, Pro has a burden of universality which goes unaddressed by "Claim One".

c. The source that she has posted is a "10 Step Guide" to College; from what I can tell, this has absolutely nothing to do with her argument, so count this source as irrelevant; furthermore, she argues that the debate in which she plagiarized was her "first debate" - first, trying to justify her past actions has no bearing on the debate at hand. Second, ignorance is no excuse. If one didn't know that murder was illegal, it still would not be permissible to murder someone; in the same way, ignorance of plagiarism's unacceptability is no excuse to commit intellectual theft.

2. Redundancy

a. First and foremost, Pro has completely dropped this argument. You can vote Con based on this alone.

b. This argument is important because it establishes the impermissible nature of recycling one's own arguments throughout multiple rounds of the same debate. If I had simply copied and pasted my post from Round 1 (minus a few word changes here and there), I would be recycling my work, but I wouldn't be adding anything new to it. No new analysis, evidence, or insight. Nothing. The bottom line is, redundancy isn't acceptable, especially on a debate website, and Pro hasn't even asserted otherwise, futilely "sticking to her guns".

--- A brief recap of where points will be going ---

Conduct: Tied - I can't say that I deserve this point based on my own perspective, but I saw nothing rude or malicious in my opponent's posts.

S/G: Tied/Con - Pro made a few spelling/grammatical mistakes here and there, but I'm not certain that it's substantive enough to vote upon. Your prerogative.

Arguments: Con - Three reasons. One, Pro never actually answered the argument about plagiarism, and instead put up a personal defense of past actions. Two, Pro completely dropped the argument on redundancy, which only gave more ground to Con. Three, Pro dropped the "burden of universality" overall, giving Con an easy win here.

Sources: Con - Con only had one source, but it was powerfully used to prove a point, and it tied up Pro in Round 2; Pro, on the other hand, provided a source, but had its legitimacy stripped away by Con in Round 2. Con clearly used both sides' sources to the fullest advantage.

5-6 points Con. Thanks to Pro for the opportunity to get back in the flow of things.
Debate Round No. 2
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
lol
Posted by Sky_ace25 7 years ago
Sky_ace25
"I used something I wrote on DDO for a school paper once and I was scared the teacher was going to Google it and think I stole it from "theLwerd" lol."

I lol at that
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Agreed. That seems absolutely nonsensical. One cannot plagiarize oneself. That's like saying that I can steal my own identity. That's almost as bad as those universities that have "quotas" for different ethnic groups, genders, etc.

Universities these days are simply ridiculous.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Cody's RFD is pretty accurate. In other news, I agree that we should be able to recycle our own stuff. Apparently if you recycle one of your own papers, a university considers it plaigerism and you can still get in huge trouble. How stupid and non-sensical is that?! I can understand a teacher wanting you to write a new paper and you being penalized for not taking the time to write a new one, but to call it plagiarism seems dumb. I used something I wrote on DDO for a school paper once and I was scared the teacher was going to Google it and think I stole it from "theLwerd" lol.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Okay.
Posted by retarded-flamingo 7 years ago
retarded-flamingo
prostate cancer, cody franklin, prostate cancer
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
What are you talking about, exactly?
Posted by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
all! its all your fault!!!!!!!! lol
Posted by retarded-flamingo 7 years ago
retarded-flamingo
Tied 13....13 comments....man now I broke it!
Posted by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
?wha...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
True2GaGaCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
True2GaGaCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
True2GaGaCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
True2GaGaCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
True2GaGaCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
True2GaGaCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
True2GaGaCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
True2GaGaCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05