The Instigator
Ragnar
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
hect
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Plagiarism Should be Penalized on DDO

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...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,315 times Debate No: 73750
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (8)

 

Ragnar

Pro

This debate is in response to comments made by DDO user Hect, who may present his case in R1.

Definitions are common English, if in doubt, Merriam-Webster dictionary.
hect

Con

This debate is taking place as I used part Sam harris's argument on free will in my own free will debate.

Now first of all after I have thoroughly read the DDO privacy policy and terms of use, no where does it say one cannot plagiarize, it merely only recommends sourcing material as a way of showing prove for claims. Now under what authority does my opponent claim to penalise people for? The answer is none. If everyone wanted to penalize people for their own made up rules DDO would be a nightmare and no one could have good thought provoking challenging debates without biased votes.

Now it appears my opponent has made up his own rules on plagiarism which again are not listed in the rules of this website and thinks that standard should apply to everyone. I have been cited by my opponent for a philosophical argument which I felt needed no reference as it was not an argument that asserted any facts it only required one to think about what I was saying. I'm no expert but I would say the majority of people whether knowingly or unknowingly have plagiarized in their own arguments on this website. Should everyone who has used the 'flying spaghetti monster' argument cite Bobby Henderson (the founder) every time they mention it, or when someone uses the watchmaker analogy for intelligent design should they then reference William Paley, or Blaise Pascal everytime someone says "I'd rather not live like there isn't a God than die and find out there really is"? No of course not these are only arguments one needs to think about to understand the meaning and no reference is needed, as with my philosophical argument on free will.
Debate Round No. 1
Ragnar

Pro

Section headings underlined, opponent quotes in bold, source quotes in italics. First I shall crush Hect's case, then present my own.

Rebuttals:
"I have thoroughly read the DDO privacy policy and terms of use, no where does it say one cannot plagiarize"
1. Nowhere is one word.
1. Ignorance that particular intentionally unethical behavior is illegal, is no defense.
2. Failing at literacy to cause such lapse, is also no defense. The Terms of Use which Hect claims to have "thoroughly read" contains the following highlights; from the Code of Conduct "Will not impersonate any person or entity," and from Proprietary Rights "All material you post on Debate.org, including debate arguments… becomes the property of Debate.org" [1]. Plagiarism is impersonating the author/owner of intellectual property, and here it is attempting to unlawfully cede ownership to Debate.org.

"under what authority does my opponent claim to penalise people for? The answer is none."
1. Penalize is spelled with a Z.
2. Rather than listing the many qualifications, I will simply cite the official How to Vote guide's statement on conduct awards "Improper conduct includes… bad sportsmanlike behavior" [2]. Plagiarism is synonymous with such obviously bad things as piracy and theft, it is most clearly bad sportsmanlike behavior, perhaps more than any other action one can take within a debate.
3. Just to hammer it in a little more, Airmax1227, the official moderator for the site has openly stated "Voters should acknowledge [plagiarism] and the person responsible for it should lose the debate" [3].

"thought provoking challenging debates"
1. I never knew copy/pasting was a challenge, or indeed thought provoking.
2. The implied danger is invalid, as no one has been shown to be making up their own rules.
3. The site would however become a nightmare if instead of people trying to come up with new arguments, they defaulted to plagiarizing winning arguments never to actually put forward their own thoughts again.

"I felt needed no reference as it was not an argument that asserted any facts it only required one to think about what I was saying."
Were it actually your words that would be the case, however instead you decided to copy/paste what someone else wrote.

"Should everyone who has used the 'flying spaghetti monster' argument cite Bobby Henderson"
1. Please denote questions with question marks.
2. If by argument you mean not writing their own text, but just copy/pasting from Bobby Henderson, than a firm yes.
3. Also yes to the remaining questions on if people should cite quotations, as opposed to claiming authorship.

Argument:
In short this is an intellectual site for a mental sport. Were this boxing and you forfeited fights only to send someone else in to take your place, you would be the laughing stock of the sport if you claimed those victories.

If the point of a debate is to win, than it is with the restrictions of winning by your own merits, not someone elses, and not by cheating.

Were we to switch to a standard of plagiarism being acceptable, why think when you can just copy/paste an already winning argument from say Mikal [4], at which point why should anyone vote on the debate, when such already happened when the argument was originally put forward? In fact why bother with a user base, when the Debate.org computers can generate unique numbers to the Mikal debates and repost them again and again, and even copy the vote RFDs previously cast.

Rather than going down that dark road, we have the conduct penalty to assign as a simple way to discourage such obvious bad behavior as plagiarism. It's common sense. To any argument against penalizing conduct over it due to it not being spelled out clearly enough in the Terms of Service, well forfeiting isn't either we still punish that.

Sources:
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://www.debate.org...

hect

Con

" illegal" quick call the cops I should be locked up.

"Penalize is spelled with a Z" umm... not in my country the world isn't america buddy.

Airmax1227 can blow me

" I never knew copy/pasting was a challenge", I never said for me but certainly for my opponents to come up with a better response

"Please denote questions with question marks" what are you my English teacher. and a full stop just for good measure.

Unlike my opponent I don't do this to "win" I do not seek glory in my debates, I do it to share knowledge amongst my peers, to share the fruits of wisdom with all I can. However my cowardly opponent would see this knowledge blocked of from the general public and only those wealthy enough to afford a proper education or the adequate books to learn this from the great minds of today, so to my opponent I say nay, nay to your capitalist society and nay to your elitist regime. No I will not steal from the poor and give to the rich I will steal from the rich and give to the poor.

I will fight till my last breath to share the wisdom and knowledge of today with the world unlike my opponent who would have the precious and valuable knowledge withheld so as people cannot learn, this is outrageous and my opponent should apologize and show some shame!!!
Debate Round No. 2
Ragnar

Pro

Hect has dropped nearly every point, so extend all, and vote pro.

Key Dropped Points:
The DDO Terms of Use he agreed to actually forbid plagiarism.
Every voter has full authority to penalize plagiarism.
DDO would be a nightmare if plagiarism were allowed.
Plagiarism is most clearly bad sportsmanlike behavior.

Final Rebuttals:
"I don't do this to 'win'"
Hect think's he should win for cheating.

Hect believes he should win for cheating.

"I should be locked up … Airmax1227 can blow me"
I will however cede that he may be looking for a different kind of victory, as he's seeking attention from the site admin, then requesting to be "locked up" for it, to receive sexual favors.
50 Shades of Grey, eat your heart out!

"what are you my English teacher"
No, but you may be need of one.
The fact that you plagiarize Sam Harris' work, but don't know how to properly write his name ("Sam harris's"), implies a lot about your education.

"my cowardly opponent would see this knowledge blocked of from the general public"
No, I would see it cited so people know where to find more of it.

"only those wealthy enough to afford a proper education or the adequate books"
This I can fully refute in one word: Library.

"I say nay, nay to your capitalist society and nay to your elitist regime."
Wonderful pathos. Completely without merit in logical argument, but would sound nice in a speech.

"No I will not steal from the poor and give to the rich I will steal from the rich and give to the poor."
It has already been established that plagiarizing here is attempting to cede ownership of material to Debate.org, which in turn gives it to the parent company Juggle.com; therefore when you say "give to the poor," your definition of poor is those rich enough to own a NASCAR. I fail to see the benefit.

So poor that they only have one NASCAR.

"this is outrageous and my opponent should apologize and show some shame!!!"
Apologize for wanting people to be able to find who wrote ideas to learn them more in depth, I could have sworn access to information was your argument, which concealing the authorship actually harms.

Review:
Last round I put forward an unrefuted case against plagiarism, and the way to avoid the pitfalls of it (penalize it when caught).

Whereas Hect has no case. The best he did was Robin Hood themed pathos appeals based on straw-person arguments; which were both pre-refuted and self-refuting.

Plagiarism is cheating. It is cheating the readers, cheating your opponent, and worst of all cheating yourself.

hect

Con

Unfortunately I have not planned my time well enough and therefore regrettably forfeit
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
I got to argue this topic again: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
I hope this was as enjoyable for everyone else, as it was for me. Still a shame about the missing final round.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Not yet.
Posted by hect 2 years ago
hect
so have I won yet
Posted by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
Fifty Shades of Airmax

roflmao
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
By the way, I do accept any and all criticism of my performance on this debate (including any votes wholly or partly against me; I will not complain nor report them). I outright Straw-Personed Hect's case into a bondage joke: http://www.debate.org...

Also if anyone has a fill in for Hect's missing final round, I would love to read it.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
50 Shades of Airmax.... hilarious.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Sad. I was legitimately looking forward to reading that final round, and based on R2 regretted there only being three rounds.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Reminder: 10 hours to post your conclusion.
Posted by Luharis 2 years ago
Luharis
Just some friendly advice to the the con, plagiarism is the stealing of work from some one and presenting it on your own, however, in your case, you can never truly plagiarize an idea, at most, you could plagiarize the way it is presented.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RagnarhectTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con forfeited
Vote Placed by AlwaysRight12345 2 years ago
AlwaysRight12345
RagnarhectTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con obviously and seriously violated conduct, made intentional grammatical and spelling errors, dropped EVERY argument, and used no sources. Easy full Pro ballot.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
RagnarhectTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the final round, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. | S&G - Tie. Both sides maintained reasonable and adequate S&G. | Arguments - Pro. Con failed to refute any of Pro's arguments or defend their own, and their forfeiture of the final round rendered them unable to present a conclusion. It was Pro's argument that showed the Terms of Use sanction voters to penalize plagiarism that won Pro the debate. Thus, Pro takes arguments. | Sources - Pro. Pro used the sole sources in the debate, and I, thus, deem them more reliable. | 6 points to Pro. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
RagnarhectTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Pro was the only one to use sources, so I am deeming them more reliable. | Arg: Con dropped 4 key arguments made by Pro, and Pro effectively refuted all points made by Con. Thus, the points go to Pro. | S&G: Tied due to errors made on both sides. If either debater wants me to elaborate, I will. | Conduct: Conduct goes to Pro for 2 reasons; 1) Con blatantly insults Airmax, and insults in a debate (to the opponent or any other member) are intolerable, and 2) Con basically forfeited the last round ("therefore regrettably forfeit").
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
RagnarhectTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con ultimately forfeited the debate but he had lost debate long before he conceeded. arguments to the pro easily
Vote Placed by Yassine 2 years ago
Yassine
RagnarhectTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: - Conduct: FF. => Pro's win. - Arguments: Pro systematically refuted Con's case by showing that plagiarism is sanctioned against in the TOS, & that voters are authorised to penalise it. => Pro's win. - Sources: Con provided none. => Pro's win.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
RagnarhectTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- Con's FF. S&G- poor punctuation and spelling. Convincing Args- Pro was obviously more hilarious and made more sense, actually going to the ToS to prove that plagiarism should not be penalized.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
RagnarhectTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's points about the TOS (i.e. proprietary rights and impersonation) clearly stand. If the rules are breached, that grounds for penalty. Most of Pro's case was dropped anyway. On another note, the conduct in this debate was atrocious. BOTH sides were snarky, and I found Pro's correcting Con's spelling to be downright offensive and demeaning. That said, conduct on both sides of this topic was bad enough that, IMO, it cancels out.