The Instigator
Ragnar
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
TinyBudha
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Plagiarism Should be Penalized on DDO

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,580 times Debate No: 76954
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (3)

 

Ragnar

Pro

This debate is in response to comments made by DDO user TinyBudha [1], who may present his or her case in R1 (giving them the signifigant advantage of one more round than I).

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

My case shall borrow heavily from a previous argument of mine on the same subject, which my opponent has criticized [2].

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

Con

The first thing I will say is that within my debate there was No plagiarism. Having given credit to the author for the direct words which I copied, there is no reasonable definition which could accept what I did as plagiarism......As the opponent hasn't specified, the Burden of Proof will from here on out shared. I believe this is fair to require, as Ragnar hasn't secified and if the BOP is any other way then I will have accepted under false pretences, and futhermore, there are no set rules for plagiarism on the site, meaning we are both making propositions.....Also, I don't need or appreciate an extra round for an extra-advatange, as I won't need one for this debate. If I'm going to debate it will be on equal terms. Ragnar will present his case next round.


These definitions will be singular, meaning they are the exclusive definition, there can be no further addition to them. They should be accepted for the same reason burden of proof should be accepted.


Plagiarism: an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author.

Should: what ought to be done in regards to what is the best thing to do.

Penalize: subject to some form of punishment.
Debate Round No. 1
Ragnar

Pro

This debate is in response to comments made by DDO user TinyBudha [1], who may present his

As per my usual, I'll have section headings underlined, contention headings and opponent quotes in bold, source quotes in italics.

I have no opposition to the definitions provided, nor to my opponent sharing in the BoP. However regarding the claim "there are no set rules for plagiarism on the site," my case will firmly prove this false.

Argument:
My case is rather simple...

All DDO agreed to the Terms of Service.
We all agreed...
Enough said.

Said terms, prohibit plagiarism.
From the Terms, all users on DDO have agreed they: "Will not impersonate any person or entity" [3], and further agreed that "All material you post on Debate.org, including debate arguments… becomes the property of Debate.org" [3].
Those two highlights closely match my opponent's provided definition of plagiarism "...the representation of that author's work as one's own..."

Penalty
Those who commit plagiarism, have broken the social contract of the site. To not penalize their misdeeds in any way, would be to leave them with the full benefit they sought to gain, thereby encouraging even more rule violations.
My suggested penalty, as I've previously written on the subject, is in short for voters to "give conduct to the side which did not commit plagiarism" [4]. After all, conduct includes the ability to punish "bad sportsmanlike behavior" [5].
There are many other potential ways to handle it, but the fact that there should be penalties for crimes will remain true for all of them.

Sources:
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] https://docs.google.com...
[5]
http://www.debate.org...

TinyBudha

Con

I cannot disagree that Ragnar gives a compelling reason to believe that plagiarism should be penalized, I think it is very, very well put together and there is reasonable doubt to believe it is true, however I think there are truly huge problems with it, problems which are glaring, and cannot be overcome. I do not do this debate in spite of Ragnar, no matter how much I dislike his vote or disagree with him on it. I am here solely to give my honest reasons to why plagiarism should Not be penalized on Debate.org.



My argument: The purpose of debate and the real impact of plagiarism on it

The reason that plagiarism should not be penalized on DDO is because of what debate really is. Debate is the outset of two sets of viewpoints, or arguments, which are being compared and analyzed. In such a stage, originality and literary creativity are unnecessary, the only thing necessary is that there is a sound argument for an opponent to refute, and whether that argument is from the depths of your creative imagination and is totally new and innovation, or whether it is a commonly used argument rehashed with the same phrases as the original speaker, are fundamentally irrelevant to the actual debate; so long as there are sounds points made and those points are argued against, the debate is a success.

To stress how unimportant plagiarism is, think further about what debate is. Is debate usually about the creation of brand new arguments? No, it’s about analysis of those arguments, and That is what counts, your response, your voice to those arguments, your opinion, that is where your ideas come in, that is the real debate, not the underlying arguments, whether copied, or created yourself. For this reason, what debating IS, I must stress that there is no impact on the round itself. There is no advantage to either team through plagiarism, there is no dishonesty to the other player. In fact there are only positives to plagiarisms in debate; like having concise arguments, which can reduce confusion and intentional or unintentional straw man arguments, decreased argument time, freeing up more time to actually think about your response and increase its depth and increase your strategy, it gets right to the heart of the issues and goes to the brink of where the debate is among the scholars, and once you get to that edge, then there is no-one else to quote but yourself.

Think about this, how many times have you seen somebody use the Kalam Cosmological argument? Do they ever source it? No, and there is no other way to give the KCA than to just give the exact logical proof, word for word, you cannot sum it up or rephrase it. According to many, including Wylted, even if you gave credit to the author and put citations, if the quote is over 50% of your argumentation then they will deduct points as that is somehow plagiarism. That is another thing, the plagiarism argument is just another way for people to pretend to do RFDs when really they just want to get another vote under their belt or help their friend out, these actions are truly subversive to debate. So the main point here is again that there are only benefits to plagiarism, specifically within debates, and thus there should be no penalty to doing it,. I believe this makes sense, as the success of deates should be the central purpose of Debate.org.




The proposition that all laws should be enforced

Even if we accept all of Ragnar’s argument as true, what he really shows is that plagiarism is against the rules, not that plagiarism is bad, his arguments operate under that assumption that all laws should be enforced and through penalization we can enforce. I disagree, when a law suppresses people or objectively stops them from realizing the greater good or the greater benefit, then if it cannot or will not be repealed, it should be ignored. This is the case with Ragnar’s argument, even if it is right.


Picking upon Ragnar’s argument specifically

There are two parts to Ragnar’s argument.

1.) plagiarism is impersonation

If you look back at pro’s source [3], it clearly is not in reference to literation, it is in reference to holding other accounts or pretending to actually be another person. Asserting that someone is literally claiming to be another individual just because they use their writing is absurd. In no way do you seek borrow someone’s identity when you seek to borrow their ideas, Ragnar has simply conflated these two ideas, and although similar they are not at all the same. In any case, this particular situation should be an exception to the rule, and not be penalized on DDO.


2.) Plagiarism is theft

First, the website cannot legally claim things that are not theirs, to be theirs. Think of it this way, if someone gives you the title to a car they stole, then your ownership will simply be revoked as it wasn’t valid in the first place, you will not be arrested or anything, no legal action will be taken, the website in this case, will simply have revoked any ownership it was given by a member and there will literally be no consequences. Second to last, theft is not bad sportsmanship, this link was never established, but presumed. Sportmanship is a relation between the two players, theft is an individual crime which in instances of plagiarism doesn’t affect the opponent and thus cannot have anything to do with sportsmanship. Again, eve if this is true, there should be an exception to the rule.




Counter Plan

So let's say you disagree with everything I have said. Counter plan, Instead of giving conduct, the debate should simply be removed from the website, furthermore DDO should begin a campaign to weed out all debates which have plagiarism.

Ragnar’s argument is (undeniably) complex, and the simple fact is there is no explicit comment or rule from the website which directly mentions the subject of plagiarism. Thus, even if one reads the TOA in full, they may not understand that plagiarism is unacceptable. They will then be punished for something that: A) They were ignorant of, and B) Might have made them change their minds about accepting the TOA of DDO in the first place; just as how in any debate the rules should be laid out before you accept, one should easily be able to tell what they are agreeing to in a TOA. Not only does the counterplan prevent this ‘TOA-abuse’ if you will, but it stops the actual, real, societally illegal theft committed on the website; whereas right now, all we do is leave those debates to sit for years, increasing the chance that real legal action will come upon the website. Imagine if the police investigate all of the theft committed on, and thus by, DDO, surely head members will be arrested for theft or fined which will negatively impact the website and these members’ lives. The counter plan helps to solve this problem.
Debate Round No. 2
Ragnar

Pro

(Sorry for any confusion in my sources, last round a couple references to 3 were meant to be 1)

In case anyone missed it, the counterplan proposed by my opponent is a concession. Penalizing plagiarism by deleting debates, is still penalizing plagiarism.

Defenses:
Said terms, prohibit plagiarism.
"If you look back at pro’s source [3], it clearly is not in reference to literation"

This is a website consisting entirely of literation, there is no reason to believe it would have a Terms of Service (TOS) not intended to govern the written word. Please provide any quote from it that would support your claim.

"it is in reference to holding other accounts"
As anyone who has read the TOS should already know, that is covered under the "Will not create more than one account" rule [1]. "Not impersonate any person or entity" is most clearly a reference to not impersonating any person or entity at any time for any reason in any way.

"or pretending to actually be another person"
You really think that claiming to be the author of (to use an example) The Hobbit, is neither claiming to be the person who wrote The Hobbit, nor is it committing "the representation of that author's work as one's own."
On this point, I must leave it to the judges to short out basic logic. Mine that claiming to be the author of something, is claiming to be the author of something, or con's that it'd be an "absurd" to connect claiming to be the author of something to claiming to be the author of something.

"there will literally be no consequences"
Except as my opponent has claimed "real legal action will come upon the website ... head members will be arrested for theft or fined which will negatively impact the website and these members’ lives." As my opponent has chosen to pre-refute their own refutation, I have nothing more to say on this.

"not bad sportsmanship, this link was never established, but presumed."
While my case in no way relies on it being Bad Sportsmanlike Behavior for the specific conduct penalty, as any penalty (such as ones suggested by my opponent) would still be penalizing it, I'll still expand upon the connection...
Synonyms for plagiarism include piracy, fraud, falsification, and various other bad things [6].
Debate is a mental sport. To cheat at any sport is obviously bad sportsmanship. To use a physical sport for an analogy, I think any sane person would agree that a lightweight boxer who steps out of the ring, and sends in heavyweight Mike Tyson in wearing his shorts to take his place, has not magically won the competition. While yes if the judges fail to notice the difference he might be accredited the victory, however if they do notice he'll be heavily penalized. He may choose to go that route, but there is a risk to the reward he seeks. Of course my opponent may argue it's "fundamentally irrelevant to the actual [fight]," since a sound fighter was still there.

Rebuttals:
"the only thing necessary is that there is a sound argument for an opponent to refute"
Plagiarism is quite often not sound arguments, it's normally spotted due to its disjointed nature, which most of the time fails to soundly address the original words of the opponent.
If plagiarism should be used instead of actual thought on the topic, there is no reason to have debaters involved, as the website itself could just generate all the arguments it needs from an existing pool; to include votes previously cast.

"That is what counts, your response, your voice to those arguments, your opinion, that is where your ideas come in, that is the real debate"
None of which is plagiarism. My opponent has conceded what counts in debate is not plagiarized material, but everything user generated. This is further supported by the official How to Vote guide clearly referencing "did a better job of clearly explaining their arguments" [3], "their arguments," as opposed to copy/pasted ones they lack the ownership of to cede over to DDO.

"There is no advantage to either team through plagiarism"
First of all, please read the TOS, ("Will not disclose your password or transfer your account to any third-party, or allow any third-party to access your account" [1]) this site is for generally for individual debates, not team debates.
Second, for there to be no advantage, there must be no intellectual quality difference between the people. If such is true, it is pure coincidence that Mikal has a 9000 ELO [7], and vi_spex has 1089 [8]. Once there is no difference, there is nothing at all unfair if you agree to debate vi-spex and he signs his account over to Mikal to handle the debate for him.

"there is no dishonesty"
Really, if we believe my opponent that lying is not dishonest, I suppose next the premeditated termination of another human adult life should in no way be confused with murder.

"In fact there are only positives to plagiarisms in debate"
My opponent is now claiming that negative impacts on the lives of members is exclusively a positive thing: "members will be arrested for theft or fined which will negatively impact the website and these members’ lives."

Plagiarizing instead of making your own arguments is actually "freeing up more time to actually think about your response and increase its depth and increase your strategy"
This one is too comical to warrant a response.

"Kalam Cosmological argument"
Stating that it is the Kalam Cosmological argument is admitting it came from elsewhere, rather than committing "the representation of that author's work as one's own."
This is also going into the common knowledge area, like how merely mentioning Jesus Christ is not plagiarizing The Bible.

"the plagiarism argument is just another way for people to pretend to do RFDs"
If plagiarism currently lowers the quality of voting, it is clearly yet another negative thing about it.
As these votes are allowed in all voting guidelines, further backed by the TOS we all agreed to, maybe the best solution to avoid this problem brought on by your own actions would be to not plagiarize and instead "actually think about your response."

"simple fact is there is no explicit comment or rule from the website which directly mentions the subject of plagiarism"
Unless the English language is thrown out, I clearly and repeatedly already proved that the TOS prohibits it.

"even if one reads the TOA in full, they may not understand that plagiarism is unacceptable"
Ignorance and stupidity are invalid defenses, this is a fallacious Appeal to Pity [9]. But you also think the TOS is in no way intended to be about written words, on a website made of written words.

"all laws should be enforced"
According to my opponent, not enforcing the rules regarding plagiarism on this site, will lead to members being thrown in prison (and suffering who knows what fate there), thus it is beyond clear that it should be discouraged.

Sources:
[6] http://www.thesaurus.com...
[7] http://www.debate.org...
[8] http://www.debate.org...
[9] http://www.nizkor.org...

TinyBudha

Con

Amendment to last round: I would like to do is clarify something I previously said. I stated that plagiarism gives no advantage to either team, this isn’t exactly what I meant. The way I said it makes it seem like there are no advantages to plagiarism, which I clearly disagree with. What I meant was that neither side has an ‘upper hand’ through plagiarism, pro and con always have the same ability to use exact arguments from the professionals.

My Argument

Plagiarism, presenting arguments without a source, does no damage to an actual debate. In a debate between two parties where an argument is given without citation, the main point of that argument is still there, and it must still be argued against. I’m guessing that Ragnar is then going to assert that for those responding to this direct argument, another direct argument will be presented, and thus no ideas from the debaters’ themselves would be presented. While I think that this is certainly a possible outcome, you can only take plagiarism so far. There is no perfect argument, there is no golden set of arguments guaranteeing a win, at least not in most fair resolutions. In this way, plagiarism clearly asserts what argument is at hand

In response to this assertion, even more direct arguments will then be used to refute that previous argument, then the other team will use a direct argument to refute that, but this can’t continue on forever and surely neither side will want to use plagiarisms until they run out of rounds and are forced to lose because the opponent got the last plagiarism in. Instead we would see that the direct arguments force both sides to the ‘epistemological’ edge of the public scholarly insight which Can be copied, once they reach that point then the debaters are forced to use what their previous arguments have stated to come to their own, actually and legitimately unique, conclusions/arguments. Not only does direct argumentation force the real debating by pushing the debate into its furthest explored depths, causing truly unique argumentation, but we should also keep in mind that part of debate is stating how your arguments (in this case direct arguments) support and correlate with each other, that function cannot be reduced by plagiarism, and because direct arguments usually come from different sources, it will actually increase the amount of linkage required between arguments, thusly increasing the amount of real debating going on

Please compound reinforce those two benefits with the other benefits that I stated in the previous post: that it reduces confusion and intentional or unintentional straw man arguments, decreases argument time, frees up more time to actually think about your response and thus increases your time to strategize. Ragnar made a big mistake by dismissing these advantages. Those benefits were listed last round, but Ragnar conceded them, for one he literally says “This one is too comical to warrant a response.” And for the other he says that the contradiction in the CP concerning laws means my benefits are wrong to my own concession, this will be addressed now but to end this section I will point out that these advantages to plagiarism must be accepted as Ragnar can no longer produce new arguments against their validity, as this would be unfair in the last round of argument.

This point will be brought up several times through the debate but Ragnar has completely misunderstood my position. I believe plagiarism is usually good in a debate setting like this one and has a lot of advantages, in my counter plan I say that people will get arrested because, as I clearly stated in the first sentences of the CP argument, I was making those statements to those voters and readers who utterly reject the rest of my argumentation, which includes the possible rejection of my claims that plagiarism is advantageous and has no legal consequences, this is called layering the debate, which means accounting for and appealing to multiple perspectives a voter might have.

Counterplan

So I guess I'll just start out by saying that I was just layering the debate, which I have already made clear. I am presenting two courses of possiblelegal recourse. Nothing and something. Pro concedes there will be no legal action taken and it is not illegal so the whole arrest of DDO members should now be considered incorrect but if the judge doesn't agree despite a concession, this point is still there to support my CP. I'll just be as clear as I can, the legality is not central to the CP's integrity. Next, Ragnar's claim that taking down these debates is a form of penalization is simply incorrect, the counterplan never inteded for it to be punishment, simply a fixing of a legal issue. If it were penalization then we would also be penalizing the person who did not plagiarize, which would be wrong. That's not what we are doing. This whole CP of course operates under the assumption that plagiarism is impersonation and/or theft though.

Ragnar's case itself

1.) impersonation

Right after the line that says you shouldn't impersonate it mentions memeber positions such as mod, president...ect, meaning it references people not arguments. I meant not to say that rules doent partain to words, but that they don't partain to unauthorized use of words. The next big claim is that using someone's words is pretending to be them. This is simple conflation. Altough impersonate and immitate sounds similar, they are different things. theft of ideas is not theft of identity, its really just trying to bolster your own identity really.

2.) Theft

Ragnar litterally just gave this argument up and didn't respond, thus this is conceded. His case solely relies on imperonation now, not even Acknowledging the CP.

CONCESSIONS: Ragnar concedes the whole counterplan through his confusion on argument layering/ he can’t make arguments on this next round. Ragnar concedes all of my claims that even if he is right, plagiarism should be an exception because it is harmless, this is through silence and non-respondence/ no new arguments next round. Ragnar concedes that rules shouldn’t be enforced so long as they prevent the objective greater good, this is through his confusion on argument laying/ can’t make arguments on this next round. Finally Ragnar conceded my entire argument asserting that there are no legal repercussions and that the site is not actually committing theft, this is through silence and non-respondence/ can’t make these arguments now, this leaves pro with only the impersonation argument. Given that these are conceded I think this gives extremely heavy weight to my case.

Ragnar's case relies on forcing peices to a puzzle together which are similar but simply do not fit. Half of his case is conceded, in my eyes, mine remains unscathed and even if its not, a mound of conceded arguments should doom his chance at winning, being that he gives me KEY arguments. His arguments this round seemed based on misunderstanding, I hadn't enough space to get it all but tried.

Debate Round No. 3
Ragnar

Pro

Con keeps tossing around a weird logic that every time something is not responded to, it's an outright concession, even while admitting he "hadn't enough space to get it all." Were his logic sound, he would have conceded every single line he did not directly respond to (including that "the best solution to avoid this problem brought on by your own actions would be to not plagiarize and instead 'actually think about your response'"). There is a huge difference between dropped and conceded arguments.

"pro and con always have the same ability to [plagiarize]."
By the very setup of debates, this is obviously untrue. Once the instigator has not plagiarized, the contender has one more round to unfairly use better people's unaccredited words. Plus the whole final round awkwardness.

"Plagiarism ... does no damage to an actual debate."
Except it often does, as seen with how often plagiarizers drop out once the argument they may or may even understand challenged, thereby ruining debates [9].

"surely neither side will want to use plagiarisms until they run out of rounds"
Except they already do, in a weird disjointed manner, often showing little sign of having read what they're responding to [10].

"...function cannot be reduced by plagiarism"
It already is, as shown above.

"increasing the amount of real debating going on"
Con has already insisted that "the real debate" is the non-plagiarized portions, which self-refutes the claim that filling the character limit with plagiarism, increases the "real debating going on."

"big mistake by dismissing these advantages."
Con's argument that there are only advantages (to include a list of claimed ones), was clearly self-refuted with his claim that there is "no advantage" (if his logic regarding any confusion of the CP is held, then the same logic must apply to the rest of the debate, leaving his own case insisting plagiarism has "no advantage" even while he's stated harms).

"Ragnar conceded them"
I dropped some, but conceded little. I did concede the CP endorsed by my opponent, which calls for punishing plagiarism (via deleting all debates containing it), thereby affirming the resolution in my favor.
A plan to which my opponent insists anyone who disagrees with him should default to. A plan designed to stop to not hypothetical problem, but "the actual, real, societally illegal theft committed on the website," something most the rest of his argument left in place, along with the claimed consequences.
To be fair, it may be said that he has only conceded to every voter who disagrees with him.

"taking down these debates is a form of penalization is simply incorrect"
Censorship as a consequence imposed due to action, is regardless of intent, penalizing said action.

"...we would also be penalizing the person who did not plagiarize"
Correct. The innocent often suffer for the actions of the guilty; just look at lengthy airport security.

TOS:
First of all, in terms of cross examination, when requested my opponent has been unable to find a quote to support his claims of the intent of the TOS, yet continues to insist upon them.

"I meant not to say that rules doent partain to words, but that they don't partain to unauthorized use of words."
It stipulates such things as "permission from the Content owner" and breech thereof being a "violation of another person's rights" [3], plus the need for ownership in order to cede said ownership to DDO.

"Altough impersonate and immitate sounds similar, they are different things"
From Merriam-Webster "to pretend to be (another person)" and "to copy (someone's behavior, sound, appearance, etc.)" two words that are synonymous, con is now claiming they are unrelated without any evidence to support his request for changes to the English language.

"theft of ideas is not theft of identity, its really just trying to bolster your own identity really."
As my opponent has no evidence of this, I shall provide a fine example of plagiarism on this site, the user SamHarris, as shown in the comment section on one of his failed debates, outright claiming to be the author of Sam Harris' books [12].
To the audience, if he merely posted Sam Harris' work without calling himself SamHarris, and claimed to have spent years of effort writing it, would that still be pretending to be the author of said works?

"Theft... His case solely relies on imperonation now"
It relies on the contract every user agreed to, in addition to the dropped fact that it's bad sportsmanship (which alone calls for a conduct penalty from voters). If plagiarism is outright legally theft or not, is unimportant to my case. Posting plagiarized material here is still attempting to cede ownership, regardless of if they really can or not. With the potential consequence my opponent pointed out of DDO's use of it being "revoked," that means the debate (or at least a portion thereof) is gone, thereby penalizing the plagiarism.

"Ragnar concedes the whole counterplan"
My opponent is again stressing the importance of his CP, which calls for penalizing plagiarism. At best con could say I turned his CP's major harms into a part of my case; in addition to other harms already listed throughout my argument, any of which cause greater harm than the effort of "admitting it came from elsewhere."

"Ragnar concedes all of my claims that even if he is right, plagiarism should be an exception because it is harmless"
An outright lie. I have stressed multiple harms. From outside the CP: It removes the "reason to have debaters involved," it's on par with "piracy, fraud, falsification, and various other bad things" it causes debates of a "disjointed nature" it provides an unfair advantage (see Mikal vs vi-spex), and another claim from my opponent I've capitalized on it "lowers the quality of voting."
As my opponent insists none of these are in any way harms, they are unchallenged, to be left to the voters to determine if any of them do cause harm to the site and/or community thereof.

...

Even if my opponent were correct on plagiarism in some general sense as his arguments reach for, his BoP (which he insisted on taking) calls for DDO specifically. Please check back through his sources to see if he's provided enough relevant evidence for DDO.

Sources are quite overwhelmingly in my favor. My opponent so far has been unable to even show so much as a single debate here which benefited from plagiarism, or even a quote from the TOS to suggest a basis for his interpretation of it.

A few key things for voters to weigh: If pretending to be the author of a work, falls under impersonation in the English language? Is deleting someone's debate in any way a penalty? Would posting Mikal's previous arguments give an unfair advantage? If the answer is yes to all three, voting should be an easy choice.

Sources:
[10] http://www.debate.org...
[11] http://www.debate.org...
[12] http://www.debate.org...

TinyBudha

Con


this is on my phone sorry
Framework
The key for either side winning this debate is proving or disproving the statement: plagiarism is bad and should be punished, but more specifically: plagiarism is bad and should be punished on debate websites (specifically DDO). The resolution gives more arguing ground to con. For instance con can maintain that plagiarism is bad but should not ever be punished, or that plagiarism is bad but should not be punished on debate websites/DDO. OR that plagiarism is bad in general but not on debate websites/DDO. Another thing is that con doesn’t have to prove that plagiarism is good, but merely that it isn’t bad, or in other words it has a zero goodness/badness value.
But what has Ragnar specifically given us, to help determine if debating is a bad thing on DDO? He has given us two arguments:
one of which is that plagiarism causes the website to commit theft, this argument was refuted when I pointed out that legally this can’t happen. I expanded by saying that in order for theft to take place one must take steal something, yet the website has no authority to take anything even if it claims to do so, any attempts to do so would be considered invalid by the law. It’d be like receiving a stolen car from another individual, the actual website has committed no crime. And as an aside do not take this to mean that the player has committed theft, as theft of intellectual property requires intent and profit. This argument was dropped and when I said that the argument was conceded, that was also dropped. As a reasonable person I can only see this argument as completely taken out.
The second argument was that plagiarism is impersonation which is against the rules of DDO. This is Ragnar’s last shread of hope as far as his own arguments. This argument is a string of forced logic. He assumes first that, in the DDO rule book, impersonation means imitation, which is clearly a perfect example of conflation. I still fully believe that using someone’s words is literally pretending to have their identity; that would imply that using the Kalam Cosmological Argument without using its title is literally pretending to be Kalam himself. Ragnar them assumes that plagiarism should be punished yet he dropped my arguments that because plagiarism has no negative effects, and only has positive effects on debates, that even if plagiarism is impersonation this rule should be ignored and there should be no punishment, again it flattly was dropped. But I have also argued that it is not bad sportsmanship so it can’t be punished, even if Ragnar is right and plagiarism is bad it is an individual thing, the other opponent can simply respond with other direct arguments except he can source them.
Now even if we assume both of these arguments are correct, the Counter plan solves. The counterplan assumes that either one or both of the following is true, plagiarism on the website is theft and plagiarism on the website is impersonation which is bad. My answer is to simply remove these debates, avoiding the legal trouble (again Ragnar dropped my argument that is won’t do that) and then lead a campaign to weed these palgiarisms out. Ragnar’s assertion that removing these debates is penalizing them is probably his worst, his argument is to say the the simple action of removing the debate, Despite Intention!, is penalization which clearly doesn’t make sense as penalization requires punishment which requires intent. It is to say that even if a robot were deleting these debates it would be penalization.

These last few paragraphs seem to demolish Ragnar’s arguments. But let’s talk of my own.

I have shown that plagiarism is not unequal, both sides have the same access to sources. Penalizing plagiarism is just another way for people to rack up side points for their friends and thus belittle the debate. The purpose of debate sites is to promote argument, plagiarism gives concise argumentation and promotes increased strategy. Think of it this way, back in policy debate you only use direct evidence from authors to argue yet the whole point is to connect those separate ‘cards’ of evidence into a congruent argument. The Only difference is that in policy debate you source your authors for the purposes of giving bolstering their appeal. Plagiarism is not inherently immoral it is artificially immoral, it is immoral because people say it is. It is truly just giving concise arguments without sources. I extend all of my previous arguments in support of plagiarism

thank you
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
@whiteflame - If you're going to evaluate my RFD, please share with me your findings and where I can improve. Feel free to tell me it's a bunch of crap. Thanks.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I don't currently have time to reassess the votes that have been made already, but I will get back to them as promised.
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
The first time my vote was challenged. Wow!
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
***************************************************************************
>Reported vote: Enji// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism is defined as "the representation of that author's work as one's own." Hence, if you present another author's words and claim they are your own, it's difficult to see how you are not claiming to be the author. Con's argument that if using another author's words is claiming to have their identity, then using the Kalam Cosmological argument is claiming to be Kalam; therefore using another author's words is not claiming to have their identity is not compelling. If you present the KCA as your own original argument, then you are claiming to be their author; otherwise if you use the KCA but don't present it as your own argument, then you are not plagiarising. If you are claiming to be the author, then you are violating the Terms of Service as Pro argues; hence you should be penalised.

[*Reason for non-removal*] This RFD sufficiently explains the major points of the debate and talks about why Con's rebuttal re: Kalam wasn't sufficient because Pro's argument that someone using KCA but presenting it as their own argument outweighed. The RFD seems to have been reported for ignoring Pro's arguments but those are actually mentioned in the RFD - Pro did argue the points on KCA that the voter refers to. The RFD doesn't mention the counterplan but we don't remove votes simply because there was an argument they missed in their analysis.
**********************************************************************************
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
***************************************************************************
>Reported vote: salam.morcos// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com...

[*Reason for non-removal*] This RFD sufficiently explains most major points and coherently weighs them and concludes with a Pro vote on balance of evidence. While it only briefly touches on the counterplan, it explains most other major points in detail and we don't remove votes simply because there was one argument in the debate that they didn't elaborate on in enough detail.
**********************************************************************************
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
@salam.morcos
Thank you a third time, especially since you did not enjoy the read. Now that your vote is done, I can converse more openly without worry of swaying anything.

To start, it seems a recent DDO updates disagrees with my computer. Trying to do about anything on this page for long, causes my internet to drop and Chrome to freeze, problems only fixed by restarting the computer. Another site error caused it to literally replace my R2 with my R1 when I went to post it, and even after correcting this it still somehow inserted the first line from R1 back in at R2 (which is notably not in the word document I have for that round). These problems, and the short time-span we were reduced to, caused me to read things in frustration, and clearly not carefully enough as evidenced by my huge fumble with the CP (that I mistook it for a non-hypothetical was a huge blunder).

Regarding your requested clarification, I did not feel comfortable telling someone how to vote on my debate outside of the debate itself, even more so given the language disagreements with my opponent that were sure to happen again (I don't even want to guess why he considers not instructing someone how to vote outside a debate to be cheating...). Now that it's done, I'd say D5 certainly meets the criteria. I mean if I publish a book (even for free on a website) called "Harry Potter," sticking my name on the cover, it's "representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author," and moreover that I wrote it is strongly implied by the very act of excluding J. K. Rowling's name but including my own.

About the other debate, the inspiration for this one is firmly from the comment section rather than the debate itself: "You'rer all utterly retarded" and "fW46;ck off, you're wrong about plagiarism and too stupid to see it."

And yeah, I do agree with you on every weakness in my case. Your RFD will be incredibly helpful if/when I argue this subject again
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
TinyBudha
Sounds good
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
I know how to vote. And my questions were clearly my attempt not to vote based on "faulty pretenses". Now, I will vote based on the definition provided in the debate and will ignore any "presumptions".
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
TinyBudha
And I do appreciate the time you have taken to even vote on this debate but, its all for not if you evaluate it under faulty pretenses,
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
TinyBudha
Ragnar's actions are subversive. I will not entertain his claims that he somehow did not accept the definitions I provided. Nor will I have an argument about it. Any reasonable person knows that ragnar's attempts are attempts to cheat and nothing more. The key question for salam is whether or not 'not objecting' to my definitions is accepting them and whether or not it only follows that those definitions are what we would then follow in the debate. Again, I can't force either or you to do the objectively correct thing but only hope that you two value such a thing. This is as much as I will say about this, at all. I'm done discussing it, the truth is clear.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RagnarTinyBudhaTied
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: Given here: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/70886/
Vote Placed by Enji 1 year ago
Enji
RagnarTinyBudhaTied
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: Plagiarism is defined as "the representation of that author's work as one's own." Hence, if you present another author's words and claim they are your own, it's difficult to see how you are not claiming to be the author. Con's argument that if using another author's words is claiming to have their identity, then using the Kalam Cosmological argument is claiming to be Kalam; therefore using another author's words is not claiming to have their identity is not compelling. If you present the KCA as your own original argument, then you are claiming to be their author; otherwise if you use the KCA but don't present it as your own argument, then you are not plagiarising. If you are claiming to be the author, then you are violating the Terms of Service as Pro argues; hence you should be penalised.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
RagnarTinyBudhaTied
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: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_nS5eFEafIQXBALAVM3Wjoqx5hBWkexO7bq0loTbG9g/edit?usp=sharing