The Instigator
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
alex1094
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Plagiarism is real

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 5 votes the winner is...
alex1094
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,886 times Debate No: 25348
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (136)
Votes (5)

 

RationalMadman

Con

Plagiarism isn't real.

First round is acceptance and definition and also the case.
alex1094

Pro

Plagiarism - An act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorisation and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author. (1)

Real - existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious. (2)

Since you stated that first round is definitions and you have not provided definitions, then I will assume that my definitions will be the eligible ones.

My case is very simple, all I have to do is prove that plagiarism is a real thing rather than an imaginary thing.


This website (3) provides a list of standards, which, if not met then a publication can be considered plagiarism. This is evidence that there are such standards that may at some point not be met and therefore plagiarism could occur.


Now, my evidence that plagiarism is a non-fictional thing and has in the past occurred can be found on this link (4) which is a very long list of all past incidents of plagiarism.


Therefore, I have proved that there are a certain set of qualifications which, if not met, result in plagiarism. Furthermore I have proved that plagiarism has in the past occurred, according to the definitions provided.



Sources
(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(3)http://www.plagiarism.org...;
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Con

I do not consider evidence of past cases of plagiarism as proof that it is real. The entire set of cases and law itself I am arguing is imaginary. The law and past cases do not prove that the law itself is not based on an imaginary concept that seems so real to human mind but isn't objectively real.

You must explain following since you are pro and thus have BOP.

a) that what appears as plagiarism is not pure coincidence.
b) that when a person readds something and is inpired by it and words somethign exactly like that it isn't just memory and not plagiarism.
c) that is someone were to read all sources used in an article and happen to make a debate sourcing the identical sources and quotes form the sources and same explanations of sources it isn't different form plagiarism
d) that if same thing is done twice the person who did it second time deserves to be punished and seen as immoral because of 'plagiarism', especially if it is not for commercial purposes (not money or wealth is gained)

You better also explain why if a person copies another it is even a concept to consider as real and not just being inspired by the , especially if they edit it.
alex1094

Pro

The first thing I'd like to ask is that Con proofread his arguments before he posts them because in their current state they are littered with grammatical and spelling mistakes which make some parts incomprehensible.




"The entire set of cases and law itself I am arguing is imaginary."

No, you cannot suddenly change your resolution in round 2, that is misleading to me as I took the debate based on what you specified in round 1. According to your resolution I am arguing that 'plagiarism is real.' Also, since you stated that definitions are to be provided in round 1 and you provided none, then my definitions are the ones which we are using. My definition is of plagiarism as a noun, the meaning of which I'll remind you of:
"An act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorisation and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author."
This therefore makes any law irrelevant, as I am not debating for the law or against it, all I'm debating for is the existence of plagiarism.






"a) that what appears as plagiarism is not pure coincidence.
b) that when a person readds something and is inpired by it and words somethign exactly like that it isn't just memory and not plagiarism."

Both of these are very generalised statements which you expect me to meet, they are both impossible to meet in any way with reference to someone elses work unless I was telepathic which I obviously am not. This is due to the fact that plagiarism is an 'subjective' thing and not an 'objective' one. Whether or not someone has plagiarised someone else will always be a matter of opinion. You can never prove that someone else plagiarised with intent. Therefore your standards are unfalsifiable in almost every circumstance except one, which I will go into soon.


"c) that is someone were to read all sources used in an article and happen to make a debate sourcing the identical sources and quotes form the sources and same explanations of sources it isn't different form plagiarism"

According to the definition I have above, one way in which plagiarism can be told apart from sourcing is whether or not the author was credited. So there is a distinction which can be made.



"d) that if same thing is done twice the person who did it second time deserves to be punished and seen as immoral because of 'plagiarism', especially if it is not for commercial purposes (not money or wealth is gained)"

This is very clearly completely irrelevant. Neither the debate topic or your resolution has any mention of the morality of plagiarism and if you wish to debate it with someone then I suggest you do so but this debate is purely on whether plagiarism is real.





Now, what you seem to be asking is for me to specify is whether the concept of plagiarism which I defined earlier is 'real' or not. For the purposes of this I am going to condense my definitions down a bit, plagiarism is going to become 'copying with intent' and real is going to become 'existing' as opposed to fictional.




Here is my example:


The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that can exist or that we know exists. This includes all matter and energy; planets,stars, and galaxies; and the contents of intergalactic space. Definitions and usage vary and similar terms include the cosmos, the world andnature. Scientific observation of earlier stages in the development of the universe, which can be seen at great distances, suggests that the universe has been governed by the same physical laws and constants throughout most of its extent and history. There are various multiverse theories, in which physicists have suggested that our universe might be one among many universes that likewise exist.





Do not worry about what the above extract says, only realise the fact that I just plagiarised is from a website I am not going to cite with a reference. I did this with intent and I did it without the author's authorisation. This, according to the definition provided, is what plagiarism is. Now, I very much doubt that Con can argue that this has never happened before, but if he does dare to argue this then he need only to look at the above excerpt to see that plagiarism does now exist, according to the definitions I provided.


Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Con

Pro easily could have typed that all as an original piece then afterwards searched on google and happened to have realised someone else wrote same thing before. Your closing argument is invalid for this reason.

The author needn't be credited if the person never read the author's work but simply accidentally said exact same way!

The pro themselves describe the first two points as 'unfalsifiable' and admits that plagiarism is purely man-made opinion and subjective by nature not real or objective!

This is absolute fallacy to the art of debating. You are saying that because something is pure opinion it is real? This is not proving that plagiarism is real.

That is all.
alex1094

Pro

"The pro themselves describe the first two points as 'unfalsifiable' and admits that plagiarism is purely man-made opinion and subjective by nature not real or objective!"

Actually I didn't state that in the slightest. I said that opinion as to whether someone else plagiarised is subjective because you are not that someone.

For example: Person A may believe that Person B plagiarised Person C, but Person D may believe that B didn't plagiarise C at all. Person A & D's opinions are subjective because they do not know whether B has intent or not. But if B did have intent then it is plagiarism.




"Pro easily could have typed that all as an original piece then afterwards searched on google and happened to have realised someone else wrote same thing before. Your closing argument is invalid for this reason."

What Con seems to not be realising is that, although it is technically possible that I could have written out that paragraph in the exact same way accidentally... I did not do it accidentally! I did it with intent and with knowledge of it. Therefore I plagiarised it.

Ergo.... Plagiarism exists.

Ergo... Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
136 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
Meh. I'm dropping my current debates because they are all "big issue debates" and all of the arguments presented on either side will likely have been said before; effectively regurgitation. Hmm, what should I start a debate on.
Posted by Manbearpanda 2 years ago
Manbearpanda
Of course there is: just use your definitions to reinforce your resolution, essentially. Explain in your definitions which definition applies in your resolution. And there are plenty of idiots with IQs over 115. IQ tests do not judge intelligence all that well.
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
I think the average user on this website is significantly more intelligent than the average person, actually. Maybe 1 standard deviation, tops (115); which is about the average college.
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
Is there any official way to extend your resolution if there are too many specifications to fit into the title and entail them in your first argument?
Posted by Manbearpanda 2 years ago
Manbearpanda
83% would be impressive if the user base were, by and large, intelligent and his opponents were intelligent, too. Given what I've seen thus far, I'm leaning heavily towards the contrary.
Posted by Manbearpanda 2 years ago
Manbearpanda
And you finally admit that your resolution was malformed. At least that's a step in the right direction.
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
Also, zaradi wins 83% of his arguments. That isn't bad. I haven't seen you even start one, sir.
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
*extent
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
Well, the resolution I wrote was flawed as I didn't specify extend of grammar errors and practical usage.
Posted by Manbearpanda 2 years ago
Manbearpanda
You lost to Zaradi in a debate. That's the intellectual equivalent of coming last in the Special Olympics.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by adontimasu 2 years ago
adontimasu
RationalMadmanalex1094Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved plagiarism was real by plagiarizing himself.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
RationalMadmanalex1094Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB, wsa got the rest
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
RationalMadmanalex1094Tied
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: I love this debate! It's basically the same debate I was having with manbearpanda in the comments sections. Pro, in this case, fails to see that through observation, one cannot know objective truth because perception is not reality. " I did not do it accidentally! I did it with intent and with knowledge of it. Therefore I plagiarised it." This is a simple-minded argument which coveys you obviously have missed his points. This is no more proof for it being objectively true if you copied "hello"
Vote Placed by Microsuck 2 years ago
Microsuck
RationalMadmanalex1094Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagarized and proved that it exists.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 2 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
RationalMadmanalex1094Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering dylancatlow's source vote