The Instigator
Forever23
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Political Advertising Does More Harm Than Good

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...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2015 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,166 times Debate No: 83076
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (5)

 

Forever23

Pro

Please Comment If You Would Like to Debate This Topic. It is Impossible to Accept.

Hello, my name is Forever 23 and I am here to bring forth the premise which is that political advertising does more harm than good.

My roadmap will include defining this debate and then introducing 3 of my own assertions.

Political Advertising- The process in which candidates compete with each other in order to win a election

Harm Than Good- Having more losses than gains or benefits.

More- Greater

So this debate would mean that the sometimes unfriendly competition harms the USA as a nation.

Once upon a time, this nation divided itself neatly among party lines. Most people voted; those who didn't tended to be poorer, less educated, and more apathetic, but still party loyal. Now, we are split by a new division: loyalists and apathetics. On one hand, media propaganda can often shore up loyalists to vote for their traditional party; on the other hand, that same propaganda is increasingly peeling off band of citizens who turn from independence to apathy, even antipathy toward our political institutions.

My first assertion is that it discourages people to vote in campaigns. Public regard for politicians has sunk to an all time low for governmental institutions since people believe the policies passed through these political advertisements. Political advertising ahs been called the worst cancer in American history. Ads cost millions, and yet the entire campaign season is now filled with nasty and personal attacks. During political ads, candidates state negative facts about each other. After seeing ads, people realize that both contestants will be a detriment. The people try to weigh which politician will do less harm but they are unable to find the answer and therefore refrain from voting. According to standford. edu, Since 1960, voter turnout in presidential elections has dropped 10 percentage points, from 62 percent of the voting-age population to 52 percent in 1992. The public's sense of its own effectiveness has taken an even more dramatic dive, in 1960, nearly 75 percent of the American public felt confident in the capabilities of government and their own efficacy; today only 40 percent do. There really are no "rules" when it comes to the content and form of political advertising. Political advertisers are not accountable to any regulatory body, voluntary or otherwise, for the accuracy of their claims. They readily engage in so-called "comparative" advertising. They blatantly criticize their competitors. They complain incessantly about the fairness of the comments made about them, while their opponents are doing the same. There is no acknowledged forum for the review of these claims and counter-claims. The press attempts to provide some sporadic checks on political advertisers by running "ad-watch" reports, but these reports by their very nature tend to fuel public cynicism. Considerable evidence suggests that the negativity associated with contemporary political campaigns has created an "avoidance" mentality which is serving to shrink the electorate and the level of political participation generally. We set out to consider two rival possibilities, both of which rest on the assumption that commercial advertising is evaluated more favorably than political advertising. The assimilation hypothesis, derived from social judgment theory, suggests that exposure to political advertising campaigns encourages people to "assimilate" or equate their feelings about related attitude targets (for a discussion of social judgment and other theories of attitude change, see Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). The essence of this concept is that negative reactions to political advertising will color attitudes toward other forms of advertising. The competing possibility, which we have termed the "contrast" hypothesis, suggests that the negative response to political campaigns actually makes commercial advertising appear more appealing than it would have been in the absence of political advertising. By accentuating the negative attributes of political advertisements, political campaigns strengthen the standing of commercial advertisers. Advertising can become so violent against other candidates that people start forming reasons for not voting for anyone at all and staying at home. If people don't vote, a malignant, detrimental president or other official will be elected.

My second assertion is that political advertisements have a negative effect on the democratic ideals that this country was fundamentally founded upon. Voters and politicians become disillusioned through the mudslinging process and all the pandemonium characterized by political advertising. The Constitution itself states that democracy is based upon open thought and majority representation but through negative political advertising, free thought and ideas are UNABLE to flow through the campaign. We need a way to make sure that the facts American people hear on these ads are correct. There should be a process to screen a political ad for veracity prior to airing it. If an ad is intended to do something as important as influence someones vote, the information should be factual. Until that happens, the correct electorates will not be chosen.

Our third point is that it hurts our country.
According to CNN, It's not that the candidates are incapable of high-mindedness; they are extraordinarily bright. But in recent years the mantra of high-octane campaigns has been that below-the-belt tactics work, and the rationalization has been that a candidate can't accomplish anything worthy if he or she doesn't get elected in the first place.

Jim Rutenberg, in The New York Times, under the headline "The Lowest Common Denominator and the 2012 Race for President," wrote last month: "The thinking was that the two presidential candidates, both with Harvard degrees, would finally use their intellectual prowess to discuss the nation's challenges seriously." That, he wrote, is looking like an unrealistic expectation, and thus "Strategists on both sides are pondering which campaign is best served by the vitriol."

From time to time there are public calls for a truce in the invective. It never seems to stick. Carol E. Lee, writing in The Wall Street Journal: "Neither side shows any signs of curtailing the negativity. ... One effect of such early negativity is that both candidates figure to be battered by November, and voters could become fatigued earlier."

Why does this matter? With politics more of a spectator sport than ever, what is the real harm in its devolving into an only slightly more refined version of mud wrestling?

The harm is that it's a difficult shift to go from mud wrestler to statesman once the votes are counted. The metaphorical eye-gouging and groin-kicking of take-no-prisoners campaigns may be effective in grabbing voters' attention -- increasingly, watching a presidential campaign play out is like slowing down to gape at a particularly ugly auto accident. But there are indications that the voters are getting wise to the game, and becoming disillusioned with it.

In a front-page story in USA Today before the conventions began, Susan Page reported that a USA Today/Gallup Poll "finds Americans taking a decidedly more negative view of the presidential candidates and the tenor of their campaigns than they did four years ago."

Some of the findings of the poll: Voters are critical of both candidates for making unfair attacks on each other. To an extent not seen in at least the last six election seasons, voters say that they view both the Republican and Democratic parties unfavorably. When, in 2008, potential voters were asked if both candidates would make good presidents, 25% said yes. This year, asked the same question, only 12% said yes.

And that is the danger of mutual assured destruction, politics-style. In warfare, the hoped-for impact of the knowledge that either side could annihilate the other was to preserve a state of peace, however strained or uneasy -- it was, and is, a doctrine of deterrence. In politics, it doesn't seem to inhibit the combatants.

A willingness to use any means to win an election will inevitably, in the end, produce a president. But then the president will have to lead a nation that has turned darkly cynical about the entire process.

There is a publication that has none of the glitz or dinner-party cachet of the national newspapers or television news networks, but it reaches an audience that dwarfs theirs. The publication is the AARP Bulletin -- circulation 22 million -- and its editor, Jim Toedtman, recently wrote an editorial that puts all of this in measured perspective.

Under the headline "Leaders, Try Greatness, Not Meanness," Toedtman said that strategists for the opposing sides are displaying "no interest in compromise," and quoted Allegheny College President James H. Mullen Jr. in characterizing the current process as "a disgraceful stew of invective ... a continuing contest in which each side of the partisan divide sees itself as right and the other as evil, uncaring or, worst of all, unpatriotic."

Does it have to be this way? The editorial recalls John Adams, who "could just as easily have been talking about today when he wrote in 1776 of his fears that the Continental Congress' decisions would be dictated 'by noise, not sense; by meanness, not greatness; by ignorance, not learning; by contracted hearts, not large souls.'"

Adams wrote, "There must be decency and respect and veneration introduced for persons of authority of every rank or we are undone. In popular government, this is our only way.'"
dsjpk5

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate.

PLAGIARISM

My opponent has plagiarized the vast majority of her opening round from the following websites:
http://www.cnn.com...

http://web.stanford.edu...

http://pcl.stanford.edu...

I ask the voters to consider this when voting.
Debate Round No. 1
Forever23

Pro

Dear judges, before I begin this debate, I would just like to point out that the Con has NOT read my speech at all. If he wasted a few minutes of his time before writing the argument, he would have noticed that it is not plagiarism. I have sited most of my sources right before I stated any evidence.

There are profound analogies between politics and sports. Grantland Rice got it right more than half a century ago when he observed that winning or losing is less important than how the game is played. Likewise in politics. The temper and integrity of campaigns are more important for the cohesiveness of society than the outcome of any election.

Once again, hello this is Forever 23 and I am here upon the platform o bring forth the premise that political advertising does more harm than good.

So since there were no points to refute, I will simply restate my own points and introduce a new one.
1. It discourages people to vote in campaigns.
2. Political advertisements have a negative effect on the democratic ideals that this country was fundamentally founded upon.
3. It hurts our country.
4. There are few rules and no referees.

My fourth point is that there are few rules and no referees.
In politics, there are few rules and no referees. The public must be on perpetual guard and prepared to throw flags when candidates overstep the bounds of fairness and decency. Our system of governance depends on accountability of public officials. So, a healthy regard for freedom of speech and a heavy dose of respect for the offbeat are important. Checks and balances are the American way, but there should not be unrequited tolerance for the intolerant.

Politics has a place for accentuating the positive even to the point of candidate narcissism. Issue articulation is even more important: It is always appropriate to contrast approaches to government, to suggest an opponent is too big or tightfisted a spender, too heavy a taxer or too undisciplined a tax cutter, too quick to go to war or too slow to respond to a national challenge. But it is never appropriate to lie, to impugn patriotism, or feed or inspire prejudice.

As a candidate in 17 congressional elections, losing the first and last, I had three rules: a) avoid the conflicts of interest that special interest funding implies; b) accentuate the positive in all public pronouncements; and c) respect the opposition, especially when most dismayed with positions and tactics employed. Candidates who maintain independence of judgment and hold to the rudder of respectful dialogue build a resistance to conflicted position taking and the kind of utterances that might be regretted, particularly later in life.

In the most profound political science observation of the 20th century, Albert Einstein said that splitting the atom changed everything save our way of thinking. Human nature may be one of the few constants in history, but 9/11 has taught that thinking must change not simply because of the destructive power of the big bomb but because of the implosive nature of small acts.

Violence and social division are rooted in negativism. Since such thought begins in the hearts and minds of individuals, it is in each of us that negativity must be checked. In western civilization"s most prophetic poem, "The Second Coming," William Butler Yeats wrote the center could not hold when "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Apoca"lypse may not be a field of study, but the chaos of modernity seems to have produced a crisis of perspective and of values. Citizens of various philosophical persuasions increasingly disrespect modern-day democratic governance.

Much of the problem may flow from society"s fast-changing nature. But part falls at the feet of politicians who use ill-chosen rhetoric and campaign techniques to divide voters rather than appeal to what Lincoln described as "the better angels of our nature." Negativity dispirits the soul of society. Candidates may prevail in elections by tearing down rather than uplifting, b ut they cannot then unite an angered citizenry.

The money problem. What is to be done? The drug of ambition that ever tempts politicians is money, mainstreamed into advertising to assign candidate virtues and attack opponent failings. Dependency on this narcotic is most acute when it is employed independently, where the ugliest charges can be made or insinuated. Federal law authorized the so-called 527 groups, allowing unrestricted big-money donations to advance mischievous ads without candidate accountability. Citizens should insist that these weapons of nega"tive destruction be banned.

Process is our most important product. Campaign reform should become a rallying cry for all who want to check the negative and rid politics of funding sources intent on putting candidates in a compromised corner. The duty of public officials is to inspire hope rather than manipulate fear. Whatever the issues, the temptation to appeal to the darker side of human nature must be avoided. The stakes are too high.
http://www.usnews.com...
On November 6, 2012, the Washington Post reported that Barack Obama spent $396 million on campaign ads and 85% were negative. Mitt Romney spent $472 million on campaign ads of which 91% were negative.

Are these the values and messages we want to impart to our children? Are bad mouthing, lying, bullying, and defaming people a good example for our children just because we want to get ahead in life or have a difference of opinion? Is this how we want them to conduct themselves in the real world? I don"t know about you, but I would be appalled and disappointed if my children felt the only way to get ahead in life was to bad mouth, lie and defame their co-workers, superiors or business competitors.

http://www.50andbeyond.com...

Political strategists have been mostly unwavering in the belief that negative ads work during a Presidential race. But the action so far in 2008 has given some of them reason to believe this election cycle may be a different battlefield. Mitt Romney and John Edwards went negative early and often, and both are now out of the contest.

For the remaining contenders, negative ads also pose big risks. Hillary Clinton pulled unfavorable radio spots from the South Carolina primary after less than 24 hours, when her campaign's rhetoric against Barack Obama was perceived as racial, if not racist. Ads attacking John McCain's policy for maintaining a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq must be carefully balanced against his record as a patriot who spent five years as a Vietnam prisoner of war.

Some strategists, including Texas-based Democratic campaign and opposition research expert Jason Stanford says the increased role independent and young voters will play this November "makes going negative more complicated this year than in past years." Other strategists agree. Cynical and overly negative messages seem to be out of step with the country's zeitgeist this year. "Positive is the new black," in terms of fashion, says Deutsch Chairman Donny Deutsch, who hosts CNBC's The Big Idea. Deutsch points to this year's Super Bowl ads as being more positive and uplifting than ads of the last two years, which tended to be snarky, mean, or drawing on black humor.

http://www.bloomberg.com...

In 1800 the Jefferson campaign came out with a statement that his opponent President John Adams was a "repulsive pendant," a "gross hypocrite" and "a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force or firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

A Democratic newspaper wrote that Lincoln should not be elected president because he only changed his socks once every 10 days.

In 1828 a Republican pamphlet claimed that Andrew Jackson was "a gambler, a cockfighter, a slave trader and the husband of a really fat wife."

My favorite mudslinging quote was attributed to George Smathers who was running against Claude Pepper in the 1950 senatorial race. It was reported that this quote was part of speech given to rural communities in North Florida.

"Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, and his sister was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy."
http://www.moorecommgroup.com...

To Conclude- What are advertisments? Mostly they include filthy things that the candidates state about each other. They hurt our nation and ensure the end of free speech and justice.

Thank you. Vote pro.

.
dsjpk5

Con

My opponent surprisingly has denied her plagiarism. This is an easy
issue for the voters to settle. Don't take my word for it, dear voter,
find out for yourself. Here's an easy way to figure out who's telling
the truth. Read her paragraph beginning with the words"Once upon a
time, " THEN compare those words with the link I provided to fir the
Stanford link: http://pcl.stanford.edu...

Then ask yourself, "Where is the quotation marks? Where is the
reference to the website?" It's not there. That's plagiarism.

Then do the same thing with her paragraph that begins with "From time
to time there are public calls for a truce in the invective." Compare
that to the CNN website I linked:

http://www.cnn.com...

Ask yourself the same questions. Where are the quotation marks? Where
is the reference to CNN? It's not there. And that's plagiarism.

BRAND NEW PLAGIARISM

In an impressive act of hubris, my opponent then doubles down on her tendency to plagiarize.

In her very first "new" point, she begins with the words "In politics, there's no rules and few referees". This seem rather similar to a piece written by James Leach of US News and World Report. But again don't take my word for it, read the second paragraph in the article found here:

http://www.usnews.com...

Quotation marks? None found.

The same can be said for everything else she copied and pasted without quotation marks. Plagiarism 101.

As my opponent hasn't offered any of her own arguments, she STILL hasn't given me anything to refute. Hopefully this will change in the third and final round.
Debate Round No. 2
Forever23

Pro

NO NEW POINTS IN ROUND 3!

Dear audience, judges. Once again, hello, my name is Forever 23 and I am here to bring forth the premise which is that political advertising does more harm than good.

My roadmap will include siting my sources, restating my points, clarifying this topic for my opponent and finally weighing this debate.

So lets go through my opponents speech. Trough out his speech, my opponent repeatedly convicted me of plagiarism. I have used articles from websites, but I have sited my sources as my opponent has failed to notice.

But dear audience, just for the sake of my opponent well being and for you, I will restate my sources.
http://www.cnn.com...
http://web.stanford.edu...
http://pcl.stanford.edu...
http://www.usnews.com...
http://www.50andbeyond.com...
http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://www.moorecommgroup.com...

At the end of his speech, my opponent stated that I have not stated any assertions. However, I just have one question to the opponent.

Dear opposition speaker, did you put on you glasses yesterday? For pardon, but only a very "talented mind" could have failed to see the 3 blatant arguments I have posted. Just because he/she failed failed to refute my assertions, it does not mean that the arguments were not there.

For the sake of clarity, I would like to repeat all of my assertions of which the opposition has refuted NONE!
1. It discourages people to vote in campaigns.
2. Political advertisements have a negative effect on the democratic ideals that this country was fundamentally founded upon.
3. It hurts our country.
4. There are few rules and no referees.

Perhaps my opponent has misunderstood this debate and therefore failed to debate the topic. In order to provide the needed help and clarity, I will in this speech explain all about political advertising and hope fully get my opponent to agree with me.

What is political advertising? https://adstandards.com.au..., Political advertising is advertising that attempts to influence or comment upon a matter which is currently the subject of extensive political debate. The advertising of an object is NOT political advertising. Political campaigns are. WASHINGTON (AP) " So far this campaign, the political parties have exposed voters to nearly $160 million in ads attacking congressional candidates. How much spent painting a positive image? About $17 million. That's nearly $1 of nice for every $10 of nasty.
The message ingrained in such a disparity in numbers: Don't vote for a candidate; vote against the opponent. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com....

In order to bring more clarity and justice, please let me add more "meat" into my own arguments.

1) IT DISCOURAGES VOTERS
https://www.washingtonpost.com...-
voters/2014/11/04/cadae016-63d3-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html

It"s one thing to read that more than $1 billion has been spent to run 2.2 million television ads on congressional and gubernatorial races in the 2014 midterms.

"I don"t believe in anything they"re saying, because they"re bashing each other," said Jamie Aaron, 35, of Aurora, Colo., as she loaded groceries into her car at a local supermarket. Aaron said she"s so discouraged by the slashing attacks that she"s not going to vote.

The overall volume of broadcast and national cable television ads is actually down slightly from the 2010 election, largely because fewer House races are in play, according to data from the ad-tracking service Kantar Media analyzed by the Wesleyan Media Project.

But states with competitive Senate races have been the scenes of major air battles, driving a 12 percent spike in the number of Senate ads this year compared with four years ago. By the end of last week, an estimated $410 million had been spent to air 907,900 ads in Senate races, according to the Center for Public Integrity"s analysis of Kantar Media data.

For Rebecca Vinduska, a 39-year-old Democrat in Claremont, the most frustrating part is the lack of information the ads offer about what the candidates plan to do.

"There"s no talk about the future," she said. "It"s always, "This person did that." Not, "Here"s what we want to happen."R01;"

State Rep. Skip Rollins, a Republican from Sullivan County, said he can"t wait for Wednesday to arrive.

"The advertisements will end, the 20 phone calls a night are going to end and everything will go back to normal," Rollins said, adding: "Enough is enough; it"s time for it to be over."

Judges, without Voters, there will be no America!

2) HAS A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON DEMOCRACY

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. https://www.law.cornell.edu...

These advertisements are stopping the flow of ideas. They are covering us with a layer. A blanket that stops and chokes the democratic ideals of this country!

The only way we can maintain a democracy is by stopping political lies! YOU are living in lies with these ads. I am living with LIES. MY OPPONENT is living a lie as long as these ads exist!

If you want more truth and a guaranteed freedom, you will not delay and vote pro!

3) It hurts our nation.

According to CNN, It's not that the candidates are incapable of high-mindedness; they are extraordinarily bright. But in recent years the mantra of high-octane campaigns has been that below-the-belt tactics work, and the rationalization has been that a candidate can't accomplish anything worthy if he or she doesn't get elected in the first place.

Jim Rutenberg, in The New York Times, under the headline "The Lowest Common Denominator and the 2012 Race for President," wrote last month: "The thinking was that the two presidential candidates, both with Harvard degrees, would finally use their intellectual prowess to discuss the nation's challenges seriously." That, he wrote, is looking like an unrealistic expectation, and thus "Strategists on both sides are pondering which campaign is best served by the vitriol."
http://www.cnn.com...

YOUR nation, MY nation! The USA. They are all being hurt because of political advertisements. Because of candidates who are feeding US lies. My opponent is believeing these lives.

4) There are no rules.

Why does this happen? Due to no rules and restrictions.

Thank you. Vote for a better nation. Vote pro.
dsjpk5

Con

Rules

It's too late to try and add rules to the debate after its already
started. I do not accept my opponent's last ditch attempt to silence
me. If my opponent wanted to make a rule concerning the third round,
she should have established it before I accepted the debate. Again,
it's too late to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Even MORE PLAGIARISM

To my opponent's credit, she's cut back on her plagiarism this round.
Unfortunately, she hasn't given up the practice. Take for example, her
paragraph beginning with:

The overall volume of broadcast and national cable television ads is
actually down slightly from the 2010 election, largely because fewer
House races are in play, according to data from the ad-tracking service
Kantar Media analyzed by the Wesleyan Media Project.

This is word for word from the same CNN article she keeps plagiarizing.

Does she use quotation marks? No. Does that mean she plagiarized, yes.

REBUTTALS

Thankfully, my opponent did finally give us some arguments of her own
to consider. Having said that, I didn't find them to compelling. Let
me explain:

Before I do, let's all remember what we're debating. We're debating
whether or not political advertising does MORE harm than good. In
order for my opponent yo win, she must establish why what political
advertising does actually produces harm. If she can't establish that
harm is being done, she can't possibly win. Here's why:

If she can't establish harm, then obviously political advertising can't
do MORE harm than good. At worst, the amount of harm (0) would be
equal to the amount of good (0). If that's the case, then the Con
position is correct.

With this in mind, I will go over her assertions one by one.

R1

Pro asserts political advertising discourages voters, but doesn't tell
us why we're supposed to see this as a bad thing. Not really anyway.
She says that if there are no voters, there would be "no America".
That is obviously false. This country would still exist if no one
voted. It may exist with a different kind of government, but it would
still exist. So in reality, Pro hasn't given us any reason yo believe
this harms us.

R2

Pro says political ads hurt democracy by lying. There's only one
problem with her argument... she doesn't offer any evidence that
political ads tell lies. Not one example. This leaves her second
argument as nothing more than a bare assertion. I know she'll
understand if the voters reject this argument as the baseless claim
that it is.

R3

Here she simply states "It hurts or nation", but doesn't explain HOW
she thinks it hurts our nation. How does vitriol hurt our nation? My
opponent doesn't say. Another bare assertion. As Christopher Hitchens
was famous for saying, "That which can be asserted without evidence can
be rejected without evidence." [1]

R4

This was the least compelling one. "There are no rules". That's it.
That was the extent of het alleged argument. No mention why this is
allegedly harmful. Just the latest in a long line of bare assertions.

My Argument

Not only has my opponent failed at offering us any evidence that
political advertising does any harm, I suggest that it actually
produces good outcomes. Here's how:

Political advertising creates jobs. In order for any advertising to
exist, it takes at least one person to create the ad. This person
doesn't do it fir free; someone hires that person to do the job. The
money paid to the ad creator stimulates the economy when he or she uses
that money to purchase goods and services. This helps provide money to
purchase food and water. Food and water are essential for our
survival. Our survival is a good thing. Without it, we'd cease to
exist.

Sources

1.
http://philosophy.stackexchange.com...
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
R1
Pro plagiarized all of Round 1, as pointed out by Con. Pro did not even cite her sources. This immediately shows a lack of conduct.
Con spent Round 1 pointing out Pro's plagiarism, using Pro's sources against her. Con presented no arguments on the debate topic.
So far, Con wins conduct and reliable sources.

R2
Pro denies her plagiarism despite it being conspicuous, once again showing a lack of conduct, and then continues to plagiarize more.
Con continues to point out Pros plagiarism, pointing out the lack of quotations marks and no websites cited, to support that Pro did indeed plagiarize her arguments. Con uses Pro's own sources correctly, citing them to prove that Pro is plagiarizing. Con still has not presented any arguments.
Conduct to Con. Reliable sources to Con.

R3
Pro continues to deny her plagiarism and seems to have a major lack of understanding with the difference between plagiarism and citing/quoting a source, but then does give a few arguments.
Con once more, points our even more plagiarism coming from Pro. Con does rebuttal, successfully,l what points Pro did make by pointing out her claims has no evidence or explanations, meaning Pro's actual arguments, was conjecture.
The one who makes a claim, must have the evidence to support it. Since Pro did not bring forth any evidence for her claims, she gave conjecture, therefore, they are dismissed.
Con wins conduct, sources, and convincing arguments.

Summary:
Due to plagiarism, lack of evidence, and misuse of sources, It is obviously clear that Pro doesn't deserves these points.

Due to successful rebuttals, correct use of Pro's sources against Pro, and pointing out Pro's plagiarism and remaining respectful in the matter, I award Con Conduct. Convincing Arguments, and Reliable Sources.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Now that the voting rights moderator has spoken, can we dispense with the silly notion that it's not plagiarism if it's "true"?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Wylted// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized her arguments, and since just about everything was plagiarized, it warrants conduct and argument loss. "copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)" http://www.plagiarism.org...... Not that you even cited properly but the previous quote is your biggest problem.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Much of how to assess plagiarism is at the voter's discretion. It's not up to moderation to decide whether the voter goes too far or not far enough in allocating points on this basis alone.
************************************************************************
Posted by EverlastingMoment 1 year ago
EverlastingMoment
RFD -

Because of how controversial this debate is, I am only awarding the conduct point, and I will explain that as I explain why I didn't allocate the arguments point. Firstly, I was very disappointed with Pro's argument, not only because of what could have obviously been seen as plagiarism by her argument in the first round, using sources from CNN and Stanford, however, I am not basing my decision purely on the belief that Pro plagiarized alone, it's because of how she handled it in later rounds, in round two Pro states that her argument was cited in round one and therefore not plagiarized, however, this is also rather disappointing to read. Just because you say 'According to CNN' doesn't justify this, this is not properly cited at all and what disappointed me the most was how much Pro let the sources do the talking in her arguments, there was very little originality in her arguments, and this failed to convince me as you are meant to uses sources to back up your points, not use it as your points itself. Pro herself does not deny that most of it came from sources, as it clearly did, as she quoted multiple times from the Washington Post, CNN, and Stanford. The reason I can't exactly avoid Con the arguments point is that for a majority of time during the debate Con simply tried to prove his claim that Pro was plagiarizing, and in the final round Con did bring up some rebuttals but by this point it mattered little because Con only focused on Pro's arguments throughout the entire debate and never made any arguments. But rightfully so, it's Pro's breach of integrity by spamming her arguments with simply sources alone and not elaborating on her own explanations that comes off me as very lazy effort from her side that ultimately loses the conduct point to Con.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
You're going to have a hard time in college, if you think that's not plagiarism, and though I'll usually let self plagiarism slide, this is unacceptable.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
I'm not trying to get you to admit anything. You don't have to. As you can clearly see, everyone knows you did it. I'm beginning to really like my comparison to The Emporer's New Clothes. I'm done debating you in the comments section. This is getting silly. Go ahead and argue here until you're blue in the face. I don't care either way.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Point 3 was a clear case of plagiarism. You stated an argument in one sentence, then let a CNN article do the rest.
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
I don't dsj. If you do introduce new points I will have to refute them in comments section. And no dsj, I wont admit plagiarism. You wont weed me out into admitting it. So what about you just finish this debate and that's that.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
There are no standing rules. No moderator will close this debate. Both the examples are cases of plagiarism. If you don't use quotation marks, you're passing it off as your own thoughts. You plagiarized, and I'm sure you know it. Don't get mad at me. All I did was point out the emporer wasn't wearing any clothes.
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

These are only two examples in which this member blamed their opponent on plagiarism. Just because one used sites for evidence, does not suddenly mean plagiarism.
As long as the information used is TRUE and the sources sited one way or another (which I did) the argument is valid.
Just because one is not able to find a refutation to anothers argument, does not mean that it should be passed of as plagiarism.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
Forever23dsjpk5Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Forever23dsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm only giving the conduct point because that was mainly what this debate turned into. It goes to Con due to Pro's plagiarism. Pro copied a huge chunk of her argument off of other sources [for example her entire 3rd argument,] this warrants a loss of conduct points.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Forever23dsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized her arguments, and since just about everything was plagiarized, it warrants conduct and argument loss. "copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)" http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism Not that you even cited properly but the previous quote is your biggest problem.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 1 year ago
EverlastingMoment
Forever23dsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Forever23dsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had widespread plagiarism so I had to award both conduct (for the breach of intellectual integrity) to con, as well as sources because pro did not use them correctly - they used them so terribly that they plagiarised! 3-0 to con.