Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Weirdman is a plagiarist

PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 10:19:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Should outright plagiarism in an official debate result in expulsion or should it result in automatic forfeiture? Or both?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 10:35:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 10:19:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Should outright plagiarism in an official debate result in expulsion or should it result in automatic forfeiture? Or both?

You know he could claim to the author, I doubt he is, but it's a potential pitfall to future acusations.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 10:39:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 10:35:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/4/2011 10:19:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Should outright plagiarism in an official debate result in expulsion or should it result in automatic forfeiture? Or both?

You know he could claim to the author, I doubt he is, but it's a potential pitfall to future acusations.:

Look how many links there are with the same exact words in different sources, and some of them with different authorship.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
#7
Add Post
Forum Moderator
 
8/4/2011 10:51:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The argument/post that was a direct cut and paste has been deleted from the debate.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 10:53:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 10:51:04 AM, Forum Moderator wrote:
The argument/post that was a direct cut and paste has been deleted from the debate.:

I appreciate your attention in this matter, but I would prefer that the evidence either remain up for all to see and/or it result in an immediate forfeiture.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
#9
Add Post
Forum Moderator
 
8/4/2011 10:56:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You reported the post and our options are to edit and delete. If you prefer, the passage can be put back up.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 12:50:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 10:56:18 AM, Forum Moderator wrote:
You reported the post and our options are to edit and delete. If you prefer, the passage can be put back up.:

No, that's all right. After reviewing it I see that you mentioned it in the debate itself. I thought you simply deleted it, but with your commentary it lends objective credence to it. Thank you, I appreciate it.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 1:23:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Debatepedia is open source. If the argument came from there, I don't see what the problem is. Almost all debate arguments are derivative anyways.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 1:53:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 1:23:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Debatepedia is open source. If the argument came from there, I don't see what the problem is. Almost all debate arguments are derivative anyways.

He copied it verbatim. This is actually an interesting issue because I would feel insulted if anyone copied a source verbatim in my debates. I would feel fine if he put the argument in his own words, but if we're going to validate C&P arguments it could ruin debates and I've seen it happen in the past.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 3:59:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 1:53:16 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 8/4/2011 1:23:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Debatepedia is open source. If the argument came from there, I don't see what the problem is. Almost all debate arguments are derivative anyways.

He copied it verbatim. This is actually an interesting issue because I would feel insulted if anyone copied a source verbatim in my debates. I would feel fine if he put the argument in his own words, but if we're going to validate C&P arguments it could ruin debates and I've seen it happen in the past.

Yet why does it matter if it is word for word or not? So basically the argument is valid as long as you just use a synonym for every 5 words copied or so. Give me a break. That's just creating unnecessary work. As long as the debater isn't liable for posting the content, then it's fine.

Also, the opening arguments aren't the difficult part of debate. It's once the arguments are under intense scrutiny and the logic is questioned that the art of debating begins. If a debater doesn't understand his or her own arguments, then he or she has no chance of winning. A debater using copied and pasted sources would become nonsensical after the second round, once rebuttals need to be refuted.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 4:11:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So basically the argument is valid as long as you just use a synonym for every 5 words copied or so. Give me a break. That's just creating unnecessary work. As long as the debater isn't liable for posting the content, then it's fine.

Obviously a good argument is a good argument. I'm just worried about the dynamics between the debaters and the likely drop in respect an opponent who you expect to make a dedicate a certain time commitment. I've been in these debates where literally all it is is links to other sources and articles. Cut and paste heaven, it gets very frustrating. I'm just worried about the chemistry and mutual respect between debaters that would seem to be at stake.

Also, the opening arguments aren't the difficult part of debate. It's once the arguments are under intense scrutiny and the logic is questioned that the art of debating begins. If a debater doesn't understand his or her own arguments, then he or she has no chance of winning. A debater using copied and pasted sources would become nonsensical after the second round, once rebuttals need to be refuted.

The internet is endless. I'm not really sure what we're arguing now though - I've always just insisted opponents citing sources where they're vague and certainly not C&P. It's hardly a debate if your opponent doesn't type anything or maybe 2 lines in a 8000 character debate. If he does that and cites his sources, I'd just call it bad character. Trust me though, people can respond with C&P to a huge extent given the material out there. If I wanted to debate an article I would have wrote to the author. If anything, it shows bad etiquette and a lack of respect for an opponent.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 4:39:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I typically dock a debater significantly in my vote if they are found guilty of plagiarism.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 5:04:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yet why does it matter if it is word for word or not?:

Because then you're not really debating someone on their merits or their ideas, you're debating someone else while this guy takes all the credit! You honestly don't see a problem with that? Should I copy and paste a thesis for school and pawn it off as my own work? Think the school would accept that?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 5:17:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 5:04:42 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Yet why does it matter if it is word for word or not?:

Because then you're not really debating someone on their merits or their ideas, you're debating someone else while this guy takes all the credit! You honestly don't see a problem with that? Should I copy and paste a thesis for school and pawn it off as my own work? Think the school would accept that?

If it's a one round debate then I'll cry foul but debates aren't all about openings. They merely set up the discussion. It doesn't matter that Wierdman plagurized in that if he doesn't know anything about the argument, he will not be able to defend it.

If I post a complicated and technical argument relating to some obscure mathematical concept that I know nothing about, it will be almost impossible for me to defend it and win. My opponent would tear into my responses because even though I initially copied my opening argument, I do not have the knowledge of the subject to defend it(which is probably why I would have copied it in the first place).
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 5:49:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 5:04:42 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Yet why does it matter if it is word for word or not?:

Because then you're not really debating someone on their merits or their ideas,

On their ideas! Are you serious? Nobody uses original arguments in a debate. Even if the debate 'came up with him or herself', most likely someone else thought of it first.

you're debating someone else while this guy takes all the credit!

If its unlicensed so what? If its open sourced then one just needs to cite the source. If I create a debate, then use my own ideas in a paper, I'm plagiarizing juggle :p.

You honestly don't see a problem with that?

No

Should I copy and paste a thesis for school and pawn it off as my own work?
Think the school would accept that?

False analogy. The school sets up its own random standards.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 7:22:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
On their ideas! Are you serious? Nobody uses original arguments in a debate. Even if the debate 'came up with him or herself', most likely someone else thought of it first.:

You're not understanding. Suppose the opponent is an inarticulate moron, yet sounds eloquent and composes well-reasoned debates. Why? Because it's actually the words of William Lane Craig, not some toothless creationist.

I can't even believe that you accept plagiarism at all, let alone in an official debate.

you're debating someone else while this guy takes all the credit!

If its unlicensed so what? If its open sourced then one just needs to cite the source.:

Yeah, exactly, CITE the source, not pawn it off as their own material. He didn't cite the material he stole.

Should I copy and paste a thesis for school and pawn it off as my own work?
Think the school would accept that?

False analogy. The school sets up its own random standards.:

So you've never heard of the term "intellectual property" before? If a professor in any school, anywhere in the world asked YOU to write a paper on the limits of the speed of light, and you simply copy and pasted, word for word, Albert Einstein's thesis, then you didn't actually write a thing... Albert Einstein did.

Ordinarily I'd like to debate you on the importance of intellectual property and/or plagiarism, but I fear you'd probably just plagiarize the whole thing and not add any of your own thoughts to it.

I mean, honestly, why do you think patents exist?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 8:27:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 7:22:45 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
On their ideas! Are you serious? Nobody uses original arguments in a debate. Even if the debate 'came up with him or herself', most likely someone else thought of it first.:

You're not understanding. Suppose the opponent is an inarticulate moron, yet sounds eloquent and composes well-reasoned debates. Why? Because it's actually the words of William Lane Craig, not some toothless creationist.

As I stated earlier, If one does not understand the material he or she is quoting, then one cannot really do well in Round 2, in which refutation is given.

I can't even believe that you accept plagiarism at all, let alone in an official debate.

I can't believe you don't realize that an open source distributor can be redistributed by anyone.


you're debating someone else while this guy takes all the credit!

If its unlicensed so what? If its open sourced then one just needs to cite the source.:

Yeah, exactly, CITE the source, not pawn it off as their own material. He didn't cite the material he stole.

The main controversy is that Juggle uses intellectual property rights. Since, open source projects can not be redistribute and used as intellectual property, it is a form of theft in a sense. However, It would only be a minor thing to state "This is from debateopedia". And Juggle would be really stupid to try to sue someone, for using their "intellectual property" from debateopedia.

Should I copy and paste a thesis for school and pawn it off as my own work?
Think the school would accept that?

False analogy. The school sets up its own random standards.:

So you've never heard of the term "intellectual property" before? If a professor in any school, anywhere in the world asked YOU to write a paper on the limits of the speed of light, and you simply copy and pasted, word for word, Albert Einstein's thesis, then you didn't actually write a thing... Albert Einstein did.

Except debateopedia is an open source projected, so it doesn't follow under the usual rules of intellectual property.

And again, If a professor asked you to write a paper on the limits of the speed of light, you still didn't write anything important, Albert Einstein did. Your just regurgitating his words in a slightly different manner.

Ordinarily I'd like to debate you on the importance of intellectual property and/or plagiarism, but I fear you'd probably just plagiarize the whole thing and not add any of your own thoughts to it.

So now were ad hominem attacking eh. Your right, the first round usually doesn't require much thought, because most of the information would be recycled arguments known as "research".

I mean, honestly, why do you think patents exist?

Red herring. This is a controversy involving the user using an OPEN SOURCE project. This isn't about a user using copyrighted or patented material.

Also, are you an Austrian economist? Aren't they against intellectual property since it involves monopolization of an idea.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 10:21:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 10:19:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Should outright plagiarism in an official debate result in expulsion or should it result in automatic forfeiture? Or both?

This is my favorite way to handle it (notice how the voters responded):
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 10:26:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
you obnoxious jerks. The majority of you plagiarize! Putting quotations around an excerpt does not automatically mean that you have cited a source. Just goes to show, you only get punished when you get caught.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 10:34:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 5:49:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:04:42 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Yet why does it matter if it is word for word or not?:

Because then you're not really debating someone on their merits or their ideas,


On their ideas! Are you serious? Nobody uses original arguments in a debate. Even if the debate 'came up with him or herself', most likely someone else thought of it first.

The comment of yours only makes sense if we define argument as a general term. For example, "the cosmological argument" or something.

On the other hand, we can use "argument" in a much more inclusive and specific way, one that takes into account personal ability and such.

You state that nobody uses original arguments during a debate. That's obviously not true for the second definition of the word. Effective use of language, order of contentions and persuasive personal analogies would be a few examples of the unique and varied aspects of the "arguments" here.

Instead of going "Why not?", we should realize that the concept behind the second use of the word seriously undercuts any attempt to put plagiarism and non-plagiarism into the same category based simply on the, "Does the argument (first definition) already exist somewhere?" criteria.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 10:58:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 10:34:59 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:49:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:04:42 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Yet why does it matter if it is word for word or not?:

Because then you're not really debating someone on their merits or their ideas,


On their ideas! Are you serious? Nobody uses original arguments in a debate. Even if the debate 'came up with him or herself', most likely someone else thought of it first.

The comment of yours only makes sense if we define argument as a general term. For example, "the cosmological argument" or something.

The arguments come from research. Any debater that does not use research in his or her debate will unlikely win. There are a few exceptions, but they are rare.

On the other hand, we can use "argument" in a much more inclusive and specific way, one that takes into account personal ability and such.

I define personal ability as the ability to refute claims. That's the skill of debating.

Also, it should be noted that debating isn't just based on "personal ability" but which side has the facts on his or her sides. If I debated "the sun revolves around the earth" I would likely lose, since there is tons of data that does not support it. This is important, since the winner of a debate isn't truly based on personal ability, but which side has the "better arguments" that come from others.

You state that nobody uses original arguments during a debate.
That's obviously not true for the second definition of the word. Effective use of language, order of contentions and persuasive personal analogies would be a few examples of the unique and varied aspects of the "arguments" here.

So the arguments are derivative then. It does not make them original. Tell me: How "personalized" does the arguments need to be in order to be "original". Should I use "X" number of analogies that have not been used before. What If I use analogies that have been used before? Should I go on looking for "original" analogies?

Instead of going "Why not?", we should realize that the concept behind the second use of the word seriously undercuts any attempt to put plagiarism and non-plagiarism into the same category based simply on the, "Does the argument (first definition) already exist somewhere?" criteria.

I have no idea what the bold is referred to and therefore could not follow this argument.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 12:27:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 10:58:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/4/2011 10:34:59 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:49:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:04:42 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Yet why does it matter if it is word for word or not?:

Because then you're not really debating someone on their merits or their ideas,


On their ideas! Are you serious? Nobody uses original arguments in a debate. Even if the debate 'came up with him or herself', most likely someone else thought of it first.

The comment of yours only makes sense if we define argument as a general term. For example, "the cosmological argument" or something.

The arguments come from research. Any debater that does not use research in his or her debate will unlikely win. There are a few exceptions, but they are rare.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the comment you're responding to. Could you be more direct? It's late, that's not supposed to be a stab at you or anything.



On the other hand, we can use "argument" in a much more inclusive and specific way, one that takes into account personal ability and such.

I define personal ability as the ability to refute claims. That's the skill of debating.

Unless you consider everything I mentioned as falling into that category somehow, does that not seem overly narrow to you?


Also, it should be noted that debating isn't just based on "personal ability" but which side has the facts on his or her sides. If I debated "the sun revolves around the earth" I would likely lose, since there is tons of data that does not support it. This is important, since the winner of a debate isn't truly based on personal ability, but which side has the "better arguments" that come from others.


I would agree that debating isn't based solely on "personal ability."

However,

Research doesn't always end up as neat packs with immediate and obvious correlation to the claim at hand. In those cases, a debater able to communicate the relationship in a coherent manner has a higher chance of reaping the rewards from the research. Also, "research" becomes a lot less of a potential end-of-story shutdown for the more metaphysical debates.

For more complex topics, a debater might choose to make use of an analogy with several important factors which need to be taken into heavy consideration to avoid a false analogy.

There are more than just a few debates here where each side has a well-researched argument. The example of Geocentrism, which you've so thoughtfully provided, seems to be a very simple example if I'm to be honest. Several of the debates geared towards philosophy, for instance, have good "research" in the form of syllogisms and such. I agree that the ability to refute accounts for something when evaluating a debater, but I don't think that it's the only aspect that's truly personal.

You state that nobody uses original arguments during a debate.
That's obviously not true for the second definition of the word. Effective use of language, order of contentions and persuasive personal analogies would be a few examples of the unique and varied aspects of the "arguments" here.

So the arguments are derivative then. It does not make them original.
I'm sorry, I honestly don't understand what you mean here. How would a unique combination of the above things not make for an original argument if we define argument as something that takes aspects such as those into account?
Tell me: How "personalized" does the arguments need to be in order to be "original".
Should I use "X" number of analogies that have not been used before.
What If I use analogies that have been used before? Should I go on looking for "original" analogies?

I don't see the force behind asking me a bunch of back-to-back questions. Could you please be upfront with the point that you're attempting to make?

Example: If we can't draw an exact boundary, then X.

Example: If we have a hard time gauging "personalization", then X.

etc.


Instead of going "Why not?", we should realize that the concept behind the second use of the word seriously undercuts any attempt to put plagiarism and non-plagiarism into the same category based simply on the, "Does the argument (first definition) already exist somewhere?" criteria.

I have no idea what the bold is referred to and therefore could not follow this argument.

By the concept behind the second use of the word, I'm referring to the fact that an argument also takes into account several personal contributions. That's what that means.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 12:33:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, the reason that I requested that you be upfront with your questions at the end was because I thought you were attempting to make a rhetorical point due to the lack of question marks and rapid-fire style.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 8:11:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
As I stated earlier, If one does not understand the material he or she is quoting, then one cannot really do well in Round 2, in which refutation is given.:

The other debate site, which was also pilfered and plagiarized from another source, had a full list of rebuttals, making the refutation portion that much easier.

I can't believe you don't realize that an open source distributor can be redistributed by anyone.:

A legally open source is not the same thing as the debater who loses integrity and automatically loses the debate on account of plagiarism.

The main controversy is that Juggle uses intellectual property rights. Since, open source projects can not be redistribute and used as intellectual property, it is a form of theft in a sense. However, It would only be a minor thing to state "This is from debateopedia". And Juggle would be really stupid to try to sue someone, for using their "intellectual property" from debateopedia.:

That's a completely separate legal issue over what constitutes Juggle's intellectual property. That's a whole other ball of wax. You seem to be disagreeing that plagiarism is even wrong just on general principle. You seem to keep making excuses for why it's okay and should be accepted in an official debate.

Except debateopedia is an open source projected, so it doesn't follow under the usual rules of intellectual property.:

That doesn't give my opponent a license to steal from debateopedia, the person who might have actually sat down and composed that topic from their mind, or any other source.

are you an Austrian economist? Aren't they against intellectual property since it involves monopolization of an idea.:

I agree with much of the Austrian model, even some arguments against intellectual property, but not the full gamut of I.P. I think copywriting phrases like, "Let's get ready to rumble" is absurd, but protecting musical compositions or patenting highly original and innovative inventions should be legally protected.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)