Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can losing opponents withdraw their debates??

LiberalHoyaLawya
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 9:54:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
About a week ago, I accepted a debate challenge from user DanT. I believe I was clearly winning the debate when, last night, I called him out for plagiarizing a sentence of his argument word-for-word from Wikipedia. To support my accusation, I pointed out that almost every other sentence in his argument contained spelling and grammar errors, while the sentence he plagiarized didn't contain any errors.

Earlier this morning, DanT posted an argument round defending himself from the plagiarism charge, claiming that it was only a coincidence he that used the exact same words as a lengthy sentence from Wikipedia. You can read his laughable explanation at the bottom of this post.

At some point later this morning, however, he apparently "asked for the debate to be reset" on account of my "mudslinging" and "slander." Now, the debate is classified as an expired challenge, and all of the arguments past his Round 1 are missing!!! The only thing remaining are the comments:

http://www.debate.org...

I spent a lot of energy posting two heavily-cited 8,000 character arguments, and I believe I was coasting on my way to a relatively obvious win. Can a person really just withdraw his own debate if he feels like he's losing? Where's MY right to due process??? I had a probable win stolen from right under my nose!!!

Thoughts from the community?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here's the evidence of his plagiarism:

(From my Round 3 argument):

* * ACCUSATION OF PLAGIARISM * *

My opponent's last round contained an avalanche of spelling and grammar mistakes ("opponet," "defintion," "Procss," "perts(?)," "auhority," "costitution," "legislatin," "limitted," "Nationalsts," "superor," "intrests," etc etc etc). Interestingly enough, this kind of sloppy writing allowed me to identify an argument he clearly plagiarized from Wikipedia, which I initially found suspicious for its conspicuous lack of spelling and grammar errors. The plagiarized sentence, lifted directly from Wikipedia, reads as follows:

"Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government." [1]

My opponent used the same sentence, word-for-word, in his argument, but failed to cite its source. By including "a piece of writing that [was] copied from someone else and [was] presented as being [his] own work," my opponent committed a textbook act of plagiarism. [2]. Voters should dock him accordingly.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

(From his Round 4 argument):

* * False ACCUSATION OF PLAGIARISM * *

My opponent has falsely accused me of plagiarism in a desperate attempt to throw out my arguement. I did not plagiarize. I am a fast typer, so I get allot of typos when I do not spell check.

My opponent's claims is based on one line that he found simular to wiki wiki, however wiki was not even my source, and I was unaware it even said that. My source was an online vrson of the book[1]

Both me, and who ever wrote the wiki article read the same transcript.
In that transcript the paragraph which refers to story uses the same language [2]

The simularities can easily be explained away by the fact it best summarizes chapter 14.

Let's look t it bit by bit shall we?

"Justice Story concluded"
Justice story is the author, and I use the words concluded, conclude, and conclusion more frequently than alternatives.

"that the General Welfare Clause"
originally I had welfare clause, but I added general to distinguish it from social.

"is not an independent grant of power,"
the word independent and grant is key to the phrase, and originally I had grant of authority but later changed it to power, to sound better.

"but a qualification on the taxing power"
What I've been saying since round 1. also originally I put restriction, but I went back and changed it to fit better, I changed it to "qualification" because that's the word used in the book.[1]

"which included within it"
a needed phrase to tie the sentence togeather. I can't think of another phrasing that would fit.

"a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government."
What I've been saying since round 1. Also orginaly I said united states, but changed it to federal government to avoid semantics.

Maybe I should have kept it reading "Justice Story concluded that the Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of authority, but a restriction on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the united state", and risked the semantics.

That's the most simplistic way of explaining chapter 14 of story's book, thus it is probably the most common. Further more, over half of the line, I have been saying since round 1, the other parts are needed to pull the summary togeather.

I'm sure I can google a line you have wrote and find the exact same wording somewhere else(and I have), but I would prefer it if we focused on the debate.

Sources:

[1] www.constitution.org/js/js_314.htm
[2] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Funny how my opponent attributes his numerous spelling mistakes to his fast typing, but defends the one sentence I accuse him of plagiarizing by saying he agonized over four separate word edits. Ridiculous.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 9:56:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 9:54:46 PM, LiberalHoyaLawya wrote:
About a week ago, I accepted a debate challenge from user DanT. I believe I was clearly winning the debate when, last night, I called him out for plagiarizing a sentence of his argument word-for-word from Wikipedia. To support my accusation, I pointed out that almost every other sentence in his argument contained spelling and grammar errors, while the sentence he plagiarized didn't contain any errors.

Earlier this morning, DanT posted an argument round defending himself from the plagiarism charge, claiming that it was only a coincidence he that used the exact same words as a lengthy sentence from Wikipedia. You can read his laughable explanation at the bottom of this post.

At some point later this morning, however, he apparently "asked for the debate to be reset" on account of my "mudslinging" and "slander." Now, the debate is classified as an expired challenge, and all of the arguments past his Round 1 are missing!!! The only thing remaining are the comments:

http://www.debate.org...

I spent a lot of energy posting two heavily-cited 8,000 character arguments, and I believe I was coasting on my way to a relatively obvious win. Can a person really just withdraw his own debate if he feels like he's losing? Where's MY right to due process??? I had a probable win stolen from right under my nose!!!

Thoughts from the community?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here's the evidence of his plagiarism:

(From my Round 3 argument):

* * ACCUSATION OF PLAGIARISM * *

My opponent's last round contained an avalanche of spelling and grammar mistakes ("opponet," "defintion," "Procss," "perts(?)," "auhority," "costitution," "legislatin," "limitted," "Nationalsts," "superor," "intrests," etc etc etc). Interestingly enough, this kind of sloppy writing allowed me to identify an argument he clearly plagiarized from Wikipedia, which I initially found suspicious for its conspicuous lack of spelling and grammar errors. The plagiarized sentence, lifted directly from Wikipedia, reads as follows:

"Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government." [1]

My opponent used the same sentence, word-for-word, in his argument, but failed to cite its source. By including "a piece of writing that [was] copied from someone else and [was] presented as being [his] own work," my opponent committed a textbook act of plagiarism. [2]. Voters should dock him accordingly.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

(From his Round 4 argument):

* * False ACCUSATION OF PLAGIARISM * *

My opponent has falsely accused me of plagiarism in a desperate attempt to throw out my arguement. I did not plagiarize. I am a fast typer, so I get allot of typos when I do not spell check.


My opponent's claims is based on one line that he found simular to wiki wiki, however wiki was not even my source, and I was unaware it even said that. My source was an online vrson of the book[1]

Both me, and who ever wrote the wiki article read the same transcript.
In that transcript the paragraph which refers to story uses the same language [2]

The simularities can easily be explained away by the fact it best summarizes chapter 14.

Let's look t it bit by bit shall we?

"Justice Story concluded"
Justice story is the author, and I use the words concluded, conclude, and conclusion more frequently than alternatives.

"that the General Welfare Clause"
originally I had welfare clause, but I added general to distinguish it from social.

"is not an independent grant of power,"
the word independent and grant is key to the phrase, and originally I had grant of authority but later changed it to power, to sound better.

"but a qualification on the taxing power"
What I've been saying since round 1. also originally I put restriction, but I went back and changed it to fit better, I changed it to "qualification" because that's the word used in the book.[1]

"which included within it"
a needed phrase to tie the sentence togeather. I can't think of another phrasing that would fit.

"a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government."
What I've been saying since round 1. Also orginaly I said united states, but changed it to federal government to avoid semantics.


Maybe I should have kept it reading "Justice Story concluded that the Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of authority, but a restriction on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the united state", and risked the semantics.

That's the most simplistic way of explaining chapter 14 of story's book, thus it is probably the most common. Further more, over half of the line, I have been saying since round 1, the other parts are needed to pull the summary togeather.

I'm sure I can google a line you have wrote and find the exact same wording somewhere else(and I have), but I would prefer it if we focused on the debate.

Sources:

[1] www.constitution.org/js/js_314.htm
[2] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Funny how my opponent attributes his numerous spelling mistakes to his fast typing, but defends the one sentence I accuse him of plagiarizing by saying he agonized over four separate word edits. Ridiculous.

TBH, I don't know the full story, but....THIS CAN HAPPEN?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 11:59:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 11:42:20 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:38:26 PM, marcuscato wrote:
VTL innomen

lmao. Agreed.

VTL innomen

VTL?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
nerdykiller
Posts: 856
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 2:35:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 11:59:13 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:42:20 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:38:26 PM, marcuscato wrote:
VTL innomen

lmao. Agreed.

VTL innomen

VTL?

Vote TO LYNCH
its a term used in MAfia :D
you should play.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 2:42:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 11:42:20 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:38:26 PM, marcuscato wrote:
VTL innomen

lmao. Agreed.

VTL innomen

Innomen, it seems like you have a mutiny on your hands. I suggest you get involved before this gets ugly.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 3:05:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Impeach Innomen!!!
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:40:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Seeing it was just a sentence, I wouldn't say that was a full plagiarism-lose-all-points debate, but conduct instead, I think.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
LiberalHoyaLawya
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 8:35:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 4:40:42 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Seeing it was just a sentence, I wouldn't say that was a full plagiarism-lose-all-points debate, but conduct instead, I think.

You're right - I didn't want to automatically win the debate because my opponent plagiarized one sentence, I just wanted to win the conduct points. I'm still unclear about what actually happened... did Innomen "reset" the debate, or can any debater withdraw their own debate for any reason??? If it was the former, I'd be upset because I wasn't notified of the decision. If it was the latter, I'm concerned for everybody. In either event, several hours worth of research & writing were wasted.

If you want an example of a "full plagiarism lose-all-points debate," refer to this one:

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:22:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 4:40:42 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Seeing it was just a sentence, I wouldn't say that was a full plagiarism-lose-all-points debate, but conduct instead, I think.

I didn't plagiarize, I didn't even know wiki said that.

Wiki's source and my source were not the same. My source was an online version of the book, wiki's source was a supreme court case.

That is merely the best way to summarize the book, which reads;

"On the other hand, construing this clause in connexion with, and as a part of the preceding clause, giving the power to lay taxes, it becomes sensible and operative. It becomes a qualification of that clause, and limits the taxing power to objects for the common defence or general welfare. It then contains no grant of any power whatsoever; but it is a mere expression of the ends and purposes to be effected by the preceding power of taxation.2 "

Never in my life have I ever plagiarized. Since round 1 I have been saying the same thing, in different phrasing. If you rephrase something enough, you are going to come across a duplicate.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:24:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am really curious as to how and why someone was allowed to reset the debate after allegations of plagiarism. It seems unfair to their opponents.

I don't know if it was plagiarized or not and no one will know unless they can read the text side-by-side but the ability to reset does seem to be an unfair advantage.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:24:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 9:54:46 PM, LiberalHoyaLawya wrote:
only a coincidence he that used the exact same words as a lengthy sentence from Wikipedia.

actually my sentence was longer, you just chopped it in half, in order to match
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:29:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I asked for it to be reset because you wasted more than half of the 8,000 characters building a case out of nothing. I knew you wouldn't drop it, and focus on the actual debate.

I found 2 sentences from Pro's argument that was on left wing blogs; does that mean pro plagiarized? no because 1 line plagerism does not make. The part about spelling errors also had nothing to do with the line that matched, and for all I know pro edited the wiki page to match.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:32:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know and trust Dan, so I took his direction at face value without looking further into it. I made a mistake in doing that, and said as much to his opponent. I made a mistake, shoot me. This is the first judgment call I've made that was in error, at least that's come to the surface. My most sincere apologies to LHL.

-innomen
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:34:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I challenge any of you to express the same sentiment in different words without making it a target to semantics.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Raisor
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:35:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 4:32:14 PM, innomen wrote:
I know and trust Dan, so I took his direction at face value without looking further into it. I made a mistake in doing that, and said as much to his opponent. I made a mistake, shoot me. This is the first judgment call I've made that was in error, at least that's come to the surface. My most sincere apologies to LHL.

-innomen

This is what happens when you have a lame duck president.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:36:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 4:34:37 PM, DanT wrote:
I challenge any of you to express the same sentiment in different words without making it a target to semantics.

challenge still stands. Or will u continue the witch hunt?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:38:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I never quote wiki, for obvious reasons, so it really took me by shock that I was accused of plagiarizing wiki.
You want to debate me on this, I will gladly accept.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:43:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
also you were losing, not me. which is why you resorted to mud slinging. You pointed to the 5th amendment to claim the founders were socialist, so I showed the 5th amendment better supported my argument.

You pointed to a quote to claim the welfare clause granted unlimited legislative power, I showed that the quote actually refereed to appropriation of taxes.

Your whole argument was supporting my argument. I was winning so yo resorted to mud slinging.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:44:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 4:36:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/7/2012 4:34:37 PM, DanT wrote:
I challenge any of you to express the same sentiment in different words without making it a target to semantics.

challenge still stands. Or will u continue the witch hunt?

int it funny how no one is accepting the challenge?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 4:54:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 4:38:56 PM, DanT wrote:
I never quote wiki, for obvious reasons, so it really took me by shock that I was accused of plagiarizing wiki.
You want to debate me on this, I will gladly accept.

Challenge sent, you want to put your money where your mouth is go ahead.

Resolved: Two arguments that includes the line, "Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government", can't be coincidence.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 5:28:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 4:54:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/7/2012 4:38:56 PM, DanT wrote:
I never quote wiki, for obvious reasons, so it really took me by shock that I was accused of plagiarizing wiki.
You want to debate me on this, I will gladly accept.

Challenge sent, you want to put your money where your mouth is go ahead.

Resolved: Two arguments that includes the line, "Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government", can't be coincidence.

No sane person would accept that. You're more likely to get a taker with "Resolved: Intentionality is not necessary for plagiarism."
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 5:39:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 5:28:03 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/7/2012 4:54:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/7/2012 4:38:56 PM, DanT wrote:
I never quote wiki, for obvious reasons, so it really took me by shock that I was accused of plagiarizing wiki.
You want to debate me on this, I will gladly accept.

Challenge sent, you want to put your money where your mouth is go ahead.

Resolved: Two arguments that includes the line, "Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government", can't be coincidence.

No sane person would accept that. You're more likely to get a taker with "Resolved: Intentionality is not necessary for plagiarism."

But that is what is being argued; thank you for proving my point.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 5:42:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I love how debates are how everyone settles their disputes.

It's the DDO version of "You wanna take this outside?"
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 5:47:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 5:42:52 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I love how debates are how everyone settles their disputes.

It's the DDO version of "You wanna take this outside?"

This. like omg.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 5:49:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you have the original arguments saved on your hard drive lets' copy and past those and start from where we left off. The line you claim to be plagiarized will be dropped from the argument entirely.
You think you were winning, I think I was winning; so let's drop what you claim is plagiarized and see how important i really was to the debate.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 5:50:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 5:49:33 PM, DanT wrote:
If you have the original arguments saved on your hard drive lets' copy and past those and start from where we left off. The line you claim to be plagiarized will be dropped from the argument entirely.
You think you were winning, I think I was winning; so let's drop what you claim is plagiarized and see how important it really was to the debate.

it not I, typo corrected
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2012 6:01:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/7/2012 5:39:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/7/2012 5:28:03 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/7/2012 4:54:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/7/2012 4:38:56 PM, DanT wrote:
I never quote wiki, for obvious reasons, so it really took me by shock that I was accused of plagiarizing wiki.
You want to debate me on this, I will gladly accept.

Challenge sent, you want to put your money where your mouth is go ahead.

Resolved: Two arguments that includes the line, "Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government", can't be coincidence.

No sane person would accept that. You're more likely to get a taker with "Resolved: Intentionality is not necessary for plagiarism."

But that is what is being argued; thank you for proving my point.

I'm confused. Weren't you saying that your plagiarism was unintentional? If so, take the Con position on the above resolution. It will get snapped up.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...