Plagiarism Should be Penalized on DDO

this is on my phone sorryFrameworkThe key for either side winning this debate is proving or disproving the statement: plagiarism is bad and should be punished, but more specifically: plagiarism is bad and should be punished on debate websites (specifically DDO). The resolution gives more arguing ground to con. For instance con can maintain that plagiarism is bad but should not ever be punished, or that plagiarism is bad but should not be punished on debate websites/DDO. OR that plagiarism is bad in general but not on debate websites/DDO. Another thing is that con doesn’t have to prove that plagiarism is good, but merely that it isn’t bad, or in other words it has a zero goodness/badness value.But what has Ragnar specifically given us, to help determine if debating is a bad thing on DDO? He has given us two arguments: one of which is that plagiarism causes the website to commit theft, this argument was refuted when I pointed out that legally this can’t happen. I expanded by saying that in order for theft to take place one must take steal something, yet the website has no authority to take anything even if it claims to do so, any attempts to do so would be considered invalid by the law. It’d be like receiving a stolen car from another individual, the actual website has committed no crime. And as an aside do not take this to mean that the player has committed theft, as theft of intellectual property requires intent and profit. This argument was dropped and when I said that the argument was conceded, that was also dropped. As a reasonable person I can only see this argument as completely taken out. The second argument was that plagiarism is impersonation which is against the rules of DDO. This is Ragnar’s last shread of hope as far as his own arguments. This argument is a string of forced logic. He assumes first that, in the DDO rule book, impersonation means imitation, which is clearly a perfect example of conflation. I still fully believe that using someone’s words is literally pretending to have their identity; that would imply that using the Kalam Cosmological Argument without using its title is literally pretending to be Kalam himself. Ragnar them assumes that plagiarism should be punished yet he dropped my arguments that because plagiarism has no negative effects, and only has positive effects on debates, that even if plagiarism is impersonation this rule should be ignored and there should be no punishment, again it flattly was dropped. But I have also argued that it is not bad sportsmanship so it can’t be punished, even if Ragnar is right and plagiarism is bad it is an individual thing, the other opponent can simply respond with other direct arguments except he can source them. Now even if we assume both of these arguments are correct, the Counter plan solves. The counterplan assumes that either one or both of the following is true, plagiarism on the website is theft and plagiarism on the website is impersonation which is bad. My answer is to simply remove these debates, avoiding the legal trouble (again Ragnar dropped my argument that is won’t do that) and then lead a campaign to weed these palgiarisms out. Ragnar’s assertion that removing these debates is penalizing them is probably his worst, his argument is to say the the simple action of removing the debate, Despite Intention!, is penalization which clearly doesn’t make sense as penalization requires punishment which requires intent. It is to say that even if a robot were deleting these debates it would be penalization. These last few paragraphs seem to demolish Ragnar’s arguments. But let’s talk of my own.I have shown that plagiarism is not unequal, both sides have the same access to sources. Penalizing plagiarism is just another way for people to rack up side points for their friends and thus belittle the debate. The purpose of debate sites is to promote argument, plagiarism gives concise argumentation and promotes increased strategy. Think of it this way, back in policy debate you only use direct evidence from authors to argue yet the whole point is to connect those separate ‘cards’ of evidence into a congruent argument. The Only difference is that in policy debate you source your authors for the purposes of giving bolstering their appeal. Plagiarism is not inherently immoral it is artificially immoral, it is immoral because people say it is. It is truly just giving concise arguments without sources. I extend all of my previous arguments in support of plagiarism thank you