Larztheloser's Vote In This Debate Was Not Reasonably Justified

If con had proved to me why a plagiarised argument was necessarily wrong, then that would have been a different matter. That would have linked their claim to the resolution, justified their rule, and won them my arguments vote. That's not what con did.Rational clearly did not read my analogy. If Rational concedes all 7 points that means I get them, not him, assuming the rule "uncontested points must always be accepted by voters no matter what" necessarily holds true. Here's it layed out nicely:Premise 1: uncontested points must always be accepted by voters no matter whatPremise 2: Rational's point that he forfeits all points goes uncontestedConclusion: Voters must always accept that Rational cannot get any pointsIt's faulty logic because premise 1 is wrong. Rational does not refute my claim that points must be justified and relevant to be accepted by voters.Rational has attempted to justify the rule right now, 8 months later. I agree that plagiarism brings down the quality of debating and this site. I also think failing to produce any arguments brings down the quality of debating and this site. On the whole, I thought pro's arguments were stronger simply because he made them, they provided some evidence, they were relevant and there was a decent amount of analysis behind them. Rational is right that this is a debate website. Debate websites are about people making arguments for or against a resolution, as opposed to getting the lowest score on a plagiarism checker (although this does diminish the quality of arguments, a debate is much more than just that). Pro did so, con did not. Regardless Rational is about 8 months too late now.While I accept contesting a rule after it was broken was poor conduct, which I did count against them as I said, I also don't accept that this invalidates everything pro said. You've got to remember that this was the only genuine piece of rebuttal that happened during the debate. Even if pro had not contested the rule at all pro still would have won. The sandcastle analogy gets used a lot - pro built a sandcastle with their points, and con failed to knock them down or build their own. Pro's sandcastle was therefore better.Rational contests that lacking ownership means anarchy, fruitlessness and unreasonableness results. Although Rational failed to tell us why, I agree. We need to root out plagiarism. That does not mean, however, that a plagiarist is always wrong. Their arguments still must be addressed. This debate was anarchy, fruitless and unreasonable, not because of the plagiarism, but because con decided he didn't want to talk with pro or tell us voters anything relevant to the debate. Not debating, for me, is a greater evil than debating with no originality. Rational has tried to set aside the latter as effortless, but this is false - pro clearly put more work into the debate than con did.I refer to it as "pro's argument" only for categorisation, not to imply ownership. I accept rules with the same weight as I would arguments. As I said, even the weakest argument would have won con that debate. I was actively looking for excuses to claim he had stronger arguments, but unless he actually had arguments that would only be unreasonable. The three points are for whether pro met their burden, and pro did. There is no contest over either of these two facts. Cheating devalues an argument but it does not magically create an argument for the other side.Rational has also still not justified why an instance of plagiarism justifies a concession even without the rule. There were some reasons behind my decision. Rational might think those reasons are wrong, but that does not mean that they did not exist. In this debate I've told you, just briefly, what those reasons were and defended them against Rational's attacks, but even if they are wrong (which I don't concede) that doesn't mean my vote was not reasonably justified, only mistaken.The resolution is negated.