I Should Have Won This Debate

**Sorry I posted a broken link. For some reason, every time that I copy and paste the link into my arguments, it ends up broken. However, Merrit posted the correct link in the comments section to the original debate and I posted the correct link for the forum in Round 2. It seems to work in the comments section.My Final RefutationsCon: "You admit that it is a form of plagiarism, but then say it is plagiarism. It was a case of incorrect sourcing, which is a form of (unintentional) plagiarism, not plagiarism. It is not the same. You could say that people who accidentally kill other people in car accidents are murderers, but it's unintentional manslaughter."A form of plagiarism is merely a type plagiarism. Copy and pasting whole paragraphs without quoting them properly is considered a specific type of plagiarism. The analogy between murder and manslaughter is different. Murder is seperate from manslaughter, however, an inadequate paraphrase is a type of plagiarism. Therefore, a form of plagiarism is plagiarism, just a specific type. Let's go back to my Harvard University website, shall we? What Subutai commited whether intentional or not, was an inadequate paraphrase.Here's what Harvard states: Inadequate paraphrase "When you paraphrase, your task is to distill the source's ideas in your own words. It's not enough to change a few words here and there and leave the rest; instead, you must completely restate the ideas in the passage in your own words. If your own language is too close to the original, then you are plagiarizing, even if you do provide a citation."[1]Here's another example of one of his (Subutai) inadequate paraphrases:Subutai:So if miRNAs are dangerous " guess what? " you"re already ingesting them every time you eat. And, to get a little gross, let"s be clear: when we eat something, we don"t just ingest the miRNAs from the species we intentionally eat. Did you know, for example, that foods you eat are allowed to contain mold, hair, insect parts, and even rat poop? All of those bits of organisms which we inadvertently eat have DNA, and " you guessed it! " miRNAs, too. If miRNAs are so dangerous, we would never have been able to eat anything previously alive in the first place.[7][8] His source: So if miRNAs are dangerous " guess what? " you"re already ingesting them every time you eat. And, to get a little gross, let"s be clear: when we eat something, we don"t just ingest the miRNAs from the species we intentionally eat. Did you know, for example, that foods you eat are allowed to contain mold, hair, insect parts, and even rat poop? All of those bits of organisms which we inadvertently eat have DNA, and " you guessed it! " miRNAs, too. If miRNAs are so dangerous, we would never have been able to eat anything previously alive in the first place. [2]Clearly this is plagiarism.Plagiarizers get deducted conduct and argument pointsMy opponent states that plagiarism wasn't evident to any of the 4 who voted and it didn't detract much from the debate. However, one of the voters (rross) realized after the debate that what Subutai did was clearly plagiarism. If you look at the debate again, rross criticized Subutai in the comments section. Yes, voters aren't machines, but what I'm saying is that I should have won sine Subutai plagiarized (given the evidence from Harvard University). Con also states that he won fair and square based on the decisions and information the voters acted on. However, the voters didn't know that Subutai plagiarized. Did he win fair and square? Rross figured it out too late; she only realized this after the debate. Experienced debater philochristos agreed this was plagiarism too and related it to the case of Steven Ambrose. [2]Con:Making an unintentional mistake on a job application in the reference source is relevant to this debate, since he made a mistake in how he referenced a few of his sources. Ultimately it us up to the employer to decide whether or not the applicants signature that verifies all of the information in the application is true based on the integrity of the applicant - he can be denied the job for his error but it does not bar him from it - whether or not to give the applicant a job is at his discretion. The point of making this analogy is that Subutai (applicant) made a mistake in the referencing process but the voters (employer) decided to overlook it and accepted it. Therefore Subutai won on fair grounds.Subutai didn't make a mistake on a few of his sources. The majority of his arguments were copy and pasted without quoting them properly. The voters didn't decide to overlook it, they just didn't know that he plagiarized. So yeah, Subutai did win on fair grounds, that is if a plagiarizer wins of fair grounds. If we go back to the analogy about the jury, airmax1227 would be the judge. Airmax1227 deducts conduct and arguments from the plagiarizer, and since he's a competent voter, he probably would've given me them. By that logic, I should've won since plagiarism isn't accepted in DDO.Conclusion: Con fails to negate my resolution by basically saying that a form plagiarism isn't plagiarism. Even if he did it unintentionally, I still should have won. Plagiarism is cheating.Sources: http://isites.harvard.edu...Source 2 in comments