Larztheloser's Vote In This Debate Was Not Reasonably Justified

I could talk about this vote forever because I think it's important and relevant. I considered it in more depth than my short RFD lets on. Nevertheless I'll keep this short and to the point. I want you all to imagine, for a moment, that in this round I say nothing but "RationalMadman is dumb". Then in the next round Rational gets all depressed and says "I hereby forfeit all 7 points to my opponent." In my last round I merely say "Vote Con". What do you do? In the debate, not only did pro challenge the plagiarism rule (in the final round), he also presented three arguments. Granted, these were plagiarised. And granted, plagiarism is wrong. That's why I awarded con the conduct point. It is also poor conduct to leave rules challenges until later in the debate. But I don't see why it's reasonable that plagiarism means you can never win an argument. Usually that would be true, but this debate was a special case. The only times uncontested points hold is when they are a) justified and b) relevant to the resolution. The rule was neither. Therefore I am not bound by it. What I as a judge am here to determine is whether the side with the burden of proof met it or not. I am not here to negotiate contracts that debaters may form among themselves, only judge the persuasiveness of their arguments. There are some who say debating is about following rules, a view that seems to stem from various types of debating that only allow certain kinds of evidence or argument (usually some variation of mock trial). Perhaps you agree with that view, but I think that to hold an alternative view must be conceded by all as reasonable. First, the vast majority of clubs and tournaments do not operate under that model but are open to different ideas and perspectives. Second, the whole point of debating as opposed to persuasive public speaking or essay writing is in coming up with arguments. And third, debates with new ideas are considerably more interesting than debates where you know all the arguments in advance. Debates are not just about rules but arguments. The question thus becomes not whether pro followed a specific rule that con invented, but whether pro had met their burden of proof. I critically read pro's arguments and found that they clearly had. To date I am yet to hear anybody contest that pro's arguments were valid, however weak or however plagiarised. They were on topic and provided some cause to believe the resolution was true. That's exactly what I needed as a voter. As it stood, con didn't say ANYTHING even remotely relevant to the topic, while pro made three points, all valid. So the justification for the vote was that one side was trying to lawyer their way to victory by making a bunch of irrelevant claims based around their own unjustified rules, and didn't actually debate at all. The other side DID debate, met their burden, and despite their arguments being both poor and plagiarised, they existed. I thought it was reasonable to recognise that effort with the more convincing arguments point - after all, they were the only side that actually had arguments. The answer, then, to that "what would you do" question I posed at the start, would be to vote for the debater who actually debated. They may have lacked all the skill in the world and this would be irrelevant, because unless something was said to actually refute their claims, I as a voter have to accept them. Note that you do not have to AGREE with my vote. This debate is about whether my vote had a reasonable justification, meaning that Rational has to demonstrate a complete lack of reasoning behind my decision (ie a votebomb). Even if I had accidentally missed the rule that would not mean that I lacked a reasonable justification. As it stands, however, I did consider this debate very carefully and stand by everything I have said about it. The vote was justified. It was reasonable. The resolution is negated.