It is ok to recycle arguments.

I'll skip the formalities this round, and get right on to the good stuff! 1. Plagiarism a. My opponent claims to have never mentioned plagiarism; I agree to this, however, this does nothing for her side of the debate. The resolution is clearly worded, "It is ok to recycle arguments." This does not specify that we are only discussing one's own arguments. Notice that my opponent has entirely dropped the point that I made on plagiarism, from which I would like you to pull one key argument: even if we accept that recycling one's own material is acceptable, recycling somebody else's arguments without proper citations is not at all "ok". b. Peripherally important to this argument is the fact that Pro hasn't addressed the burdens set forth in Round 1. Even if we can agree 100% that recycling one's own work is okay, conditional affirmation of the resolution will still leave you voting Con. Remember, Pro has a burden of universality which goes unaddressed by "Claim One". c. The source that she has posted is a "10 Step Guide" to College; from what I can tell, this has absolutely nothing to do with her argument, so count this source as irrelevant; furthermore, she argues that the debate in which she plagiarized was her "first debate" - first, trying to justify her past actions has no bearing on the debate at hand. Second, ignorance is no excuse. If one didn't know that murder was illegal, it still would not be permissible to murder someone; in the same way, ignorance of plagiarism's unacceptability is no excuse to commit intellectual theft. 2. Redundancy a. First and foremost, Pro has completely dropped this argument. You can vote Con based on this alone. b. This argument is important because it establishes the impermissible nature of recycling one's own arguments throughout multiple rounds of the same debate. If I had simply copied and pasted my post from Round 1 (minus a few word changes here and there), I would be recycling my work, but I wouldn't be adding anything new to it. No new analysis, evidence, or insight. Nothing. The bottom line is, redundancy isn't acceptable, especially on a debate website, and Pro hasn't even asserted otherwise, futilely "sticking to her guns". --- A brief recap of where points will be going --- Conduct: Tied - I can't say that I deserve this point based on my own perspective, but I saw nothing rude or malicious in my opponent's posts. S/G: Tied/Con - Pro made a few spelling/grammatical mistakes here and there, but I'm not certain that it's substantive enough to vote upon. Your prerogative. Arguments: Con - Three reasons. One, Pro never actually answered the argument about plagiarism, and instead put up a personal defense of past actions. Two, Pro completely dropped the argument on redundancy, which only gave more ground to Con. Three, Pro dropped the "burden of universality" overall, giving Con an easy win here. Sources: Con - Con only had one source, but it was powerfully used to prove a point, and it tied up Pro in Round 2; Pro, on the other hand, provided a source, but had its legitimacy stripped away by Con in Round 2. Con clearly used both sides' sources to the fullest advantage. 5-6 points Con. Thanks to Pro for the opportunity to get back in the flow of things.