Plagiarism is real

The first thing I'd like to ask is that Con proofread his arguments before he posts them because in their current state they are littered with grammatical and spelling mistakes which make some parts incomprehensible. "The entire set of cases and law itself I am arguing is imaginary." No, you cannot suddenly change your resolution in round 2, that is misleading to me as I took the debate based on what you specified in round 1. According to your resolution I am arguing that 'plagiarism is real.' Also, since you stated that definitions are to be provided in round 1 and you provided none, then my definitions are the ones which we are using. My definition is of plagiarism as a noun, the meaning of which I'll remind you of: "An act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorisation and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author."This therefore makes any law irrelevant, as I am not debating for the law or against it, all I'm debating for is the existence of plagiarism."a) that what appears as plagiarism is not pure coincidence.b) that when a person readds something and is inpired by it and words somethign exactly like that it isn't just memory and not plagiarism."Both of these are very generalised statements which you expect me to meet, they are both impossible to meet in any way with reference to someone elses work unless I was telepathic which I obviously am not. This is due to the fact that plagiarism is an 'subjective' thing and not an 'objective' one. Whether or not someone has plagiarised someone else will always be a matter of opinion. You can never prove that someone else plagiarised with intent. Therefore your standards are unfalsifiable in almost every circumstance except one, which I will go into soon. "c) that is someone were to read all sources used in an article and happen to make a debate sourcing the identical sources and quotes form the sources and same explanations of sources it isn't different form plagiarism"According to the definition I have above, one way in which plagiarism can be told apart from sourcing is whether or not the author was credited. So there is a distinction which can be made."d) that if same thing is done twice the person who did it second time deserves to be punished and seen as immoral because of 'plagiarism', especially if it is not for commercial purposes (not money or wealth is gained)"This is very clearly completely irrelevant. Neither the debate topic or your resolution has any mention of the morality of plagiarism and if you wish to debate it with someone then I suggest you do so but this debate is purely on whether plagiarism is real.Now, what you seem to be asking is for me to specify is whether the concept of plagiarism which I defined earlier is 'real' or not. For the purposes of this I am going to condense my definitions down a bit, plagiarism is going to become 'copying with intent' and real is going to become 'existing' as opposed to fictional. Here is my example: The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that can exist or that we know exists. This includes all matter and energy; planets,stars, and galaxies; and the contents of intergalactic space. Definitions and usage vary and similar terms include the cosmos, the world andnature. Scientific observation of earlier stages in the development of the universe, which can be seen at great distances, suggests that the universe has been governed by the same physical laws and constants throughout most of its extent and history. There are various multiverse theories, in which physicists have suggested that our universe might be one among many universes that likewise exist. Do not worry about what the above extract says, only realise the fact that I just plagiarised is from a website I am not going to cite with a reference. I did this with intent and I did it without the author's authorisation. This, according to the definition provided, is what plagiarism is. Now, I very much doubt that Con can argue that this has never happened before, but if he does dare to argue this then he need only to look at the above excerpt to see that plagiarism does now exist, according to the definitions I provided.