Plagiarism Should be Penalized on DDO

Amendment to last round: I would like to do is clarify something I previously said. I stated that plagiarism gives no advantage to either team, this isn’t exactly what I meant. The way I said it makes it seem like there are no advantages to plagiarism, which I clearly disagree with. What I meant was that neither side has an ‘upper hand’ through plagiarism, pro and con always have the same ability to use exact arguments from the professionals.My Argument Plagiarism, presenting arguments without a source, does no damage to an actual debate. In a debate between two parties where an argument is given without citation, the main point of that argument is still there, and it must still be argued against. I’m guessing that Ragnar is then going to assert that for those responding to this direct argument, another direct argument will be presented, and thus no ideas from the debaters’ themselves would be presented. While I think that this is certainly a possible outcome, you can only take plagiarism so far. There is no perfect argument, there is no golden set of arguments guaranteeing a win, at least not in most fair resolutions. In this way, plagiarism clearly asserts what argument is at hand In response to this assertion, even more direct arguments will then be used to refute that previous argument, then the other team will use a direct argument to refute that, but this can’t continue on forever and surely neither side will want to use plagiarisms until they run out of rounds and are forced to lose because the opponent got the last plagiarism in. Instead we would see that the direct arguments force both sides to the ‘epistemological’ edge of the public scholarly insight which Can be copied, once they reach that point then the debaters are forced to use what their previous arguments have stated to come to their own, actually and legitimately unique, conclusions/arguments. Not only does direct argumentation force the real debating by pushing the debate into its furthest explored depths, causing truly unique argumentation, but we should also keep in mind that part of debate is stating how your arguments (in this case direct arguments) support and correlate with each other, that function cannot be reduced by plagiarism, and because direct arguments usually come from different sources, it will actually increase the amount of linkage required between arguments, thusly increasing the amount of real debating going on Please compound reinforce those two benefits with the other benefits that I stated in the previous post: that it reduces confusion and intentional or unintentional straw man arguments, decreases argument time, frees up more time to actually think about your response and thus increases your time to strategize. Ragnar made a big mistake by dismissing these advantages. Those benefits were listed last round, but Ragnar conceded them, for one he literally says “This one is too comical to warrant a response.” And for the other he says that the contradiction in the CP concerning laws means my benefits are wrong to my own concession, this will be addressed now but to end this section I will point out that these advantages to plagiarism must be accepted as Ragnar can no longer produce new arguments against their validity, as this would be unfair in the last round of argument. This point will be brought up several times through the debate but Ragnar has completely misunderstood my position. I believe plagiarism is usually good in a debate setting like this one and has a lot of advantages, in my counter plan I say that people will get arrested because, as I clearly stated in the first sentences of the CP argument, I was making those statements to those voters and readers who utterly reject the rest of my argumentation, which includes the possible rejection of my claims that plagiarism is advantageous and has no legal consequences, this is called layering the debate, which means accounting for and appealing to multiple perspectives a voter might have. Counterplan So I guess I'll just start out by saying that I was just layering the debate, which I have already made clear. I am presenting two courses of possiblelegal recourse. Nothing and something. Pro concedes there will be no legal action taken and it is not illegal so the whole arrest of DDO members should now be considered incorrect but if the judge doesn't agree despite a concession, this point is still there to support my CP. I'll just be as clear as I can, the legality is not central to the CP's integrity. Next, Ragnar's claim that taking down these debates is a form of penalization is simply incorrect, the counterplan never inteded for it to be punishment, simply a fixing of a legal issue. If it were penalization then we would also be penalizing the person who did not plagiarize, which would be wrong. That's not what we are doing. This whole CP of course operates under the assumption that plagiarism is impersonation and/or theft though. Ragnar's case itself 1.) impersonation Right after the line that says you shouldn't impersonate it mentions memeber positions such as mod, president...ect, meaning it references people not arguments. I meant not to say that rules doent partain to words, but that they don't partain to unauthorized use of words. The next big claim is that using someone's words is pretending to be them. This is simple conflation. Altough impersonate and immitate sounds similar, they are different things. theft of ideas is not theft of identity, its really just trying to bolster your own identity really. 2.) Theft Ragnar litterally just gave this argument up and didn't respond, thus this is conceded. His case solely relies on imperonation now, not even Acknowledging the CP. CONCESSIONS: Ragnar concedes the whole counterplan through his confusion on argument layering/ he can’t make arguments on this next round. Ragnar concedes all of my claims that even if he is right, plagiarism should be an exception because it is harmless, this is through silence and non-respondence/ no new arguments next round. Ragnar concedes that rules shouldn’t be enforced so long as they prevent the objective greater good, this is through his confusion on argument laying/ can’t make arguments on this next round. Finally Ragnar conceded my entire argument asserting that there are no legal repercussions and that the site is not actually committing theft, this is through silence and non-respondence/ can’t make these arguments now, this leaves pro with only the impersonation argument. Given that these are conceded I think this gives extremely heavy weight to my case. Ragnar's case relies on forcing peices to a puzzle together which are similar but simply do not fit. Half of his case is conceded, in my eyes, mine remains unscathed and even if its not, a mound of conceded arguments should doom his chance at winning, being that he gives me KEY arguments. His arguments this round seemed based on misunderstanding, I hadn't enough space to get it all but tried.