Larztheloser's Vote In This Debate Was Not Reasonably Justified

"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?" - LarzThe above is a false-analogy and a red herring. In the debate in question, there was a rule posted by Con that said all 7 points would go to other debater if plagiarism took place. Pro never contested that rule until it was already broken. In Larz' false-analogy above, there is no rule against calling me a "Madman", thus I would not be justified in claiming that I should get all 7 points. In the debate in question, there was an uncontested rule. Regardless, plagiarism should result in a 7 point concession regardless. However, the fact that the debate contained an uncontested rule was just icing on the cake."In the debate, not only did pro challenge the plagiarism rule (in the final round), he also presented three arguments." - LarzThe rule was not contested until after it was broken though. When I say "uncontested", I mean "when he had the chance". Larz' argument is like endorsing debating against a "no sticking" rule in hockey after you stick someone. If you don't like the "no sticking" rule, then it should have been brought up before hand. Also, plagiarised rounds put the entire integrity of the website under question. If you can just copy and paste other people's professional work and still win a debate, then this website becomes fruitless and trivial. This is a debating website, and debates should be won by using debating skill; not theft. Giving someone argument points just promotes plagiarism and theft. If you are just going to lose conduct (1 point), and not arguments (3 points) even though you stole your entire round, then we might as well all close our accounts up because this is all meaningless. This is a debate website, where we test each others debating skills; not our ability to steal other people's hard work. "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." - LarzWithout the contract; anarchy results. Also, without using your own wording and arguments; fruitless and unreasonable debating results. ConclusionCon's vote was not reasonable because:(i) Pro did not contest the rule before it was broken, thus is stood(ii) Voting for people to win who plagiarize promotes intellectual theft(iii) Votes like Larz' question the integrity of this site even further than it is already questionedIt does not matter if Con did not refute Pro's argument. It was not even Pro's argument, he stole it word for word. It is not reasonable to vote for somebody to win who stole their entire argument for a round, and just ignore the fact that there was an uncontested rule in context (uncontested before it was broken). Pro did not contest the rule when he had the chance, he contested it after he broke it (which is not fair). Giving points to cheaters just promotes cheating. It is not reasonable to promote cheating when this is supposed to be an honest community. Larz has no reasonable basis for his vote. It is based on nonsense with pertaining to disregarding rules, the endorsement of stealing, and dishonesty. Larz' arguments in this debate do not really contain anything more than Mr. Fantasitc stretches. The resolution is self-evidently affirmed.