Voters Help Pls

 Let's say, hypothetically, that someone pasted an article as their entire argument in one round. And, hypothetically, I'm debating them and I've forfeited in the first round but offered an argument in the second. Since, hypothetically, that person didn't provide any original argument, would I be justified in pointing out what they did and ending the debate, or should I still counter the article? What are voters' thoughts on this?

Also, hypothetically, they weren't trying to hide the plagiarism because they pasted the article link in.

 Noted, thanks!

Call out the BS, make your own case (even a two sentence one will beat that), and then go for ice cream.

A good rule of thumb is that quotes should never exceed one third of someone’s arguments, otherwise they are failing to give their own proper analysis. Plus if the quotes are not clearly marked, it’s basically plagiarism. I recently added a plagiarism section to near the end of the style guide, as it’s been such a recurrent problem.

I have the opposite mentality to Ramshutu on this. If you can't counter the article, you're a weaker debater than the publisher and are admitting your side is wrong due to the arguments presented there. Nonetheless, Ramshutu is a bigger influence on the website's winrates as is Ragnar, than I am. So you are better to streamline your case to fit their needs and wants, even though they are wrong.

Thanks!

I could counter the article, hypothetically, very easily,, but why would I waste my time doing that if I can win without countering? Besides, that promoters the plagiarism more

Just because the same idea worded in some way came from a human other than the one you're debating doesn't mean every single argument couldn't and wouldn't come from them in such wording as well. You're cowering from it and voters like myself will not like that if the debater actually ends up explaining why those arguments are correct and yours are wrong. You're gambling on Ramshutu or Ragnar letting you be lazy just because your opponent was.

One, you're assuming that they would've provided those arguments. If anything, their plagiarism is proof that they wouldn't have, because if they would have then they wouldn't have plagiarised. Two, responding lets them know that plagiarism is not ok. If they plagiarize and then see you get the win because of that, they're less likely to do it again.   

@RM

You are, again, plainly and categorically incorrect.

If someone plagiarizes a debate, and doesn’t post their argument but instead posts someone else argument, as if it’s their own or in lieu of their own - this debater has not provided their argument. They have provided someone else’s argument -  its not their argument; and should not be treated as such.

Debaters who plagiarize arguments, links someone else’s argument as their own - or lazily quotes wall of texts from other sources and offers no meaningful argument of their own can and should be dismissed in this context.

Debate is about who can argue better, not who can link a source that argues better.

--> "Alpha Wolf"

Your questionable literacy is showing again, as I did not mandate laziness, rather I insisted they still "make [their] own case." But you think the real laziness would be the side that writes as much as a whole third of their argument...

Your inability at math is also showing again, given that you think the number of words available leads to the regular occurrence of coincidental identical paragraphs from different authors of different upbringings ("doesn't mean every single argument couldn't and wouldn't come from them in such wording as well").

In this hypothetical, I would say that as long as you're clear about the fact that their entire argument is plagiarized, you could win the debate, presupposing that that is the only thing that happens in the debate (from that point onward - it's possible that your opponent would present something in subsequent rounds, in which case the plagiarism should be taken into account, but so should the argument they've written themselves). So, no, you do not have to counter the article. I get RM's point but regardless of the content of the article, the debater in question has plagiarized the entirety of their argument. Some might view that as only a conduct violation, though when that violation constitutes the entirety of their points, I'd say voters are more than justified to award argument points on the basis that that debater's argument doesn't exist without said violation. I can understand the desire to see a response and have some kind of actual debate over the topic, but that desire should not outstrip the reality of what happened in a debate like this. 

I should probably PM advice so that people can't bully me into silence on a thread asking everyone's outlook.

Explaining that you’re wrong, and why is not bullying you.

Please stop repeatedly accusing everyone who is even slightly critical of your nonsense of bullying just because you seem perfectly willing to be critical, but completely unwilling to be criticized.