User:Chriseargle/Opinion/Debating plagiarists

Debating plagiarists can lead to frustrating arguments due to the shifting context created by your opponent's use of material without adaptation. Since the plagiarist is presenting the argument as his or her own, it will often appear that the plagiarist is simply rewording previous arguments, disregarding any criticism you have offered.

Example
A discussion on an Ohio law to classify zygotes as persons led to someone challenging my assertion that zygotes should not be considered persons. At this point, I had pointed out that the only difference between a zygote and any other cell containing 46 chromosomes of human DNA is its potential to develop into a human if the resulting embryo attaches to a woman's uterus. With the appropriate technology, cells that are not the product of two gametes would have the same potential, and we would not classify every cell in our body as a person simply because it has the potential to be a person.

One person engaged me fiercely for the next few days, and it seemed that he avoided the question or clumsily defended his propositions when I asked for sources or used counterexamples to defeat the argument. It also felt that he would make similar arguments while ignoring my comments addressing the previous.

In his final response, I noticed the style was different and some of the ideas were not congruent with previous ideas he had expressed. I searched for a sentence from it, and found he had simply posted a portion of a Family Research Council brochure. I then checked his previous arguments, and many of them were ripped off from other organizations and authors opposing abortion.

I do not expect sources to be cited in a forum such as Facebook unless it's an actual quote or it was requested. Casual discussion and debate would be hindered by such decorum. However, purposefully presenting the exact words of another as your own is widely regarded as unethical, not to mention illegal if permission was not granted by the copyright holder.

The irony is this occurred in a discussion regarding ethics. Although neither the validity of his arguments nor the validity his victim's argument are affected, he lost considerable credibility on ethics.

Fallacy
Plagiarizing is dishonest, but the actual argument plagiarized may or may not be fallacious. Since an outside argument is being used in the context of another argument, it is oftentimes irrelevant.

Severity
Depending on formality, it may be considered plagiarism even if the idea is not cited. In a casual conversation, a common, unsourced quote used as a short retort or description may be acceptable. The more nuanced and detailed the argument, the more it is dishonest to present it as your own. As an example, if I state, "we should never give up essential liberty for temporary security" in a casual conversation, the fact that this idea is from a Benjamin Franklin quote is not a severe case of plagiarism. However, writing, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," without quotes is somewhat more severe since I'm using someone else's exact words. Using a paragraph of unquoted text from Benjamin Franklin is severely dishonest and likely has only a tenuous connection to the conversation.