Both
Sadler and Hunt brought good points to their argument for and against
plagiarism. Sadler focused on the negative consequences that participating in plagiarism
would cause and that people who do commit plagiarism should be punished with a
heavier penalty. Whereas Hunt focused more on the good outcomes of
participating in plagiarism. He thought that plagiarism can challenge both the
student and the professor and therefor helping them learn in the end.
I think that Sadler had the stronger
argument because he was straight forward and gave ten reasons on why plagiarism
was wrong and went against the mission of education. The reason I saw Hunt use
was that it would challenge everyone, but that doesn’t seem as appealing as
Sadler’s argument. Sadler analyzed how it would affect the student, the
professor and the businesses graduated would apply for. Sadler really went in depth
in finding all the consequences that people would experience if plagiarism were
to be practiced. Therefore, Sadler had the stronger argument compared to Hunt’s.
I also thought that Sadler had the stronger argument. It seemed to me that Hunt was relying too much on possibilities and not enough on the facts. Hunts argument was that internet plagiarism could challenges teachers and students to work harder. However, he can’t know whether or not that will be the case. It is just as likely, if not more, that plagiarism would ultimately harm the students education and make it more difficult for teachers to see who is understanding the material and who is not. I’ve never liked the idea of taking someone else’s words and using them as your own, so I find it hard to get behind an argument that supports that.
ReplyDelete