Instigator / Pro

Lie detector tests are unreliable

Debating

Waiting for contender's argument

The round will be automatically forfeited in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
Description
My opponent can argue for Baked Beanz. (though this is not the debate topic, so would likely lose the debate if did so)
All i ask is for an honest debate.
Errors that remain unacknowledged after being pointed out become construed as lies.
Also i will probably use wikipedia as a foundation to launch a debate.
I may use other sources later on, if required.
Round 1
Published:
I would like to begin by talking about the "Travis Walton UFO incident".

The Travis Walton UFO incident was an alleged alien abduction of an American forestry worker, Travis Walton, by a UFO on November 5, 1975, while he was working in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests near SnowflakeArizona. Walton reappeared after a five-day search. The Walton case received mainstream publicity and remains one of the best-known alien abduction stories. Skeptics consider it a hoax. Walton wrote a book about his purported abduction in 1978 called The Walton Experience, which was adapted into the 1993 film Fire in the Sky

Now, to cut a long story short, Travis Walton claimed that one night whilst out in the forest with five buddies, he encountered a flying saucer, which struck him with some kind of beam and knocked him unconscious.
Apparently his five buddies legged it, and left Travis Walton for dead.
His friends were suspected of murdering Travis Walton.
However, Travis turned up five days later, claiming that he woke up inside the flying saucer and was brought back to life by humanoids.
Travis went for a cruise around the universe before finally being dropped back off at the same location he had been abducted.

According to Walton, on November 5, 1975 he was working with a timber stand improvement crew in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest near SnowflakeArizona. While riding in a truck with six of his coworkers, they encountered a saucer-shaped object hovering over the ground approximately 110 feet away, making a high-pitched buzz. Walton claims that after he left the truck and approached the object, a beam of light suddenly appeared from the craft and knocked him unconscious. The other six men were frightened and supposedly drove away. Walton claimed that he awoke in a hospital-like room, being observed by three short, bald creatures. He claimed that he fought with them until a human wearing a helmet led Walton to another room, where he blacked out as three other humans put a clear plastic mask over his face. Walton has claimed he remembers nothing else until he found himself walking along a highway, with the flying saucer departing above him.

Upon his return to his local town, he was given a polygraph test, and apparently himself, and the rest of the group, indicated they were telling the truth.
Though one of his friends did show up "inconclusive".

 UFOlogist Jim Ledwith said, “For five days, the authorities thought he’d been murdered by his co-workers, and then he was returned. All of the co-workers who were there, who saw the spacecraft, they all took polygraph tests, and they all passed, except for one, and that one was inconclusive.”

Despite the Pollygraph results, some people, if not most, remain skeptical

Science and skepticism writer Michael Shermer criticized Walton's claims, saying, "I think the polygraph is not a reliable determiner of truth. I think Travis Walton was not abducted by aliens.

So, now i would like to look at the reliability of polygraph tests

polygraph, popularly referred to as a lie detector test, is a device or procedure that measures and records several physiological indicators such as blood pressurepulserespiration, and skin conductivity while a person is asked and answers a series of questions.

However there are no real indicators exclusive to lying, so this would be the first concern regards to Polygraph reliability, and also the fact that each tester usually uses their own unique method

There are, however, no specific physiological reactions associated with lying, making it difficult to identify factors that separate liars from truth tellers. Polygraph examiners also prefer to use their own individual scoring method, as opposed to computerized techniques, as they may more easily defend their own evaluations.

Now, according to the "national research council", Polygraph tests are ineffective, and the only "lie" is the claim that polygraph tests are 90% reliable.

However, assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate, may easily be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness. Despite claims of 90% validity by polygraph advocates, the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.

This is supported by The American Psychological Association, which says there is no evidence a polygraph test can accurately detect lies

The American Psychological Association states "Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."

This debate is also debated in the science community, and their general conclusion is that polygraph tests are inaccurate and an invalid way of establishing truthfulness

 assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are inaccurate, may be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness.

In fact, "two thirds" of the science community, labelled polygraphy, "pseudo-science".

In 1991, two thirds of the scientific community who have the requisite background to evaluate polygraph procedures considered polygraphy to be pseudoscience

Though, a more recent 2002 study did suggest that Polygraphy has a higher than 50% success rate, but still well below 100%

 In 2002, a review by the National Research Council found that, in populations "untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection". 
A 1998 Supreme court ruling stated "fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene" can be over-ruled by the opinion of a polygrapher, and polygraphy is little better than tossing a coin.

In the 1998 US Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion." The Supreme Court summarized their findings by stating that the use of polygraph was "little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin."

Also a 2005, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stated 

"polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific community"

In 2001, William Iacono, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Minnesota  concluded that:

(a) that it is biased against innocent individuals and
and

(b) that it can be beaten simply by artificially augmenting responses to control questions.

Basically what he is saying, is that an honest person will likely not hide their nerves so well, and a polygrapher may wrongfully conclude that nerves are a sign of lying, where-as a deceptive person may hide their nerves well, and the polygrapher will decide their lack of nerves indicates they are telling the truth.

Polygraphers are not even supported by medics, that dignose all types of anxiety disorders.

Polygraphs measure arousal, which can be affected by anxietyanxiety disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), nervousness, fear, confusion, hypoglycemia, psychosis, depression, substance induced states (nicotine, stimulants), substance withdrawal state (alcohol withdrawal) or other emotions; polygraphs do not measure "lies"

In 1983, the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment published a review of the technology

there is at present only limited scientific evidence for establishing the validity of polygraph testing. Even where the evidence seems to indicate that polygraph testing detects deceptive subjects better than chance, significant error rates are possible, and examiner and examinee differences and the use of countermeasures may further affect validity.
In 2003, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report entitled "The Polygraph and Lie Detection". They concluded that Polygraphs are "unreliable, unscientific and biased"

The NAS found that the majority of polygraph research was "unreliable, unscientific and biased"

Now the next report suggests that the only way lie detector tests may actually be useful, is due to the fact that the person being questioned, may actually believe there is no point in lying, and may provide an "admission".

 "The few Government-sponsored scientific research reports on polygraph validity (as opposed to its utility), especially those focusing on the screening of applicants for employment, indicate that the polygraph is neither scientifically valid nor especially effective beyond its ability to generate admissions".

Now, given what has been revealed by scientists, i would like to now question the morals and ethics of those reality tv shows that use polygraphs for entertainment purposes.

Daytime talk shows, such as Maury PovichJeremy Kyle and Steve Wilkos, frequently use polygraphs to detect deception in social matters such as cheatingchild abuse and theft.

In particular, i would like to zoom in on Jeremy Kyle show

The show is based on confrontations in which guests attempt to resolve issues with others that are significant in their lives, with such issues often related to family relationships, romantic relationshipssexdrugs and alcohol, among other issues. Alongside Kyle, the programme additionally featured psychotherapist Graham Stanier, who assisted the guests both during and after the show's broadcast, along with the use of a polygraph test ("lie detector") to determine the veracity of guests' claims, despite contrasting scientific research against the use of such a device.

Now i would like to narrow down what i said above

along with the use of a polygraph test ("lie detector") to determine the veracity of guests' claims, despite contrasting scientific research against the use of such a device.
"despite contrasting scientific research against the use of such a device".

The jeremy kyle show found itself in 2015 up in court, when one of their shows had resulted in a "fight" live on television, and the judge was scathing towards the show. Calling it, "human bear baiting".

a judge described the programme as "human bear-baiting" during a prosecution of guests that had a violent altercation on the programme.

And in 2019, the show was cancelled after a guest that mentained his innocense, after the lie detector test found him guilty of lying, went home and committed suicide

On 15 May 2019, the programme was officially cancelled after the death of a guest, whose appearance had been filmed the week before but not aired.

Now, i will once again go back to the unreliability of Polygraphs.

Polygraphs tests are rarely used in court rooms due to their unreliability

to the point that they are rarely cited as a source of legal evidence in countries such as the United States, and its use on the show has been criticised.

However, Jeremy Kyle, over-rules scientific knowledge, and insists on their reliability, and to prove it, he offers to take a lie detector test, and he has one of his staff ask him "are you a llama"? to which he replied "yes" and it was identified as a "lie".

At one point to prove the legitimacy of the "lie detector" test Jeremy Kyle performed a live on stage test with the question, "Are you, or have you ever been a llama?" to which he replied yes, which was identified as a lie. 

Now Jeremy Kyle claims lie detector tests are 96% reliable.

"Kyle regularly claims the lie detector is 96 per cent accurate, 

However a 1997 study of 421 psychologists found the percentage to be closer to 61% accurate

 whereas a 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated it to be 61 per cent. Or not much better than chance."

Jeremy Kyle dropped his 96% claim however, and replaced it with a disclaimer

 "The lie detector is designed to indicate whether someone is being deceptive. Practitioners claim its results have a high level of accuracy, although this is disputed."

Which is not quite the same thing as 96% reliability.

Now back to the suicide victim Steve Dymond.
Steve was on the show denying he had been unfaithful to his partner, and agreed to a polygraph test, and he failed it.
Steve protested his innocense, but was not believed.
He went home, and killed himself.

On 9 May 2019, Hampshire Police found a man dead at an address in Portsmouth. He was confirmed to be 63-year-old Steve Dymond and the police said "the death is not being treated as suspicious". Dymond had been a guest on an episode of The Jeremy Kyle Show that had been filmed a week before his death and had not yet been aired. He took part in the show's polygraph test, which determined he was being unfaithful to his partner after he had initially denied doing so. The death was suspected to be a suicide

But why did he kill himself?
He could have just advised his partner to seek better advice on the matter, than that of a reality tv show host.
He could have advised her to speak to court officials. scientists. psychologists.

Published:
I am actually about to be banned so it has cut my time to argue short. This is a very rough incomplete draft I have up, and I will exand on my arguments when my ban is over. The one point I did not get to, but I want my opponent to see is coming is some new lie detector tests that utilize artificial intelligence to track eye movement and that seem accurate at detecting lies, as well as some other machines on the cutting edge of lie detection. Please excuse the look and feel of the rough draft below.

1.



I want to thank Steven for this debate. I have two debates with him and he will probably see the same criticism of his techniques on both, which I’m sure will test his patience. I appreciate him allowing me the privilege of debating him. I hope this can be fun, and I want him to know my criticism of his technique is not just to win the debate, but to also help him become a better debater, and hopefully this has some impact on his offline life as well.






2.



This debate is long. Like ridiculously long. It is 30,000 characters and 5 rounds. 2 weeks between each round. I like being allowed 2 weeks to take my time to post an argument. The problem with this debate is mostly the fact it might not get read because of it’s length and the fact this can be a boring topic to most people. I am going to combat this by attempting to be entertaining. This is what I do, because in order to win the votes of judges, we should also win their readership. People have limited time, and only so much dedicated to reading. I put this here so I can point people to it in other debates. This debate has a 30,000 character allowance so it is the perfect place holder for a few of my philosophies on how to debate on this format. I put this here, to encourage potential voters to read on. I promise the debate will not be boring. Well, I promise I will try my best to keep the topic fun and interesting.






3.



There is more than one form of plagiarism. It is true that somebody can have a lot of citations to the same exact wikipedia page and yet true they plagiarized. Plagiarism can be on purpose or accidental, but it is still a problem and needs to be addressed. Mostly for my opponent’s own good. Even unintentional plagiarism deserves a loss of conduct, because it needs to be discouraged. It is unfair at people who work hard it putting their arguments together. It harms the quality of debates on this site, and it harms my opponent and robs him of the knowledge and skills he can gain from researching and defending his beliefs himself.



My opponent has plagiarized his arguments, and I can see why he has done it. He chooses to debate about 30 topics at a time, and formulating an argument can be quite time intensive and the mental energy used can be a bit draining. I would advise him to focus on just one debate at a time, until he has enough knowledge to easily debate many subjects simultaneously.
He has committed plagiarism because most of his writing is just the quotations of others. Sometimes he uses his own words and other times he gives a direct quotation and then merely paraphrases the content he had just stolen. For examples
Cited quote
“assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate”
Here is Pro’s quote
“according to the "national research council", Polygraph tests are ineffective”
Or another examples
Pro’s quote
“The American Psychological Association, which says there is no evidence a polygraph test can accurately detect lies”
Sources quote
“The American Psychological Association states "Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."



Pro’s paraphrasing doesn’t even seem to make sense other than forcing us to reread the same exact information twice. This is known as paraphrasing plagiarism, and his stitching together of quotes from other writers is known as stitching plagiarism. https://www.grammar.com/what_types_of_plagiarism_exist
4. My opponent should lose a conduct point I gave just a few examples of the paraphrasing but his whole argument is almost entirely quotes mixed with paraphrases of the quotes and no real argument that comes from him actually researching the information and formulating his own arguments. It’s fine not to have original arguments, but he makes no effort to use his own voice to make those arguments. Please award me conduct points at the very least tht should be his punishment. 5. Define what is reliable in a way that benefits me. Reliable is what is useful. Also that the resolution should be interpreted to mean all lie detectors. My opponent has given a wide latitude in how to interpret the resolution. Here is what he says in the description of the debate.

“My opponent can argue for Baked Beanz. (though this is not the debate topic, so would likely lose the debate if did so)
All i ask is for an honest debate.”

That is a pretty fair standard set by him. I think my interpretation of the debate resolution should be what judges use to determine what the debate is about. I also say my interpretation is fair and that the debate will be honest. At least on my end, I am not plagiarizing.



The resolution “Lie Detector Tests are Unreliable” has a major assumption in the title. As worded this refers to all lie detector tests. The polygraph invented over 100 years ago and is still used by police forces currently can be very “unreliable”, but if I prove a new lie detector test that uses different metrics to determine how likely somebody is to lie is “reliable”, than I should win the debate based on this resolution, that uses the term “lie detector test”. A more general term than polygraph.
The main word we need to focus on in the resolution though is the word “reliable”. My opponent could have used many words there, one word being accurate, but he chose not to debate the accuracy of the test. My opponent wanted to debate the reliability of the test.
According to my dictionary reliable means “To be able to do what is needed” http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/reliable



What is needed is a kind of general term that I guess the debate may revolve around, but I think the situation would determine what is needed from a lie detection test. Perhaps a detective would know that a polygraph is kind of a bullshit way to determine truth, and what is needed is not so much the results of the test, but for the test to strike fear into a person who is holding back information necessary to move an investigation forward. Whether the person is a witness who is scared to speak the truth or a suspect on the verge of confessing but just needs a little prodding.
I ask the judges, that when they look at the word reliable, they think about the usefulness of lie detector tests more than the accuracy of the tests. The tests could be very inaccurate and yet be reliable at the tasks it is actually needed for.






7. Lie detector tests are better than 50/50 according to my opponent’s own concessions. My opponent cites a source that claims polygraphs are slightly higher than 50%. However he also cites a source that says the correct accuracy of the polygraph is 61%. SO which is it? I think without him arguing for one over the other we should assume the 61% number is the more accurate one, as it is at least specific and the definition of “slightly” can be very ambiguous. Slightly can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people and the difference can be statistically significant. This is only assuming we accept his 61% number we see that he cites below. Pro rephrases (plagiarizes) a quote he cited this way ;
“However a 1997 study of 421 psychologists found the percentage to be closer to 61% accurate”
The citation is a big pain in the ass for me because wikipedia lists it as this https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/sep/07/itv.television But the claim of 61% is not found in the article cited. I did track down a 1997 study on polygraphs that sent out surveys to 421 psychologists. Unfortunately it is behind a pay wall, but it appears to be just a survey sent out to psychologists to ask their opinion on the accuracy of polygraph tests.
It doesn’t test the accuracy of the tests so much as it tests the opinions of 421 random psychologists who aren’t trained in the physiology of the test. Psychology is also not a very science based career. No doubt it is useful and good for a lot of people, but it is by no means science based. This is why you used to have psychologists giving women orgasms to cure them of “hysteria”. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201303/hysteria-and-the-strange-history-vibrators Or psychologists classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder as late as 1976. Psychology is not a science. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jul-13-la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713-story.html , it is no more qualified to judge an instrument of science than any random person on the street.
My opponent offered the just above 50% number. Again I can’t just click on the source provided to see how the number is derived. I have to follow a kinda road of sources to get to the original source. Which is an opinion a Judge Thomas based on his readings of several polygraph studies. Studies that are contradictory with a range of some claiming 85% accuracy and some claiming coin flip accuracy. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1133.ZO.html . The supreme court ruling seems to be based less off of whether the test is accurate though and more on whether there was a scientific consensus on it’s accuracy. The supreme court ruling occurred almost a quarter of a century ago, and it seems to be old news. It seems silly to think lie detection methods have not improved in a quarter of a century.
It’s funny that the state is against things like an alford plea which allows a person to proclaim their innocence while pleading guilty until it benefits them. The Alford plea was finally made a thing when the prosecution of a case intimidated a person to plead guilty on very weak evidence, but he refused to admit guilt while pleading guilty. The state knowing they would lose the case went to the supreme court to legalize an the Alford plea. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-alford-plea-guilty-but-innocent
The same thing happened with polygraph tests. The prosecutors had no problem using polygraphs when it helped them lock somebody up. The Alford plea was not the only time the despicable people attracted to that occupation were hypocritical. The same prosecutors who argued polygraphs were legit to lock people up went to trial against a man who was found with illegal drugs in his system. The gentleman claimed to be unaware of the fact he ingested drugs, arguing a mindset defense. However since the polygraph was now being used against prosecutors these unethical people that used them prior bitched that the polygraph was a pseudo science. Here is a few quotes from the dissenting judge in the case my opponent cited with the 50% number.
“There are a host of studies that place the reliability of polygraph tests at 85% to 90%.20 While critics of the polygraph argue that accuracy is much lower, even the studies cited by the critics place polygraph accuracy at 70%.21 Moreover, to the extent that the polygraph errs, studies have repeatedly shown that the polygraph is more likely to find innocent people guilty than vice versa.22 Thus, exculpatory polygraphs–like the one in this case–are likely to be more reliable than inculpatory ones.”
That’s right. Before the polygraph was a tool more useful for the prosecution, but now that proof existed that the polygraph was better used as exculpatory evidence, prosecutors randomly decided to oppose it. The next quote we can see more context for why polygraphs can be useful and why the prosecution who was more concerned with winning than the truth, wanted it ruled as unconstitutional.
“ in this case the results of the polygraph test, taken just three days after the urinalysis, constitute independent factual evidence that is not otherwise available and that strongly supports his defense of “innocent ingestion.” Just as flight or other evidence of “consciousness of guilt” may sometimes be relevant, on some occasions evidence of “consciousness of innocence” may also be relevant to the central issue at trial. Both the answers to the questions propounded by the examiner, and the physical manifestations produced by those utterances, were probative of an innocent state of mind shortly after he ingested the drugs. In Dean Wigmore’s view, both “conduct” and “utterances” may constitute factual evidence of a “consciousness of innocence.”
My opponent’s 50% number should be disregarded as the opinion of a judge who made a decision in this case and not as evidence against the accuracy of polygraphs.











8. explain what false positive and what false negatives are. 9. My opponent’s information is based on old fashioned polygraph tests. Lie detection has came a long way, and just like it would be unfair to call medicine unreliable because of quack doctors it would be wrong to imply lie detection is bad just because a bad machine. One of many methods of lie detection. 10. show some tests we consider very reliable (example breast cancer screening) have false positives and false negatives. 11. Show that a test with a lot of inaccuracies can be useful at helping detectives look at certain things more closely 12. The fear factor of lie detectors can help with national security 13. The tests can be used to elicet confessions and information due to fear factor

Round 2
Published:
singularity wrote....
I am actually about to be banned so it has cut my time to argue short. This is a very rough incomplete draft I have up, and I will exand on my arguments when my ban is over. The one point I did not get to, but I want my opponent to see is coming is some new lie detector tests that utilize artificial intelligence to track eye movement and that seem accurate at detecting lies, as well as some other machines on the cutting edge of lie detection. Please excuse the look and feel of the rough draft below.


My opponent is referring to "eye tracking".
However eye-tracking is favoured for all the wrong reasons.
Eye-tracking is more cost effective than other forms of lie detection. Takes less time. Less equipment, and less employees to pay.
But nothing about reliability.

Eye-tracking offers several benefits over the polygraph: lower cost, 1/5th of the time to conduct, subjects do not need to be "hooked up" to anything, and it does not require qualified polygraph examiners to give the test.

al technology.


Now eye tracking is not even supposed to be the most effective form of lie detection. There is a new form known as "FMRI", which is a form of (al) artificial intelligence.

Researchers have turned to looking for other ways to track deception. The most promising fields are fMRI and EEG. EEG and fMRI both look to the central nervous system to compare time and topography of activity in the brain for lie detection. While a polygraph detects changes in activity in the peripheral nervous system, fMRI has the potential to catch the lie at the 'source'. To better understand why fMRI, lie detection is the future of lie detection one must first understand how it works.

cons and legal issues.

We do not have to research far before we can see certain lagal issues, and cons, regarding the use of FMRI. One of the legal issues being that not enough research has been put in to it to verify it's effectiveness in finding a person guilty ot not guilty

The legal system specifically would require many more studies on the negative false rate to decide if the absence of deception proves innocence. 

It must also be noted that the companies selling FMRI claim "only" a 90% accuracy rate. This is actually 6% less than the 96% claimed by Jeremy Kyle for his jurassic polygraph test

While fMRI studies on deception have claimed detection accuracy as high as 90% many have problems with implementing this style of detection. 


Now the "best" that can be said of those studies, is that they look "promising".

 While these studies are promising,

But the general conclusion is that FMRI lacks extensive research.

the lack of extensive research on the populations that would be most affected by fMRIs being admitted into the legal system is a huge drawback.

Now when we look at other forms of courtroom evidence, such as fingerprints, ballistics and DNA evidence, and compare it with a method which brags only a 90% reliability rate, then FMRI is unacceptable in a court of law. 90% is extremely low, and unreliable.


singularity wrote.....

2.



This debate is long. Like ridiculously long. It is 30,000 characters and 5 rounds. 2 weeks between each round. I like being allowed 2 weeks to take my time to post an argument. The problem with this debate is mostly the fact it might not get read because of it’s length and the fact this can be a boring topic to most people. I am going to combat this by attempting to be entertaining. This is what I do, because in order to win the votes of judges, we should also win their readership. People have limited time, and only so much dedicated to reading. I put this here so I can point people to it in other debates. This debate has a 30,000 character allowance so it is the perfect place holder for a few of my philosophies on how to debate on this format. I put this here, to encourage potential voters to read on. I promise the debate will not be boring. Well, I promise I will try my best to keep the topic fun and interesting.

This is all very well.
You can encourage readers to read only your story by being entertaining.

However you are obviously going for grammar and conduct points, as if you manage to win the argument without actually showing how lie detectors are reliable, then stewards enquiry.

I would encourage any reader that finds your argument easy on the eye, to "remember" and check back and see if you did in fact show that lie detectors are reliable.

singularity wrote.....

3.



There is more than one form of plagiarism. It is true that somebody can have a lot of citations to the same exact wikipedia page and yet true they plagiarized. Plagiarism can be on purpose or accidental, but it is still a problem and needs to be addressed. Mostly for my opponent’s own good. Even unintentional plagiarism deserves a loss of conduct, because it needs to be discouraged. It is unfair at people who work hard it putting their arguments together. It harms the quality of debates on this site, and it harms my opponent and robs him of the knowledge and skills he can gain from researching and defending his beliefs himself.

My opponent does not realise it, but he has just himself committed and encouraged "plagiarism".


singularity wrote....
It is unfair at people who work hard it putting their arguments together. It harms the quality of debates on this site, and it harms my opponent and robs him of the knowledge and skills he can gain from researching and defending his beliefs himself.

The problem here is his wanting to defend his beliefs "himself".
Are my opponents beliefs, "his own" beliefs, or beliefs he inherited from others via researching?

My opponent appears to think that knowledge and skills are something you are just born with, and we do not learn from others, and those that we do learn from do not require mentioning, as we should pass the knowledge over as "our" own, as this is what voters are wanting to see.

However, i do not pretend to have knowledge.
I have however done a lot of research, and i work hard. Whether or not this is accepted by others, is out of my hands.

Now let us look at plagiarising.
And yes, i am going to use someone elses definitions. Definitions i learnt at school. And not my own.

Forms of academic plagiarism

Submitting someone's work as their own.

This is something i definitely have not done. 
The work is not mine.

Taking passages from their own previous work without adding citations (self-plagiarism).

Nope. I do not use myself as a source

re-writing someone's work without properly citing sources.

Nope, definitely have not re-wrote someone elses work and not cited them

Using quotations but not citing the source.

No, i always cite the source 

Interweaving various sources together in the work without citing.

Nope, i proving quotes and citation for every little thing.

Citing some, but not all, passages that should be cited.
I may actually be guilty of this. 
Sometimes i have known myself to cut a quote short because it is also contains the counter argument.

However i am not the only person guilty of this.
In a court of law, usually lawyers leave counter arguments to the opposition.

Therefore, in a debate, like in a court of law, i really am supposed to be concentrating on supporting my own argument, not my opponents.

So whilst it may be deemed dishonest in academia, it is not dishonest in a debate.

Melding together cited and uncited sections of the piece.
Never.

Providing proper citations, but failing to change the structure and wording of the borrowed ideas enough (close paraphrasing).

No, i do not. Because i provide the direct quotes.
I may or may not put it in to my own words, and if my own words do not accurately reflect what i have quoted, then it cannot be due to deceit, as i provided the direct quote beneath anyway.

Inaccurately citing a source.
Nope, i certainly don't think so.
My sources always pertain to what i am talking about, and always mostly say what i say they do. I always quote directly.

Relying too heavily on other people's work, failing to bring original thought into the text.
Possibly. But then others can claim their knowledge is divine if they so wish.


singularity wrote....
He has committed plagiarism because most of his writing is just the quotations of others.

Singularity has also committed plagiarism, as he learnt the definitions of plagiarism from somewhere, but does not provide one single citation nor quote, and therefore is declaring his knowledge is divine.

problems with my opponents logic and use of paraphrasing.

I am going to show how paraphrasing is amatuerish.
It may be accepted in primary school, to read a book, then write an essay in your own words based on that book, and then pretend that it is all your own work.
However this is not acceptable in a court of law. I will show you why.

My opponent "paraphrased me", and got something "totally wrong".

singularity wrote...
He has committed plagiarism because most of his writing is just the quotations of others. Sometimes he uses his own words and other times he gives a direct quotation and then merely paraphrases the content he had just stolen. For examples
Cited quote
“assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate”
Here is Pro’s quote
“according to the "national research council", Polygraph tests are ineffective”

So my opponent claimed that my quote from round 1 said "“assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate”.

So, is my opponent being "honest"? Or is my opponent putting things wrongfully in to his own words? Let is look at the direct quote.

However, assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate, may easily be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness. Despite claims of 90% validity by polygraph advocates, the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.

So, from above, we do see that my opponent was correct. To make it correct, he did have to remove approximately 75% of the wording. But yes, it did contain the words he attributed.

So, let us look at the phrase he attributed to me. I will directly quote it beneath

Now, according to the "national research council", Polygraph tests are ineffective, and the only "lie" is the claim that polygraph tests are 90% reliable.
So is my opponent correct? Yes, again, if he removes approximately 75% of my words, he can make it say that.

But let us look at how he is actually wrong.
Quite simply my opponent removed from my cited quotation, the most important part

the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.

So, this means i was correct, and he was wrong, and the National Research Council found polygraph tests to be ineffective.

So do we see the problem caused by putting things in to your own words? It means you are turning a "right" in to a "wrong".





Now on to my opponents next attempt 

singularity wrote....
“The American Psychological Association, which says there is no evidence a polygraph test can accurately detect lies”
Sources quote
“The American Psychological Association states "Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."
I am actually speechless.
According to my opponent, "The American Psychological Association" agrees with me.


singularity wrote...
Pro’s paraphrasing doesn’t even seem to make sense other than forcing us to reread the same exact information twice. This is known as paraphrasing plagiarism, and his stitching together of quotes from other writers is known as stitching plagiarism. https://www.grammar.com/what_types_of_plagiarism_exist
4. My opponent should lose a conduct point I gave just a few examples of the paraphrasing but his whole argument is almost entirely quotes mixed with paraphrases of the quotes and no real argument that comes from him actually researching the information and formulating

My opponent in round 1 makes a terrible argument here.
Let me explain why.
I state in my debate definition

Also i will probably use wikipedia as a foundation to launch a debate.
I may use other sources later on, if required.
My opponent accepted this.
My opponent accepted a challenge where i acknowledged i would likely use wikipedia as a foundation to launch a debate, but may provide other sources later, "if required".

My opponent also wants me to do his job for him

singularity wrote...
4. My opponent should lose a conduct point I gave just a few examples of the paraphrasing but his whole argument is almost entirely quotes mixed with paraphrases of the quotes and no real argument that comes from him actually researching the information and formulating
quite simply, my opponent wishes me to research the information for no reason what so ever.
I presented a foundation.
My opponent may wish to question certain aspects of those foundations. That is his job. If and when he does this, i may then research farther.


my opponents definition of unreliability.

My opponent then provided a dictionary link to the definition of "reliability".

singularity wrote...
My opponent wanted to debate the reliability of the test.
According to my dictionary reliable means “To be able to do what is needed” http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/reliable

However my opponent should concentrate on "being reliable".
So far, he has shown himself to be unreliable when "paraphrasing", as i showed above, when i accurately directly quoted the quotes he had redefined in to his own wording, thus making it appear i had contradicted myself.

My opponent appears to have a lot of emphasis in "uniqueness", and using his "own" beliefs. I would encourage others to keep an eye out for this, as my opponents own "beliefs" may not be correct, and also his quotes which he rephrases in to his own words, may be "wrong" and incorrect.
Worsed case, lies.
Though that is only the worsed case. One deserves the benefit of the doubt, especially in round 1.





singularity wrote...
What is needed is a kind of general term that I guess the debate may revolve around, but I think the situation would determine what is needed from a lie detection test. Perhaps a detective would know that a polygraph is kind of a bullshit way to determine truth, and what is needed is not so much the results of the test, but for the test to strike fear into a person who is holding back information necessary to move an investigation forward.


I already stated this in round 1, that a lie detector test may be useful for this purpose.

Now the next report suggests that the only way lie detector tests may actually be useful, is due to the fact that the person being questioned, may actually believe there is no point in lying, and may provide an "admission".

 "The few Government-sponsored scientific research reports on polygraph validity (as opposed to its utility), especially those focusing on the screening of applicants for employment, indicate that the polygraph is neither scientifically valid nor especially effective beyond its ability to generate admissions".



But i personally do not see this as making a lie detector test reliable.
Quite simply, lying about the reliability of a lie detector test, in the hope that the person being questioned may believe the lie, and decide to simply tell the truth instead, is a very unreliable way to conduct police business.

my opponents honest admission.

Now i would just like to thank my opponent for his honesty and agreeing with my argument, and the fact that a police detective would consider a polygraph test the proverbial BS, supports my point exactly


singularity wrote....
.Perhaps a detective would know that a polygraph is kind of a bullshit way to determine truth,

And as i showed in round 1. My opponents belief, and his detectives beliefs, are supported by the Supreme court which says a polygraph test is no better than tossing a coin

In the 1998 US Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion." The Supreme Court summarized their findings by stating that the use of polygraph was "little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin."

singularity wrote...
7. Lie detector tests are better than 50/50 according to my opponent’s own concessions. My opponent cites a source that claims polygraphs are slightly higher than 50%. However he also cites a source that says the correct accuracy of the polygraph is 61%. SO which is it?

Now my opponent wants to point out what he believes to be a contradiction in my argument.
I apparently "admit" that lie detectors are above 50% reliable, and somewhere else i cite a study where a group of psychologists decreed that lie detectors are only 61% reliable, and this is contradictive apparently.

So fair enough, let us take the highest rate of 90% from FMRI tests.
Is 90% reliability, reliable enough? I think not.

A horse running at 9/1 has a damn good chance of coming in. It is hardly a 1000/1 shot.
Therefore with odds of 9/1 in failing a lie detector wrongfully, there is a damn good chance you are getting wrongfully imprisoned, or wrongfully sentenced to death.
90% is unreliable.


singularity wrote....
The citation is a big pain in the ass for me because wikipedia lists it as this https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/sep/07/itv.television But the claim of 61% is not found in the article cited. I did track down a 1997 study on polygraphs that sent out surveys to 421 psychologists. Unfortunately it is behind a pay wall, but it appears to be just a survey sent out to psychologists to ask their opinion on the accuracy of polygraph tests.

My opponent goes to great lengths to question the validity of this study. And you kn ow what. I will let it go, because the 421 psychologists were to serve no greater purpose anyway, than to point out that Jeremy Kyles claims of a 96% reliability rate, was probably incorrect.

my opponent admits only 85% accuracy.

My opponent researched my round 1 claims, and found that one of my claims was inaccurate "apparently".
My opponent claims that my source actually pointed to an 85% accuracy, as opposed to flip of a coin

singularity wrote...
My opponent offered the just above 50% number. Again I can’t just click on the source provided to see how the number is derived. I have to follow a kinda road of sources to get to the original source. Which is an opinion a Judge Thomas based on his readings of several polygraph studies. Studies that are contradictory with a range of some claiming 85% accuracy and some claiming coin flip accuracy.
Sp this means that "currently" 85% is the highest reliability rate my opponent is able to provide.

I will also point out, my opponent must have completely skipped over this quote i made here in round 1.

Though, a more recent 2002 study did suggest that Polygraphy has a higher than 50% success rate, but still well below 100%

 In 2002, a review by the National Research Council found that, in populations "untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection". 


My opponent is claiming he knows better than the US supreme court


singularity wrote...
The supreme court ruling seems to be based less off of whether the test is accurate though and more on whether there was a scientific consensus on it’s accuracy. 

So, using no citation. Directly quoting no one. My opponent suggests he has great knowledge on the 1998 supreme court ruling, though still concludes that there "is" a lack of scientific consensus on it's accuracy.

singularity wrote... 
The supreme court ruling occurred almost a quarter of a century ago, and it seems to be old news. It seems silly to think lie detection methods have not improved in a quarter of a century.
My opponent continues in the quote above, to suggest that lie detection tests have probably improved since a quarter of a century ago.
This "may" be the case, but my opponent has failed anywhere in round 1 to show this.

Simply saying something "might" be the case, does not make it the case.

My opponent now claims up to 90% accuracy, then admits it could be as low as 70%.

singularity wrote....
“There are a host of studies that place the reliability of polygraph tests at 85% to 90%.20 While critics of the polygraph argue that accuracy is much lower, even the studies cited by the critics place polygraph accuracy at 70%.

Let us assume that the 90% reliabilty rate is the correct one, do we consider "90%" to be a professional reliable figure? Sorry, but 10% is a huge error rate.

my opponent becomes a conspiracy theorist.

My opponent for some reason brings the Alfred plea in to this debate, and decided to redefine and reinvent what the Alfred plea is.

According to my opponent, who i "directly" quote, and do not paraphrase,The Alford plea was finally made a thing when the prosecution of a case intimidated a person to plead guilty on very weak evidence, but he refused to admit guilt while pleading guilty. The state knowing they would lose the case went to the supreme court to legalize an the Alford plea.

singularity wrote....
The Alford plea was finally made a thing when the prosecution of a case intimidated a person to plead guilty on very weak evidence, but he refused to admit guilt while pleading guilty. The state knowing they would lose the case went to the supreme court to legalize an the Alford plea.
But, my opponent is completely incorrect.
The Alford plea is "not" intimidating a person in to pleading guilty on very weak evidence.
 It is the opposite. It is when a person pleads guilty because they admit the evidence against them is so strong, it overwhelms their innocense, and they admit this.

In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
And in the case of Alford, there was a lot of evidence against him. And he his reasoning for pleading guilty was because the evidence against him was so strong, that continuing to plead innocent would see him receive the death penalty, so he changed his plea to escape the death penalty

Henry Alford had been indicted on a charge of first-degree murder in 1963. Evidence in the case included testimony from witnesses that Alford had said, after the victim's death, that he had killed the individual. Court testimony showed that Alford and the victim had argued at the victim's house. Alford left the house, and afterwards the victim received a fatal gunshot wound when he opened the door responding to a knock.
Alford was faced with the possibility of capital punishment if convicted by a jury trial. The death penalty was the default sentence by North Carolina law at the time, if two requisites in the case were satisfied: the defendant had to have pleaded not guilty, and the jury did not instead recommend a life sentence.
My opponent continues with his conspiracy theories, and says the same thing happened with polygraph tests. But he is going to have to provide more evidence for this.

singularity wrote....
The same thing happened with polygraph tests.

My opponent says that the case with Scheffer was another case of an innocent person being sent to prison. However his link does not state this. This is purely my opponent adding his own belief, and mixing his own words with what his link says.

 Singularity wrote...
The Alford plea was not the only time the despicable people attracted to that occupation were hypocritical. The same prosecutors who argued polygraphs were legit to lock people up went to trial against a man who was found with illegal drugs in his system. The gentleman claimed to be unaware of the fact he ingested drugs, arguing a mindset defense. However since the polygraph was now being used against prosecutors these unethical people that used them prior bitched that the polygraph was a pseudo science. Here is a few quotes from the dissenting judge in the case my opponent cited with the 50% number.

My opponent just about made all this up. Basically his link says that a man ingested drugs. This was supported by a urinalysis. Though a lie detector test did find him innocent. However the court decided to go with the urinalysis test.
The man then said he was unaware he digested the drugs, and my opponent "believes" this. Which is his choice.

The principal charge against the respondent in this case was that he had knowingly used methamphetamine. His principal defense was “innocent ingestion”; even if the urinalysis test conducted on April 7, 1992, correctly indicated that he did ingest the substance, he claims to have been unaware of that fact. The results of the lie detector test conducted three days later, if accurate, constitute factual evidence that his physical condition at that time was consistent with the theory of his defense and inconsistent with the theory of the prosecution. The results were also relevant because they tended to confirm the credibility of his testimony. Under Rule 707, even if the results of the polygraph test were more reliable than the results of the urinalysis, the weaker evidence is admissible and the stronger evidence is inadmissible.

Basically, my opponents source is a source to how unreliable lie detector tests are.
His source does not support his conspiracy theories however.



round 1 conclusion.

My opponent has strengthened my argument by highlighting how unreliable lie detector tests are, and also by using a source which is about the unreliability of lie detector tests. Only my opponent adds his own beliefs and conspiracy theories to the link. 

Also my opponents use paraphrasing, changes words so badly, that it makes what he says "wrong".
Published:
Dropped Arguments

Pro drops my arguments that reliability should be defined as



 “To be able to do what is needed"
He is has allowed a wide interpretation of the debate resolution when he states that his opponent could argue for "baked beanz", he is fine with my interpretation and doesn't actually seem to object to it in his arguments, which makes me confused as to why he seems to be arguing against accuracy, when the debate is not about accuracy but reliability (usefulness).

I've argued that the lie detector test can extract real confessions. My opponent has dropped this argument. I argued that the lie detector test can be used as another eyewitness when it comes to helping a defendant out with his version of events. It is too in accurate to be used by the prosecution, it is prejudices the jury a bit too much in the prosecution's favor but is fine to be treated almost like an eyewitness for the defense. 

Plagiarism

I point out that my opponent is basically copy and pasting arguments from others and using a type of copy and paste plagiarism. Then for some reason he comes out and wastes half his character space and the judges times listing a bunch of forms of plagiarism I never accused him of.

Look copy and pasting that much is fine when you are offering a critique of the statements made, but his whole argument was copy and pasted quotes mixed with very very close paraphrases of the quotes prior to posting them. This form of plagiarism is known as stitching together and the paraphrasing crosses a line.

Pro says “My opponent appears to think that knowledge and skills are something you are just born with, and we do not learn from others, and those that we do learn from do not require mentioning, as we should pass the knowledge over as "our" own, as this is what voters are wanting to see.”


The problem is not crediting people you learned from, and you know that. The problem is stitching together your argument. Nobody is requiring unique ideals, only that these ideals are presented in your writer’s voice. Accept the conduct point loss and deal with it.

My opponent accuses me of paraphrasing when I quote him. He somehow thinks using portions of another’s writing to critique is paraphrasing, and it isn’t. Paraphrasing is when you reword a phrase. Paraphrasing is not when you highlight portions of what an opponent says. Not to be mean byt this is why I don’t even want to take debates on this site seriously any more. Most people engaging in them are inable to take the time to learn what a simple commonly used word like paraphrasing means, and they derail debates with random things like my opponent did, because he forget he was supposed to be defending the resolution and nothing else.

Supreme court

pro says

“So, using no citation. Directly quoting no one. My opponent suggests he has great knowledge on the 1998 supreme court ruling, though still concludes that there "is" a lack of scientific consensus on it's accuracy.”

This is ridiculous. I reference things stated by the dissenting judge in the trial. I do have great knowledge of the ruling because I read the opinion of every single judge who weighed in on the trial


Conspiracy theory

I actually think he goes off topic from the debate about the conspiracy theorist angle, as a form of ad hominem attack. It doesn’t seem to support his position or undermine mine for him to point out that he disagrees with my opinion on the Alford Plea. Although I can’t help but to laugh at why he thinks I am wrong. For example I stated that the Alford plea was so a person could plead guilty while maintaining their innocence making it easier for the prosecution to get plea deals when they don’t feel like going to trial. I allege Alford pleas only came to pass, because it benefits the prosecution, and he attempts to somehow prove me wrong by stating this

“And in the case of Alford, there was a lot of evidence against him. And he his reasoning for pleading guilty was because the evidence against him was so strong, that continuing to plead innocent would see him receive the death penalty, so he changed his plea to escape the death penalty”

For some reason he thinks this disproves the Alford plea was created to help the prosecution, because it also helps a specific defendant. This is moronic to think stating that, somehow disproves my assertion.

Now this is used to branch off into the following assertions

“My opponent continues with his conspiracy theories, and says the same thing happened with polygraph tests. But he is going to have to provide more evidence for this.”

and

“My opponent says that the case with Scheffer was another case of an innocent person being sent to prison. However his link does not state this. This is purely my opponent adding his own belief, and mixing his own words with what his link says”

First of all yes, I used my words and the links words because I was using critical thinking skills instead of just copy and pasting things I agree with, LOL that this is viewed as an insult.

This is entirely off topic. It doesn’t matter if Scheffer was innocent or guilty. What matters is whether polygraphs should be able to be used by the defense as a type of eyewitness, and that is what I argued, and my opponent never provided a rebuttal for that assertion.

Conclusion

Look my opponent went off topic, and plagiarized. My definition of reliable was accepted and yet my opponent is still arguing for “accuracy” instead of reliability. I acknowledged some of the same problems with lie detectors, that using them in court was bad for prosecutors because of the inaccuracy and prejudicial factor. The same way I think bite mark analysis should not be used by prosecutors unless it is to eliminate a suspect. It serves the interest of justice to allow defendants the ability to use a lie detector tests.

He also seems to be overly focused on the polygraph. There are lots of lie detection tests, when I ask my mom if I am adopted and she says no, I then conduct a test to test her lie by getting a DNA test. He seems to even just throw his hands up because instead of disproving new forms of lie detection, he says that there is not enough evidence, but he is obligated to disprove reliability.

I want the judges to keep in mind that this debate is about reliability not accuracy, and that reliability should be judged by whether a lie detection test helps to get confessions from time to time on cases that would otherwise go unsolved, whether it can be reliable as acting as another witness for defendants who are on trial with their life on the line. This debate is actually easy to judge. Vote con

Round 3
Forfeited
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet
Added:
--> @Nevets
Completely agree with you
#1
No votes yet