Resolved: On balance, the reasons to make same-sex marriage legal in the United States outweigh any reasons not to do so.
Same-sex marriage- A legal union between two people of the same sex affirming their commitment to each other and their relationship.
Legal- Allowed by law.
1. First round is for acceptance.
2. Drops count as concessions.
3. Abusive arguments shall not be counted.
4. No new arguments in the last round.
The BoP is shared.
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and look forward to a compelling clash!
"My opponent therefore must argue that governmental recognition of same sex marriage is justified and necessary."
That is exactly what I intend to do. I will do this in two parts: Civil Rights and Benefits of Marriage. In "Civil Rights" I will show that denying same-sex marriage is a violation of civil rights. In "Benefits of Marriage" I will explain some of the benefits of marriage, thus giving another reason why the government should equally recognize same-sex marriage.
P1: People should not be denied their civil rights.
P2: Gay marriage is a civil right.
C1: Therefore, people should not be denied marriage on the basis of sexual orientation.
People should not be denied their civil rights.
Civil rights- Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community .
Basically, civil rights are rights that are gained by belonging to a certain society. If civil rights are not upheld, the fair nature of democracy is threatened.
Gay Marriage is a Civil Right.
Marriage is a right that is granted by societies, therefore marriage is a civil right. But is same sex marriage also a civil right?
The definition of marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other .
Obviously, same sex marriages can participate in this act. Therefore, same sex marriage is a right granted by a society, a civil right.
Therefore, people should not be denied marriage on the basis of sexual orientation.
BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE
There are numerous benefits for marriages that are recognized by law. These include:
Tax benefits, estate planning benefits, government benefits, employment benefits, medical benefits, death benefits, family benefits, housing benefits, and consumer benefits .
My opponent must prove why these benefits should not also be granted to same sex couples.
There are additional benefits of marriage beyond governmental benefits:
P1: "Children benefit from two-parent families" .
P2: "Married parents 'ten times more likely to stay together" .
C2: Therefore, the children of same-sex couples will benefit from same sex marriage being legalized.
My opponent agrees with my observation, namely that my burden is to uphold the status quo while his is to advocate state recognition of gay marriage. In the status quo, gays can marry but are not granted marriage licenses by the state; in other words, they can marry but their marriages are not recognized. I advocate continuing this policy.
The ideal end of a state is to promote Justice, properly defined by Aristotle as “treating equals as equals and unequals as unequals” . Philosopher John Rawls explains, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. The rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce in an erroneous theory is the lack of a better one; analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising.”  This has two important implications. First, my opponent must demonstrate that it is just to grant gays the right to marry each other and that second, social benefits to individuals and economic benefits of a policy are outside the realm of justice since they are extra features that don’t consider what individuals are due. Utilitarian calculations are not a good basis for affirming.
I have a brief observation. “Marriage is fundamentally centered around procreative type acts. Since sexual acts between individuals of the same sex are not procreative in type, they do not qualify as marriages. This renders Con's response against the point that "Gays can't have children" to be irrelevant. Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect. Infertile couple are therefore irrelevant to the argument.”  My sole contention is that recognizing gay marriage is unjust. The state has no compelling reason to recognize same sex marriage.
1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).
2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.
3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.
4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.
5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.
6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. 
My opponent first claims that if the state does not recognize homosexual marriage, it is denying gays their civil rights. This argument demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on the nature of rights, however. The right to marriage is an extension of the freedom of association, which itself is an extension of the right to liberty. The right to liberty is fundamentally a negative right; I am free to do action x insofar as others to not interfere with my ability to perform action x. This means that the right to liberty entails noninterference. Since liberty entails noninterference, the sole duty of the state is to not interfere with the right to marry and not to recognize it.
Let me give another example to illustrate what I mean. The right to free speech is another extension of the right to liberty. When I say that I have a right to free speech, what I mean is that the government cannot restrict my ability to express my opinion. This doesn’t mean, however, that the government must give me access to radios and television time so that I can express my opinion, nor does it mean that the government must recognize my opinions. It simply means that the government cannot prevent me from expressing my opinion. This is because the right to free speech is a negative right and entails noninterference.
Similarly, the right to marriage is a negative right and entails noninterference, meaning that as long as the state does not prevent gays from getting married, it is not violating their civil rights. In the U.S., as I have mentioned several times, the state does not actively break up gay relationships or prevent gays from having their own marriage ceremonies. It simply does not recognize gay marriages. This isn’t a requirement of the noninterference clause of the right to liberty, so there is no violation of civil rights.
Even if he manages to convince you that the right to liberty does mean that the state has to provide me with the means to exercise my right to liberty, gays are still not having their civil rights violated. This is because all marriages to consenting adults of the opposite sex are recognized by the state. This is the same privilege afforded to heterosexual adults, so their civil rights are not being violated and they are getting afforded protection under the law.
He next argues that there are numerous benefits afforded to legally married couples, such as tax benefits, family benefits, etc. The logic behind these benefits is to aid individuals who are producing more individuals for society. Homosexuals are not producing more children for society when they are engaged in gay relationships, so gay marriages do not deserve these benefits. Remember what I outlined in my case; it would be unjust to provide most of these benefits to homosexual couples because heterosexual marriage has special social value insofar as it produces children for society and thus it merits special treatment according to the principles of justice. I’m sure that my opponent will pull out some benefit that isn’t necessary for child-producing couples, but that is irrelevant because we can simply eliminate those benefits or extend them to couples who have not received recognition from the state.
He finally argues that children in homosexual couples will benefit from homosexual marriage. The logic behind this is that individuals who are married are more likely to stay together. I have a few responses. First, look at the Rawls evidence that I provided at the top of my case; social benefits are irrelevant to considerations of justice because they are extra benefits that do not consider what individuals are due. Even if this social benefit is true, it does not matter because we have to resolve the question of justice before we even consider it.
Second, I agree that individuals who are married are likely to stay together longer. It is the fault of homosexuals that they are not entering marriages since the state is not preventing them from doing so. The sense of commitment stems from love and respect for the partner, and not because the state grants a piece of paper that declares that a marriage is being recognized. The reason that married couples remain together is that they make a public commitment to do so. Gays have the ability to do this even if the state is not recognizing their marriages, and so if they don’t, it’s their own fault. His benefit is therefore nonunique since it can also be achieved in the status quo.
Here my opponent confuses natural rights and civil rights. Natural rights are rights that are gained simply by being a member of humanity . All humans have these natural rights. These rights include Life, Liberty, and property. Civil rights, as I explained in the previous round, are rights that are gained by being a member of a society. An example of civil rights is voting rights. Voting rights are positive rights: the government takes action so that it is possible for people to vote.
Marriage, as a legal institution, is also a civil right. Marriage as simply a declaration of mutual love and commitment is indeed an extension of the natural right to Liberty. The reason marriage as a legal institution is a civil right is because legal unions are not something entitled to every member of humanity, but they are something entitled to societies that recognize marriage as a legal institution, rather than simply a social one.
Therefore, while her comments on marriage being a negative right are correct regarding marriage as a social institution (a natural right), they are not correct regarding marriage as a legal institution (a civil right). This misunderstanding of the difference between civil and natural rights has led my opponent to the false conclusion that legal unions are an extension of the natural right to liberty, when in fact they are not natural rights at all.
While Con did challenge the second premise of my logic, she did not actually address the logic I used to defend this premise. Her rebuttal was based on a flawed understanding of natural and civil rights, and when viewed in light of the actual meaning of civil rights, my conclusion that gay marriage is a civil right remains standing.
Benefits of Marriage
My opponent next addressed my argument that the government should provide equal benefits to same-sex marriages. Her argument is that "Homosexuals are not producing more children fro society when they are engaged in gay relationships, so gay marriages do not deserve these benefits." While it is true that a homosexual couple cannot produce a child independently, homosexuals can still produce and raise children for society.
1. With today’s technology, a heterosexual union is no longer needed for procreation. In vitro fertilization, sperm donations, and surrogate mothers makes it possible for homosexuals to bring new children into the world and to raise those children.
2. Adoption also allows homosexual couples to give children that have already been created a good home. This gives homosexual couples a valuable role in society.
These two reasons do provide solid justification for giving gay couples these benefits. Giving these benefits to homosexual couples may encourage them to engage in the aforementioned actions that provide benefits to society.
My opponent continues to say "I’m sure my opponent will pull out some benefit that isn’t necessary for child-producing couples who have not received recognition from the state, but that is irrelevant because we can simply eliminate those benefits or extend them to couples who have not received recognition from the state."
As Con so kindly pointed out, there are numerous benefits that are given to heterosexual couples that have nothing to do with procreation. In fact, all of the benefits that I mentioned in R2 are not related to the act procreation. My opponent brings up two possibilities:
1. To eliminate those benefits,
2. Extend those benefits to couples that are not recognized (i.e. homosexual couples).
Option 1 is not desirable as it would mean the elimination of such benefits as making medical decisions for a spouse if he or she becomes unable to do so, receiving equitable division of property if a divorce occurs, and visiting benefits in a hospital, jail, etc. where only immediate family is allowed. These are just a few examples, among others.
This leaves us with option 2, extending those benefits to gay couples. This would mean a change in the status quo, which is what I am arguing for. My case is that same-sex couples ought to receive these benefits, and my opponent agrees with me! The best way to give these couples access to these benefits is to recognize their relationship with marriage.
Finally, I believe my opponent and I can agree that my point about marriage benefiting families, although correct, is irrelevant in a discussion on legal unions.
My opponent’s sole contention is that it is unjust to give legal marital recognition to same-sex couples because their union does not benefit society as much as heterosexual unions. Unfortunately, in much of her arguments, Con only presents bare assertions without any reason to accept them as true. A prime example of this is her observation:
"‘Marriage is fundamentally centered around procreative type acts.’"
No reasoning why marriage is fundamentally centered around these type of acts is given, so there is no reason to accept the observation as accurate. Beyond the lack of reasoning given on my opponent’s part, I have some reasoning of my own contrary to this observation:
the purpose of marriage is not child-creating, but rather child-raising. Creating a child means nothing, it is about whom the child becomes as a result of his or her upbringing that really makes a positive impact in a society. Same-sex couples are not only able to bring children into the world through the modern methods mentioned above, but also, and more importantly, to raise those children, or children others have created through adoption.
Because of this, same-sex couples are able to have an impact that is just as positive on society as heterosexual couples, and therefore, their marriages should be recognized.
Con continues by saying that infertile couples are still capable of engaging in acts that are procreative in type. I would argue that the acts are not procreative in type if there is no chance that procreation will occur. My opponent differentiates between procreative in type and in effect, but, again, infertile couples have no chance of procreating, so the acts are not procreative in type.
Next , Con provides five premises, all of which are simply bare assertions, except for the fifth premise which is supported by Con’s earlier discussion of justice. Her source for these five premises is a blog. Beyond the lack of reasoning to support the premises, the first premise is false:
"Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has a special social value."
As I explained in my case, heterosexual union is not the indispensable means by which humans come into existence. The existence of in vitro fertilization, sperm donations, and surrogate mothers, demonstrate the fallacy in this premise.
Because of this fallacy, my opponent’s self proclaimed sole contention falls.
In this round I have demonstrated that legally recognized marriage is a civil right, and same sex couples can obviously make the commitment to each other described in the definition of marriage that is described in R2. I also showed that the benefits provided to married heterosexual couples have nothing to do with procreation, therefore, they should be extended to same-sex couples.
Finally, I have shown that my opponent’s sole contention unsound. I also presented reasoning explaining why gay unions can contribute as much to society as straight ones. My opponent herself seems to value justice above all else, and she herself contends that it is unjust to not treat equals as equals. Not recognizing gay marriage is unjust as it treats equals as unequals.
Therefore, the resolution is upheld with flying colors.
In response to my opponent's claim that marriage is a civil right and that denying gays the right to marry each other violates their civil rights, I explained that the right to marry is derived from the right to liberty and therefore is a natural right. Since it is a natural right, and natural rights entail noninterference and not positive enforcement, marriage does not require social recognition.
My opponent concedes that this analysis is true, but he then claims that in addition to being a natural right, the right to marry is also a civil right because marriage is a legal institution as well as a social institution. I have several responses. First, the existence of civil ordinance recognizing natural rights does not transform them into civil rights. Natural rights exist independently of the state; they are not granted to individuals based on the existence of the state. Civil rights, however, are granted by the government and are thus subject to governmental regulation. I'll use my opponent's example to clarify. The right to vote is a civil right and thus is subject to state control and implementation. The state can choose to whom to give these rights; for example, it can bar children from exercising the right to vote. State recognition of natural rights does not affect natural rights in any way because they are not subject to governmental regulation. Indeed, to claim that natural rights are transformed into civil rights as a result of state recognition would violate natural rights theory since it would give the state the authority to regulate the exercise of those rights and thus permit them to violate the non-interference property of natural rights. Since natural rights cannot be transformed into civil rights, the right to marriage remains a natural right. Second, however, if you do accept my opponent's claim that marriage is a civil right, the argument can simply be turned against him. Since civil rights are granted by the state, they can be granted and implemented in any manner that the state chooses. Refer back to the right to vote example that I provided; the state can choose how to implement the right to vote (i.e. how elections are run) and to whom it should be granted (ex. not children). This means that if the state does not give gays the right to marry each other, their civil rights are still not being violated since the state is responsible for managing civil rights and it can do so in any manner that it pleases. So, my opponent is in a double bind. Either marriage is a natural right, in which case it is not a civil right and does not entail positive enforcement, and if it is a civil right, a state that does not grant gays this right is not violating their rights since they don't have an inherent right to them anyways.
Also note that my opponent drops the argument that I made that notes that the legal recognition of marriage is the same for all insofar as no individual is granted marital recognition if he or she marries a member of the same sex. This is the same standard that is being applied to all, so this practice is not discriminatory and does not violate the civil rights of gays.
In response to his discussion of the benefits of marriage, I noted that since homosexual marriages do not produce more children for society while heterosexual marriages do, individuals in homosexual marriages do not deserve those benefits. His response is that there are other means to produce children besides heterosexual marriages. He first discusses technologies that permit procreation without marriage. The problem is that all of these are still based on heterosexual unions; the gays are simply using heterosexual unions in order to extract children. The heterosexual unions are still the indispensable means to produce children even when these technologies are used (unless my opponent proves to me that two sperms or two eggs can combine to produce children, the unions are heterosexual unions). Gay unions cannot produce more children, so they don't deserve recognition.
He then claims that adoption permits them to raise families. This is a nonresponsive point because my argument was that the producing effects of heterosexual marriages is what gives it special status. Even if gay couples can adopt, they cannot produce without resorting to heterosexual unions, either technological or biological. Since the adoption point doesn't respond to the production argument, this claim holds no water.
He then claims that my argument about changing the status quo falls within his bounds. This isn't true. The change that he is advocating is recognizing gay marriages, and the changes that I am advocating (dispersing some benefits more widely) can be done without recognizing them. What this means is that those changes don't fall within the scope of his argument since his changes aren't necessary for my changes to occur.
He completely concedes the points about child benefits and staying together longer. Those are therefore mitigated.
At the top of the case I explained that 1. Justice is the end goal we must be pursuing in this round and that 2. Justice precludes utilitarian calculations. These two arguments went entirely conceded, so these are the standards that you need to evaluate the round through. Remember that the definition of justice explained that we must treat equals as equals and unequals as unequals. The burden now falls on him to prove that heterosexual marriages are equal to homosexual marriages. If there is even one significant difference (i.e ability to produce children within the marriage), they are not equal and thus merit unequal treatment.
He next claims that my observation is false infertile marriages are not procreative in type and that there is no reason that marriages must be procreative in type rather than in effect. The reason that marriages are procreative in type is that they are geared towards creating sexual encounters that result in reproduction. Not all sexual encounters result in reproduction (this Is entirely natural), but the intent of the marriage is to result in reproduction. The claim that infertile marriages are not procreative in type is also false. What makes an act procreative in type is the nature of the act itself, and not any external factors which may be imposed on it. Gay sex is not procreative in type while heterosexual sex is; the infertility of one of the partners is an external factor that is being imposed . Infertile marriages are still created with the intent to reproduce; the knowledge is simply lacking on the part of one of the partners. If the knowledge is present, however, then the condition no longer is external and the marriage should not be recognized by the state.
He then claims that the function of marriage is to raise children and not to create them because children have positive impacts on society when they become adults. This actually doesn't make any sense. Society cannot exist without people, which is why the creation of the children (rather than raising them) is the important act that can be recognized. People can have positive impacts on society even if they were not raised by a family (Aristotle is a great example), but they cannot be created without heterosexual unions taking place. In addition, you can simply turn this argument because if raising children is what matters, gays should still not be granted legal recognition because they don't raise children as well as straights. A study from the University of Texas notes that children raised by gay parents are much more likely to have emotional and social problems than regular individuals . This means that even in terms of child raising, the two are unequal and thus merit different treatment.
I presented a syllogism that explained why heterosexual marriage merits better treatment. He responded by claiming that these are bare assertions and that my source is a blog. First, they aren't bare assertions; they're premises in an argument that are, for the most part, self evident. Even if they are bare assertions, he didn't respond to any of them except for the first one, so all of them flow directly through the round. Don't let him have new responses later since that violates debate decorum. Second, the fact that the source is a blog is meaningless since there is nothing inherently trustworthy about blogs; they are simply a source of information. In fact, most major news outlets use blogs in order to obtain news sources.
The only one that he responds to is number 1, namely that heterosexual union is not an indispensable means for reproduction. I've already explained that all of those technologies he discusses are examples of heterosexual unions; children are not created through any other means.
In this round Con continues to confuse natural and civil rights in relation to marriage. Perhaps this confusion stems from confusion over the two types of marriage: social unions and legal unions. The right to a social union does stem from freedom of speech and the natural right to Liberty. There is no natural right to a legal union; no government has the obligation to provide a legal union to its citizens. Once a government recognizes a right to legal unions, however, it becomes a civil right because it is a right that is gained by being a member of a society.
Con protests that a natural right cannot become a civil right just by a law being passed, but that is not what I am saying at all. The natural right to a social union does not turn into a civil right as a legal union; the natural right remains. Adding a civil right on top of a natural right is not a modification of the natural right, it is the addition of a new right. Legal unions are not, as Con says, state recognition of a natural right.
Con continues by arguing that civil rights are granted by the state, therefore they can be implemented in any manner that the state chooses. This leads to an important difference between the words can and should. A government can restrict civil rights and implement them however they want. A perfect example of this is Jim Crow laws that existed in the South to restrict the voting rights of Black Americans. My contention is not that a government cannot restrict those rights, my contention is that a government should not restrict those rights, as shown in the first premise of my R2 argument: "People should not be denied their civil rights."
Once a government has recognized a civil right to marriage, this right should be applied fairly to all. Con claims that all people have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, however marriage can be a union between a man and a woman, or a two people of the same sex. Therefore, there is discrimination involved, because the government is placing heterosexual marriages over homosexual marriages.
The only point of my original logic that was challenged by Con in her R2 response is that marriage is a civil right. She dropped my points that people should not be denied their civil rights and that if marriage is a civil right, then gay marriage is also a civil right. Since drops count as concessions, she basically conceded my points. She is now challenging some of those points, but doing so is a contradiction since they were already conceded. Therefore, my original logic stands: People should not be denied marriage on the basis of sexual orientation.
Con makes a ridiculous claim here. A heterosexual union can be understood to be a marriage between two people of the opposite sex, either social or legal. She says: " The problem is that all of these [technologies] are still based on heterosexual unions; the gays are simply using heterosexual unions in order to extract children."
This is a completely false claim. Gays are not "using heterosexual unions in order to extract children." Let's say there is a lesbian couple who is committed to each other and wants to start a family. This couple finds a sperm donor, and through in vitro fertilization, one of the women is able to have a child. Heterosexual marriages have nothing to do with this. I am not claiming that a child can be produced from two sperm or two eggs, but I am claiming that heterosexual marriage is not necessary for children to be born. A marriage is not necessary at all for children to be born, as a single woman could find a sperm donor and have a child without any union at all.
Additionally, Con acts like if we give benefits to homosexual couples, heterosexual couples will stop reproducing. This is utter nonsense. Giving benefits to homosexual couples will allow them to live better lives together, perhaps produce and/or raise children of their own, and heterosexual couples will continue to reproduce as well. Giving benefits to homosexual couples does not hurt heterosexual couples, or society, in any way.
Next, Con argues that it is possible to grant homosexual couples some benefits without legally recognizing them. This is not the case, however. If a government were to grant these benefits to same-sex couples, they would need to recognize the couples in some way. I contend that granting these couples a legal marriage is the best way to do this.
Con writes:"If there is even one significant difference (i.e ability to produce children within the marriage), they are not equal and thus merit unequal treatment." Thus, in his argument, it is unjust to allow infertile couples, post menopausal women, etc. to marry, because there exists a difference: they are not able to produce children within the marriage. So the procreative in type vs. effect thing really is, in fact, irrelevant because, like Con says, the ability to produce children within the marriage is compromised.
Con says that if a couple knows they cannot produce children, then they should not be allowed to have legal marriages. Since I am arguing for the legalization of gay marriages in relation to what is currently the status quo, and Con is arguing for maintaining the status quo, I can argue that because we allow couples who know they are infertile to have a legal marriage, we should also allow gay couples to have a legal union. I have many more arguments regarding this point, but alas, must ablidge the character count.
Con next argues that the function of marriage is to create a child. This cannot be, however, because a child can be created outside of a marriage. Marriage is not necessary for procreation, therefore producing children cannot be the function of marriage.
I must assume responsibility for a fallacy in my R3 case. I stated that the function of marriage is child raising, however, child raising is no more the function of marriage than child creating. The true function of marriage is to allow two people to show their commitment to each other. Legal recognition of this union allows a couple to be officially viewed in this light in the eyes of the government and of society. Neither child creating, nor child raising is the function of marriage.
Con brings up a study that claims that gay parents do not raise children as well as straight parents. The Chronicle of Higher Education writes on their website that that the study referenced by Con is "severely flawed," the study was not properly peer reviewed, and an audit of the study done by the journal found that the study was flawed.
"Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple" .
Thus, this study cannot be considered reliable evidence that same-sex couples are worse parents.
Back to Con's sole contention:
No union, much less a heterosexual one, is required for procreation. Her first premise falls, and so does the rest of her case.
Finally, Con says that "The state has no compelling reason to recognize same sex marriage."
As I have already explained, the purpose of marriage is to allow to people to publicly recognize their commitment to each other. A legal recognition means that this couple can be recognized as a unit in the eyes of the government, allowing that couple access to the legal benefits outlined in previous rounds. The compelling reason for the state to recognize same sex marriage is so that homosexual couples can have equal access to the benefits described and be recognized as a couple in the eyes of the state.
HelterSkelter forfeited this round.
Extend all arguments.
HelterSkelter forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|