The Instigator
libertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
RedEye
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

Same sex marriage should be federally legalized.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,705 times Debate No: 4405
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

libertarian

Pro

Amendment 14, Section 1 has a clause in it called the Equal Protection Clause. It states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This proves that same-sex marriage should be legal.

The case Loving vs. Virginia is the case that overturned the ban on interracial marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia was being discriminatory. The Court unanimously voted against Virginia, against discrimination, and in favor of the Loving (no pun intended) family who was allowed to marry.

This law must be federal in order to extend federal rights. These rights include immigration rights. If an American wife marries a foreign husband, that husband becomes a citizen. This law should be extended to homosexual love.

Over 1,138 rights and protections are are given to citizens for being married, they should be extended to gay couples.

These rights include hospital visitation. If a spouse is dying, their spouse should be allowed to visit them before they die. Allowing these people to die without seeing their lifelong lovers, is more than immoral, more than prejudice. It is inhumane.
RedEye

Con

I negate: Same sex marriage should be federally legalized.

Definitions: (Since my opponent failed to define the resolve, my definitions will be used for the round)

Same Sex: Homosexual
Marriage: religious institution solidifying the love between a man and a woman.
Legalized: Made legal, under regulation of the State

Observation: Marriage is a religious institution. Same Sex Marriage is NOT Civil Union. For this reason I negate.

Pro Burden: My opponent must prove that it is constitutional to regulate marriage in a religious setting
=========================================================================

I will make my own case, then refute my opponent's

Case:

I. Since Marriage is a religious practice, legalizing gay marriage violates the 1st Amendment.

Marriage is a religious institution. Once the state regulates marriage, then each religion is being denied their 1st amendment right. Gay marriage is NOT civil union. A religion has a right to make it's own decisions without the interference of the State, provided nothing illegal is occurring. I.e. Separation of Church and State. By legalizing gay marriage it is telling a religion what to believe. All major world religions believe marriage is between a man and a women, and they have a right to believe this.

II. Legalizing Gay Marriage with result in a slippery Slope.

If the Federal Government condones gay marriage then a slippery slope would occur. Polygamists would claim their right to be legally married to multiple people. It would lead to cult rapists and prostitutes to claim their own rights. The results would not be good in the long run unless the State actively work to let a religion decide what marriage is defined as.

I will now refute my opponents case:

My opponent has used the 14th Amendment to defend his position.

I have 2 responses about this. 1) This amendment is superseded by the "general will." According to the Supreme Court, if the US people feel that a specific should not be given certain certain rights, e.g. polygamists can't marry, then the Legislative Branch can over go the Judicial. A poll taken by realpolitics show that 70% of the population feels that gay marriage should not be legalized. 2) Certain amendments supersede the 14th Amendment. In this case, the 1st Amendment. As I have shown already, Gay Marriage violates the right of private religion/Separation of Church and State.

You can drop my opponent's case.

Key Points:

A) Violates the 1st Amendment
B) Slippery Slope
Debate Round No. 1
libertarian

Pro

My opponent is obviously a very formal debater. Unfortunately, logic is most important in my personal, humble opinion. So forgive me for not being as formal.

My opponent's definition of marriage excludes homosexuals. But this could not be the definition, or same sex marriages everywhere would not be marriages at all. I think we should both be able to agree to "A union between two persons having the customary and/or legal force of marriage" as the definition of marriage. For the sake of this debate.

I agree to your definition of legalized if by the state you mean the government powers and not only individual states.

The PRO burden is not to prove constitutionality. It is only one point. The topic says that same sex marriage "should" be legalized. These are the dictionary's four definitions of "should" (and none of them include the Constitution): 1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.
=========================================================================
I. CON: Since Marriage is a religious practice, legalizing gay marriage violates the 1st Amendment.

A. Each marriage has legal benefits. If the church wishes to exclude itself from marriage, then they are obligated to abandon their 1,138 rights and protections from the government, which we can all agree they will not do. Some religions and religious leaders will marry two gay individuals. Marriage is a civil and religious institution or else there would not be over 1100 rights attached to it by the government.

B. Marriage is, also, obviously not a religious institution. Atheists and Satanists get married, therefore, it is proven that marriage is not a solely religious institution.

II. CON: Legalizing Gay Marriage [will] result in a slippery Slope.

A. You cannot equate two individuals who love each other in a comitted, loving, lifelong relationship with cult rape, etc. This is a bizarre, unproven argument.

B. Marriage has been changed before. Divorce has been criminalized, legalized. Interracial marriage has been criminalized, legalized. And 1100+ governmental changes have been made in these rights. Changes have been made to marriage.

C. If a change to marriage is unbeneficial or particularly harmful, courts will rule it such and not legalize it.

D. In places where same sex marriage has been legalized, this slippery slope effect has not occurred. It is unproven.

E. This argument is also flawed in that these individuals in your slippery slope argument are causing harmful marriages and can live in a normal two person, loving marriage. Most gays, if not all, cannot find happiness in a heterosexual relationship. They have no desire to have a heterosexual marriage. To bar two gays from marrying is not showing them an alternative (heterosexual marriage), but is rather barring them from the institution of marriage altogether. This is not only discriminatory. This is unconstitutional and un-American.

CON 1: This amendment is superseded by the "general will."

A. This is ridiculous! If society as a whole disapproves of something, then it should not be done. However, a significant portion of Americans want same sex marriage to be legalized.

B. In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry. When interracial marriage was legalized nationally, 72% supported it. (www.religioustolerance.org)

C. Many polls also show gay marriage to be favored. This should not be basis for a Constitutional decision.

CON 2: The 1st Amendment is not violated. Religions can still practice their disagreement with marriage. But states can marry gays. And religions and religious leaders that do want to marry gays can marry gays. If a religion wanted to marry gay couples, their right to express their religion should not be infringed. The Lutheran Church is tolerant of gays.

I have proven that gay marriage should be legalized. The Constitution ensures equal protection under the law for all individuals unless convicted of a crime. My opponent tried to present that that would block religious expression but I have proven that marriage is ont solely a religious institution because marriage is given 1100+ governmental rights and allow Athiests to marry. My opponent tried to say that the general will was against gay marriage but 30% advocates gay marriage and the interracial marriage disapproval was 90% when it was legalized. My opponent also presented the infamous 'slippery slope' argument, but this has ZERO basis and would not happen and has been disproven in places where gay marriage has been allowed.

There is absolutely no reason to ban same sex marriage.

He also dropped my immigration and hospital visitation arguments. Therefore they are conceded unless he negates them.

Same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, stop gays from visiting their partners when dying in the hospital, force them to be split up with immigration laws, and cause deep unhappiness in gay couples. Gay marriage bans are discriminatory. They also don't allow couples who want to get married to marry, this reduces families, reduces adopted children, and promote adultery.
RedEye

Con

I do not concede my opponent's new definition.

Reasoning: My definition is the traditional interpretation of marriage, which I claim for the round.

Here u can add an A Priori to the round: Since marriage is the union between a man and a women it is impossible to affirm this resolve.

My opponent loses the due to topicality.
=================================================================================

However, let's get back to the contentions and rebuttal.

I believe the pro burden is to prove constitutionality on the fact that what the government should do is based on the constitution.

However look at my opponent's obligation definition of should. Here, the term would have to be "ought". Ought implies moral obligation.

You can negate right here, if you use the "should/ought" reasoning.

Reason: Morality means in union with the natural laws. Marriage, in terms of the natural laws means, sexual intercourse, therefore leading to children. Gay Couples cant make children of their own. Thus, gay marriage violates the natural law. Meaning, it ought not to be done.

"Each marriage has legal benefits. If the church wishes to exclude itself from marriage, then they are obligated to abandon their 1,138 rights and protections from the government, which we can all agree they will not do. Some religions and religious leaders will marry two gay individuals. Marriage is a civil and religious institution or else there would not be over 1100 rights attached to it by the government."

I have 2 responses: 1) You can't punish a church or religious institution if they refuse to marry gay people, it's their right of 1st Amendment. 2) I concede, some religious leaders will marry gays. Thats fine, but that doesn't justify the state regulating ALL marriage in all religious institutions. If a church wants to marry gays, fine, but that action cannot be universalized.

"Marriage is, also, obviously not a religious institution. Atheists and Satanists get married, therefore, it is proven that marriage is not a solely religious institution."

I have 2 responses: 1) Satanism is a religion. 2) Atheists get "married" legally, but that marriage is a CIVIL UNION. Today's society uses them interchangeably, but they are different. Marriage is strictly a religious institution. Civil Union is a government stamp on a legal bond between two people.

"You cannot equate two individuals who love each other in a comitted, loving, lifelong relationship with cult rape, etc. This is a bizarre, unproven argument."

I have 2 responses: 1) I specifically mentioned polygamy as well. Once you claim that marriage is open to interpretation, then polygamists would claim that right as well. 2) Once you universalize your argument about the 14th Amendment, here you can include cult prostitution, polygamy, etc. Universalizing the Pro's side will be terrible to both society and the institution of marriage.

"Marriage has been changed before. Divorce has been criminalized, legalized. Interracial marriage has been criminalized, legalized. And 1100+ governmental changes have been made in these rights. Changes have been made to marriage."

I have 1 response: 1) Yes, I agree. But look at your given examples. All are missing one component. All your examples still are between the fundamental value of a marriage, A MAN AND WOMEN.

"If a change to marriage is unbeneficial or particularly harmful, courts will rule it such and not legalize it."

I have 2 responses: 1) Let's not get to that point because then it may be too late. 2)Allowing it to be legalized in the first place only diminishes the social contract, I will refer to this later.

"In places where same sex marriage has been legalized, this slippery slope effect has not occurred. It is unproven."

I have 1 response: 1) This is completely inaccurate. Take California for example. Since the court's decision, an increase of polygamists, and sexual offenders have entered the State. It is only a matter of time till they claim they're own rights.

"This argument is also flawed in that these individuals in your slippery slope argument are causing harmful marriages and can live in a normal two person, loving marriage. Most gays, if not all, cannot find happiness in a heterosexual relationship. They have no desire to have a heterosexual marriage. To bar two gays from marrying is not showing them an alternative (heterosexual marriage), but is rather barring them from the institution of marriage altogether. This is not only discriminatory. This is unconstitutional and un-American."

I have 2 responses: 1) Your essentially saying that gays need more then one option, and that we shouldn't bar them from marriage. I argue yes we should, i.e. for my above reasons. 2) It's unconstitutional and un-American; Last time I checked the constitution never said that gays have the right to marry. Un-American, last time I checked America was a democracy, not a judicial dictatorship. The majority believe it shouldn't be done, therefore the people have a right to have their will imposed.

"A. This is ridiculous! If society as a whole disapproves of something, then it should not be done. However, a significant portion of Americans want same sex marriage to be legalized."

Stat: 70% of Americans are against gay marriage.

"In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry. When interracial marriage was legalized nationally, 72% supported it."

Again, I argue that in these cases the inherent value was not in debate. Gay marriage undermines the very root of marriage. Union between a man and a women,

"Many polls also show gay marriage to be favored. This should not be basis for a Constitutional decision."

This is indeed false, as I have pointed out.
===============================================================================

Overview:

My opponent believes that marriage is not solely a religious institution.

Reasons why it is:

A) Traditional Definition: Marriage is between a man and a women.
B) Religions define it the same way.

**MARRIAGE AND CIVIL UNION ARE DIFFERENT. MARRIAGE IS SOLELY A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION**

Ladies and Gentlemen this leads me to my voting issues:

1) Marriage is strictly a religious institution. Therefore, by affirming this resolution then the government would be violating the 1st Amendment.
2) Marriage needs to be defined traditionally to avoid slippery slopes.
3) My opponent has failed to actually prove this resolve under both ways of resolve definition:

A) Traditional Definition: impossible to affirm for A Priori reasons.
B) Using should as an obligation. Ought/should implies morality, therefore we must look at natural laws. Gay Marriage violates this natural law because it undermines the purpose of nature in the plot of marriage: sexual intercourse that results in children.

This is a clear Con Ballet.
Debate Round No. 2
libertarian

Pro

There are two huge reasons why marriage cannot be only defined as between a man and woman in this debate.

A. In this debate we are talking about same sex marriage. If you do not count same sex marriage as marriage, then there is no debate. It's like saying the Iraq War should be stopped. And you define war as something that cannot be stopped. In our debate, we are trying to see whether same sex marriage should be legalized. It is obvious that we must allow same sex marriage into the definition or else there simply is no debate.

B. Same sex marriages are legal in Massachusetts, the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, etc. Same sex marriage already exists, therefore you cannot exclude same sex marriages from the entire spectrum of marriages==
The PRO burden is not solely based on constitutionality. The government obviously does not solely make decisions off of what "should" happen based on the constitution. There are many other factors. The definitions of should have nothing to do with the constitution. I provided 4 counter definitions in round 2 that are from the actual dictionary and define should accurately.

Should implies moral obligation and logical obligation. Should and ought are practically synonyms but the topic uses the word should, not ought.

Homosexuality does not conflict with natural law. Nobody knows why people are made gay. Perhaps to adopt or perhaps those people were not meant to have children. But the fact is that gay people have sexual desires for people of the same sex. There is no reason to fake this and millions of people are this way. No study can prove that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore immoral. Besides, there are other reasons besides morality to legalize same sex marriage , therefore, it "should" be done.

CON 1: You can't punish a church or religious institution if they refuse to marry gay people, it's their right of 1st Amendment.

The government would not force religions to marry gay people. Legalizing same sex marriage is done by the state, willing religions, and willing religious leaders. Same sex couples could be denied marriage by churches if they wish, but they could be wed by the state and willing religions. Nobody is forcing any religion to go against its practice.

Satanists and Atheists get married. The same laws regarding marriage will be extended. Nobody has to marry anybody they do not want to.

CON 2: I concede, some religious leaders will marry gays. Thats fine, but that doesn't justify the state regulating ALL marriage in all religious institutions.

Forcing a religious institution to do anything against their will would be a hindrance of freedom. But if anybody wants to marry gays, they will be allowed to. And the government will be made to marry gays.

CON 1: Satanism is a religion.

That is not under Christianity and supports same sex marriage. No Christians are forced to marry Satanists.

CON 2: Atheists have civil unions.

This debate is about the federal government. Atheists get married, not civilly united. The government calls it marriage. And if a religious leader wants to marry Atheists for whatever reason, they are allowed to.

CON 1: Once you claim that marriage is open to interpretation, then polygamists would claim that right as well.

Interracial marriage has changed marriage. And the many rights given. No slippery slope happened.

The UK, Australia, Massachusetts, etc. have legalized same sex marriage. No slippery slope happened. Therefore, it is disproved.

Courts get to rule what marriage is right and what is wrong, which will eliminate the slippery slope.

Homosexuals have a biological need for same sex love. A cult rapist or polygamist does not. Forcing somebody not to engage in cult rape, etc. is not barring them from marriage. It is presenting a law to stop them from doing harmful behavior. Homosexuals will not engage in heterosexual relationships because that is biologically unnatural and undesired. To bar same sex marriage is to bar gays from marriage, which is discriminatory, which the 14th Amendment disallows. (http://www.washingtonblade.com...)

CON 2: Universalizing the 14th Amendment will lead to a slippery slope.

The Constitution cannot be used and not used according to the preference of the Conservative right. The Constitution is a document that our government has to go by. Despite some wacky theoretical philosophy.

CON 1: Yes, I agree. But look at your given examples. All are missing one component. All your examples still are between the fundamental value of a marriage, A MAN AND WOMEN.

In the 60s, people believed social class was part of marriage. This was partially determined by race in their minds. Race is no different. To discriminate by sexual orientation is the same as discriminating from interracial marriages.

CON 1: Court rulings will be affected by the slippery slope.

The Court will determine what is constitutional or best for America. If something is harmful, non consentual, or constitutional, the court will not allow it.

CON 1: In California, where gay marriage is legalized, polygamists, etc. try to claim their rights.

This statement is untrue. The Conservative right is concerned about this but this has not happened. I looked it up and found no case of polygamists trying to regain their rights.

CON 1: Gays should be barred from marriage.

Gays should not be barred from gay marriage. That would be denying equal protection under the law, which is unconstitutional (14th Amendment).

CON 2A: The constitution never said that gays have the right to marry.

14th Amendment, Section 1, Equal Protection Clause: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

CON 2B: The majority believe it shouldn't be done, therefore the people have a right to have their will imposed.

30% believe otherwise. General will is not for same sex marriage. General is defined as: "concerned with, applicable to, or affecting the whole or every member of a class or category" by the dictionary.

CON 1: Gay marriage undermines the very root of marriage, interracial marriage was not.

Many believed otherwise in the 60s as I showed earlier.

CON 2: No polls show gay marriage to be favored.

This site shows polls that include both outcomes: http://www.religioustolerance.org....

CON: **MARRIAGE AND CIVIL UNION ARE DIFFERENT. MARRIAGE IS SOLELY A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION**

This is untrue. Atheists marry. It is not religious but is still marriage. If an Atheist wanted to marry a Theist, the Theist could request a religious marriage. They would get all the rights. And if two Atheists wanted to marry, this is still marriage. (mutiny.in/2007/12/17/atheism-law-and-marriage/)

1) Marriage is not strictly religious. The state and willing religions can marry gays. Atheists and Satanists can marry.
2) Marriage has been changed thousands of times and no slippery slope has occurred. Marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, Australia, the United Kingdom, etc. and no slippery slope occurred. Courts will decide which cases to hear and overturn.
(http://www.washingtonblade.com...)
3) The 14th Amendment says that you cannot discriminate. When America opposed interracial marriage, the Supreme Court unanimously legalized it in Loving vs. Virginia.

A) The first two statements explains why marriage can be defined as two gay people. It has been in the UK, Canada, etc. It must be for the sake of debate.
B) Morality does not show should or ought. Should or ought are not only moral, they are logical. Homosexuality is just as moral as heterosexuality.

There is no reason to vote for CON. And every reason to vote PRO from anti-discrimination to lack of inhumanity to constitutionality.
RedEye

Con

Ok, in my opponents last rebuttal he made it clear how either of us should win. I will concede this burden for the round.

What is marriage?

My opponent seems not to understand my point. Civil unions are already allowed in the US. Civil Unions is the States way of joining too people. In today's society they inter use civil union and marriage. Marriage is not a civil union. Marriage is only a religious institution.

Syllogism:

1) Marriage is a religious institution.
2) Most religions are against gay marriage.
3) Gay Marriage, if made total by the state, violates the 1st Amendment.
4) Therefore, Gay MARRIAGE can not be allowed in the US.

Ok, my opponent has also failed to attack my slippery slope contention. He attacks it by saying, well interracial marriage hasn't led to this.

I responded by saying yes, thats true, but his examples dont undermines the real reason for marriage. Making a family by a man and women. A black man and a white woman can get married. THEY ARE STILL MEN AND WOMEN. NOT MAN AND MAN/WOMEN AND WOMEN.
===============================================================================Voting Issues:

1) Gay Marriage violates the traditional definition of marriage. (A Priori)
2) Gay Marriage violates the 1st Amendment.
3) Slippery Slope.
4) The real debate has be won by me, gay marriage is not civil union. My opponent confuses the 2.

It's a clear negative ballet.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by libertarian 9 years ago
libertarian
Gays are not allowed civil unions! And Atheists are allowed marriages! As of the Special Marriage Act!

I said look at the places were gay marriage was already legal and that no slippery slope has occurred! You dropped that 3rd round!

I also said courts will decide! So they will not allow slippery slope!

I also said the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection! You dropped this point!

I win this debate! And I know it! And you know it! And the judges know it!
Posted by bablybabe 9 years ago
bablybabe
Thats mean everyone should have their own marriage no matter what sex they appear to be. I think the government really sucks.
Posted by InquireTruth 9 years ago
InquireTruth
"A union between two persons having the customary and/or legal force of marriage." sounds like a civil union wanting to surreptitiously obtain a religious title.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 7 years ago
Pyromaniac
libertarianRedEyeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dvdbwn 7 years ago
dvdbwn
libertarianRedEyeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by atheistman 8 years ago
atheistman
libertarianRedEyeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 9 years ago
InquireTruth
libertarianRedEyeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by libertarian 9 years ago
libertarian
libertarianRedEyeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BeatTheDevil89 9 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
libertarianRedEyeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bablybabe 9 years ago
bablybabe
libertarianRedEyeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30