Lineup

Winnie - first
Shannon - second
Aidan - third
Winnie - reply

1ST SPEAKER

Definitions/model
Adultery → cheating on your partner while married without your partner knowing and consenting, having
a long term emotional and/or a sexual relationship(dependant on the type of relationship) with someone
other than your partner
Marriage → not just a ritual, there are legal aspects to it
Criminalisation → Fine (financial compensation towards spouse), jail time

SQ: adultery is grounds for divorce but not an actual crimes

Places where adultery is already illegal don’t matter in this motion → examples are too sexist

1. What is the criteria for criminalisation and how does adultery meet it
a. It harms another individual, in t his case the spouse and the children can all be
affected
b. Legality is involved
i. The state sanctions marriage
1. Adultery = breach of contract
2. State is involved = you sign a contract and the state is involved in
the legality of that marriage so they have the right to intervene
ii. Marriage involves tangible legal financial benefits such as tax deduction
iii. adultery means that the relationship is not genuine, therefore is fraudulent
1. Emotionally fraudulent and traumatizing - emotional damages
2. Financially fraudulent - monetary benefits to marriage, tax
evasion, scam the government

2. What is the impact of criminalisation ?

a. Emphasizes importance of marriage
i. U wanna cheat, don’t get married
b. Goes through a judicial system
i. There is a legal punishment for it
c. Any children from that marriage get affected if adultery is criminalized
i. Won’t want to get your own child caught up in all the jail, records, “your
mom/dad is a criminal” bullying etc.
ii. Extra deterrent to adultery
2ND SPEAKER
What opp says Rebuttal

Criminalization not necessary Criminalization vs divorce point

Government only registers marriage, MARITAL TAX EXEMPTIONS, social security

marriage is more than legalities. benefits, immigration benefits.

People can do whatever they want but the
government has no right to intervene.
Because its an intimate matter
Relationships hurting each other is normal,
breaking off relationships is normal.
Not a violent criminal act.
“Just grow up”
It’s no longer an intimate matter when the
whole thing is official via government, they
are a third party mediator. That’s why you
also have to involve them in divorce.
Psychological trauma is still a crime. Like
child abuse isn’t just physical abuse, it
includes mental emotional abuse. You don’t
have to be doing something tangible to the
spouse in order to be harming them in a way
that deserves to be criminalized.

Children more likely to be affected That is the point, we want them to be affected
so it’s a deterrent and disincentivization for
adultery

Repercussions of divorce, messy legal Again criminalization vs divorce point

procedures, already sufficient deterrent

Adultery is only a crime in some countries, BECAUSE IT WAS DEEPLY SEXIST AND
some have also been removed TREATED WOMEN LIKE OBJECTS

Adultery already frowned upon, shamed, Social stigma vs criminalization point

ostracization, sufficient SQ

Many people don’t have the guts to commit Even stronger social repercussion if you
adultery because of social repercussion criminalize adultery

3. What is unique about criminalization that traditional divorce, couples therapy, etc. cannot
do?
a. Social stigma vs criminalization
i. Criminalization punishes on a legal level because you are basically
scamming the government, official records
ii. More likely to not commit the crime again
b. Why is divorce not enough
i. Divorce has negative stigma (society views divorce as failure on both
sides of the couple, the other spouse did not “satisfy” their spouse etc.),
will people cheated on will feel even more emotionally traumatized?
ii. Culpability: criminalization of adultery isolates the blame towards the
person who committed adultery, especially because it’s a crime =
legalities = official
 1. Further prevents people from being adulterous

3RD SPEAKER

In this speech, I’d like to talk about the significance of a marriage contract and the significant
detriments that come with adultery. before I begin my speech, first, some rebuttals.

What opp has said Rebuttal

The government does not have a right to
intervene in such a personal matter such as
marriage.
There are a significant amount of situations
where the government has a right to
intervene - specifically when the action would
cause significant damage towards institutions,
assets and emotions. Which I will elaborate
on later

Children in their world would be damaged
more than in opps world
This is simply not true. Parents who want the
best for their child, seeing the significant
penalties on themselves and not wanting to
face legal repercussions that would have
effects on their children, would be deterred
from committing adultery entirely.

Many people do not commit adultery now
because of social stigma
We see adultery as still being a significant
enough problem to warrant this motion.
Simply put, the social stigma around this act
of adultery is not enough to stop this act from
happening on a large enough scale.

Cheating is a part of human nature and thus
people will not get married entirely
Something being part of human nature does
not enable it to become acceptable within our
society ALSO LONG TERM WE SAID LONG
TERM SO THEY HAVE PLENTY OF TIME
TO i will elaborate in my clash later

I would like to bring back a few important distinctions that need to be made within our stance.
Again, we count adultery as a significant breach of trust - equal to that caused by fraud

Clash #1 - Does adultery fit the criteria of criminalization?

Opp point (them) Prop point (us)

 - It is an entirely natural part of
relationships that people will fight and
people will fight. Being a natural part
of growing up - people being hurt is
normal. We would not criminalise
breaking off a friend.
- The relationship aspect of a
relationship should not be intervened
in by the government
Why it’s wrong, Even if it’s true, Comparative
Clash #2 - Is the impact of criminalization worth it
Opp point (them)
- It is extremely hard to deny that
adultery does indeed fit the definition
of a crime. As we have stated before,
marriage is a government sanctioned
bonding between two people. Meant
to be made between two trusting
partners. Again, allow me again to
emphasise “a government sanctioned
contract” made between two trusting
individuals. This is where opp’s case
falters. The difference between simply
breaking off a friend or a girlfriend and
a state sanctioned marriage contract
are significant.
If in the status quo, civil authorities can
investigate sham marriages for being
“suspicious” therefore we see why we cannot
in our world personal relationship
- The general criteria for criminalization
can be met when the action would
cause significant damage to one or
more parties. Not only does being
adulterous breach the government
contract signed when the marriage is
formed, but it also destroys a large
amount of the trust and relationship
built over the course of their marriage.
- We do see situations where the
spouse is not satisfied with their
partner, having second thoughts on
their marriage or the thousand other
different scisms that can happen
within marriages. However, none of
this justifies becoming adulterous.
Prop point (us)
 - The detriment of the adult not being in -
the child’s life is too much

Human nature You’re an adult, you have the restraint and

don t give them time to mend decision making skills.
theirrelationship:
JUST LITERALLY DON'T GET MARRIED
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM OF NOT
GETTING MARRIED A LOT OF PEOPLE
SERIOUSLY WAIT TO GET MARRIED LIKE
THEY WANT TO WAIT FOR THE ONE FOR
THEM THAT THEY PLEDGE TO BE
FAITHFUL

We said long term. That gives them plenty

of time to think about how they should still
be faithful or go to marriage counselling
first NOT CONTINUE PURSUING THIS
RELATIONSHIP YOU ARE
EMOTIONALLY SCAMMING YOUR
SPOUSE

- Children: even more reason to not be

adulterous - deterrence from adultery
for the child’s sake
- Expanding on these damages, in a
government sanctioned marriage,
there are MARITAL TAX
EXEMPTIONS, social security
benefits, immigration benefits and
much much more that is exclusive for
a married couple. On the topic of
children, cheating heavily damages
the relationship - leading to damage to
the child

Why it’s wrong, Even if it’s true, Comparative

REPLY SPEAKER
(Hook?): Side opposition’s world does not consider the millions that would be deterred from
committing adultery entirely, because of the significant negative consequences. Their world
prefers to deal with the act after it’s been committed, allowing children to be hurt and a lifetime
commitment to be destroyed.

Our burden in this debate was to prove adultery is a better deterrent than the status quo of
social stigma. Yes adultery has a negative social stigma, people who are adulterous are looked
down upon and shunned. However, that only goes so far, as our second speaker said, social
stigma also allows for the other spouse to take on a part of the blame, criminalization of adultery
makes it something much more official and tangible than just the vague notion of one spouse
having been adulterous. Isolating the blame onto the offender through criminalization is the
better deterrent to adultery.

Opp’s burden was to prove the status quo is more effective in deterring adultery, whereas
criminalizing adultery is much more harmful for everyone involved. Opp has continuously
misunderstood our side throughout the debate, they told us that if children being affected by the
consequences of adultery is unwanted, however we explained that the children being greatly
impacted by the criminalization is one of the key aspects in deterring people from being
adulterous. They also told us that adultery is normal and should just be categorized as a part of
growing up, but then turned around and told us that our side said this, whereas we already told
them that if the two partners are not ready to commit to the legalities of a marriage, they just
should not get married yet, and that you shouldnt marry if you don't trust yourself to not
emotionally scar and deceive your partner. They failed to prove to us why adultery, an act where
you scam the government and effectively are disingenuous to society should not be held to a
criminal level just because it destroys families and relationships. Their side fails to accurately
characterize the impacts of criminalization, one thing they say is that it just leads to more hiding,
that goes for all crimes but it doesn’t mean you don’t criminalize it. They also say that we are
breaking up relationships by jailing one spouse and they will never be able to see each other
again even if they want to talk it out. Our side never said that if people who want to talk it out
won’t be able to, if they are willing to and have the motivation to they will go and just see them in
prison. Being in jail doesn’t completely separate the family for the rest of their lives, a
relationship can still be maintained, so we don’t see how criminalizing adultery can be more
harmful at all. The status quo

Their best case:

Less families harmed and single parents taking care of children, that there are (somehow they
have no way to prove this) that there are so many families that wish to mend their relationships
and a person even after being LONG TERM CHEATED ON BY THEIR SPOUSE still wishes to
pursue a relationship with them. Meanwhile people that do cheat LONG TERM are not held
accountable for the psychological harm of being cheated on, their kids feeling absoutely
betrayed, the legal procedures on a societal level are not being taken seriously because they
can still cheat and can still be considered for marital tax exemptions.
Our worst case:

The already unlikely amount of families that do want to mend EVEN AFTER A LONG TERM
BETRAYAL will have a family member taht goes to jail, which is the point of punishment. Don't
scam so that you don't have to go to jail
You hold people accountable for their fraud
You isolate them, removing the general idea of divorce having two parties involved
You incentivize people who do feel human nature feelings for someone else to take
counseelinng and sort it out earlier

Potential rebuttals:
Rebuttal: State shouldn’t be involved in what happens within people’s bedroom
- Marriage is different from people that are just “together”
- The state sanctions marriage so that’s why it’s their business

Rebuttal: would this motion not dissuade people from getting married in the first place?
- No, you don’t marry with the intention of committing adultery

Rebuttal: doesn’t change anything, people will still do it

- Same with all other crimes
- But doesn’t stop you from not criminalizing it
- At least you can get more compensation and acknowledgement that the other person
committing adultery is in the wrong
- Prevents victim blaming

Rebuttal: pressuring people to stay in relationships

- Adultery is NOT a good way to get out of a relationship
- Always the opportunity to talk to them regarding their relationship
Feedback: unanimous opp win

Prop
- Doesn’t analyze deeper impacts of the punishment when spouses go to jail
- How does that impact the children
- Only accurate justification for legalities
- If reply analysis came out earlier, better
- Would be a great third speech
- Not fleshed out flow and structure
- Clear narrative flow is missing
- Good elements but they don’t get fit together
- What is the nature of the harm you cause when you commit adultery, specifically, what
harm
- Give on first speaker
- Should open with a picture of harms as heartbreak, pain, betrayal that a spouse
feels; give a picture; allows opp to paint a picture that our world is just legalities
and paperwork
- Really need the flow or else no sense of impact
- Think through the model
- Opp’s harms don’t hurt prop
- need to give enforcement mechanism, not just the punishment
- Make the model: press charges. So it removes the whole idea that cops
bust in and break families
- Why is adultery unique in harm in a marriage when there are so many ways you can
betray a spouse
- Too generic criteria of criminalization
- Conviction in reply and style is much better than in first
- Solid second speaker rebuttals
- Is adultery really an automatic breach of trust
- Need to be clearer how the deterrent is really just don’t get married before you’re ready
- Give the flip side, only did the first half of divorce vs criminalization comparative
- Strong delivery of 1st minute of third, but method of doing clash analysis is too repetitive
of teammate’s speeches
- 3rd is about further deeper analysis
- Aidan is good at delivering things that have no impact
- Very good reply speech
- Have potential thing about visiting your spouse in jail
- If you shoot your wife it doesn’t matter if she forgives you, you still go to jail,
cheating is shooting them in the heart; state enforces laws even if they want to
forgive
 - Don’t do all the new rebuttal
-
-

Opp
- Covers more ground, defends children more
- Better pacing
- Won on comparative impacts
- Smart in highlighting that you lose circumstantial nuance on prop
- You don’t want gov to include themselves
- But need to
- Prop got away with assertions
- Lots of ways you can betray a spouse, why is adultery so unique to marriage
- How much harm, harm = criminal
- Some couples might just not care that much about adultery, so press that
- Why is status quo sufficient, and bring out how criminalizing adultery is even worse
- Gross mischaracterization that prop is promoting you shouldn’t get married
- Paint the picture of keeping things on the DL, how does criminalization change people’s
actions
- Reasons people commit adultery, e.g impulse vs planned out affair
- How things factor into their thought process
- Maki (3rd) did in more detail than serena (2nd)
- More on playing with reconciliations of family
- 4 clashes in 3rd is a bit ambitious
- Solid reply
-
-