Both sides had pretty good arguments, pretty reliable sources, great spelling and grammar (probably better than my own spelling and grammar) and good conduct, It's going to be quite difficult for me to decide who to award the points to.
I will start with spelling and grammar since that seems to be the simplest. Most people who vote in debates do not actually seem to care if there are spelling/grammar errors as long as there aren't too many, which, I suppose would make sense, since, it's not really possible for even the best debaters in the world to spell perfectly all the time, and it would be stupid to vote against someone just because their spelling/grammar wasn't 100% perfect. I've had debates where I myself made a few spelling errors, but the voters either missed it or they caught it but decided it wasn't a big deal, and they still either tied it or voted in my favor. Not only that, but, the spelling of certain words often changes in different countries. For example, words like color and armor are spelled COLOR and ARMOR, but in other countries, there is a U towards the end of the word, so it's spelled COLOUR and ARMOUR. Most voters won't penalize debaters for spellings that vary in different countries.
I'll admit I saw a few VERY minor spelling errors from both sides, but these we very minor, and both sides still put forth a great effort to be as professional as possible, so I tied it.
Next is conduct, which I gave to Exile, although both sides could have conducted this debate better.
Unlike RationalMadman, Exile took the time to define most terms so that it would be easy to understand and follow, while RationalMadman barely does that.
Exile listed things that "Con has to do" to win:
"Prove that an immunity policy does not hinder and obstruct the rights of someone being accused of sexual assault and/or rape." - I would say that the burden of proof is actually on Exile to prove this, not RationalMadman. After all, Exile is the one claiming that "College administrators should decline immunity to victims" and the burden of proof generally lies in the one making the claim. If I say that there is a teapot orbiting around planet Saturn at this very moment, it should be my responsibility to prove that, not for someone else to disprove. The same thing applies here.
"Show how game theory is an integral factor for a victim coming forward." - Not only that, but RationalMadman also should have actually explained what game theory was, to begin with, which he did not do, so I was left confused about that.
"Show how the various methods of rape that exist on college campuses today (like the student-professor rape and vice versa that Con points out) could warrant the use of an immunity policy." - RationalMadman did do this thought. He said, and I quote, "when males are raped (especially by females but regardless), which almost always is date rape especially with stronger-built men, it's far harder for them to come forward. If the female is attractive or whatever, it's extremely humiliating for them to come forward about it they struggle to come to terms with the fact that they, manly as they are, were raped by this psycho bitch who often can be charming during it if she wants to, especially if she wants him to get hard. It's disgusting, vile and deeply scarring just as much as rape to any female victim. The humiliation associated with it, teasing from friends 'you wanted it man', 'wow what a pussy' etc are so utterly brutal, unbearable that they'd rather keep their mouth shut. Now, imagine that on top of that they need to get a drug charge and what-not, they're blatantly not going to report it unless they are some saint with a hero complex seeking redemption for their soul or something."
"Prove that the immunity policies that exist don't help the victim overcome drug abuse." - This is not something that EITHER debater has to prove, though, since nobody was really claiming this.
"STILL prove how a student-professor rape warrants the use of an immunity policy (like Con mentioned in his opening)" - RationalMadman did not prove this. All he did was bring up student-professor rape and then drop it without going into more detail about it further.
"STILL prove how game theory is an integral factor in keeping immunity policies on college campuses." - Also needs to explain what that is.
"prove why the rights for the victim are far more important than that who is accused in the first place." - This, RationalMadman does not need to prove since, at the end of the day, people who are accused are innocent until proven guilty, so, regardless who has more "rights," the victim still needs to prove that a rape happened.
"Understand the difference between a plea bargain and an immunity policy." - Yeah, I actually agree with this. RationalMadman seemed to have kept confusing the two. To clarify, an immunity JUST means that, if both the alleged victim and the alleged rapist were doing some other illegal thing like drugs or whatever, then the alleged victim would be forgiven for that, while the alleged rapist would be punished for that, and also punished even harder if it turns out to be true that a rape or sexual assault happened.
"Show why the presence of a net-detrimental outcome for someone who is accused is a good thing for victims, and how this solves the status quo." - Neither side bothered to explain was a "net-detriment" even was, leaving me confused.
Next up will be sources, which I award to Exile. RationalMadman's first 2 sources were a NYTimes article and some random healthday article, both of which have nothing to do with immunity, and have nothing to do with the debate. RationalMadman's other sources were a bit better, but they still go off topic, and RationalMadman doesn't even quote the part of his source, that is actually related to immunity.