You should not be given points for using sources on DDO

I hope that this will be an interesting discussion. As Con, I will be arguing that points SHOULD be awarded for sources. I agree to all of Pro's rules and will complete the debate following said rules. There are some scenarios that I can think of where awarding sources is useful:1. One person's sources are counterproductive or is just used to fill up space, and even contradicting their own argument2. One person's sources are superior to another's3. One person's sources are full of bias4. One person completely forgets sources in an argument where sources are necessaryI intend to break down each one of these scenarios and tell my opponent why a person should (or shouldn't) be awarded source points with the arguments above. Throughout these arguments I will use two people as examples: Bob and Jim (such originality, I know, but that's beside the point).1. One person's sources is counterproductive or is just used to fill up space, and even contradicting their own argumentThis is fairly obvious. If Bob bases his entire argument on faulty sources or sources that contradict his side to some extent, and Jim provides sources that support his side, points should obviously be awarded to Jim. If a majority of Bob's sources are just "filler" or provide nothing of importance to the topic, and Jim's have relevance to them, points should be awared to Jim. It doesn't make sense that, even though Bob had completely faulty sources and Jim didn't that Jim shouldn't be awared points. It's "quality control", if you will, and Bob obviously didn't find the necessary sources needed nor put in the effort to read and find good sources. Thus, Jim should get the points here.2. One person's sources are superior to another'sAgain, this is fairly obvious and even ties in to my previous point a bit. In this scenario, Bob only provides adequate sources that don't back up his side too much, yet Jim provides sources that provides lots of information and completely back up his side of the argument, points should be awared to Jim. Bob, again, didn't have the effort to find quality sources, and Jim did. Jim should be awared for his effort and dedication to the debate.3. One person's sources are full of biasBias obviously skews one's viewpoint as well as the data of one's sources. A good result, despite being part of a comedy ruitine, was ComedyCentral's "If Google Was a Guy", where one woman states that "Vaccines cause autism". Google then proceeds to state that there are "one million results that say they don't, and one result that says they do", and the woman grabs the one and says "I knew it. " In a similar way, if Bob provides a cite as his source that has obvious bias, then all of his sources must be taken into question, and if Tim's have no bias, Tim should get source points.4. One person completely forgets sources in an argument where sources are necessaryMost importantly, claims without anything to back them up. Bob claims that 56% of people prefer Dove over Head and Shoulder, and seeing as it's more popular it must be better. Apart from being a logical fallacy, Bob didn't cite this claim. Tim questions this and asks Bob where he got it from, and Bob simply replies "the Internet". No matter how right Bob may be, he should lose source points as he had elements in his argument that required sources, but Bob did not provide them. These are four reasons alone why sources should award points. I await Pro's arguments.