# data[].attributes.body
He had straight FACTS and we don't want animals being isolated (aka basically zoos)

# data[].attributes.body
we didn't think either arguments were good

# data[].attributes.body
they had more arguments than the other group and their arguments were higher quality and actually feasible with consideration for real-world outcomes

# data[].attributes.body
Braden knew what he was talking about, and he had facts and logic to back up his arguments

# data[].attributes.body
he had more factual evidence

# data[].attributes.body
Argument was based on science and factual info

# data[].attributes.body
controlled debate, countered every point that other person brought up

# data[].attributes.body
Thompson won because he talked about the real topic and defended against everything Riley said.

# data[].attributes.body
he had a really strong argument for coming up with it on the spot

# data[].attributes.body
riley's argument was pure "like". thompson knew what he was talking about.

# data[].attributes.body
Mans used real world examples as well as provide a solid response for the idea that another country could meddle with our elections

# data[].attributes.body
We love the rats that came from britian

# data[].attributes.body
Blake had a solid argument and successfully shot down Christian's argument.

# data[].attributes.body
the last realllll world example is very strong and hard to argue against, he had an overall more convincing argument

# data[].attributes.body
he played on my worst fears and made me scared of extinct animals

# data[].attributes.body
good arguments beyond fictional things (biodiversity)
more historically accurate

# data[].attributes.body
he did a good job with not knowing the topic previously and still bringing up relevant outcomes of bringing back extinct animals

# data[].attributes.body
they won because they had a better arguement

# data[].attributes.body
beter argument

# data[].attributes.body
They had financial facts

# data[].attributes.body
they came up with solutions for pollution, and had good stats about the expenses

# data[].attributes.body
KOOSHA
delivered argument well

# data[].attributes.body
Group 1 good examples

# data[].attributes.body
Spencer had more concise arguments and she had statistics to back them up.

# data[].attributes.body
she had more statistics about the costs.

# data[].attributes.body
Ashley's

# data[].attributes.body
Better aguments

# data[].attributes.body
She had stronger points and was able to disprove Grace's points.

# data[].attributes.body
Better facts and logical argument

# data[].attributes.body
bananananana trees dont even need to be pollinated, worst prop ever

# data[].attributes.body
Made sense i guess

# data[].attributes.body
they had a non-confusing argument

# data[].attributes.body
how good argument

# data[].attributes.body
he had a couple facts about isolationism

# data[].attributes.body
Group 7 because Group 8 conceded

# data[].attributes.body
good arguments

# data[].attributes.body
Brought facts to argument and had good rebuttal

# data[].attributes.body
Group 5 won, because they had facts and sound logic

# data[].attributes.body
nice statistics

# data[].attributes.body
Michael's points were good at the beginning, but Camryn's were stronger all together