# data[].attributes.body
They were very informative in their that provided relevant information and understanding, although it did at times deter away from the topic which made it hard to understand at times. Overall it was a good speech that provided interesting reasons

# data[].attributes.body
Strong introduction, provided substantial amount of information. However, the question wasnt answered clearly

# data[].attributes.headline
Yeah they were good but perhaps a little more information would be nice

# data[].attributes.subject
Yeah they were good but perhaps a little more information would be nice

# data[].attributes.body
Yeah they were god

# data[].attributes.body
Their information was well informed and they tried to keep the phrase of "the police as the community and the community as the police" as their main phrase. They have provided examples to prove their points, such as rich people being involved in politics (Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott and Donald Trump). Also the case study about North Korea was an excellent example that showed what could happen if politicians were involved with police organisations. I hoped they would have provided an overall summary for their arguments. Overall, it is a great overall of their viewpoint regarding the topic.

# data[].attributes.body
strong introduction thats stated clearly what was going to happen within the debate

the body was delivered very well however it did drift away from the topic a little bit but overall was good and informative

the conclusion was good although it did drift off topic at the beginning but end really well.

# data[].attributes.body
The argument presented was well presented and research. However, there was insufficient example to support the given argument.

# data[].attributes.headline
They were good they did provide alot of info however i feel they went a little astray by talking about rich wealthy politicians i dont know what they have to do with police. 

# data[].attributes.subject
They were good they did provide alot of info however i feel they went a little astray by talking about rich wealthy politicians i dont know what they have to do with police. 

# data[].attributes.body
They were good overall, but it did lack sufficient information to back up their claims/reasons, which made it hard to understand

# data[].attributes.body
should of provided a little more information in the body for everyone to better understand the topic however the introduction and conclusion was completed nicely.

# data[].attributes.headline
the judges are the winners we are the legends of the group 

# data[].attributes.subject
the judges are the winners we are the legends of the group 

# data[].attributes.body
but to be serious i feel the negative team won

# data[].attributes.body
Went Off topic constantly

# data[].attributes.body
Both team has provided good amount of example towards their argument. But overall, the negative argument was slightly better

# data[].attributes.body
There was great statements that was provided, however they should have provided more information regarding their topics would be great and if they could provide examples, it would create a better understanding for the judges. Although, there is a lack of information provided, they had provided the basics details needed in their arguments (introduction, body and summary).

# data[].attributes.body
Although, this is not an actual debate as the affirmative and the negative did not discuss their opponents points and the bad points regarding the other's statements/arguments. Overall, I think that the affirmative because their information was more well-informed and they included examples that was relevant to the point. I also like how they kept on repeating their catch phrase of "the police as the community and the community as the police".