Crucible Debate

I think that both of the groups who debated which character was the true cause of the troubles in the book did phenomenal jobs. The first group had great presence, their confidence and volume were high and engaging to the audience. They also used outside information to make their points. However, they did not use very much evidence. The second group used a lot of evidence and adapted well to the rebuttals that went against them. Both groups analyzed the text well and made good points. The groups were sort of foil characters to one another because where one group lacked, the other group did well. Due to this, I would have to call it a tie.