I've only read the first three arguments and I'm leaning towards Team 1 as of right now because some of Beans2's arguments were somewhat contradictory and a display of imprudence. Then again, I've only read the first three arguments, so that could change, but I think Hizaiki and Zexion did a superb job and majority of what Beans2 presented is what I'd consider a cogent argument outside of a few mistakes that I observed.
However, I know that it's habitual for debaters to compile a very thorough and extensive argument, but having to read all of these things can be very strenuous and perplexing having to connect every single detail together. I'd prefer it that at least for team debates that there should be a word limit (debaters should reach a consensus for this) because I felt as if some of the information presented was superfluous. Constructing a more concise and thorough argument at times would've seemed to be better IMO. I think Beans2 actually did the best in that regard.
But who am I kidding. At the end of the day, I'm still going to scrutinize everything and give a thorough judgement, it's just that it'll be a very wearisome task. Just my input as of right now though.
