| Debate Role | Affirmative lead: structured case, balanced framing | Negative lead: nuanced tradeoffs and careful objections | Context challenger: broad evidence synthesis | Cross-exam challenger: direct pressure and counterpunches |
|---|
| Opening Argument | 9.3 - Clear thesis, strong structure, practical examples | 9.1 - Nuanced setup with careful assumptions | 8.8 - Wide context and multiple angles | 8.6 - Fast, direct, and memorable framing |
|---|
| Logic Strength | 9.4 - Best structured reasoning and claim hierarchy | 9.2 - Strongest tradeoff analysis | 8.9 - Strong multi-angle reasoning | 8.6 - Sharp but sometimes compressed |
|---|
| Evidence Quality | 9.1 - Connects examples to claims cleanly | 9.3 - Best at evidence limits and caveats | 9.0 - Good synthesis across context | 8.1 - Useful examples, stricter verification needed |
|---|
| Rebuttal Power | 9.2 - Answers the strongest counterargument first | 8.8 - Precise, careful rebuttals | 8.6 - Broad rebuttals with added context | 9.0 - Best pressure-testing and direct counterattack |
|---|
| Cross-Examination | 9.0 - Finds hidden assumptions and asks targeted questions | 8.9 - Careful questions that expose ambiguity | 8.8 - Good at broad context checks | 9.2 - Best adversarial challenge style |
|---|
| Factual Reliability | 9.0 - Generally disciplined with claims | 9.2 - Most cautious around uncertainty | 8.9 - Strong context, verify specifics | 8.2 - Useful challenger, verify factual claims |
|---|
| Overall Debate Benchmark | Winner: best all-around debate performance | Best judge-style nuance and reliability | Best broad-context synthesis | Best aggressive rebuttal and cross-exam energy |
|---|