Notes

1. They are able to do so by subtly swaying the topics into other (less) related topics, at least that's how I see it, without of course tackling the overarching problem head-on, because implications are damned.
2. Personally, I think each presented their arguments very well. Although with that said, in a modern debate, I'd say they would have to be judged purely on the context of the debate, name-dropping and such would have to be contextualized, and further analysis would be needed for their arguments to be able to stand, whilst also standing against counterclaims.
3. I think, if I had a say, I would likely have the team debate something along the lines of Economics, with a bit of politics (and justice) sprinkled in. I'd like to think that such a topic would require a sense of justice in a way, or more on the side of "moral spectrums", which I think would prove to make the audience think, or live with the knowledge of understanding implications.