I think that the anti-renewable energy team won this debate. Both sides seemed very prepared and conveyed their ideas well, but the con team made a stronger argument.
The con team got me to think about renewable energy in a new way; not as an idealized version of energy but as a form of energy with consequences.They made clear the costs of renewable energy. It also helped that they acknowledged the need to move towards renewable energy sources eventually, but, with their support of the cost of such sources, argued that we can't transition yet. I think the pro team should have brought up the American jobs argument before the closing statement because it's a strong point, and also the issue of climate change, even if it is heavily disputed (I mean, this is a debate).
That being said, I think the pro team's third rebuttal was very strong in that he actually refuted things the con team said rather than just addressing general aspects of the con's argument. And to refute the pro's argument about the social cost of relying on the Middle East, the con team should have argued more for drilling for oil in American than they did.