The pro- and con-renewable energy sides of the debate both presented their arguments very well. They honed in on the key points and provided substantial supporting evidence.
I thought the pro team's argument did a good job of spanning their entire perspective, from environmental and social need to costs in comparison to non-renewable resources. They presented a well-rounded argument.
The con side, however, really hit their points home about the cost effectiveness of renewable energy at the current time. They were not refuting the eventual need for renewable energy; their argument was that the current technology creates too much of an economic burden and does not come anywhere near meeting the demand for energy. The benefits of the current technology would not outweigh these costs. Their proposal was to continue using fossil fuels until technology is developed that will be cost-effective and create the amounts of energy needed. I found this argument very persuasive, so I am voting for team against renewable energy.