My understanding is once we receive both teams cases, we have to decide which team made the stronger case. Then we have to show why the articles used by the winning team are stronger and why the articles by the losing team were weaker. One possibility is each member from our team can pick one article and explain why is strengthened or weakened their case. I'm assuming there are more than enough articles for at least one for each member of our team. Then someone can put it all together and write a conclusion for our case.

I agree with what you said. The main point for me was Team B didn't show the correlation between growth in technology and increase in slang/decrease in literacy. They quote a teacher who says literacy has gone down due to students use of social networks but they don't explain how. They showed a stat saying 85% of students between 12-17 use electronic communication but they don't explain how or why it causes these kids to use more slang.

Team A was much clearer as to how exactly technology was being used to increase literacy in students. For the example with "Reading Buddies" which used mp3's and Twitter which forces people to be more concise in their writing. That was the main difference for me, both teams had ample evidence but only Team A successfully showed how that evidence supports their argument.