The most interesting concept I learned about NPDA debate is the structures of the debate. When I thought of argumentation and deliberation originally, I pictured a panel style setting with four or five people on each side arguing their points by taking turns. Learning the proper style and terms such as rebuttal, which “sum up the debate and crystallize the important issues for the judges” (Cantrell & Swift, 2012, p. 104). The rebuttal justifies which team has won the debate and this round allows each side to prove their points. During the rebuttal the lead opposition will be allowed to speak for four minutes to demonstrate their opposing views on the topic. They will present all of the topics that have been brought up by the government and they will present their evidence to discourage the government’s arguments. The Prime Minister will have five minutes to speak during the rebuttal and they will justify their position in their argument by supporting their topics and counter arguing the opposition’s topics. In other words, the rebuttal sets the final tone of the entire debate and it has the power to change the opinion of the judge. Not only is it persuasive but it is also the final counter argument. During this round it is highly pertinent that both speakers focus on the most important topics that were presented throughout the debate. They are discouraged from presenting new arguments during the rebuttal stage and teams have the opportunity to interrupt the argument and involve the judge. The judge will then determine if the argument is new and they will have the final say in allowing the speaker to justify their argument. For example, this is similar to a closing argument in a legal court trial. During the closing arguments, both lawyers will summarize all of the evidence and issues that were presented throughout the trial. They do this to point out all of the important facts that favor their side of the argument, hoping that their last argument will ultimately create a lasting impression on the grand jury. During this phase, it is their job to make the juries rethink their stance on the case and to ultimately aid them in making a decision. This is like a court trial for murder with a lack of sufficient evidence. In America, within our justice system we have a famous saying, “innocent until proven guilty.” Ultimately, the evidence presented throughout the trial, the presentation provided by the lawyers, and the closing arguments are going to have a large impression on the grand jury. This will help them make a decision of guilty or innocent. This was famously seen in the O.J. Simpson court trial that involved his late wife. Simpson was arrested for murdering his ex-wife and her male friend. The trial was long but in the end Simpson was found not guilty due to a lack of sufficient evidence. He had some of the best lawyers fighting on his side and the trial ended up ruling in his favor.