Team PNP came out on top because they tended to stick to facts and figures overall.
Team PNP. Again, they came prepared with facts, the JLP (team) kept referring to what the prime minister was doing and they didn't seem as prepared.
Lisa Hanna. She was clear in her presentation, content and relevance of what to say. Whether or not they would work is another matter. She was not afraid of the camera. She was convincing in terms of her approach.
I thought (Raymond Pryce) became too personal, which is why I liked Lisa Hanna's approach.
Dr Saphire Longmore from Team JLP. She is not a debater. They shouldn't have put her on the team.
Team PNP. They quoted statistics.
I had a problem in terms of relevance because they were both reiterating the old political rhetoric. It wasn't new and fresh, so I had difficulty in picking a winner.
Team PNP was much clearer in articulating their points. They sought to provide answers to specific questions being asked rather than going off on a tangent.
Raymond Pryce. He was getting at the JLP and trying to get a response out of them on key issues.
Marlene Malahoo Forte. She communicated with too much ethos; too much emotion rather than facts.
Dr Leahcim Semaj
Team PNP. They were more prepared in terms of answering the questions with the data they provided. They were much sounder and their responses were well-thought through.
Team PNP. They were significantly ahead.
Lisa Hanna. The evenness of her tone and the fact that she drew on historical data. She also admitted to weaknesses and mistakes and indicated how things would be better.
Marlene Malahoo Forte. Debate is about information, style and presentation. A lot of her answers were undiluted fluff. She was by far the worst.