Several questions raised about the debate judges

I want to clarify first that I'm not writing this to attack anyone, and I respect the judges' decisions. However, I'd like to offer my perspectives on certain issues. I hope to explore and improve together with everyone.

First, I question the judges' claim that they listened attentively and took two large sheets of notes. Why, then, do they only record the opposing viewpoint in those two sheets of notes? We have repeatedly stated that Zhuge Liang and the cobbler were just people; we cannot deify Zhuge Liang and belittle the cobbler. Everyone has their place. Zhuge Liang became a strategist because he could utilize his strengths in that position, and the cobbler became a cobbler because he could utilize his strengths in that position. Liu Bei needed Zhuge Liang because he needed a strategist, and when he needed the cobbler, he would have sought him out. Did he simply find someone at will? Why are these points missing from the judges' notes?
[separator]
Secondly, why do we say that the opposing side held firm to their point of view while our side failed to present any counterarguments? In a debate, the first priority is to argue. Since the opposing side only insisted on their own viewpoint without offering any rebuttals, we naturally had to refute their arguments. How can we say we were trapped? Does it mean we should say our piece while they say theirs? What's the point?

Secondly, I question the judges' subjective bias. Perhaps they are unaware of the full story of the three cobblers, yet they relentlessly emphasize Zhuge Liang's unparalleled wisdom. But then, are the cobblers without wisdom? The fact that the three cobblers defeated Zhuge Liang is the best proof. Furthermore, why did our side repeatedly emphasize that the cobblers should not be belittled? The original meaning of "cobbler" refers to one of Zhuge Liang's lieutenants. Haven't the judges heard this story? Or are they suggesting that the principal is always superior to the lieutenant? That's utterly absurd.

Finally, I'd like to offer some thoughts on the debate judges. First, the purpose of a debate is for both sides to argue about an unclear issue. Judges shouldn't have subjective biases. They should be like empty shells, gradually filling in the gaps during the debate. The goal of a debate is for the majority to understand the reasons. And once the majority understands the reasons, the judges shouldn't be oblivious.