In the Case Gratz vs. Bollinger, I thought the argument was quite interesting. The first group had some major flaws in their argument that was brilliantly corrected by the second group. The first group argued that having a 20 point system is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause. However, as pointed out by the apposing group, the 20 point system was not even a factor in this case, for it was not implemented until the year after. That makes this argument invalid. One thing I thought the first group lacked was the ability to answer the judge’s questions. For example, I asked if they believed underprivileged people should get an extra advantage when applying to college. They responded along the lines of race when that
