I plan on evaluating the arguments based on a couple criterion.
First, the relevance of the argument. Is the argument relevant to the average American or the argument directed towards a specific to a demographic? The relevance of the argument will be something I factor in heavily towards my decision. If the argument being made is not relevant to the average consumer and is pigeonholed towards certain groups or agencies then the large scope of national surveillance is not being explored.
Secondly, the validity of the argument. Are the arguments being made grounded in fact or are they purely hypothetical? If the argument being made is purely hypothetical, then that provides no compelling evidence that is grounded in fact. If the arguments are tied into something historical that can be proven through a respectable source or by fact, then that makes for a more compelling case.
Thirdly, originality/presentation of the argument. Is the argument based off of our tired talks on NSA metadata or do they find a new angle to attack the question from? A new perspective is refreshing; especially in a debate where it may catch your opponents off guard and unable to refute the evidence. Providing this evidence in a more cohesive presentation would also prove to be more persuasive towards the jury. Points that are well organized and interconnected will be more compelling.
Also, the group’s ability to refute the other side’s evidence will also be important.