I'll say this. The real reason I voted for Rogues wasn't just that he had a better team as the other judges said was his main case of argument. I voted for him because I feel that by him countering the arguments Cap made that that was enough for him to secure the win. In simplicity: Having no strategy, bu successfully debunking your opponents > Having a flawed strategy
When Rogues said things like his team was better in a certain area, he had actually provided a lot of scans to showcase this. If Cap had replied directly saying "well my guy does this better, and this scan shows that" I'd be more swayed in his favor, but the fact is Rogues backed up his claims. The Punisher point also put Cap at a disadvantage right from the start personally. The scan of Punisher out of nowhere trying to stick a knife in Venoms throat while they drove together shows his brash nature and how easily he'll turn on a villain ally.
Honestly though, it was hard to pick up on certain things in the argument, although they were there. If Rogues had made his arguments a bit more clearly just by using language like "Bloodwing couldn't get close to my team because Deadshots helmet could pick up on him, and he is a good enough marksman to pick him off, as shown in this scan" then he would of easily picked up some more votes. However, he did very simply say "my guys will shoot your guys in that scenario" or "that plan won't work" and even though the layout wasn't pretty, the scans were there.
Just my two cents on the matter. If anything is to be taken away from this, it's that you should always keep a clean layout while debating and counter points directly. There's also no need to make statements like "My team is better than yours." Your argument would be far more compelling if you fully showed and explained why your team was better. Judges aren't there to make assumptions, they're there to judge the arguments presented.