Thanks. It's an amusing game, although I agree with you about the frustrating guess-what-the-author-is-thinking aspect. I'd add, however, that you don't want to take this game as an accurate guide to the arguments of the thinkers involved. In a number of cases so far, I've noticed that the philosophers' arguments have been somewhat straw-manned in order to make them easier to refute. Pretty understandable, in a game of this nature, but I wanted to add that caution because you said you learned something. While the broad sense of the arguments are conveyed with reasonable accuracy, the objections that Socrates comes up with are rarely as devastating as they're represented, and are often answered in the philosoper's own work.

An example: Va gur tnzr, Uboorf pynvzf gung gur fbirervta fvtaf n pbagenpg jvgu uvf fhowrpgf, pbzzvggvat gb cebgrpgvat gurz sebz bar nabgure va rkpunatr sbe cbjre. Fbpengrf Wbarf hfrf guvf pynvz gb ershgr Uboorf'f nethzrag (jul jbhyq gur fbirervta or boyvtngrq gb znvagnva gur pbagenpg jvgubhg rasbeprzrag)? Ohg gur npghny Uboorf qbrf abg fnl gung gurer vf n pbagenpg orgjrra gur fhowrpgf naq gur fbirervta. Ba uvf ivrj, gur fhowrpgf fvta n (ulcbgurgvpny) pbagenpg orgjrra gurzfryirf gb envfr fbzrbar gb gur enax bs fbirervta, ohg gurve eryngvbafuvc jvgu gur fbirervta vf abg pbagenpghny. Gur fbirervta'f cbjre vf tvira gb uvz nf n tvsg. Ur rffragvnyyl unf ab boyvtngvba ng nyy ertneqvat uvf gerngzrag bs uvf fhowrpgf -- ur'f na nofbyhgr zbanepu. Gur bayl zbgvingvbaf ur unf ner crefbany vagrerfg va znvagnvavat cbjre (juvpu zvtug rafher, sbe vafgnapr, gung ur qbrfa'g whfg xvyy nyy uvf fhowrpgf). Guvf vf jul Uboorf fgerffrf ubj ubeevoyr gur angheny fgngr vf -- vg'f onq rabhtu gung crbcyr jbhyq engure or ehyrq ol na nofbyhgr qvpgngbe jub vf gur fbhepr bs nyy boyvtngvba ohg vf abg tbirearq ol nal boyvtngvba uvzfrys. Na hanggenpgvir ivrj, ab qbhog, ohg abg fhowrpg gb gur erterff bowrpgvba gung gur tnzr yriryf.