An embarassing moment?

"So Jackson proposed the Tariff of 1833 so that, like, there wouldn't be any conflict between the South Carolinians and the federal government," Daniel reiterated during his rebuttal.
I was in AP U.S. History taking notes as Daniel discussed the certain aspects of the 1828 election and how it was a Democratic revolt of the people. His partner, Justin, both misinterpreted historical evidence twice: 1) Henry Clay, not Jackson, proposed the Tariff of 1833 to stop South Carolina's opposition of the Tariff of 1828 and 2) did not mention Jackson's "political usurpation".
As Daniel and Justin came up to the front of the class to answer questions, I raised my hand. However, they had asked everyone else their questions on one side of the room, leaving me impatiently waiting on the other side. Once they finally got to me, I brought up their misinterpretation of historical evidence. Their facial expressions said it all. I could tell that either they did not have an answer for me or they did not care about what they did. Yet everyone else in the class cared with their "oohs".
I smiled weakly at them since I felt a little sorry for them as they walked back to their seats, not even answering my question. Yet when the opposing debaters came up, Daniel and Justin asked me why I did not ask them a question, and I told them that I was on their side (and also because I did not have any questions for them due to their accurate political views). I hate to say it, but I outsmarted them.

(Source of political cartoon:http://www.historyisgroovy.com/STUDY_GUIDES/vis/1825_1850/history_visuals_1825_to_1850.htm)