( P r o p o / O p p ) J i y h 7 j r w - v f...wins this debate. 9 T E A M C O D E # : Q _ o n t h e . w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . ( P r o p o / O p p ) J REASON FOR DECISION: . ni

Joyce>Colen ander f 20)Round 2A \l :00am Room 442Gov: 8 YaVig - H6Opp: 12 Chan - Foley —Pariiamenfery Debate/Novice

PA R L I D e b a t e

Judge's Name: Judge's School Affiliation:

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker U2

Please award-each speaker pomts-b ed on the following s e:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 jery Good

' 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to quajiiy for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Resolved for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Crit ia• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the daters analyze the topic and the argumentso f f e red du r i ng t he deba te /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficientlwme debaters support arguments withevidence—^which may include facts and reênces to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectwely the debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant d effective were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters spe^ in an organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /

• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Team Code #:

)pp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2

4 ^ - ^ T

T E A M C O D E # : o n t h e _

Opp 2: ll/f

w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .9

T E A M C O D E # : Q _ o n t h e . w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .( P r o p o / O p p ) J

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : . ni y h 7 j r w - v f " '" I W ^ h / y f J

Joyce Colenbrander (*20)Round 2B 1 :00am Rm442Gov: 2 Brown - LisyOpp: 8 Abdussamy - Syed Parliamentary Debate/Noyice____

P A R L I D e b a t e

Judge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation:

P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1 V" t

Prop Speaker #2 5

Oip Speaker #1

;pp Speaker #2 s w dPtsA_pts^

Plea e-awaird each speaker pojnlfrbased on the following sc :30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 5 ery Good

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qi fy for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Re^rved for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Cnteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively debaters analyze the topic and the argiunentsoffered during the debate /

• Evidence: How appropriately and effi ntly the debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts references to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly an ffectively the debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How mevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debars speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria; please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : / . . . . / I m V / i ^ - J —

Prop

^ wBi/il/Z llh MW ^

Prop^2: ;/7 fPfnUr'/i \ l h ^

2 + 111 J j>

i m e n i s a n a / o r s u g g e s u u n s l u r i m p r u v e m c n i l u /

oppi: 4^ IMIB MjlM IBIvj W

Opp 2:

T E A M C O D E # :nJUf i'>i

1 - o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(i^pWopp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : y . 1 ] < J u / / f t )

ft w* w iu MP, 1*^ All itf "H /" ^fwf 4w "MUfhi f' w jrfi -k nw All ? mmpf.

Vinod Mozov (*8)Round 2A 11:00am Room 443Gov: 5 Hinchcliff-YingOpp: 6 Agarwal - MaitraParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

P R O PS

Judge's School AfTiiiation: J-VVli

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #2 S'ItA.CL '

pts 2S Opp Speaker # 1_

p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 _

p t s 2 l 7

Please award each speaker points based on the followin&âle:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 2s = Very Good

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough tQ/(jualiiy for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = l^served for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judgin&Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectiveiyme debaters analyze the topic and the arguments

offered during the debate /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters support arguments with

evidence— which may include facts/ d references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly aM effectively the debaters respond to the arguments made

by the o the r s ide /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the defers speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable/• Courtesy: How courteoijB and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteri please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

P r o p 1 : A . 0 . O p p 1 : T . TOpp 1:HefJ " v

T E A M C O D E # : (

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :

Opp 2:'

on the Op wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

iV Crww |?TrLAAo ^\alC J ^ Q .

^ y v ^ r T K e t ' Y " c r w

.P^\Âon'^ «Jrrv YHeJc"^Tvu>fv)) m^VjzA ^ Jv v A w ' ^

Vinod Mozov (*8)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 3

G o v : 1 8 R a h m a n - J o h n s t o n

Opp: 20 Tarleton - ElmhirstParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1


Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1

P r o p S p e a k e r p t s AV O p p S p e a k e r # 2 " "

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:J 30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rud^r inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters an ze the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debars support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and reference authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively t debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e / r '• Points of Information: How relevant and ective were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /

• Courtesy: How courteous and respecl the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offe ompliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Propyl:

uce ^»vvcrr^ -rt^^

h ; O p p l : ^

A/ irmV^xt'c-Cfv

ejv\

e}/Oj

i t e . -

T E A M C O D E # : 2 , 6


on the rf wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

i v x i r v o v / i - H r w i v D E C I S I O N : / I 1 /

% . J - j j j h A u Z

° g j ^ ■-yy Je.elA^ -

^ u£iU ^

Mr Bennett (*21)Round 2A 11 ;00am Room 445

Gov: 12 Chao-WangOpp: 18 Gil - ParejaParliamentary Debate/Novice

Te a m C o d e # :

Prop Speaker #1

P R O P

PA R L I D e b a t i

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

p t s O p p S p e a k e r # !

Opp Speaker #2

pts ^

Please awar each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination ropilds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or in j ropriate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze/fne topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters/ pport arguments with

evidence—^which may include facts and references to ajraiority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the deleters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in anganized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful e debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer c pliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

P r o p l : /

o fvu2^>-C

P r o p 2 : /- f r

— f -

p3«rtr? (<o <31^ t2^.

Opp l :

- 1 C f C c j s ^ I O S L

Opp 2:

T E A M C O D E # :


o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(Prop or Opp)

< Z j ^ i

PA R L I D e b a t e ,

Mr Bennett (''21)Round 2B 11-.OOarn Room 445

Gov: 20 Cheng - ShifsOpp: 18 Feng - KellyParliamentary Debate/Novice

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:i a t i o n :

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#]

Prop Speaker #2

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1

p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 _

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeryG«wd

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for emnination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved fw4ude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debated analyze the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently th ebaters support arguments with

evidence— which may include facts and refer ces to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumcjntation: How directly and effectiy/wy the debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant ^d effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters spe in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily imderstemdable /• Courtesy: How courteous and reectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please infer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Prop 1:- - - i - - / O p p 1 : •

, J , J L ! ^ \ L i^ - r I / ^ T ? . 2 ! r p - r ) a m n

Prop 2:

SOmcti '^S n%. I

h - C j O V C - O -O a » W i » y r O C - _

T E A M C O D E o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :(Prop or Opp)

I

I I - r - f


Wayne Raiford ^18)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 0

Gov: 22 Owen -i CoscarelliOpp: 5 McKinneiy - StankusParliamentary Debate/Novice

Judge's Name: v NTZiaVovWJudge's School AfFiliationi yvrV v \J


Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_

pt&2G

Opp Speaker #2_ VkcX'v

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale;30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimmanon rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rmJe or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatersalyze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the Raters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and referents to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelVme debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How relevant andxffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and res tflil the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please er compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Prop 1:

o Q r - C o x A : /C o Q ^ V V v ^ C N V i c W t C

r . V V A ( 9 i r e .^ p r o p 2 t y - \ o p \ e : )

w / < : ^ a D V < L .WoVxL . YC9<U^

OV S owuji/VVS covVt vVW^ you o>xi

Oppl :

V L o V o ^ v A ^ v \ } v(A.V yotA-' " ec-cVv

C . y ^ ' c V V c w V c O s V e r Q ' cr '■ t ^ C t' > \ V/ .CacA'^

yi-c- w->'^3 / V'C- wV.VV -^-/sô^Lr ^^rv^v^cA.T E A M C O D E # : on the ( yO'O

(Prop or Opp)w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

REASON FOR DECISION: ^ .

B'G-vvvc AVC-V yKS K ^ f\0 Oxc-WtiA AVVC oy" Wvw^ NoeCOLUJbC^\W-Ar- oÔvVvXy -Vo \/>(V(X\AV/ VKOVX--


Wayne Raiford (*18)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 0

G o v : 1 2 L a w r e n c e - P r i v a l o v

Opp: 2 Giverts - HanParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #:

P r o p S p e a k e r # ! p t s

Prop Speaker #2 fr\gr>\/ pts

: VLtV\:'\X"l(>AoJudge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation: \ \Vo\c_^

Te a m C o d e # : ^

Opp Speaker #1 Co \\kx\

Opp Speaker #2 CkW.pts22^

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for eliminajkm rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude/W inappropriate behavior

Judging Cr i ter ia > /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters amriyze the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the defers support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and referenco authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e X• Points of Information: How relevant and fective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak man organized, communicative style that is pleasant


Using the above criteria, please o r compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

P r o p 1 : » / O p p 1 :

V > e a i > » ^ 4 ^ c ^ v t c A r c V r " ^ V V _ ^ N A

P r o p 2 : > O p p 2 : " '

1 - 5 - 3 V . A V , v oVC-IAV- OycccK V= <Av.V.C,\W^ ytMU- pc yc U^ 1 o,dc

:T E A M C O D E #


on the Vv c:, ^ wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

fw v jG)V \ W\^ \oc_ccda5?c^ o t o lbA ' ^y VoCLOVAVc.' Vvcjrv'b J (XIAK VGCW oG

V c > .


Jesse MacKinnon (M)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 8

Gov: 20 Fields - GershOpp: 6 Iyer - IyerParliamentary Debate/Novice

Judge's Name:



Prop Speaker # 1 ^

Prop Speaker #2

pts Opp Speaker # 1 A>.pts Opp Speaker #2_ \

ptsQ-lo


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rudex^ inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters amilyze the topic and the arguments


evidence— which may include facts and reference o authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively dfe debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant andective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in^ organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respeo l the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please off/r compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Co

. Alce' .5 4ojAc ~V

^ P r o p 2 : r

opp 1:\ o ^ - V t S \ A ^ 4 v ^ y J C V ^

- T X K e K V x Ôpp 2:

o f H i v n y - ^

T E A M C O D E # : o ©R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :

on the _J_r> __wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

\\ W\^C ^ ^ ( U < 3 V \ - ^ t j L ^ c | v U « . ' c ^

\|oVr ^ rvÂ /\Se^vAoA G,\h ^ ^


Jesse MacKinnon (M)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 8Gov: 8 Li - GharpureOpp: 12 Fong - JacuzziParliamentary Debate/Novice

Judge's Name:_

P R O PTeam Code #:


Team Code

i o n - 0

Prop Speaker # 1 pts OlS Opp Speaker # 1 Pts

Prop Speaker #2 L v Opp Speaker #2_


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination roums)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inaj^ropriate behavior

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyzythe topic and the arguments

offered during the debate• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and references tyuthority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively thexlebaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and ef tive were the questions and the answers^ • Delivery: How well the debaters speak in organized, communicative style that is pleasant^ and eas i l y unders tandab le /

• Courtesy: How courteous and respecml the debaters were to opponents and judges

yvvC Using the above criteria, please offeycompliments and/or suggestions for improvement to .e a c h d e b a t e r : /

. ^ , / . ( } o V o w n• P r o p 1 : S C ' M ' - ( 4 r ^

W r W w v C 4 , : v . ^ . w v C O -a p c A W . c a w - ^

W - I ^ w .CV tc i cA tAW Doo^ CA-^

M c ^ e j L c W /Prop 2: ^ y vX ^V'\N

' <g'/ > ^ ^ d ^ ^ E A M C O D E # : ^

Opp2: WVv.\-( aW<W\( 3 $ r ^V/\^0 ^ ^ ^ ■

V)e>



(Prop or Upp)

cVsV > V

< x w V o V « ^ V ^ /X i u ■V > ■

-aoK


Ram Kapoor f 14)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 8

Gov: 12 Liu - Fu

Opp: 18 Zhu - PhanParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#! L^\U

Prop Speaker #2

Judge's Name:_


Team Code #:

Pts9^ Opp Speaker #1 ^—VIU

pts %n Opp Speaker #2_

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good/

. 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elinutrmion rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for r or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters/dnalyze the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters support arguments with

evidence— which may include facts and referengfe to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively he debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant ajyS effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speaMn an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and rectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please difer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Prop 1: / Oppl : 0

Q — ) ^ \ j ^ S j T o ' _ rA-vZ-A

Prop 2: V-o^C& Opp 2: Q-tJ

TEAM CODE #: I ^— on the ^ wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)


fr?.oP TTN^NVV/\ Ps Sns^6co<:.evcT P

( J / O P o i U j V A « C - ( r T h


Ram Kapoor (*14)Round 2B 11 lOOam Room 448

Gov: 6 Mohiuddin - SharmaOpp: 12 Wu - YingParliamentary Debate/Novice

Judge's Name::

Judge's School Affiliation: M I A> A 0 HP R O P

Te a m C o d e ' # : Team Code #:

Prop Speaker # 1 pts ^'7 Opp Speaker # 1 Y I ^ pts

P r o p S p e a k e r # 2 p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 W o '


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for eiiminatioitrounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude oâppropriate behavior

Judging Cr i ter ia /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analv the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debat support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and references tuthority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively thehaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Point of Information: How relevant and effe ive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in a rganized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectfid e debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer mpliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Prop 1: Opp l :

^ cnro

Prop 2: D & v A v G A y Opp 2:

TEAM CODE )2- _ on the 0 wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :/ P o r > j O

\ y s l ( < J N A - T V v f

C ? ' T V \ € v ^ k t s a ( S - * ' t O . E > ( y T KC - o o 6 > i r r ^ r v v C ^ O o h J P \ o f y ^ A t * ^

Joel Jacobs (*3)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 5Gov: 6 Vadrevu - NandaOpp: 20 Katewa - ColenbranderParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:


P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1_

p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2

<(<AW,10ov

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good/ ^

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimutation rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters atialyze the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the deters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and referencto authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelyJne debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in4n organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respecmil the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : X / i K K c ^ ^ u i l ^ V o U t S I V q q t .

Oppl:

Pm 2: Ayy " Opp in p (Up Uwi ogrfPitHJ cptOP 'W

TEAM CODE U: on the for wins this debate.R E A S O N F O R ^

lb irrejtvoin-t,. m. C)«f■(low (teowbe ef t W Tfv«\f h UW OA Ofl idku Jdot Kaon Ki-h]

T E A M C O D E U :

R E A S O N

o n t h e

Joel Jacobs (*3)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 5Gov: 8 Mao - Tong-SeelyOpp: 12 Kwong - TanParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O ]Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_

2 1


Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2 pts^^


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimfnation rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rtWe or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters/ alyze the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the haters support arguments with

evidence— which may include facts and referents to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectiveiythe debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant an ffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak m an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and resptful the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please omr compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

PropliGnJ (yx.v*v Oppl:, UKifc >2^ "1 •

l & f -

Woe M'WcProp2:' ^ nd r Opp 2:

^ / O r N o T ' - ( 3 ' ^j ' l ' " - N K - ^ O o f r v i : ;T E A M C O D E # : on the y 1^ wins this debate.

^ (Prop of Opp)

Christina Arias (*25)Round 2A 11:00am Room4$1Gov: 22 Lacombe - Ap elOpp: 18 Moran - AndolaParliamentary Debate/Novice

V


Judge's Name:

i fl t i n n -

Team Code #:

Judge's School Affiliation:_

O P PTe a m C o d e # : \ ' %

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2

Opp Speaker #1

ptsl-U Opp Speaker

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Good

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualifWor elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Resen for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Critem• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidencei How appropriately and efficiently mt debaters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and reMences to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond to the argiunents made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevanty d effective were the questions and the answers• Deliveiy: How well the debaters sp in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and rectful the debaters were to opponents and judgesUsing the above criteria, pleaseyOffer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

P r o p l : G o o ( ) O p p l : \ j ( W

-V^j^ \C6vV't ^ y Ad W\9 Vj(jo caH

P r o p 2 : 3 e k : i ^ O p p 2 : H W \ p^ \ ( X V c \ T

:T E A M C O D E #


o n t h e

(Prop or Opp)w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

AWii V^CkYV \A/ 'H >

Jenny HoltH)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 3

Gov: 26 Campanella - PetruskaOpp: 8 Dara - RanderiaParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #:


Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1 ^^1^ _pts Opp Speaker#!

P r o p S p e a k e r # 2 O p p S p e a k e r #

P t ^ _

_ p . OPlease award each speaker points based on the following scaL^

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28=ryGood, 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualw for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Rese d for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Critma• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the daters analyze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficientlyydie debaters support arguments withevidence—^which may include facts and reMences to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectwely the debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How relevant smd effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters spe in an organized, commimicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and resi ctful the debaters were to opponents and judges


Prop \:U)od CLlar- Stzt/-+-,l u v O c c fi j f u - h ^ S

O p p 1 : J - ^

go r-«biriOC?

P r o p 2 : ,

6 o O c A ( X V \ . c i

T E A M C O D E # :


d ( M ^ - U - b i J U b i ~

on the ^VtA/y wins this debate.(Prdp or Opp)

A c p j d o n - K ' M S V t S(jôcA c\jki4^

\ i v S c o n t t W M j L ^

Jenny Holt (*2)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 3

Gov: 18 Ahmadi - KaurOpp: 23 Arroyo - StephensParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O ]Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_

jhVmxd


Judge's Nam^


O P PTeam Code #: ^

pts^ Opp Speaker #1Opp Speaker #2 Avl U /)

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeryQ od

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify foimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved M rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the deba analyze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently thydebaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and referces to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectiv the debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e p t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant ai effective were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speaVin an organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /

• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges


P r o p . o p p i r j ; I p U t d t - l A w '

Prop 2: $^c40x.i\jX\M CJUfA- ^ ~-

( y o V [ / âuOcA(uA.

T E A M C O D E # :


O p p 2 : i p c x j o t n•J CjA\ 15

ajuiY)'on t he J _w ins t h i s deba te .

(Prop or Opp)

UJ\

' / L A A ' ' I r ' f ^


Robert Stromberg (*23)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 6Gov: 6 Anand GuptaOpp: 20 Caram'ucci - SundararamanParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: jlr/Qi

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #2 o

P t s O p p S p e a k e r # 1 C ^ C - i

pts 7^^ Opp Speaker #2 P ts l2

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Gopd

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elmnnation rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for^de or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatej» analyze the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently th ebaters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and referees to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant aifd effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters spe in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and reectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, pleas ffer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

P r o p 1 : /

I n T M c y ( r P p ^ < c T ( v / < ^

Prop 2c y

~ t ^ T —

Opp l :4 - Q - ^ o ~ x ^ ^

f0s6^S~ — (Poo*T> Ô/vjttacT" ■—

^ ^ A c j T S ^ t ^ A O r ^

Opp 2:|5, 5pofv/

Ccfv/î

TEAM CODE #: O


M p e D S T O S T i i ^the r(^P ^wins this debate.

(Prop or Opp)

l ^ A i O O 0 T " ^


Robert Stromberg (*23)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 6

Gov: 12 Holwitz - KayOpp: 8 Chen - LinParliamentary Debate/Novice

Team Code #:P R O P

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

P r o p S p e a k e r # ] p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 1 ( Z ^ i

P r o p S p e a k e r # 2 _ p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2

p t s . ^

Opp Speaker #2_ pts_/Pleasc| award each speaker points based on the following scale:

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination^pminds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or^ppropriate behavior

Judging Criteria y/• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analv the topic and the arguments

offered during the debate• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debat support arguments with

evidence—^which may include facts and references h/authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively th ebaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in m organized, communicative style that is pleasant


Using the above criteria, please ofl compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

P r o p l : /

i Acrs -r-z? -me o/(>

Opp l :

"hTXioroc^ ^ (^/^c 5 ourCiAS^ > Cc)/\j p I beAi'T'i

P r o p 2 : / O p p 2 :

O^Toiz^ , C/din^-r- Â<>rS.

- ^ / < 1 S I 3 n A J ' D 5 ^ / ( j o i r u

O p p 2 : ^

T E A M C O D E # :



(Prop or Opp)

A l A j / i n . O f f C o o u b i ^ t > T S ' O A ^ ^ ,


Mitesh Meswani (*8)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 7Gov: 18 Alcantra - ThompsonOpp: 12 Dickerman - MillarParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #;

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2]

Judge's Name: /K! \ T/r

Judge's School Affiliation: )^\J(

Team Code #:

fpts Opp Speaker # 1 RlfqfdfX pts

pis *7- Opp Speaker #2 K\UciC pt^


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimina):! rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rudew inappropriate behavior

Judging Cri ter ia /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters apyzQ the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the dejjaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and referenco authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively die debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and fective were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak i an organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /

• Courtesy: How courteous and respedtful the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : A K ^

- V A - V - V 1 - * - ^ V V .

Prop 1: VowXwV

- r k . > V

WA b ' - v /

Opp l :

0 e// < d y ^ V -t:

Prop 2: Vo w yWc. J

— . r . < s d V - c ^P K < _ N r v ^ ) o \ ^ 9 N C . .

T E A M C O D E # : o n t h e _(P


"ypv <!_ ^9^) P\<Sa. tl \ ^ C.C-\

p o n n a r i ^

Opp 2 : < := - '> - <> & w \ <5^ v -o d v -v ->c ,<3/^ $■ p.-dc:_je!V\ ^ 'T^ c-V

*~"\pK VTd :r c d y~^X7 PN ^\ ^ 9 n c . . , : i _

X J i c c X d < f v / v _ d V v c A u i ^ v u ^ - >o n t h e o p r ' \ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e , c -

( P r o p o r O p p ) ^ A H - - U - ^ c V, ^VvoW Vv-Vfeg-

» < q S c . c ~ X c i ^ ^ v w v ^ - c O ) W < - V

«a>v"V-v <3—V c)


Mitesh Meswani (*8)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 7Gov: 23 Raesfeld - GoodyOpp: 18 Valle-PollardParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #: JL.

Prop Speaker #11

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

)t»^^ Z' Opp Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2 V C ' 1 - O p p S p e a k e r # 2 j

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Goo^r

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for nwe or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters/ alyze the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the baters support arguments with

evidence— which may include facts and referents to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters spen an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and rectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, pleas ffer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

P r o p l : V - o v * . p o - > r > \ y O p p l :

SQ^'^cl.w ^ >oa-vtL L

P r o p 2 : /

K o \ / ^^ 5 K \ r f . ^ C L

Opp 2:

3 (/•tL'CL C.\—^

T E A M C O D E # :


on the P o P wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

■Y N - / 1 , ^ . o O P / , ^ 9 ^ ^ V < ' ~


Nupur Aggarwal (*6)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 7Gov: 12 Bystrom - GastOpp: 8 Kurada - GundimedaParliamentary Debate/Novice

Judge's Name:

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

P R O P1 2 -

Judge's School Affiliation:^

Team Code #:

GkksA


pts Opp Speaker #2__Gt irxdx


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for eliminiftion rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for ruôr inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters Mfalyze the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the deleters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and referenco authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively tKe debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and ective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak irymi organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respecfiml the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please off compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

+ omoîS / Ôpp 1:

' " f e

TEAM CODE #: S on the _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : . , Q S j M -To he 4^ 'it o-jeto ^

■ r t s t * / > e h 6 1 ^ - f u . ^^


t ^ r o p o r u p p j ,: C I S I O N : ^

Nupur Aggarwal (*6)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 7G o v : 2 1 S c o t t - A m b r o s e

Opp: 12 Eng - MorgensteinParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #:


Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

p t s Opp Speake r # 1

Opp Speaker #2

Prop Speaker # 1 S

Prop Speaker #2


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for eliminaUdn rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude^ inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anaj c the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debajdrs support arguments with

evidence—^which may include facts and references ha authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively th ebaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and ef tive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesyi How courteous and respectM the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offei ompliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Prop QATi&X j' U - f c t t L■ r ( > i o d /

P r o p 2 : , f

cm ovtoUw

T E A M C O D E # ; o n t h e

^ . - J- N u j

w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(Prop or Opp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : . ^ r o

f r e i . d v » 4 C i ^ o M Î i j r n o j i t . p


Pali Pandya (*9)Round 2A 11:00am |Room 419Gov: 12 Ng - HuangOpp: 8 Vijay - CramerParliamentary Debate/Novice

Team Code #:P R O P

Prop Speaker#! N

Prop Speaker #2_

Judge's Name


Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

pts Opp Speaker #2 Cfef

Please avvard each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good/

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimii mon rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for ru/or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters arfmyze the topic and the arguments


evidence—which may include facts and referenc to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectivel)/e debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant an< ffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speakan organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily imderstandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and resp tflil the debaters were to opponents and judges


P r o p l : 0 J i d - O P P l : - s o t O a

Prop2:'(;H(e

cJltPi r\ i Vi ont ■

t O c c a

T E A M C O D E # :


on the (DPP _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

X<olS^ uP.suetciv avAcxC cis-IW. as>7^V-euH<5>^ ^ ^ ^

- - - e j ^ T n n .

Pali Pandya fS)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 9Gov: 2 Lanzone - HubingerOpp: 12 Tran - VainbergParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1


Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

pts (g Opp Speaker # 1 30

pts (^8" Opp Speaker #2 hpts ^

Qj Prop Speaker #t H U pts_j58 Opp Speaker #2 yCXi}Oh Please Ward each speaker points based on the following scale:

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good/27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimumion rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatersalyze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the d aters support arguments withevidence— which may include facts and referenc to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelyme debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How relevant an ffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speayin an organized, communicative style that is pleasant


Using the above criteria, pleasepffer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

CrjOS ■

. . ^ f o V I '

TEAM CODE #; <3 on the f >W P wins this debat^ ip rN |-(Prop or Opp)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : ^ o

acposâ ^P.oiÛms^\ieAauUL cx fyvd. fêA-^^mQyxC-e .

Brittany Aboudara (*26)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 4Gov: 18 Le- LigutanOpp: 4 Moser - PashmanParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

p,s^


Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation:,

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2_

w a ,

Pts


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rouiras)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inaj^propriate behavior

' J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze tlfe topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters sdpport arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and references to aority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the defers respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effectiye were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an oi anized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easi ly understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer c(mpliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : , ^ , / , / u S t v hi ^ e a s , / b u r / - / Q y s l w J Q • ^Propi: cwduinr\eiA;K nvore / op \:Q

vcuUa.- hoS^ -Pwf/jz££<j ( roa^( p n u d f o c ^ ' u m e ( v f s ^ m - h d i o S u p j ^ a d ^

sp(-k-(^'o (y rtddeJ p}v,p>"S. csyd-adioi^ ,

Propi: cur umei/tK mrz.vcdWL - has^ 7%'^

r u t -

^ J p d : ( ( r f f

u}Ord^'.

h v U o v j 'ka{/fH> 'sf'"'/ do'ik^ \ic^ kJL dvcsp° 'V on the _O d / ^ , / ( P r t

(9 0^1^ dCdOcl^ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . ^

cOrkdi. (Prop or Opp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :

'Opp[ 'iiT)t/\ \jjOp, o/£(X Ci(/isf dCynch /l/L

Brittany Aboudara (*26)Round 2B 11 :C0am Room 414Gov: 12 Lyons - WyszynskiOpp: 2 Greenwall - VineParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #: j 2^

Prop Speaker #l[ L\DIf[SProp Speaker #2_ K;vaz-Vi


Judge's Name:_ hh'Mm/Judge's School Affiliation:,

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2 V/f7(

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good /

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimiiyuon rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for ruddor inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters affmyze the topic and the arguments


evidence—which may include facts and referencto authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectivel>e debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant an ffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily (imderstandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges


i / i f \ ( J i n , r / ^ H i A / o ^ ~ l ~ v y \ A / f r / ' / . / IYvadt^p / dskmxP ^ QX

6 ? ( T ) C / &( Q m - i c L . f m a n w r ^ ^ r

^ coduSs^ cirpiUirmfS ,0

-ft) u;cyf>r Prop 2-^ yvcfy^ Opp^fl?^

(Q TSvOva C6vVy-kivb'uA§ Celled +0 Conchw/qf I / . y , ^ ' 1 y , . - y , ^tjvOvaI -pfAiL (p\-iXiy.QSL^^ P^M CODE #:' 1^ R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :

o n t h e

(d) ad!^ ,Oppi-(

I toidd^'d'

irnficixc/ pyvp'^S nip<ateALjinDf Idu pol^, ctofvuij^^

H CitAx/ ifd<cic ^ ^hcJiLic^

pyvp"^ C£V^'{A^^V^ )

(tf)5AT:v\£? SM(4-& AUSi-evM- Wy«+<^ ^ -ifUMj

n n l 5 — : — ^ ^ . w i y t v t f s n - i T h ^ ^t O fi t h i s c l ^ . - u C c T n u - t( P r o p o r O p p ) ( V 1 ^

V p r i p s r i c i e £ k a i ^ o c ^ /

w i n s t h i s d e b a t e V

dhjL oppo d'oYx uJflX yo(d~k( ppfipsricf ai/x/ ho3 c££ai/ o(yv/ktdMkd/diAS d 'k imAcikovcf . v j i r t . Mirsu ,

cocxK 'c . 0 - ! ^ l u - r l ^ rdU ?n .P i ^vduS 'S o f - f yp i ' ca iA .d )£peCrf'C 0-^^ iVl - d€ptd -'/VL dtdtiT Pi li-Un£tAi d cu ASP- d


Praveen Tomar (*8)

G o " ^ 6 Z ^ T h ^ s t e r J u d g e ' s N a m e : Tr ^ l / r mO p p : 1 2 K r i s h n a s w a m y - L e e ( j . L h L C L IParliamentaty pebate/Novice Judge's School Affiliation: ,Ik^\ r^cJrnn frQh

P R O P O P PT e a m C o d e # : i / C , T e a m C o d e # : I 2 - ^

P r o p S p e a k e r # 1 p t s _ ^ 3 _ O P P S p e a k e r # 1 p t s . 5 2

Prop Speaker #2 ))\ T iA-gke/y pts«^7 Opp Speaker #2I ■ ■ ■ ~ ~ ~


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rud^/w inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters smzdyze the topic and the arguments


evidence—^which may include facts and references/m authority as well as general knowledge• Ailgumentation: How directly and effectively debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and ective were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak irymi organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /

• Courtesy: How courteous and respectnil the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offpr compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Propi: oJi lyWiUvvj' Oppi: ^ xje^yjoaâce-,

W - j f y /

P r o p 2 : O p p 2 :- t e ^ V d i T . c h -■jrc Lot jr) b&fi 0y>

IMi icW

Team Code #:P R O P

/ / ;

T E A M C O D E # :


o n t h e o o P ' w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(Prop or Opp)^ ^ r i u p u i w p p ; . .

I O N : ^ , . J . ^ M . ^ k a k I C A

S r A p h ^ s r / j 9 r \ t f a } ^ i x y \ S ^ ^P A R L I D e b a t e

Praveen Tomar (*8)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 6

Gov: 12 Shin - ShevelevOpp: 18 Alam - RatherParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #; / ^

Judge's Name:


O P PTeam Code#: /*B

Hkh

Prop Speaker #2

pts_22_ Opp Speaker # 1_

pts 7SK Opp Speaker #^

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:I 30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good/^

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimmdnon rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters alyze the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the ddoaters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and refereis to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively he debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant an^ sffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speaMn an organized, communicative style that is pleasant


Using the above criteria, please fer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Prop 1': pUeJ® Opp 1: cn^ C \€.aJT■ (j\oo ka r r j u r r ^ ' enh - owv j W

Prop 2: S/\J VJell0 ^ ( x . ] y p ^ ( 9 r i ^

CQ>r\h.r\h(y? - \)€yyix ^

Opp 2: 3\>cak vey (kJ

T E A M C O D E # :



Pp:p We( P r o p o r O p p ) J

^ ^ ^

Jane DeWitt (^2)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 0 2

G o v : 4 T h o m a s - R a l s t o n

Opp: 23 Clark - StrombergParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #: A

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_


Judge's Name:

Judge's School AffiIiation:_

O P PTe a m C o d e # :

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2_

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Goo/i 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimkfation rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatere/ alyze the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the baters support arguments with

evidence—^which may include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectiv the debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant aû effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters spe in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and reectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, pleaseôffer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

P r o p 1 : O p p 1 : ^1 " / / w j + ^ p v t fi h c r r \ l a u i c .

w v ( M / m A a ^ o c fi i u U i -6 1 « w ' - m l l b f e - n e v \ ^ 3 h e ^ J ^ W t L 5

P r o p 2 : / ^ O p p 2 :4 O f f o n M i M p P i r v H > q , p o i w h b , C \ t u \l y i A - W y w p c u p p p l i 1 z 7

V u J r i o P J u 5 T t c l j ^ \ [ ( U V U ^ ( a ^ a" i ^ ^ ^ A £ A c J o ( M U c c X n J t J r Z . C ^ O O { \ M h ) c U ^ ^

TEAM CODE on the OP? wins this debate.

Jho/^ \V\^pc£C^\^r\du^ fN.

Opp 2:4 p o i w h b C \ ^"Wwv pciAP ppll hp Oil^c>bi

Jub^Mjc hûvRwz: a KiW— ^vtXdI y ULstC, UZA-CLbi ch£ fi

on the, OP? _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)( P r o p o r O p p ) . I f ^ j L A A A y ^

^ REASON FOR DECISION: TW fPP hhVTVU^r 0^ltCweî> 4^^-1-4^ an, rmwLpe> 6h:uyii^s enn \i,su^s,4 'Wz fn^dffU.£> Mymuyu- % fvJaUUkjMuij-Tru^. The fvt/p hUi^cd cw. yi&jim,

IWi V»uT-cUtirxJ m b^fcrvt- v)o&c h"iAnWn^nv- yzcc^m ht^ iamm i f -Mvtf X' icc^vxy'ncrYK is v-* '


Jane DeWitt (*12)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 0 2Gov: 20 Masters - FehringOpp: 4 C'Rafferty - FigueroaParliamentary Debate/Novice

jP R O P

Team Code #: ^

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2

Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation: I

O P PT e a m C o d e # : 7

p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 1 _ p t s

pts Opp Speaker #2 D pts ^ Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: X

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimina n rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rud r inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debars support arguments withevidence—^which may include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively thebaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and eff tive were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /

• Courtesy: How courteous and respectM the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer mpliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

ouJ-Ulu p-f f

1

TEAM CODE #: ^0 on the T ro P ^wins this debate.w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(Prop or Opp)

^ € ? ^ i h e v \ . i r i c u f p 4 ^ \ n r \ m c ^ r ^ ^ ^ c n r x d ^ ^4€4Lm. ^cux i 1V1 ^ wu*^ c rusv \ dc is^ (c^r


Allison Banisadr (*14)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 0 9Gov: 26 Cohen - LemenagerOpp: 6 Tripathi - ZhangParliamentary Debate/Novice

PROP @ (3Team Code #: 3^(p

Judge's Name: 3av\]


Team Code #:

(P @

Prop Speaker#! pts Opp Speaker # 1 ^)

P r o p S p e a k e r # 2 p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 pts Q.1


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination round26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappcdpriate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the ic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters supp arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and references to authorias well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters spond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organiz communicative style that is pleasant

a n d e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debars were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer complimems and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e i ^ : A W c H e W V e v - t ? U - f - f I ) d u ? -

P r o o l - © - G l e a x - l v ^ ivoell

0) 3(xv€ U>C\3WM^ rt4ecVia>A»6.vM /

^ + 1 1 1 ô,rewV poio- -fVia+ C'pp

P r o p 2 : / O p p 2 :(5 ôcd )ob cS ainjc-fli^ Q, 900

Pbi»rl> pclHtcAl Apeîevve p/e® good -jpf poirtflig 0^ £>pp

bard €v)d€vic^.T E A M C O D E # : p l G ? o n t h e

(Prop or Opp)

^ 1. 0 Aooct pre fw-ta-Hf'(prepo..d.^ce ^

u?ni V{£)i- uotn

'oôA Trv««p .Moy not Vk ap«<,-,dleo>trai b«i woold Mo/p/b+o prfw«t e\j(iitnci. k +i'c,f (êbyblfca»i no^vtjtAafioi^ - 300 ffuqed ^ ..

Oil Prpxdfv^-tfal rici-Ho'i ^ 5>p-eclTycpl 7-pVi f jpubhc tW Hf?un I


) or Opp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : ^Giitcrt- job en t»t^ > e>-3p,vi1z«+-l<'n, .C)vtra.\ , rof prf wW Won<; evjd nff And did a. rfrf jr>to

l P « c W - t o - h « r c > o l i ; + t D n . / A " u pt ood ioork. !


Allison Banisadr (*14)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 0 9

Gov: 18 Zhou - ByrneOpp: 25 Raid - GerlacnParliamentary Debate/Novice

Judge's Name: ,\ / \ \âdr


P R O ]Team Code #: Team Code #:

OPP (P ®

Prop Speaker #1 ^ pts Opp Speaker #1Prop Speaker #2 p t s Opp Speaker #2

p t s ^ 6

_ p t s ^ ^


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds^26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inapny^riate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the pic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters sup rt arguments with

evidence which may include facts and references to authojmy as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debat respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How relevant and effective Were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an orgai ed, communicative style that is pleasant

a n d e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the Raters were to opponents and judges


P r o p l : « / O p p l : ,© ( X r « a 1 - d e b a V t . i a « j a i r t - o p o d P ' o p l e , J^ n c M e r c a v , U a v t ^ J@ g r e o d j o V > T ^ f | o e « i e . W c . A r t

examples dfi l fi " * * e> prc i ' l c leM+lA l e - t fCd lo" v. - te^ o l l o n A i i v o + t c v . l i - t U t

P r o p 2 : /■5dv-cM^ , or av,! g) good-to Co cre-feborn on onth-f-ro, .o,l con ron

Cartfr v>o€re foor^ butlyucve bij iôvr ouJii CkCc^. op-

TEAM CODE #; on the __ g_ wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : T h l f . u ; q ' 7 ^ Q ^ I O ^ C M c l

did a good joV? Cxr uiiAC|\ Ov€vall , P«'Op V)acl -hroi c^ r-exavYi^le$> o lui^paci^.

Opp 2:

T E A M C O D E # :

- OiMuiurf vjU\ to"<A) mrTm//<y^ foL fCsIdofCathy Aguilera (*14)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 9Gov : 1 C ree - Nad le r

Opp: 12 Jarmel-Schneider - BernsteinParliamentary Debate/Novice

PJROPTeam Code #: G0\/ I

Prop Speaker #l_

Prop Speaker #2_ h)adlei

Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation: ir 0 (n(

Team Code #: ■: U •

O d d S p e a k e r # ! 2 . 8

Opp Speaker #2


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rotmds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or m^propriate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis:, How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyzp e topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters/ pport arguments with

evidence—^which may include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the deleters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effedsive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an o anized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easi ly understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement to.e a c h d e b a t e r :

A -

\a.dr

t o A S ^ y G

- Ôpi e

people^ ^6 (XieWiKh^t)^

fOifCfi o d ^ c t ~

Op,y.Sumt!-Schna(fA-'iUi/\f\Oo<^ , policies ®A rh / iX ) ^ (C t fCb . ^ Coy i l êY f / 20 / - n U j c rV / i " .

Q p o d I 1 ^ s b - h o a f

Opp 2: (bersh >l;cr r^

?dt^' { y d o a f o i / ^ ■0)fVJOnn!Aa,ho/3 - ! /s

^ ^ < Z X ) . . . i U A n n O i f ' , K l , U . .

TEAM CODE #: hOf lA on the Qfif ; wins this debate.' U ' ( P r o p o f b ' p p j )

^ R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : A

( ^ \ p e c 6 i u ^ o f -pcofdC CL't JjJiCcdtcLbate. poliM^ jOd'f' aêCl^ o/Aryw'

ftlo-f- o-f Crcjibi '^ f t . 1 . 7 y S ! _ r

l i ( ^ o . o o ( A ^ QeiTdLoz-

) ' ( W ?

o ff '

13 ur \ \ugY—

Cathy Aguilera (*14)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 9Gov: 23 Barrales-Godino - PhillipsOpp: 18 Mart - JohnsonParliamentary Debate/Novice

Judge's Name: Ac?ii kJ u d g e ' s S c h o o l A f fi l i a t i o n : '

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1 _pts 2U

Prop Speaker #2^ 9.(c

O P P u .Team Code#: CDP(

Prop Speaker #1 Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2

l A a d pts3n


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the tdpic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters suj rt arguments with

evidence— which may include facts and references to autho as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debat respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective re the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

a n d e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the dAaters were to opponents and judges

Using the ab ve criteria, please offer complements and/or suggestions for improvement to <2e a c h d e b a t e r : 7 © ^ d r S u . ' U b k1 X I T s C A ^ ^

I . . .

„wins thirdwaler *"^^ iplxc' hfS^

• t r ,

j a S © - d e h i ,JAM CODE#: OOP 1>S ^"^mrtfiT^

pOttOjg CO)

^ w i n s t h i s

(Prop or(Opp)JREASON FOR, DECISION:

^ron^ ^ OA^jJjrmrdoe ^ftr\ h-fi-j

Vofsood deciS<'>r->^ t o O / j r ^


Qin Yue (*5)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a n n R o o m 4 4 4

G o v : 2 3 K a l l m a n - N i c h o l s

Opp: 20 Baetkey - BlanchardParliamentary pebate/Novice

Judge's Name:



O P P

Prop Speaker #1_

Prop Speaker #2

Opp Speaker#!



27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rud^r inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters an ze the topic and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debars support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and references authority as well as general knowledge• A]|*gumentation: How directly and effectively th ebaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and ef tive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectMthe debaters were to opponents and judges


d u d ^

J l U -

P r o p 2 : - y

O p p 1 : ^ t o t ^

Opp 2: -r A

T E A M C O D E # ; 2 - 0 o n t h e O P Q(Pro/or Opp)


< ^ r r o p o r u p p jR E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : , ^ , n .

O d t ^ i u k ' - " T - •


Qin Yue (*5)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 4

Gov: 12 Kerr-Stein - LeeOpp: 1 Murakami - BocacioParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Prop Speaker # 1 /<Se W-- A pts 2- Opp Speaker #1 c a , c c c ?

Prop Speaker #2 pts_Z^5' Opp Speaker #2

ptsj i fb

pts 2 . "


' 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inapproppime behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the tofnc and the arguments

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters supppft arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and references to author as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debateespond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective w«e the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an orgaid, communicative style that is pleasant

a n d e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the daters were to opponents and judges


P r o p l : ^ v e y u O p p l : ^. U . I / J I t J U H i S L ,

Prop2:

a/id Se>r 4^ ^ Hix. - - '

Opp 2: ^

T E A M C O D E # :


o n t h e C P p V w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(Prop or Opp)

' I N r U K U t U l M U l N : a

Documents

( P r o p o / O p p ) J i y h 7 j r w - v f...wins this debate. 9 T E A M C O D E # : Q _ o n t h e . w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . ( P r o p o / O p p ) J REASON FOR DECISION: . ni