PARLI Debate - Joy of Tournaments filePARLI Debate James Nerny (*6) Round 1A 9:00am D202 Gov; 5 Moser - Murphy Opp: 14 Chin - Rosenfeid Varsity Parii Debate Judge's NameiJ

P A R L I D e b a t e

Emma Sutton (*12)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m J 2Gov : 14 Wh i te - Ha l l

Opp: 27 Gain - GirimonteVarsity Parli Debate

Team Code #:

Judge's Name:

Judge's School AfTiliation:iation:

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1_

Prop Speaker #2

Opp Speaker #1_

Opp Speaker #2

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

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination roumls)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 tl 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 debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and references to authty 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 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 dejoaters were to opponents and judges

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

Prop,: /oppl: \l-v^c \ \

Prop 2:

. A ^\w

D p p 2 : J( ^ \ \ \ - 1 c C o W C C e V x " V «

Opp 2: Va w . . W . 4 . , . w T . -C.wU A-W

T E A M C O D E # :

C X \C. . IU V

I

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 : V

U/WrtW Wtc.-iC- A


James Nerny (*6)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m D 2 0 2Gov; 5 Moser - MurphyOpp: 14 Chin - RosenfeidVarsity Parii Debate

Judge's NameiJ

V/

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #2

Judge's School Affiliation:

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1

ptO-T Opp Speaker >pp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2 ^pts^^C^Please 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 rounds) /

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inapproprjaie 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 topic d 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 references to authority asell as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters resj d 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 th uestions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, conununicative 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 debatersere to opponents and judges

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

P r o p 1 : > 1 ^ - v y O p p 1 :

VCM <^0 . //WGbOED T2>O r -

Prop 2:

(jsDpy /

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

G€)O(0

O-exj^

i r - O r ^ m s t h i s d e b a t e . ^ ^ ^

REASON FOR DECISION/(Prop or Opp)

T o F o f -- a / ) S x /

PA R L I D e b a t e

Karina Giang p8)R o u n d 1 B 9 ; 0 0 a m L 1

G o v : 1 4 W i l c o x - S u t t o n

Opp: 3 Holt - MizinVarsity Parii Debate

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: 'P \JP R O P

Team Code #: Team Code #:

Prop Speaker # 1 ^JcVi

Prop Speaker #2

Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2

p t s

p t s

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 elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the 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 and references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond to the arguments made

by the other side• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters 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 :

P r o p l : ^dijLrt-i'eJ-

P r o p 2 : *

T E A M C O D E # :

Opp 1:

O p p 2 : ^ ^

p r t r fo 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 ) X , f ^ 0 ^REASON FOR DECISION: ^ ^ ^j r V e A / ^ . J ^

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

J c y l / k x .

Judge 1 (*17)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m H 1Gov: 25 Greenberg - KollingOpp: 8 Sawhney - GiangVarsity Pari! Debate

Team Code #:

PARLI Debate

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Mfiliation:

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker # l_jSj

Prop Speaker #2

Opp Speaker

Opp Sperpts Q

Please award each speaker points based on the f lowing scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstaming 28 = Very Good

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

Judgmg Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectiv y the debaters analyze the topic and the argumentsoffered during the debate /

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

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively 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 and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters/speak in an organized, communieative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respeetful 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 : /

Prop 1:Grreo3r VoXA Jr \ H ^ ^ N i / )

/ V r o - f -o'ldev OS W3-5

Opp 2: .

1 ( x V - ^ i / w e s

T E A M C O D E # :


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

r rOpp)

Judge 1 (*17)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m H 1Gov: 15 Aguilera - ZhouOpp: 8 Bardalai - RangwalaVarsity Parli Debate


Judge's Name:

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#]

Prop Speaker #2


Team Code #:

CS Pts 3 Opp Speaker _ V p t s

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 elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude inappropriate behavior

Judg ing Cr i te r ia /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analythe 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 debaters- pport arguments withevidence—which may include facts and references to ai ority as well as general knowledge

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

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an orgzed, communicative style that is pleasanta 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 haters 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 : /

P r o p 1 : % / O p p 1 :" S ' T O Te - A f d / — C r A

— ^ r < 2 i 3 L ^ S i .

Prop 2: r r V b IxA i (A \5h""Opp 2:

~(yr\£.a3< f<5X5' cViA/sO

Si-i Pfysr-v y ur ajr ujv)e.M4*

0 V iOC *T E A M C O D E # ;


o n t h e wins th is debate.

(Propfo pD)

r 3 ^ \ ^ n J l ^ y V ^ P C X A ^ l J i û j i S A j e ,


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliatio

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2

Team Code #:

■7.1 Opp Speaker #1_ CAPOpp Speaker #2 CiMi

^ 2 3_ p ^





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



/

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

Propli-' A/I STA r~ nrioppl; 6p<W(r V/O'Ot •

-osur iÂ/'6^4^/(5

TEAM CODE #: on the (y wins this debate.( P r o p o r O p p ) _ ^ ,

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : a . \ ' v 1 ^ ^

Doug Barton (*23)R o u n d 1 A 9 ; 0 0 a m D 2 0 4

Gov: 15 Kapoor - BergerOpp: 19 Gil - KaurVarsity Parii Debate


Judge's Name: j)oi

Judge's Schoo/Affiliation:P R O P

Team Code #: Te a m C o d e

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_

pts opp Speakei l_ UfM€&r Kfiu/t pts^?pts ^ Opp Speêr #2 xL pts^ 7"

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

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

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectiveby the debaters analyze the topic and the arguments

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

evidence—^which may include facts am references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and etfectively 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 £ind effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters sneak 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 ofmr compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

OPPl:

Jt -Opp 2:

TEAM CODE #: /T on the 6/^P ^wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : / ' ^ M i

/ t V ^ - y

Doug Barton (*23)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m D 2 0 4G o v : 1 4 D a h a n - W i l l i a m s - B a r o n

Opp: 16 Herman - SweeneyVarsity Parii Debate


Judge's Name:_ T)pu 'dAkro/Judge's School Affiliation:

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2_

P R O P .Team Code #: j b

p ts Opp Speake r # 1

pts Opp Speaker #2_


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rmmds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inaj^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 the topic and the arguments


evidence— which may include facts and references to authpnty 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 were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organ 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 debaters were to opponents and judges


Propl: A

Prop 2:

P o lOpp 2:

T E A M C O D E # :


on the Urjr wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)I u p u i \ - / p p ^ t


Vincent Banas (*13)R o u n d 1 A 9 ; 0 0 a m J 3

Gov: 14 Krause - HwongOpp: 16 Hsieh - RoyVarsity Pari! Debate

P R O PTe a m C o d e U : 1 H

Prop Speaker # 1 r<^tA S ^

Prop Speaker #2 Ha/oy^

Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation: /

OPlTeam Code #: /

pts^^ Opp Speaker # 1 h _5

PtsOpp Speaker #2 P.pts_ 3ptsS ?

Please award each speaker points based on the following srale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28yveryGood

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

Judging Criterm• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debêrs analyze the topic and the arguments


evidence—which may include facts and referents to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively me 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 in aryorganized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

Using the above criteria, please offer com]e a c h d e b a t e r : i

Propl: ,

^ ^ / .

Vxop2:* dl

liments and/or suggestions for improvement to

O p p l ; -

. < ? y c

' 4Xr-f.

TEAM CODE #: f b on the _y^^L__wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)


C S ' 1 h< .


Vincent Banas (*13)R o u n d 1 B 9 ; 0 0 a m J 3Gov : 8 Yu - Mak inen i

Opp: 15 Stephen - MiskelleyVarsity Pari! Debate

Judge's Name:


5

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Team Code #:

Pts. Opp Speaker #1 /M i 5

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


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to quality for elimination/ounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or iiiappropriate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyzee 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 debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and references to autl rity as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debars 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 orgar 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 d aters were to opponents and judges

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

P r o p 1 : , 5 f f O p p 1 : C ~ l & t M j

Vm'pl-.-ClsaA + ( OcA r

T E A M C O D E # :



(Prop or Opp)

A / O ^ / <

Opher Peled (*15)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m D 2 0 3Gov: 21 Masters - FehringOpp: 6 Jia - JiangVarsity Pari! Debate


J u d g e ' s N a m e : C ■

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's School Affiiiati

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker # I _VAa<vProp Speaker #2

pts '2f\ Opp Speaker # I v^vw

pts Z.^ 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 tVqualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively th 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 and rperences to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effeaively 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 relevantyond 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 resctful the debaters were to opponents and judges


P r o p l : . \

f : " A & < . 1C T C I O ^ C "

ct(-

Prop 2: 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)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :

, - e s ^ c — ^

Opher Peled (MS)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m D 2 0 3

Gov: 8 Su - Her

Opp: 23 He - BartenettiVarsity Pari! Debate

Team Code #:P R O P

Prop Speaker # 1

Prop Speaker #2_


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: \l\w<r^

Team Code #:

pts_2^ Opp Speaker # 1 pts 7^pts '~L ' \ Opp Speaker #2 2 pts 2/1


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination roun26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappw^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 toj 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 debaters support uments withevidence— which may include facts and references to authority aywell as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respd 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 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 debaters wwe to opponents and judges

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

Prop 2:

T E A M C O D E

We-

O p p f/ V V U J ^

Opp 2:



(Prop or Opp)


Emma Sutton (*12)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m J 2

G o v : 1 0 G a o - P a r e e k

Opp: 4 Feinberg - Wolf-JacobsVarsity Parli Debate

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: 3 ^

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2

P R O P_ A 0 Team Code #:

Opp speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2

/

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

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

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

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


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 spk in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant


Using the above criteria, please ouer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : / ^P r o p l : O p p l i V c w ^ vPropl:

Prop 2: Croc)s'- iXA - - N - v V c o v - » ^

TEAM CODE #: \ on the ^

k

O p p 2 : V r X-.A- V vAcUAv.-''' Wr-V-'J

c 0 ^ 0 ^ ^- P \ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .o n t h e

V (Prop or Opp)y ( P r o p o r O p p ) . \ v ^ u c -REASON FOR DECISION: Q)^bt..V VtrAvv, CovAv-e^ dou- r vy^ ?

C v e ^ V ' ^ >V r > < X N r C v A 4 _ ^ » . - V ' . \V > ^ CcV5«^tA \Ft a-.Â


Ted Appel {*24)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m K 3

G o v : 8 M e h t a - A l v a r e zOpp: 14 Cohen-Simayof - DrakeVarsity Pari! Debate

j ' s N a m e :

Judge's School Affiliation/ AcfS.A

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#! P ts

Prop Speaker #2 pts^^ Opp Speaker #2 {jPlease award each speaker points based on the following ale:

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 / Very Good27 = Good (but possib!y not good enough to qu ify for elimination rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Rested 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 efflcientlyme debaters support arguments withevidence—^which may include facts and reMences to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effecti/ely 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 md 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 resMCtful the debaters were to opponents and judges


Prop 1: D p p 1 - c

Prop 2:

T E A M C O D E

Opp 2:P F

[/wvcaJV

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


A"

Ted Appel ^24)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m K 3

G o v ; 2 1 K a t e w a - C o l e n b r a n d e r

Opp: 23 Fulop - BennettVarsity Pari! Debate


Judge's Name:


P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#! pts_ £P Opp Speaker #1

pts Opp Speaker #2_^£Avv£2T_

p t s

_pts 9-^


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


evidence— which may include facts and references to authm? y 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 d aters were to opponents and judges


dbz^ yAc^'r AacIC. /AHcu/

Prop 2: . - . p

T E A M C O D E # :


on the 0?P wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)


Karina Giang (*8)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m L 1G o v : 1 3 S i n h a - H e r m a n

Opp: 6 Visht - KoshkinVarsity Pari! Debate

Judge's Name:

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's School Affiliation: / 1*■■■/

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

- t / : Z

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2_

Opp Speaker#!

5 Opp Speaker #y kfoSH IC/A.

Please award each speaker points based on the foIloWing scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstandii^g 28 = Very Good

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

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the topic and the argumentso f fe red dur ing the debate /

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

• Argumentation: How directly and/effectively 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 and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debates speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant


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

Propl:

Prop 2: ifa j Opp 2:

' 7 r

TEAM CODE #; on the ^ •■gy^wins this debate.^ (Prop or Oplp)lEASON FOR DECISION: J I

^ < 2 ^

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : l ua a J.d

Svetlana Partsuf (*3)R o u n d 1 A 9 ; 0 0 a m H 2Gov: 27 Skarr - EscarcegaOpp: 11 Barnes - GilleVarsity Parii Debate

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Aftlliation:

T e a m C o d e L

pts 2. Sopp Speaker #1p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 _

ptsJZ S'pts ^"7




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


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

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

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

Opp 1:

4 •

Prop 2:

P r o p 1 : / O p p 1 :

P r o p 2 : — g J G O p p 2 : ^ ^ O

o n t h e k V I P P w i n s t h i s( P r o p o r O p p ) I I

TEAM CODE #: 2- / on the PVPft wins this debate. iS \X( P r o p o r 6 p p ) . 1REASON FOR DECISION: ^

A p ^ U J f Q A j u O f K i W - —

M/ut'

Svetlana Partsuf (*3)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m H 2

Gov: 5 Carter - WyattOpp: 15 Hardwick - DerVarsity Pari! Debate

P R O PTeam Code #: 5

Prop Speaker #2_


Judge's Name:


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

pts 2. Opp Speaker #1_|p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 _ W i C

2.^









l A i t s f H f SP r o p l : V e < ^ C U ^ i ^ O p p l : ^ —

I t s . ^ ^ ^ ^P r o p 2 . ^

h U A i S P . hJ S > S ^ A « M r J k A t f t k ?T E A M C O D E # : O o n t h e P y V P w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . ^ k \ \ / V

( P r o p o r J p p ) \ ^ / y ^ t k r

Prop 2:

de^ /U, hv^T E A M C O D E # : O o n t h e I

( P r o p o r d p p ) N . /R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : ^ J ^ \ ^ , v ^

/ ^ ^ l i v o A . r - M S h o

r^kS ci /ra uÂAe^-t ,

Albert Yee (*14)R o u n d 1 A 9 ; 0 0 a m D 2 0 1

G o v : 1 0 K a u s h i k - E b t i k a r

Opp: 5 Viviani - CunninghamVarsity Parii Debate

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker # 1

Prop Speaker #2_


Judge's Name;


Team Code #:

pts. Opp Speaker # 1

Pts (2. y. Opp Speaker #2Please 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 rounds)

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







. Top I cJ l ^ 7 -5 " •W ) c I u a . ^ T o p ^ \

/ / > . f . . L l(Ajdip C^^LL a

TEAM CODE #: ^ on the

^ i r c d c t -

REASON FOR,DECISION:

o n t h e ■> _ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(Prop or Opp) ( "(d

^ KjJ(t -vtjiiu' C<. CaM.CLi\elM- l> 'H i-(ylf ,

5 lAi ev IS < 'uj(c J> 7if>'v

2 '

f4 Jh~^ 1^- .

5;- -I


Albert Yee (*14)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m D 2 0 1G o v : 2 6 K o r n f e i n - R a e s f e l d

Opp: 10 Ganguli - SanghviVarsity Pari! Debate

Judge's Name:

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's School Affiliation

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker # 1

Prop Speaker #2_

Opp Speaker # 1

Opp Speaker #2_

•jS-









Opp 1:

Prop 2:

i t . ^ : . s i J . : . 4 ^ ^ ^

T E A M C O D E # : on the . wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)


(S /u( /fus, Ce"

(/eo.


P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation: /;

Team Code #:

P r o p S p e a k e r # ! O p p S p e a k e r # 1 _

P r o p S p e a k e r # 2 _ O p p S p e a k e r # 2W H t s Opp Speaker #2









P r o p 1 : O p p 1 :

/ V i U ^

P r o p 2 : O p p 2 :

T E A I S l C O D E # : o n d e b a t e . . C & r C f y ^


7 p - .

/ W i r e ' p y i A - ^ ^


Bonnie Hayne (*25)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m D 2 0 7Gov: 21 Mubarack - TroupOpp: 27 Ernst - DavisVarsity Parii Debate

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2_

Judge's Name:_ Pb/l/A//€.


O P PTeam Code #:

pts 9- Opp Speaker # 1 _ptsi? Opp Speaker #2_

Pts 3_p.sM



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



by the other side• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the queistions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, corruhunicative style that is pleasant

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

/

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

Prop 1:'/[J\Ui

( p n f W t A / t ^

0 ^ d

Opp 2:

\JjL^

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

Prop 2:

T E A M C O D E # : U l



(Prop or Opp)

/ K l / ^

- t v 4


Vishal Garg ^22)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m K 2

Gov: 27 Hatcher - ButlerOpp: lOLiUvMefvyVarsity Pari! Debate

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Opp Speaker # 1

Opp Speaker #2

Vs

pts ^ 0-p._3. T) ^

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Vei3ood27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify fcelimination rounds)

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debateranalyze 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 daters support arguments withevidence— which may include facts and reference/to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively tldebaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant £ind eff( tive were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak 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 sugg tums for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : / . . . 1 1 ( X ) ' f e

Prop 1:

\Jô£jSr ÔppT:^ i <, « A

-A * ,

0 0 e ( h ' ^ ^f iSr 79^ ^

^ t

f tf c - ^ f c i s i c

I

*0S2-.

r E A M C O


o n t h e

P r ApO)

C i rw i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

3>o

(Prop or Opp)

CVA^

o x t djlfotry


Vishal Garg ^22)R o u n d I B 9 : 0 0 a m K 2

Gov: 6 Boozarpour - LiOpp: 27 Inman - YoungVarsity Parii Debate

Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation:_

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#]

Prop Speaker #2_

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#]

Opp Speaker #2

IVw ^v\ ptsÔ









Propl: Opp l : \ A

SET

#rOpp 2: 7 0uv2

i k f r

T E A M C O D E # :-tr tS-

— | t N t - H / r * • v ^

REASON FOR DECIstoiTKiy«- vAjfit SOWAC?

^ f p

j n f pnpi fi lp 1/ 1 f wins th is debate.( P r o p o r O p p ) J I

Peter Brown (*27) ^ ^R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m J 1

G o v : 1 5 B a n i s a d r - W e i n e rOpp: 8 Vadrevu - NandaVarsity Pari! Debate


Judge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation: \A^ ^

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker W,

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2

pts'Z-^


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



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


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

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

Prop 1: O p p l : ^ e a V s ^

p o I ' I V r ^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 .

( P r o p o r O p p ) u

^ A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N i ^ l ^ ^ ^ *a-rvJ'

Peter Brown (*27)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m J 1Gov: 3 Rubsamen - SkepnerOpp: 5 DeWitt - KelleyVarsity Pari! Debate

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2


Judge's Name:


O P PTeam Code #:

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

pts_ rT_ Opp Speaker #2_Kj\

p t s

/pts^'7


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for eliminatiem 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 analy 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 debater upport arguments withevidence—^which may include facts and references to aumority as well as general knowledge

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

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an org ized, communicative style that is pleasanta n d e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e /


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

y

(3^ S4rAi UO v \ P 0 > t 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

VU/. DvrÔ s4^0»-r-v

: ? / on the _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

)ECISION: -Wws Vn^

Joel Jacobs (M)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m K 4Gov: 26 Picchi - OwyangOpp: 14 Shin - ShevelevVarsity Parii Debate

Te a m C o d e # :

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2

P R O P

ficAupts2j5_


Judge's Name:_


Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2

Please award each speaker points based on the followin^êale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding Very Good

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to Maiify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Rêrved for rude or inappropriate behavior24-20 = Poo r

Judging Cdteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively thebaters analyze the topic and the argumentsoffered during the debate /

• Evidence: How appropriately and eff iciently the debaters support arguments with \evidence—^which may include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effe ively 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 relevam;ând effective were the questions and the answers \• Delivery: How well the debaters sp ak 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 7 i C• Courtesy: How courteous and re ectful the debaters were to opponents and judges pQO• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the dejiaters were to opponents and judges Pqo ONL^^b uWjIfr

l A . * * * • 1 ' ' ^ f e r 6 6 3 w a > 3 0 • ' N

/KjjW- kip ij jfiiuu i^t ^ <»'»e (^j ifr y. ^ ^

3 0*0\ar |o(L,q(M C I

U/orK.A

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

REASON FOR DECISION: T1I'5 V. 4? JtAilcvj/o b«tt« /\cjy f l / i t l L J _ A - . . ^ v l ' \ . S - /

Off 0&'hf( '

Joel Jacobs (*4)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m K 4G o v : 2 4 H a n s e n - B e a t i e

Opp: 3 Stamm-Kirk - BurshteynVarsity Parli Debate

P R O PTeam Code #:


Judge's Name:_


Te a m C o d e

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2 p,s25Opp Speaker#! S -K

Opp Speaker #2

o ts^J_pts_Z


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 topic d 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 references to authority vell 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 thd questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, commimicative 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 debateri^were t040pppnents and judges Ij

Using the above criteria, plea&e^ffer compliments ^lul/or simgestions for u «^ e a c h d e b a t e r : ' 5 - W ' S -L . . , l . . j - . - J r ^ a a c a % . 4 ^ k t ' W fl b - O t T f f ( A - i i f i / \ i a S . r : t e \ V f

ffer compliments and/or suggestions for in'S' 'Wci«b-otr MiaK' i r m « ?-

A W T K w ^ w s J l i .■ ( M e t . ,/)^ ceji • ^ W o<»t '0^^. cjcv"

U f /kr t , 0!>Jusi fn a Mr pruM oVeryiOi/} , - f t ' /v»TEAM CODE #: ^ on the Upf wins thisêbate. ^ Sjy . J

fProiJ or Opp)

i M % J p i i nU / 1 0 ^ ( A l ^ / ) T 6 ^ a b c / i A W ^

Op>P -Sf Ua po-iiI 4 « A / l i t W e A c h r V

ir)0>rcji/ '

(Kfcn

«» «3isfe «'^Sifa a*-''TWjso(4


Danica Tanquilut {*^ 1)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m D 2 0 9

G o v : 1 5 F i s h l o w - F i s h l o w

Opp: 21 Cheng - ShifsVarsity Pari! Debate

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation

P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code #:

Prop Speaker # 1 V^. pts Opp Speaker # 1Prop Speaker #2_ Opp Speaker #2

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeGood27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify fw elimination rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reservec or rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debates 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 refereies to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelV 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 andyeffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

P r o p 1 1 - ( k x *

o^ôYve/t rV5 cx>vAcX /

"IVt Orti£/rs

P r o p 2 : o A - ^ r r v c ^ ^

% c3JAXC ; OJl OrAt/rt* £>f

Opp 1:" C / s a A C V - t - W

- .SVNx>w.\tX -Sp^/micV -tTcr^

cxiCv' a'VT~v/C-Vtoc:

Opp 2:C V c v r r ' - H o M r ? ^ ^ ( k j L f D r X ^

vv>jv/€-kv >c»c <^pprv>v/0cX

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

C K d j L A % O V x j ^ A ^ - i V e o ^ C < j e > ^ - € c lU r£/1 r€X c>Ai:A uJWerVVMyx OY- vno-P* V\jt, Vx c- s


Danica Tanquilut (*^^)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m D 2 0 9

Gov : 14 Su t t on - Moon

Opp: 25 Saxena - DuncanVarsity Pari! Debate

Judge's Name: ' ICaVXQJvv/ lWy\jC/


P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

Team Code #:

p ts Opp Speaker # 1

pts_2 Opp Speaker #2 Pts 5d

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: X30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good y/27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for eliminati rounds)

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

Judg ing Cr i te r ia /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analy the topic and the arguments


evidence—which may include facts and references to ithority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the dwaters respond to the cirguments made

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

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

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

Prop 1:\Jbt Of -^:Or6 vAjVAATNt

^ sy>eM:VW>/P r o p 2 : /Xe Opp

S W x A ( A V v w e v Y u :

Oppl

Opp 2:

C«vAc^

T E A M C O D E # :

V Y v o r ^

on the ^ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

REASON FOR DECISIONMJ 0- f r N D A " o c K / Y \ \ > t ' i

V€. v.'-'seA TrsC i e - V - t r / i J k ^ O s r v — '

uj)/>'VA^Shingwekar(*10)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m D 2 0 8

Gov: 27 Chu - FragaOpp: 13 Cummings - AdrianoVarsity Pari! Debate

P R O PTeam Code #: 2 '9"


J u d g e ' s N a m e : / A / ^

Judge's School Affiliation: V / ^

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker # I A pts_2,2_ Opp Speaker # 1 u. yy/v pts 2 9^

Prop Speaker #2 C K pts 1 ^ Opp Speaker #2 y ^ Aa ^0 pts 2-9'

Please award each speaker points based on the followincale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 2^ = Very Good

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

Judging Criteria• 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 efficiently me debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and refeoences to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively 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 any effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant


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

P r o p 1 : AU l c e s l o f h J /

^ u r & j c U , c1 ^ \ C A ^ I

Prop 2:"TaA-^

Opp 1:

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)

a P A v^1^ Shingwekar (*10)R o u n d 1 B 9 ; 0 0 a m D 2 0 8Gov : 3 Boo th - P raca r

Opp: 15 Fogarty - PisterVarsity Pari! Debate

P R O PTeam Code #:


Judge's Name: lA-P ^ 5"u/g

J u d g e ' s S c h o o l A f f i l i a t i o n : / - }■

O P PTeam Code #: I ^

Prop Speaker #1 1s OQ pts_2_2. Opp Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2 Pts 0 ^ Opp Speaker #2 FiP,

pts 9-5

pts ^ y


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds) /26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inapprop te 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 topic/ d 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 ar ments with

evidence—which may include facts and references to authority asell 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 th uestions 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 debaters 's re to opponents and judges

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

P i L . c U h a h t . ' W ku u o

Prop 2: Opp 2:

T E A M C O D E # :



(Prop or Opp)


Nadeem Alam (*19)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m K 1

Gov: 6 Reyna - YangOpp: 15 Ginsburg - ZhouVarsity Pari! Debate

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation:^

Team Code #:

pts 2-P Opp Speaker # 1

(e. Vc\\

Prop Speaker #2 Opp Speaker #2

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

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatecs 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 the baters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and refereis to authority as well as general knowledge

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

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in4n organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /


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

Prop-i:

Prop 2: t\OL \Jo\

Oppl :

Opp 2: tO\o? geWW

T E A M C O D E # : o n t h e T t w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(Prop or Opp)



Nadeem Alam (*19)R o u n d 1 B 9 ; 0 0 a m K 1Gov: 5 White - WhitmoreOpp: 4 Cramer - GriffinVarsity Parii Debate

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: WNoWP R O P

Team Code #: Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1_ Opp Speaker#! C.cfc\xAje/

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 hi

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: X30 = 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 rude inappropriate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analy 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 debater/support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and references to thority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the dwaters 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 effectwe were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an omanized, communicative style that is pleasant

and eas i ly unders tandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful thydebaters were to opponents and judges

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

P r o p l : / O p p l :

T E A M C O D E # :


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

Brian NUKon Stono (*16)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m D 2 0 6

G o v : 2 7 M a l f a v o n - H u l e t t

Opp: 6 Gong - LiVarsity Parii Debate


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: M oAt:

Team Code #:P R O P

Z - 7 Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #lLaul?v. pts_2X- OpP Speaker # 1 AuS-Vi L> ptsProp Speaker #2 Cecilc/- HuUtf pts 2. Opp Speaker #2 tc cvr<: Gor)i\ p|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 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 analyzee 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 debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and references to auority as well as general knowledgeArgumentation: How directly and effectively 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 and effectiveywere the questions and the answersDelivery: How well the debaters speak in an orgzed, communicative style that is pleasanta 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 d aters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer complments 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 :W - i -

C c i - r c e A : * K * \ c / A ^ C e x % * * y

0 0 / ^

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

V e / U C e . r ( * r / 2 K . A ; t r 4 i e ^ f y - s . ' i f \ C e t S i G ^ ' ^

« i > C C C « « V * - © " F ^ ^ r < * v - y v jt)-4-V\JI 5"VOr;ftci-^ O

Prop 2:— Ct4K- \ o«v <l53LS OO"—^

i-wLs^^TO'S G.cis^, tsKT

I I W

v > o « - ' - V L

— S>p«a\<i I mof^ -fci-na." -tVvs^c.

T E A M C O D E # :


-tKC. >«vxj5«ct5. "ifSj ©^1

e < e e , o f - FI . l v \ 4 _ d / ^ o s !

1-S

on the Q pp wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

^ ^G e c ^ S O p p e ^ p V o . v ^ s .1 O p p S V W i m - a . ^ c y i s|S^ is <-»5V>+ pcMs Ota. 2«.X«X5|.\ ^ -HvoVs ./>s»-fpc;e*r -tVv^rvx.


Kon Stono (*16)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a n n D 2 0 6

Gov: 6 Deng - QianOpp: 27 Amato - RingstromVarsity Pari! Debate

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's Name:

Judge's School AfTiliation: MoA-tg

Team Code #:

P r o p S p e a k e r # 1 ^ P ^ - Opp Speaker # 1 M 'cV>c(6S

Prop Speaker #2Miacv pts. Opp Speaker #2 LmCaS

^ 7

/Vr>erV t» pts

. I A p t s

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 elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for mde or inappropriat behavior

/Judging Criteria

• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the topic aijd 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 debaters support arguments withevidence— which may include facts and references to authority as vpW as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respom 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 th uestions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasanta 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 debaters yvere to opponents and judges

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

Prop 1:

- - i c . 1 ' • « — i S i J l rP r o p 2 : " - a - - 7

" U v j t < v u t .

CMp 1:

r e « t > c - ' » s « A - t s • * * ! « . . < -

i i * > C A * "

Opp 2:

li'v»*e)e

i S A V

-

h i - *

r « . - * - n > b i y c f ' C i V ^ ' + t - l < = r t e i t S - t r ; i > « • -- W t A . S o « « c v » ^ ' . i

T E A M C O D E # :


J. CcrruL v«2r^CAA hc««A« SciYvo.

H Ouc»e.v«r,

" v . A e . \ a a r > t B £ . s / <

" P r t J T J t - r

f e S T t b r » r t i v ^

r s - fi / v t s . r- h A * 5

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

(Prop or Opp)

t o V C T * T ^ t > < a - s i s

C^r>:; ctKAJtA<ct.s^ w»cu> eKS eLcrôoryitot.cAr r > e < - ^ i

, r i n e . a l o e .p i r r « \ « « - e » A . - l - - f - o ' ♦ . v e . — r +

E>-t "tKja.

« 4 « V x v « s «

re-hSb«t»c/« i-+se,-f Kl<


Jesse MacKinnon (*5)R o u n d 1 A 9 ; 0 0 a m D 2 0 5G o v : 2 7 R o s e n t h a l - D o n d e r o

Opp: 14 Yee - MorrellVarsity Parii Debate

Judge's Name; 3 : RJudge's School Affiliation:

P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

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

Opp Speaker #2_ y\eju'^ptsOS

_ pts^


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


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


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

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

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

I P r o p l : , L l \ A O p p 1 :

^ P r n n ^ ^ O n n 9 * / ' N - A . AProof

V C i ^

^ P P 2 : .

T E A M C O D E # :


on the_0_ ^ wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)


Jesse MacKinnon (*5)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m D 2 0 5Gov ; 14 Yan - Chu

Opp: 27 Shimizu - McDowellVarsity Pari! Debate

Judge's Name:

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2


. Team Code #:

pts_2j_ Opp Speaker # 1ptsQ^ Opp Speaker#2 ptsQ>

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



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


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 organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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


P r o p l : / O p p l :Vool 4or,

Opp 2:

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


^Katrina Fehring (*21)Round 1 9;00am L2 (single flight)Gov : 6 F i r sov - KwakOpp: 14 Lustig - GerenrotVarsity Pari! Debate


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: nw

P R O P.Team Code #: Team Code #:

P r o p S p e a k e r # 1 p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 1

Prop Speaker #2 pts* ^ Opp Speaker #2__ _£/TfOpp Speaker #2 ^/IT^*^^2

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: X30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good

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

Judging Cri ter ia /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anale 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 debat support arguments withevidence—^which may include facts and references to/Quthority as well as general knowledge

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

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

• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful me 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 : /

i oc?A voU^ l>#

V b e i - ^

\ 0 A » - V r I

, 0 - ^ , ( >2? tewn«^ \ t v ycp^ j - " ^ U i / v. 1 - y?cr , - ^ o a U M + * >

r e N O -f t o v ' T ? O -^ ^ team CODg#: I ■ I on th<

Oppl: \/ji jjwf j3reS<2<.>:>7v.ow a - H ^ ^ ^

a(l. vvttl .

O p p 2 : b » ^ ^ 4 \ U * i ~ "V I ? f ^ k j e x P ^ r i

^ vv/il\ IpC. fOWa^' 'f(- /! O ■ "'P e-y- b :z con fni

V.. II t« 5vtv>,€,.C o x / ^

TEAM CODE^r the Oh w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(Prop nr Opp)0 R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N ! , , , J d / 1 1 , ^ '

p r . - U w e \ \

vw/oCe V> V ) CLy^-A. \t?[ ^ Covx'it'?i7vj /V lf .

Documents

PARLI Debate - Joy of Tournaments filePARLI Debate James Nerny (*6) Round 1A 9:00am D202 Gov; 5 Moser - Murphy Opp: 14 Chin - Rosenfeid Varsity Parii Debate Judge's NameiJ