Cs-SCynthia Nakahara (*14)Round 4A 3:30pm C4 , r L <- 'JPro: 7 Kambath - Rapolu l nCon: 20 Fung - PlantVarsity Public Forum

Team Code #:

Pro Speaker #1_

Pro Speaker #2_

P R O :

RapoI

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name: flmi-P PtslinJudge's School Affiliation:

CON: vjTeam Code #: 2-0

)ts 2/1 Con Speaker#1

pts Con Speaker#2 F^CtQl

pts ^p.s2

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 round26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropri behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in tKe topic? Was the

e x p l a n a t i o n c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e ? /• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinions, or illustrations?

W a s t h e e v i d e n c e c r e d i b l e ? /• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the deba drawn from evidence and

analysis? Were arguments logically built? /• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSriRE: Were quesds relevant and brief? Were answerson point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil mamier?

• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments of the opposition withanalysis, evidence, or reasoning? /• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an org ized, communicative style that was pleasantand easily understandable? /

Using the above criteria, please offer coi liments and/or suggestions forimprovement to each debater: /

clIsocon-Wxc+

I V ' - ■ J V

c lear

P r o 2 : X c C o n 2 : . 9 + 1 ^ cV LO\-Vh

OPvaevHVC.VC^ ^ \ f ( t c>v^ -Kc) -< i rvT

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 :

o n t h e

C <o y-x-fyxC-"V VC>AC:

yro _wins this debate.iO>r CON)

' T e a ^ v e r ^ cpO(n4s L ce brilliao+l c:ov/ey€cA

AinriiCCyiilhia Nakahara f14)Round 4B 3;30pm C4Pro: 13 Wang - DerC o n : 5 B a s r a i - H a l a b u r d a

Varsity Public Forum

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name:_ Cs6/,l i n t i n n :

Team Code #:P R O :

Pro Speaker #1

Pro Speaker #2

Judge's School Affiliation:C O N :

Team Code #: ^

p ts Con Speake r #1_

pts Con Speaker #2_ fSasraPlease 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

Judging Criteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topic? Was the

explanation clear and concise?• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinions, or illustrations'

Was the evidence credible?• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the debater drawn from evidence apd' ^

analysis? Were arguments logically built?• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were questions relevant and brief?were answers

on point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil manner?• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments of th pposition with

analysis, evidence, or reasoning?• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organized, communicative style that was pleasant

a 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 compliments a /or suggestions fori m p r o v e m e n t t o e a c h d e b a t e r : /

P r o c c r w j \ y ^ c

c o t n - V c x c " ^ , /b c ro'5'^-Vt re, vMeJiTV <5 K- /

Cci)/]- -po\i"le - Kfi-C p 4o/ v - < . v u - \ f o y v e ,

• 6 . o o v - c - e S ^r v ^ a l

Con2 : - ^ )<ce ( l ^ i ^+ i -Wd i ^\ f e . r c . \ v v t o c L i

b c x C \ U D « " t - Kr e s e c x - v - d l —

. C r o f t

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 .(PRO oi(cm)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : . , . f L u+ , t - c v . V > ^ S > n T ^ f G \ - c C x \ I

'X-eo-vvN UUJCXS' CO r\ x/v vn c V ^ icLeaSc 2 > ^ V p l e A c p - C v ' r ^ c i ^

A e c c w - s r v - v c o ( S c ^ I ' T v e - ^ - C V.<— Owy-\cl c e. Avv

DO \rx'V

eAS. ( .

Bo Kovitz riO)Round 4A 3:30pm C5Pro: 13 Ginsburg - ZhouCon: 6 Kur tz -Mio t t - L i

Varsity Public Forum

Team Code #:P R O :

Pro Speaker #1_

Pro Speaker #2_ClNSP^

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name: t) kTDV/

Judge's School Affiliation:C O N :

Team Code #:

p t s C o n S p e a k e r # 1

pts ^ Con Speaker #2 ^ i^TTPts_^

n

Please award each speaker points based on the fo l lowing scale: y30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good

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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topic? Was the

e x p l a n a t i o n c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e ? /• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinions, or illustrations?

W a s t h e e v i d e n c e c r e d i b l e ? /• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the debater drn from evidence and

analysis? Were arguments logically built? /• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were questions puevant and brief? Were answers

on point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil mannery• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments of the opposition with

analysis, evidence, or reasoning? /• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organiyd, communicative style that was pleasant

and eas i l y unde rs tandab le? /

Using the above criteria, please offer comp ents and/or suggestions forimprovement to each debater: /

/ *

P r o 1 : C o n l : C h u ^ P o i ^ . ^

^ h j b ^ ^ y T t u ' /

. - r - ^I.

onl: Griu< Ob\K .e s c w H P ' - e ^ / ^

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 :

o n t h e ^ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(PRO or CON)

«AArie^yii%crvxc-fe:2_.<^ p/f/WKnce e n u ^ i v t e u t e C X ! J U J < S W ^

F J V i C f c r r l A / i n l \ K M > A c ^ r ^ t s u r r C C A L A y T ^ ( ? 7 S 4 r ^\J\^aavULX:> Hfn/^ /^Tf/q^t^CP tfe79D-C«M V]A lLeTF€rr/l/tW

Bo Kovitz (*10)Round 4B 3:30pm C5Pro: 11 Ganesh - DonthiCon: 14 Nakahara - SeaveyVarsity Public Forum

P R O :Team Code #: l/l

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:C O N :

Team Code #: ^

P r o S p e a k e r # 1 p t s C o n S p e a k e r # 1 pts

P r o S p e a k e r # 2 p t s C o n S p e a k e r # 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 or inappropriate behaKnor

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topi( Was thee x p l a n a t i o n c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e ? /

• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinions, or illustrations?W a s t h e e v i d e n c e c r e d i b l e ? /

• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the debater drawn/rrom evidence andanalysis? Were arguments logically built? /

• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were questions relevant and brief? Were answerson point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil manner? /

• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments of the opposition withanalysis, evidence, or reasoning? /

• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organized, mmunicative style that was 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 complimrats and/or suggestions forimprovement to each debater: /

yP r o 2 - M u C o n 2 - ( J

f (eoTEAM CODE #: 11 on the 4^1531^ wins this debate.

(PRO or CON)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :

A f p

-«x I hST" .^NT^^'^

S<5V'A)-r"

0^^ !h^

,13? ,'-f

■; i u^V

i^oAT

' >

i/M/, cew^

A(ec[Ui te»pmstB-CLfT^:

erd.UL / f(<m5 /yKX5rz(Jp f c ^ 5 / c J > L 5

^e>6^tTt^ P lf<Stb (L^'Zl 0 €72^ vrcfV)c&Aj 5 ^ t'trvtjer,

Co/z> fiAp k U-d/(/c2'U- ,c c ( i ^ c r v T

^ wu'efu/vA i/u.€Ai/wv l tx)wruJ^»t/tcc • TA^e .PdMtJLLsMc^ -W-/J /AA.J t 'fZ yU . tw CcuM

«/up t r r tH j / c -e ^ j-f/tLiito all&uAU^

i cfio<yinA,-c4 cuocJ fxtt-fall&uAU^oJaw ^ pvfi. (pW\

TV The (Ucui eis dzt ye T/noiii\y\ 'hAj f\vc\ p(a ^

)P fWCPrriG2^ 3\ t ^ % p r m - ^ ! V f ^ r ^ ^

r- \Z.W^TSLA^&^ -UJlOf , ITS» e6T0r( nulOv [Kr -VUSTLtyyiod.u5i-rH_^ Ttm^ nn./^o^.

" a5" "<-5 a ' i'-g l€ (f HTTTrSliA-Pf C<J£Tfz- ' losvi PTt ■fU-i-.¥i~e>uj ■ ■■^ peXOT-TAiT -P/ ,STTU 1£ ItUNMiAXy

U H C ^ S f e A I < C € > e S ,^ C.ovu-A-crKx /2_* r jAu^ rtL^MM.T) tAr^P^C^"^ TlA^fe^ -7CO,

Christina Arias (*23)Round 4A 3:30pm C7P r o ; 1 3 C h o w - A n s e lC o n : 11 M e d a - S e k a r

Varsity Public Forum

P R O :Team Code#: \'%s'

Pro Speaker#!

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

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation:/ - V

C - J

C O N :Team Code #:

)ts Con Speaker # 1 Mf-'' r'- O

Con Speaker #2

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: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topic? WjiS he

explanation clear and concise?• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opiniopsfor illustrations?

Was the evidence credible?• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the debater drawmfrom evidence and

analysis? Were arguments logically built?• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were questions reliant and brief? Were answerson point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil manner?

• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments of the opposition withanalysis, evidence, or reasoning? /

• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organiz , communicative style that was pleasantand eas i l y unders tandab le? /

Using the above criteria, please offer com iments and/or suggestions forimprovement to each deba te r : /

Pro 1: .

Pro 2:

Q M d r .

iCon 1 :

Con 2:

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 :

U^^C3Y•^ TV. VS 'i

o n t h e _ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(PRO or CON)

. c r r O j P - V W t rv j f : ^ V

■tVji ^ bo *;, vc- \ C\\cr~,^i VD I ' 'VI S WgcU V< \W .

C o A ^t>rrxj( S-Vv'^>^^ CAr^.vrV —y ^ 6 V>{^u« n ^ ^

ynV''.-^ V^'SV - X i i ^ ^

\

uU^Wvj \)SF-^

smJs^ -

Christina Arias (*23)Round 4B 3:30pm C7Pro: 5 Yang - WeinerthCon: 13 Stephen - WangVarsity Public Forum

Team Code #:P R O :

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

J u d g e ' s N a m e : ^ ' T

Judge's School Affiliation:C O N :

Team Code #:

Pro Speaker #1 Vij; -. v.C /■'* pts

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

C o n S p e a k e r # I ^ a p t s ^

Con Speaker #2 y pt5 a /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 inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topic? Wa e

explanation clear and concise?• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinionyw illustrations?

Was the evidence credible?• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the debater drawn evidence and

analysis? Were arguments logically built? /• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were questions relev and brief? Were answerson point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil manner? /

• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the argun ts of the opposition witha n a l y s i s , e v i d e n c e , o r r e a s o n i n g ? /

• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organized, c/dmmunicative style that was 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 complim s and/or suggestions fori m p r o v e m e n t t o e a c h d e b a t e r : /

P r o l : C o n l :

51 ^ V k \ \ C

Pro 2: Con 2 :

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 :

- V ' V a V v u • •

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

(PRO or CON)

i<^ Ab v;^-r,c,a -* A-Cie-M ^Ac-Avh(i

-VW N'i'tWvH! ■ f5sVY^'''-'^

Manisha Vijapure (*18)Round 4A 3;30pm C3Pro: 7 Jang - ShahiC o n : 11 S h a r m a - G i l l

Varsity Public Forum

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name: \ \ a iJudge's School Affiliation:

P R O : C O N :Team Code #: Team Code #:

Speaker #1_

Pro Speaker #2_

p t s C o n S p e a k e r # !

p t s C o n S p e a k e r # 2 _ Pts 2s

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

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: Did the debater explain the most importaor issue(s) in the topic? Was the

e x p l a n a t i o n c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e ? /• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments wfth facts, expert opinions, or illustrations?

W a s t h e e v i d e n c e c r e d i b l e ? /• REASONING: Were the conclusions reachei y the debater drawn from evidence and

analysis? Were arguments logically built? /• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE/Were questions relevant and brief? Were answers

on point? Was the cross fire conducted a civil manner?• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments of the opposition with

analysis, evidence, or reasoning? /• DELIVERY: Did each debater sprak in an organized, communicative style that was pleasant

and easily understandable? /

Using the above criteria, ple offer compliments and/orimprovement to each debat :

suggestions forimprovement to each debat^:

P r o i T W C o n 1 -

P r o 2 : ^ C o n 2 :

T E A M C O D E # : i X o n t h e ( i o * J w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . -TEAM COOT #: OA on the ConI w ins th is debate . VwO -( P R O o r C O N ) \ A - V A o a V L .

REASON FOR DECIS ION: " l iW v.a<^ vaxva

- V v W - r , V A W - W — -V y . : ^ > v . — S f j ; . . N o o j m l A .

the Cotsl

Manisha Vijapure (*18)Round 4B 3:30pm C3Pro; 6 Dayal - McCullochCon: 11 Wu - AutenreithVarsity Public Forum

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name: vaM5\u\ \aOvM<5-.

Judge's School Affiliation:i o n : L c u n <

V <L.

Team Code #:

Pro Speaker #1

Pro Speaker #2

C O N :Team Code #:

pts <2 Con Speaker # 1pts 2.^ Con 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 or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topic? Was the

explanation clear and concise?• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinions, or illustrafidns?

Was the evidence credible?• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the debater drawn from evid rf and

analysis? Were arguments logically built?• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were questions relevant and/mef? Were answers

on point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil manner?• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments ofthe opposition with

a n a l y s i s , e v i d e n c e , o r r e a s o n i n g ? X• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organized, communicative style that was pleasant

a n d e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e ? X

Using the above criteria, please offer compliment nd/or suggestions forimprovement to each deba te r : X

P r o 1 : A t W v V i - a A V a A W

^ " V

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

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

r V ^ A W

.on 1: 'Y

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 :

0>«aA Vi«V VJ

, . n r 2 0 ,Joan Ryan f 20)Round 4B 3:30pm C8Pro: 7 Mishra - TingCon: 14 Kim - MasseyVarsity Public Forum

Team Code #:

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:_P R O : C O N :

Pro Speaker#!

Team Code #:

Pro Speaker #2

Con Speaker # 1 IK*

PtS(~? Cpp Speaker #2pts ^

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Pe r fec t 29 = Ou ts tand ing 28 = Ve ry 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 behavhar

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topic? Was the

e x p l a n a t i o n c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e ? /• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinionSyOr illustrations?

W a s t h e e v i d e n c e c r e d i b l e ? /• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the debater drawn fron/evidence and

analysis? Were arguments logically built? /• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were questions relevanTand brief? Were answers

on point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil manner? /• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments of the opposition with

ana lys is , ev idence , o r reason ing? /• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organized, c municative style that was 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 complimeiyis and/or suggestions forimprovement to each debater: /

-i'

TEAM CODE #: ah on the (_ wins this debate.( P R O o r C O N ) /

REASONFORDECISION:^^^^^ J W ^

Jesse MacKinnon (*5)Round 4A 3:30pm C10Pro : 20 Ko - O 'Su l l i vanCon : 13 Fox - Khan

Varsity Public Forum

P R O :Team Code a o

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's Schcol AfTiliatlGn:C O N :

Team Code #: V 3

Pro Speaker #1_ koPro Speaker #2

) t s C o n S p e a k e r # 1 _

p t s C o n S p e a k e r # 2 ^6yPlease 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 eliminati rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for i-ude or inappriate behavior

Judg ing Cr i t e r i a /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue( in the topic? Was the

e x p l a n a t i o n c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e ? /• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with factSycpert opinions, or illustrations?W a s t h e e v i d e n c e c r e d i b l e ? /

• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the deleter drawn from evidence andanalysis? Were arguments logically built? /• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were qutions relevant and brief? Were answerson point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil mner?

• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively countei/the arguments of the opposition with

analysis, evidence, or reasoning? /• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an ormnized, communicative style that was pleasant

and easily understandable? /

Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or sugg tions forimprovement to each debater: yL\V

Pro 2:

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

C o n 2 : i U , /

fJX) wins this debate.(PRO or CON)

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

Jesse MacKinnon (*5)Round 4B 3:30pm C10Pro: 14 Shahi - MajewskiCon: 13 Aguilera - ZhouVarsity Public Forum

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:P R O : C O N :

Team Code #:

Pro Speaker #1_

Pro Speaker #2_ p.sQr

Team Code #:

Con Speaker #1

Con Speaker #2_

" 2 : ^ 0p tsS^

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 henavior

Judging Criteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the ic? Was the

e x p l a n a t i o n c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e ? /• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert inions, or illustrations?W a s t h e e v i d e n c e c r e d i b l e ? /

• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the debater dpawn from evidence andanalysis? Were arguments logically built? /• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were questionelevant and brief? Were answerson point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil mannei

• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the uments of the opposition withanalysis, evidence, or reasoning? /

• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organi^d, communicative style that was pleasantand eas i l y unders tandab le? /

Using the above criteria, please offer compl ents and/or suggestions fori m p r o v e m e n t t o e a c h d e b a t e r : / \ I 4 -

P r o 1 : ^ ^ ' i C o n 1 : \ y j fr v . r -

u ^ ^ n c o n i :

P r o 2 : C o n 2 : ^

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 :

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

(PRO or CON)

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation: S HP R O : C O N :

Team Code #:

Pro Speaker#!

Team Code #:

Con Speaker # 1

Pro Speaker #2 _ pts 7^'^ Con Speaker

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Gd27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualiiy for eUmination rounds)

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

Judging Criteria /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topic? Was the

explanation clear and concise? /• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinions, or illustrations?

W a s t h e e v i d e n c e c r e d i b l e ? /• REASONING: Were the conclusions reachey the debater drawn from evidence and

analysis? Were arguments logically built? /• CROSS EXAMBVATION/CROSSFIRE/were questions relevant and brief? Were answers

on point? Was the cross fire conducted m a civil manner?• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments of the opposition with

analysis, evidence, or reasoning? /• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organized, communicative style that was pleasant

and easily understandable? /

Using the above criteria, plea offer compliments and/or suggestions forimprovement to each debate/:

^ ($c>ocL

P r o 2 : ^ / . C o n 2 : .- £ , C C < 1 f e- T O O ( p ^ n ^ o e - l A ^ .^ ( L o a ^ r r y - ^ m e c t \ o o 4 ^ ( S s l v i L ^ .

-PooKJis c>(O Oof cpj-

TEAM CODE #: \ ^ on the wins th is debate.( P R O o r C O N ) j

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : A , . \ 1 4 &

prt)v/e- -l-W_ C-UeJTCo fv>/\A£A n , a< (L . ^ek>ve4^ .

S ) L Y U - ■

OjCIAJ

Javier Chavarria (*20)Round 4B 3:30pm C2Pro: 14 Hwang - MatleyCon: 7 Kiran - ShaughnessyVarsity Public Forum

Team Code #:

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation:l i A f fi l i a t i o n :

P R O :

Pro Speaker#I

Pro Speaker #2_

t 4

V\u A/U

C O N :Team Code #:

pts Con Speaker # 1 ^ K ^"5p t s C o n S p e a k e r # 2 C ^

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: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topic? Was the

explanation clear and concise?• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinions, or illustrations?

Was the evidence credible?• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the debater drawn from evui ce and

analysis? Were arguments logically built?• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were questions relevant an ief? Were answerson point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil manner? /

• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments he opposition witha n a l y s i s , e v i d e n c e , o r r e a s o n i n g ? /

• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organized, comnumicative style that was 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 compliments d/or suggestions forimprovement to each debater : /

Pro 1:

\yyQS bocjuK-tifiVtr- /

P r o 2 : /^ o r ^ ^ n v ' b G C ) /

\ 0 & \ \ /

T E A M C O D E # : 7 o n t h e

iCoif 1: ( S L M ^ e K , ^

VVvVcA«<^V?> <9fU . « P + - t e ^ , .

o n t h e _ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(PRO or CON)

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

V\oqje. CotvJVe^;3(3P i A « 4 ^ a v u J L . 7 ^ ^ ^

Rupa Dasani (*7)Round 4A 3:30pm C1Pro: 11 Nguyen - DoshiCon: 13 Banisadr - ZhengVarsity Public Forum

Team Code #:

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: VH-SP R O : C O N :

Team Code #:

Pro Speaker#!

Pro Speaker #2_

p t s C o n S p e a k e r # 1

p t s C o n S p e a k e r # 2

p.si7

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 eliminatioiyrounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappixjpriate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(sVm the topic? Was the

e x p l a n a t i o n c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e ? Y• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinions, or illustrations?

W a s t h e e v i d e n c e c r e d i b l e ? /• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the debater drawn from evidence and

analysis? Were arguments logically built? /• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were quions relevant and brief? Were answerson point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil imnner?

• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively count the arguments of the opposition withanalysis, evidence, or reasoning? /

• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an oanized, communicative style that was pleasantand easily understandable? /

Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for

=j|.«P r o 1 : / C o n l : C l r c j u ^ ^J d l j l e h ^ I '

P r o 2 : o J f t / K Q q ^ 2 : ^c j J w a W

Con 2:

y'cUvv4LT E A M C O D E # :

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

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

(PRO or CON)

J , I s Vo ^ J b o v h i L

Rupa Dasani (*7)Round 4B 3:30pm C1Pro: 5 Badalamenti - Kernan-WoitallaCon: 6 Luo - ChopraVarsity Public Forum

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:P R O :

Te a m C o d e

Pro Speaker #1

Pro Speaker #2_

Team Code #:CON;

_P«s Con Speaker # 1 I i Htjpts Con 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 or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topic? Was the /

explanation clear and concise?• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinions, or illustpauons?

Was the evidence credible?• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the debater drawn from evidpifce and

ana lys is? Were arguments log ica l l y bu i l t? y /• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were questions relevant and^bnef? Were answers

on point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil manner? y/• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments opthe opposition with

a n a l y s i s , e v i d e n c e , o r r e a s o n i n g ? y /• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organized, comrmmicative style that was pleasant

a 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 compliment nd/or suggestions forimprovement to each debater : /

Pro 2: £pe.i_ckujx \/ m t\t < 4con2: . Lj

TEAM CODE #: on the Co A wins this debat j • /REASON FOR DECISION:

Ccr<\ cJ jLou^

P f O d h ' c l i v m a c r

h ia j - , ,• o L b o u - " ^ h c q

]dlLd6j y/o^^VJtveJbU ft?

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 :

o n t h e

(PRO or CON)

N ■ ^ -O >

SUtisoo-Banisadrjpia)Round 4A 3:30pm C6Pro: 18 Chellani - AhluwaliaCon: 20 GIek - Ne i l l

Varsity Public Forum

Team Code #:

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name:I \ >

' Q A l A

Judge's School Affiliation:P R O :

Team Code #:

Pro Speaker #1_

Pro Speaker #2

pts 8 Con Speaker # l_pts Con Speaker #2_

C O N :

pts zy

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 eliminatiop4o""ds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inap priate behavior

Judg ing C r i t e r i a /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue in the topic? Was the

e x p l a n a t i o n c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e ? /• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facte; expert opinions, or illustrations?

W a s t h e e v i d e n c e c r e d i b l e ? /• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the bater drawn from evidence and

analysis? Were arguments logically built? /• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Wereyiestions relevant and brief? Were answerson point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civilmianner?

• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments of the opposition withanalysis, evidence, or reasoning? /• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in ai rganized, communicative style that was pleasantand easily understandable? /

Using the above criteria, please offeXompliments and/or suggestions forimprovement to each debater: /

%

P r o 1 : . iCon 1: +

4 - N ' / ^_ pooASe Qxn^P r o 2 : ^ . C o n 2 : ^

-p lA QAAMAj-ljLS jXceJX

+ c ( « ^ . ^ " h n i/ 9 - D m "T E A M C O D E # : t o o n t h e ^ ^ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

- V

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

o n t h e

' y e U r r i - ^ .

^ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . /(PRO or CON)

T^u. l y r X ? S i

'S'lAllison Danisaclr (*13)Round 4B 3:30pm C6Pro: 3 Salkeld - Hi l lCon: 14 Weng - ParkVarsity Public Forum

P R O :Team Code #:

Pro Speaker #

Pro Speaker #2

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation:_ DuHS^ C O N ;/ Team Code#: I ^

C o n S n e a k e r # ! Pc^Pts Con Speaker # 1

pts 29 Con Speaker #2_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 inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topic? Wa e

explanation clear and concise?• EVIDENCE: Did tlie debater support arguments with facts, expert opinionydr illustrations?Was the evidence credible?

• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the debater drawn frjaim evidence andanalysis? Were arguments logically built?

• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were questions rele^dnt and brief? Were answerson point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil manner?

• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the argujrfents of the opposition withana lys is , ev idence, o r reason ing? y

• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organize ommunicative style that was pleasanta n d e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e ? y

Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions forimprovement to each debater: y

Pro 1: + / Con 1: f

— \ J i n ( J i — C c x t x A - e ^ n j u c l ry/y/Lcrr Ccnx44-ee rtOtff( / ^ U i

y - M ,+ e ^ c k ^ t o U l fT E A M C O D E # : \

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

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

(PRO or CON)

-h '^ckifo^ok '

Joan Ryan (*20)Round 4A 3:30pm C8Pro: 13 Weiner - MiskelleyCon: 5 Vaughan - VellineVarsity Public Forum

Team Code #:

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:C O N :

Team Code #:

Pro Speaker # 1 \y^ Con Speaker # 1

Pro Speaker #2 Vl/I } WtfyUXpts Con Speaker #2_pts. Q

Vam^ ptsjfe^Please award each speaker points based on the following sc :

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = V iy Good27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualif r elimination rounds)

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

Judging Criteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topic? Was the

explanation clear and concise? /• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinions, or illustrations?

Was the ev idence c red ib le? /• REASONING: Were the conclusions inched by the debater drawn from evidence and

analysis? Were arguments logically b ilt?• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSIRE: Were questions relevant and brief? Were answerson point? Was the cross fire coniWcted in a civil manner?

• REBUTTAL: Did the debater fectively counter the arguments of the opposition withanalysis, evidence, or reasoning?• DELIVERY: Did each deber speak in an organized, communicative style that was pleasantand easily understandably'

Using the above criteriai'please offer compliments and/or suggestions forimprovement to each debater:

Pro 2:

C o n l :

hneafij

C o n 2 : ^ ^

TEAM CODE #:__J3l_

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

o n t h e

(PR'Oor CON)

and popped poiym/c i r' 5 OJW

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t eRound 4A 3:30pm D8Pro: 7 Nachurj - SakineniCon: 20 Jew Uy Varsity Public Forum

Judge's Name:_ C t h ^

Judge's School Affiliation:P R O :

Team Code #: Team Code #:C O N :

Pro Speaker #I

Pro Speaker #2

pts If Con Speaker#!pts Con Speaker #2_

P.s^DtS ^

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: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in thejej c? Was the

explanation clear and concise?• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expen opinions, or illustrations?

Was the evidence credible?• REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the deb r drawn from evidence and

analysis? Were arguments logically built?• C R O S S E X A M I N AT I O N / C R O S S F I R E : We r e e m o t i o n s r e l e v a n t a n d b r i e f ? We r e a n s w e r s

on point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civilfanner?• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments of the opposition with

analysis, evidence, or reasoning? /• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in organized, communicative style that was pleasant

and easi ly understandable? /

Using the above criteria, please offetijGOftI]improvement to each debaten„x^iCon 1

t s a n H T n r ^ g g e s t i o n s f o r / /

Pro 2:

"11 sU J' (T E A M C O D E # :

* - g ' i A i ^ ^ J ,

o n t h e V w 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 : .

Jielei Xu (M)Round 3A 3:30pm Room 407Pro: 7 Hassan - DaggupatiC o n : 4 C o l b e r t - M o o r eN o v i c e P u b l i c F o r u m

Team Code #:

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:P R O : C O N :

Pro Speaker #1_

Pro Speaker #2_

Team Code #:

jts 0 (o Con Speaker # 1_

p t s C o n S p e a k e r # 2 _

pts.^pts^

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: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topic? Was the y

explanation clear and concise?• EVIDENCE: Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinions, or illustrations?

W a s t h e e v i d e n c e c r e d i b l e ? ^• REASONING: Were tlie conclusions reached by the debater drawn from evidence and

a n a l y s i s ? W e r e a r g u m e n t s l o g i c a l l y b u i l t ? ^• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE: Were questions relevant and brief? Were answers ^

on point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil manner?• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments of the opposition with

a n a l y s i s , e v i d e n c e , o r r e a s o n i n g ? '• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organized, communicative style that was pleasant

a 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 compliments and/or suggestions forimprovement to each debater:

Pro 1:

Pro 2: ■top' ts Con 2:

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 :

o n t h e _ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(PRO or CON)

COnalo j

ghe- in0i&

Jielei Xu (M)Round 3B 3:30pm Room 407Pro: 16 Wong - JonesC o n : 7 Ye r r a m s e t t i - S h u k i aN o v i c e P u b l i c F o r u m

Team Code #:

P U B L I C F O R U M D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:P R O :

Pro Speaker #1_

Pro Speaker #2_

C O N :

) t s

Team Code #:

Con Speaker#!

p ts Con Speaker #2_ hukl/pts 2p 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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a C t• ANALYSIS: Did the debater explain the most important issue(s) in the topic? Was the explanation clear and concise?

• EVIDENCE; Did the debater support arguments with facts, expert opinions, or illustrations? i /W a s t h e e v i d e n c e c r e d i b l e ? i

^ REASONING: Were the conclusions reached by the debater drawn from evidence and Ja n a l y s i s ? W e r e a r g u m e n t s l o g i c a l l y b u i l t ? ^ y• CROSS EXAMINATION/CROSSFIRE; Were questions relevant and brief? Were answers \

on point? Was the cross fire conducted in a civil manner?• REBUTTAL: Did the debater effectively counter the arguments of the opposition with ^

a n a l y s i s , e v i d e n c e , o r r e a s o n i n g ? ® ,• DELIVERY: Did each debater speak in an organized, communicative style that was pleasant '\y

and easily understandable?

Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions forimprovement to each debater:

Pro 1: iCon 1:

Pro 2: pc/ViT"^

>&eJL

TEAM CODE # : I

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

o n t h e _ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .( P R O o r C O N ) . ,mcy^ oyy gox?o\ ^