Joyce>Colen ander f 20)Round 2A \l :00am Room 442Gov: 8 YaVig - H6Opp: 12 Chan - Foley —Pariiamenfery Debate/Novice
PA R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Name: Judge's School Affiliation:
P R O PTeam Code #:
Prop Speaker#!
Prop Speaker U2
Please award-each speaker pomts-b ed on the following s e:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 jery Good
' 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to quajiiy for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Resolved for rude or inappropriate behavior
Judging Crit ia• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the daters analyze the topic and the argumentso f f e red du r i ng t he deba te /
• Evidence: How appropriately and efficientlwme debaters support arguments withevidence—^which may include facts and re^ences to authority as well as general knowledge
• Argumentation: How directly and effectwely the debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant d effective were the questions and the answers
• Delivery: How well the debaters spe^ in an organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /
• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
Team Code #:
)pp Speaker#!
Opp Speaker #2
4 ^ - ^ T
T E A M C O D E # : o n t h e _
Opp 2: ll/f
w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .9
T E A M C O D E # : Q _ o n t h e . w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .( P r o p o / O p p ) J
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : . ni y h 7 j r w - v f " '" I W ^ h / y f J
Joyce Colenbrander (*20)Round 2B 1 :00am Rm442Gov: 2 Brown - LisyOpp: 8 Abdussamy - Syed Parliamentary Debate/Noyice____
P A R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Name
Judge's School Affiliation:
P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code #:
Prop Speaker #1 V" t
Prop Speaker #2 5
Oip Speaker #1
;pp Speaker #2 s w dPtsA_pts^
Plea e-awaird each speaker pojnlfrbased on the following sc :30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 5 ery Good
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qi fy for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Re^rved for rude or inappropriate behavior
Judging Cnteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively debaters analyze the topic and the argiunentsoffered during the debate /
• Evidence: How appropriately and effi ntly the debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts references to authority as well as general knowledge
• Argumentation: How directly an ffectively the debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /
• Points of Information: How mevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debars speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria; please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : / . . . . / I m V / i ^ - J —
Prop
^ wBi/il/Z llh MW ^
Prop^2: ;/7 fPfnUr'/i \ l h ^
2 + 111 J j>
i m e n i s a n a / o r s u g g e s u u n s l u r i m p r u v e m c n i l u /
oppi: 4^ IMIB MjlM IBIvj W
Opp 2:
T E A M C O D E # :nJUf i'>i
1 - o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
(i^pWopp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : y . 1 ] < J u / / f t )
ft w* w iu MP, 1*^ All itf "H /" ^fwf 4w "MUfhi f' w jrfi -k nw All ? mmpf.
Vinod Mozov (*8)Round 2A 11:00am Room 443Gov: 5 Hinchcliff-YingOpp: 6 Agarwal - MaitraParliamentary Debate/Novice
P A R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Name:
Team Code #:
Prop Speaker#!
P R O PS
Judge's School AfTiiiation: J-VVli
Team Code #:
Prop Speaker #2 S'ItA.CL '
pts 2S Opp Speaker # 1_
p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 _
p t s 2 l 7
Please award each speaker points based on the followin&^ale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 2s = Very Good
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough tQ/(jualiiy for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = l^served for rude or inappropriate behavior
Judgin&Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectiveiyme debaters analyze the topic and the arguments
offered during the debate /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters support arguments with
evidence— which may include facts/ d references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly aM effectively the debaters respond to the arguments made
by the o the r s ide /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the defers speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable/• Courtesy: How courteoijB and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteri please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
P r o p 1 : A . 0 . O p p 1 : T . TOpp 1:HefJ " v
T E A M C O D E # : (
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
Opp 2:'
on the Op wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)
iV Crww |?TrLAAo ^\alC J ^ Q .
^ y v ^ r T K e t ' Y " c r w
.P^\^Aon'^ «Jrrv YHeJc"^Tvu>fv)) m^VjzA ^ Jv v A w ' ^
Vinod Mozov (*8)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 3
G o v : 1 8 R a h m a n - J o h n s t o n
Opp: 20 Tarleton - ElmhirstParliamentary Debate/Novice
P A R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Name:
P R O PTeam Code #:
Prop Speaker #1
Judge's School Affiliation:
Team Code #:
Opp Speaker #1
P r o p S p e a k e r p t s AV O p p S p e a k e r # 2 " "
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:J 30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rud^r inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters an ze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debars support arguments with
evidence—which may include facts and reference authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively t debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e / r '• Points of Information: How relevant and ective were the questions and the answers
• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /
• Courtesy: How courteous and respecl the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offe ompliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
Propyl:
uce ^»vvcrr^ -rt^^
h ; O p p l : ^
A/ irmV^xt'c-Cfv
ejv\
e}/Oj
i t e . -
T E A M C O D E # : 2 , 6
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
on the rf wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)
i v x i r v o v / i - H r w i v D E C I S I O N : / I 1 /
% . J - j j j h A u Z
° g j ^ ■-yy Je.elA^ -
^ u£iU ^
Mr Bennett (*21)Round 2A 11 ;00am Room 445
Gov: 12 Chao-WangOpp: 18 Gil - ParejaParliamentary Debate/Novice
Te a m C o d e # :
Prop Speaker #1
P R O P
PA R L I D e b a t i
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:
Team Code #:
p t s O p p S p e a k e r # !
Opp Speaker #2
pts ^
Please awar each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination ropilds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or in j ropriate behavior
J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze/fne topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters/ pport arguments with
evidence—^which may include facts and references to ajraiority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the deleters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in anganized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful e debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offer c pliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
P r o p l : /
o fvu2^>-C
P r o p 2 : /- f r
— f -
p3«rtr? (<o <31^ t2^.
Opp l :
- 1 C f C c j s ^ I O S L
Opp 2:
T E A M C O D E # :
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 .
(Prop or Opp)
< Z j ^ i
PA R L I D e b a t e ,
Mr Bennett (''21)Round 2B 11-.OOarn Room 445
Gov: 20 Cheng - ShifsOpp: 18 Feng - KellyParliamentary Debate/Novice
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:i a t i o n :
P R O PTeam Code #:
Prop Speaker#]
Prop Speaker #2
Team Code #:
Opp Speaker #1
p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 _
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeryG«wd
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for emnination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved fw4ude or inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debated analyze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently th ebaters support arguments with
evidence— which may include facts and refer ces to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumcjntation: How directly and effectiy/wy the debaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant ^d effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters spe in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily imderstemdable /• Courtesy: How courteous and reectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please infer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
Prop 1:- - - i - - / O p p 1 : •
, J , J L ! ^ \ L i^ - r I / ^ T ? . 2 ! r p - r ) a m n
Prop 2:
SOmcti '^S n%. I
h - C j O V C - O -O a » W i » y r O C - _
T E A M C O D E o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :(Prop or Opp)
I
I I - r - f
PA R L I D e b a t e
Wayne Raiford ^18)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 0
Gov: 22 Owen -i CoscarelliOpp: 5 McKinneiy - StankusParliamentary Debate/Novice
Judge's Name: v NTZiaVovWJudge's School AfFiliationi yvrV v \J
P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code #:
Prop Speaker #1
Prop Speaker #2_
pt&2G
Opp Speaker #2_ VkcX'v
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale;30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimmanon rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rmJe or inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatersalyze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /
• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the Raters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and referents to authority as well as general knowledge
• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelVme debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /
• Points of Information: How relevant andxffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and res tflil the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please er compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
Prop 1:
o Q r - C o x A : /C o Q ^ V V v ^ C N V i c W t C
r . V V A ( 9 i r e .^ p r o p 2 t y - \ o p \ e : )
w / < : ^ a D V < L .WoVxL . YC9<U^
OV S owuji/VVS covVt vVW^ you o>xi
Oppl :
V L o V o ^ v A ^ v \ } v(A.V yotA-' " ec-cVv
C . y ^ ' c V V c w V c O s V e r Q ' cr '■ t ^ C t' > \ V/ .CacA'^
yi-c- w->'^3 / V'C- wV.VV -^-/s^o^Lr ^^rv^v^cA.T E A M C O D E # : on the ( yO'O
(Prop or Opp)w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
REASON FOR DECISION: ^ .
B'G-vvvc AVC-V yKS K ^ f\0 Oxc-WtiA AVVC oy" Wvw^ NoeCOLUJbC^\W-Ar- o^OvVvXy -Vo \/>(V(X\AV/ VKOVX--
PA R L I D e b a t e
Wayne Raiford (*18)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 0
G o v : 1 2 L a w r e n c e - P r i v a l o v
Opp: 2 Giverts - HanParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O PTeam Code #:
P r o p S p e a k e r # ! p t s
Prop Speaker #2 fr\gr>\/ pts
: VLtV\:'\X"l(>AoJudge's Name
Judge's School Affiliation: \ \Vo\c_^
Te a m C o d e # : ^
Opp Speaker #1 Co \\kx\
Opp Speaker #2 CkW.pts22^
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for eliminajkm rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude/W inappropriate behavior
Judging Cr i ter ia > /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters amriyze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the defers support arguments with
evidence—which may include facts and referenco authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively debaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e X• Points of Information: How relevant and fective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak man organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please o r compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
P r o p 1 : » / O p p 1 :
V > e a i > » ^ 4 ^ c ^ v t c A r c V r " ^ V V _ ^ N A
P r o p 2 : > O p p 2 : " '
1 - 5 - 3 V . A V , v oVC-IAV- OycccK V= <Av.V.C,\W^ ytMU- pc yc U^ 1 o,dc
:T E A M C O D E #
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
on the Vv c:, ^ wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)
fw v jG)V \ W\^ \oc_ccda5?c^ o t o lbA ' ^y VoCLOVAVc.' Vvcjrv'b J (XIAK VGCW oG
V c > .
P A R L I D e b a t e
Jesse MacKinnon (M)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 8
Gov: 20 Fields - GershOpp: 6 Iyer - IyerParliamentary Debate/Novice
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:
P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code #:
Prop Speaker # 1 ^
Prop Speaker #2
pts Opp Speaker # 1 A>.pts Opp Speaker #2_ \
ptsQ-lo
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 rudex^ inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters amilyze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the defers support arguments with
evidence— which may include facts and reference o authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively dfe debaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant andective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in^ organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respeo l the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please off/r compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
Co
. Alce' .5 4ojAc ~V
^ P r o p 2 : r
opp 1:\ o ^ - V t S \ A ^ 4 v ^ y J C V ^
- T X K e K V x ^Opp 2:
o f H i v n y - ^
T E A M C O D E # : o ©R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
on the _J_r> __wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)
\\ W\^C ^ ^ ( U < 3 V \ - ^ t j L ^ c | v U « . ' c ^
\|oVr ^ rv^A /\Se^vAoA G,\h ^ ^
PA R L I D e b a t e
Jesse MacKinnon (M)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 8Gov: 8 Li - GharpureOpp: 12 Fong - JacuzziParliamentary Debate/Novice
Judge's Name:_
P R O PTeam Code #:
Judge's School Affiliation:
Team Code
i o n - 0
Prop Speaker # 1 pts OlS Opp Speaker # 1 Pts
Prop Speaker #2 L v 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 roums)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inaj^ropriate behavior
Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyzythe topic and the arguments
offered during the debate• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters support arguments with
evidence—which may include facts and references tyuthority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively thexlebaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and ef tive were the questions and the answers^ • Delivery: How well the debaters speak in organized, communicative style that is pleasant^ and eas i l y unders tandab le /
• Courtesy: How courteous and respecml the debaters were to opponents and judges
yvvC Using the above criteria, please offeycompliments and/or suggestions for improvement to .e a c h d e b a t e r : /
. ^ , / . ( } o V o w n• P r o p 1 : S C ' M ' - ( 4 r ^
W r W w v C 4 , : v . ^ . w v C O -a p c A W . c a w - ^
W - I ^ w .CV tc i cA tAW Doo^ CA-^
M c ^ e j L c W /Prop 2: ^ y vX ^V'\N
' <g'/ > ^ ^ d ^ ^ E A M C O D E # : ^
Opp2: WVv.\-( aW<W\( 3 $ r ^V/\^0 ^ ^ ^ ■
V)e>
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 .
(Prop or Upp)
cVsV > V
< x w V o V « ^ V ^ /X i u ■V > ■
-aoK
PA R L I D e b a t e
Ram Kapoor f 14)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 8
Gov: 12 Liu - Fu
Opp: 18 Zhu - PhanParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O PTeam Code #:
Prop Speaker#! L^\U
Prop Speaker #2
Judge's Name:_
Judge's School Affiliation:
Team Code #:
Pts9^ Opp Speaker #1 ^—VIU
pts %n Opp Speaker #2_
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good/
. 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elinutrmion rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for r or inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters/dnalyze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters support arguments with
evidence— which may include facts and referengfe to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively he debaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant ajyS effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speaMn an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and rectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please difer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
Prop 1: / Oppl : 0
Q — ) ^ \ j ^ S j T o ' _ rA-vZ-A
Prop 2: V-o^C& Opp 2: Q-tJ
TEAM CODE #: I ^— on the ^ wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
fr?.oP TTN^NVV/\ Ps Sns^6co<:.evcT P
( J / O P o i U j V A « C - ( r T h
PA R L I D e b a t e
Ram Kapoor (*14)Round 2B 11 lOOam Room 448
Gov: 6 Mohiuddin - SharmaOpp: 12 Wu - YingParliamentary Debate/Novice
Judge's Name::
Judge's School Affiliation: M I A> A 0 HP R O P
Te a m C o d e ' # : Team Code #:
Prop Speaker # 1 pts ^'7 Opp Speaker # 1 Y I ^ pts
P r o p S p e a k e r # 2 p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 W o '
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 eiiminatioitrounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude o^appropriate behavior
Judging Cr i ter ia /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analv the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debat support arguments with
evidence—which may include facts and references tuthority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively thehaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Point of Information: How relevant and effe ive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in a rganized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectfid e debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offer mpliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
Prop 1: Opp l :
^ cnro
Prop 2: D & v A v G A y Opp 2:
TEAM CODE )2- _ on the 0 wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :/ P o r > j O
\ y s l ( < J N A - T V v f
C ? ' T V \ € v ^ k t s a ( S - * ' t O . E > ( y T KC - o o 6 > i r r ^ r v v C ^ O o h J P \ o f y ^ A t * ^
Joel Jacobs (*3)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 5Gov: 6 Vadrevu - NandaOpp: 20 Katewa - ColenbranderParliamentary Debate/Novice
PA R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:
P R O PTeam Code #:
Prop Speaker #1
Prop Speaker #2
Team Code #:
Opp Speaker #1_
p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2
<(<AW,10ov
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good/ ^
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimutation rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters atialyze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the deters support arguments with
evidence—which may include facts and referencto authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelyJne debaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in4n organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respecmil the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : X / i K K c ^ ^ u i l ^ V o U t S I V q q t .
Oppl:
Pm 2: Ayy " Opp in p (Up Uwi ogrfPitHJ cptOP 'W
TEAM CODE U: on the for wins this debate.R E A S O N F O R ^
lb irrejtvoin-t,. m. C)«f■(low (teowbe ef t W Tfv«\f h UW OA Ofl idku Jdot Kaon Ki-h]
T E A M C O D E U :
R E A S O N
o n t h e
Joel Jacobs (*3)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 5Gov: 8 Mao - Tong-SeelyOpp: 12 Kwong - TanParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O ]Team Code #:
Prop Speaker #1
Prop Speaker #2_
2 1
P A R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:
Team Code #:
Opp Speaker#!
Opp Speaker #2 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 elimfnation rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rtWe or inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters/ alyze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the haters support arguments with
evidence— which may include facts and referents to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectiveiythe debaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant an ffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak m an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and resptful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please omr compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
PropliGnJ (yx.v*v Oppl:, UKifc >2^ "1 •
l & f -
Woe M'WcProp2:' ^ nd r Opp 2:
^ / O r N o T ' - ( 3 ' ^j ' l ' " - N K - ^ O o f r v i : ;T E A M C O D E # : on the y 1^ wins this debate.
^ (Prop of Opp)
Christina Arias (*25)Round 2A 11:00am Room4$1Gov: 22 Lacombe - Ap elOpp: 18 Moran - AndolaParliamentary Debate/Novice
V
P A R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Name:
i fl t i n n -
Team Code #:
Judge's School Affiliation:_
O P PTe a m C o d e # : \ ' %
Prop Speaker#!
Prop Speaker #2
Opp Speaker #1
ptsl-U Opp Speaker
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Good
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualifWor elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Resen for rude or inappropriate behavior
Judging Critem• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidencei How appropriately and efficiently mt debaters support arguments with
evidence—which may include facts and reMences to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond to the argiunents made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevanty d effective were the questions and the answers• Deliveiy: How well the debaters sp in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and rectful the debaters were to opponents and judgesUsing the above criteria, pleaseyOffer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
P r o p l : G o o ( ) O p p l : \ j ( W
-V^j^ \C6vV't ^ y Ad W\9 Vj(jo caH
P r o p 2 : 3 e k : i ^ O p p 2 : H W \ p^ \ ( X V c \ T
:T E A M C O D E #
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
o n t h e
(Prop or Opp)w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
AWii V^CkYV \A/ 'H >
Jenny HoltH)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 3
Gov: 26 Campanella - PetruskaOpp: 8 Dara - RanderiaParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O PTeam Code #:
P A R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:
Team Code #:
Prop Speaker #1 ^^1^ _pts Opp Speaker#!
P r o p S p e a k e r # 2 O p p S p e a k e r #
P t ^ _
_ p . OPlease award each speaker points based on the following scaL^
30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28=ryGood, 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualw for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Rese d for rude or inappropriate behavior
Judging Critma• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the daters analyze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /
• Evidence: How appropriately and efficientlyydie debaters support arguments withevidence—^which may include facts and reMences to authority as well as general knowledge
• Argumentation: How directly and effectwely the debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /
• Points of Information: How relevant smd effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters spe in an organized, commimicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and resi ctful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
Prop \:U)od CLlar- Stzt/-+-,l u v O c c fi j f u - h ^ S
O p p 1 : J - ^
go r-«biriOC?
P r o p 2 : ,
6 o O c A ( X V \ . c i
T E A M C O D E # :
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
d ( M ^ - U - b i J U b i ~
on the ^VtA/y wins this debate.(Prdp or Opp)
A c p j d o n - K ' M S V t S(j^ocA c\jki4^
\ i v S c o n t t W M j L ^
Jenny Holt (*2)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 3
Gov: 18 Ahmadi - KaurOpp: 23 Arroyo - StephensParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O ]Team Code #:
Prop Speaker #1
Prop Speaker #2_
jhVmxd
PA R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Nam^
Judge's School Affiliation:
O P PTeam Code #: ^
pts^ Opp Speaker #1Opp Speaker #2 Avl U /)
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeryQ od
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify foimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved M rude or inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the deba analyze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /
• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently thydebaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and referces to authority as well as general knowledge
• Argumentation: How directly and effectiv the debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e p t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant ai effective were the questions and the answers
• Delivery: How well the debaters speaVin an organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /
• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
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 . o p p i r j ; I p U t d t - l A w '
Prop 2: $^c40x.i\jX\M CJUfA- ^ ~-
( y o V [ / ^auOcA(uA.
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 p p 2 : i p c x j o t n•J CjA\ 15
ajuiY)'on t he J _w ins t h i s deba te .
(Prop or Opp)
UJ\
' / L A A ' ' I r ' f ^
PA R L I D e b a t e
Robert Stromberg (*23)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 6Gov: 6 Anand GuptaOpp: 20 Caram'ucci - SundararamanParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O PTeam Code #:
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation: jlr/Qi
Team Code #:
Prop Speaker #2 o
P t s O p p S p e a k e r # 1 C ^ C - i
pts 7^^ Opp Speaker #2 P ts l2
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Gopd
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elmnnation rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for^de or inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatej» analyze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently th ebaters support arguments with
evidence—which may include facts and referees to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant aifd effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters spe in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and reectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, pleas ffer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
P r o p 1 : /
I n T M c y ( r P p ^ < c T ( v / < ^
Prop 2c y
~ t ^ T —
Opp l :4 - Q - ^ o ~ x ^ ^
f0s6^S~ — (Poo*T> ^O/vjttacT" ■—
^ ^ A c j T S ^ t ^ A O r ^
Opp 2:|5, 5pofv/
Ccfv/^i
TEAM CODE #: O
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
M p e D S T O S T i i ^the r(^P ^wins this debate.
(Prop or Opp)
l ^ A i O O 0 T " ^
P A R L I D e b a t e
Robert Stromberg (*23)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 6
Gov: 12 Holwitz - KayOpp: 8 Chen - LinParliamentary Debate/Novice
Team Code #:P R O P
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:
Team Code #:
P r o p S p e a k e r # ] p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 1 ( Z ^ i
P r o p S p e a k e r # 2 _ p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2
p t s . ^
Opp Speaker #2_ pts_/Pleasc| award each speaker points based on the following scale:
30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination^pminds)
26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or^ppropriate behavior
Judging Criteria y/• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analv the topic and the arguments
offered during the debate• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debat support arguments with
evidence—^which may include facts and references h/authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively th ebaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /
• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in m organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please ofl compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
P r o p l : /
i Acrs -r-z? -me o/(>
Opp l :
"hTXioroc^ ^ (^/^c 5 ourCiAS^ > Cc)/\j p I beAi'T'i
P r o p 2 : / O p p 2 :
O^Toiz^ , C/din^-r- ^A<>rS.
- ^ / < 1 S I 3 n A J ' D 5 ^ / ( j o i r u
O p p 2 : ^
T E A M C O D E # :
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 .
(Prop or Opp)
A l A j / i n . O f f C o o u b i ^ t > T S ' O A ^ ^ ,
P A R L I D e b a t e
Mitesh Meswani (*8)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 7Gov: 18 Alcantra - ThompsonOpp: 12 Dickerman - MillarParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O PTeam Code #;
Prop Speaker#!
Prop Speaker #2]
Judge's Name: /K! \ T/r
Judge's School Affiliation: )^\J(
Team Code #:
fpts Opp Speaker # 1 RlfqfdfX pts
pis *7- Opp Speaker #2 K\UciC pt^
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 elimina):! rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rudew inappropriate behavior
Judging Cri ter ia /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters apyzQ the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /
• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the dejjaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and referenco authority as well as general knowledge
• Argumentation: How directly and effectively die debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and fective were the questions and the answers
• Delivery: How well the debaters speak i an organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /
• Courtesy: How courteous and respedtful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : A K ^
- V A - V - V 1 - * - ^ V V .
Prop 1: VowXwV
- r k . > V
WA b ' - v /
Opp l :
0 e// < d y ^ V -t:
Prop 2: Vo w yWc. J
— . r . < s d V - c ^P K < _ N r v ^ ) o \ ^ 9 N C . .
T E A M C O D E # : o n t h e _(P
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
"ypv <!_ ^9^) P\<Sa. tl \ ^ C.C-\
p o n n a r i ^
Opp 2 : < := - '> - <> & w \ <5^ v -o d v -v ->c ,<3/^ $■ p.-dc:_je!V\ ^ 'T^ c-V
*~"\pK VTd :r c d y~^X7 PN ^\ ^ 9 n c . . , : i _
X J i c c X d < f v / v _ d V v c A u i ^ v u ^ - >o n t h e o p r ' \ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e , c -
( P r o p o r O p p ) ^ A H - - U - ^ c V, ^VvoW Vv-Vfeg-
» < q S c . c ~ X c i ^ ^ v w v ^ - c O ) W < - V
«a>v"V-v <3—V c)
PA R L I D e b a t e
Mitesh Meswani (*8)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 7Gov: 23 Raesfeld - GoodyOpp: 18 Valle-PollardParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O PTeam Code #: JL.
Prop Speaker #11
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:
Team Code #:
)t»^^ Z' Opp Speaker#!
Prop Speaker #2 V C ' 1 - O p p S p e a k e r # 2 j
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Goo^r
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for nwe or inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters/ alyze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the baters support arguments with
evidence— which may include facts and referents to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters spen an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and rectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, pleas ffer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
P r o p l : V - o v * . p o - > r > \ y O p p l :
SQ^'^cl.w ^ >oa-vtL L
P r o p 2 : /
K o \ / ^^ 5 K \ r f . ^ C L
Opp 2:
3 (/•tL'CL C.\—^
T E A M C O D E # :
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
on the P o P wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)
■Y N - / 1 , ^ . o O P / , ^ 9 ^ ^ V < ' ~
PA R L I D e b a t e
Nupur Aggarwal (*6)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 7Gov: 12 Bystrom - GastOpp: 8 Kurada - GundimedaParliamentary Debate/Novice
Judge's Name:
Team Code #:
Prop Speaker #1
Prop Speaker #2
P R O P1 2 -
Judge's School Affiliation:^
Team Code #:
GkksA
p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 1
pts Opp Speaker #2__Gt irxdx
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 eliminiftion rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for ru^or inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters Mfalyze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the deleters support arguments with
evidence—which may include facts and referenco authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively tKe debaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and ective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak irymi organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respecfiml the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please off compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
+ omo^iS / ^Opp 1:
' " f e
TEAM CODE #: S on the _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : . , Q S j M -To he 4^ 'it o-jeto ^
■ r t s t * / > e h 6 1 ^ - f u . ^^
o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
t ^ r o p o r u p p j ,: C I S I O N : ^
Nupur Aggarwal (*6)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 7G o v : 2 1 S c o t t - A m b r o s e
Opp: 12 Eng - MorgensteinParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O PTeam Code #:
PA R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:_
Team Code #:
p t s Opp Speake r # 1
Opp Speaker #2
Prop Speaker # 1 S
Prop 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 eliminaUdn rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude^ inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anaj c the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debajdrs support arguments with
evidence—^which may include facts and references ha authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively th ebaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and ef tive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesyi How courteous and respectM the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offei ompliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
Prop QATi&X j' U - f c t t L■ r ( > i o d /
P r o p 2 : , f
cm ovtoUw
T E A M C O D E # ; o n t h e
^ . - J- N u j
w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
(Prop or Opp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : . ^ r o
f r e i . d v » 4 C i ^ o M ^I i j r n o j i t . p
P A R L I D e b a t e
Pali Pandya (*9)Round 2A 11:00am |Room 419Gov: 12 Ng - HuangOpp: 8 Vijay - CramerParliamentary Debate/Novice
Team Code #:P R O P
Prop Speaker#! N
Prop Speaker #2_
Judge's Name
Judge's School Affiliation:
Team Code #:
Opp Speaker#!
pts Opp Speaker #2 Cfef
Please avvard each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good/
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimii mon rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for ru/or inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters arfmyze the topic and the arguments
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 referenc to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectivel)/e debaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant an< ffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speakan organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily imderstandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and resp tflil the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please o r compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
P r o p l : 0 J i d - O P P l : - s o t O a
Prop2:'(;H(e
cJltPi r\ i Vi ont ■
t O c c a
T E A M C O D E # :
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
on the (DPP _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)
X<olS^ uP.suetciv avAcxC cis-IW. as>7^V-euH<5>^ ^ ^ ^
- - - e j ^ T n n .
Pali Pandya fS)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 9Gov: 2 Lanzone - HubingerOpp: 12 Tran - VainbergParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O PTeam Code #:
Prop Speaker #1
PA R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:
Team Code #:
pts (g Opp Speaker # 1 30
pts (^8" Opp Speaker #2 hpts ^
Qj Prop Speaker #t H U pts_j58 Opp Speaker #2 yCXi}Oh Please Ward each speaker points based on the following scale:
30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good/27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimumion rounds)
26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for or inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatersalyze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /
• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the d aters support arguments withevidence— which may include facts and referenc to authority as well as general knowledge
• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelyme debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /
• Points of Information: How relevant an ffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speayin an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, pleasepffer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
CrjOS ■
. . ^ f o V I '
TEAM CODE #; <3 on the f >W P wins this debat^ ip rN |-(Prop or Opp)
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : ^ o
acpos^a ^P.oi^Ums^\ieAauUL cx fyvd. f^eA-^^mQyxC-e .
Brittany Aboudara (*26)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 4Gov: 18 Le- LigutanOpp: 4 Moser - PashmanParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O PTeam Code #:
Prop Speaker #1
Prop Speaker #2
p,s^
P A R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Name:_
Judge's School Affiliation:,
Team Code #:
Opp Speaker#!
Opp Speaker #2_
w a ,
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 rouiras)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inaj^propriate behavior
' J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze tlfe topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters sdpport arguments with
evidence—which may include facts and references to aority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the defers respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effectiye were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an oi anized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easi ly understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offer c(mpliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : , ^ , / , / u S t v hi ^ e a s , / b u r / - / Q y s l w J Q • ^Propi: cwduinr\eiA;K nvore / op \:Q
vcuUa.- hoS^ -Pwf/jz££<j ( roa^( p n u d f o c ^ ' u m e ( v f s ^ m - h d i o S u p j ^ a d ^
sp(-k-(^'o (y rtddeJ p}v,p>"S. csyd-adioi^ ,
Propi: cur umei/tK mrz.vcdWL - has^ 7%'^
r u t -
^ J p d : ( ( r f f
u}Ord^'.
h v U o v j 'ka{/fH> 'sf'"'/ do'ik^ \ic^ kJL dvcsp° 'V on the _O d / ^ , / ( P r t
(9 0^1^ dCdOcl^ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . ^
cOrkdi. (Prop or Opp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
'Opp[ 'iiT)t/\ \jjOp, o/£(X Ci(/isf dCynch /l/L
Brittany Aboudara (*26)Round 2B 11 :C0am Room 414Gov: 12 Lyons - WyszynskiOpp: 2 Greenwall - VineParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O PTeam Code #: j 2^
Prop Speaker #l[ L\DIf[SProp Speaker #2_ K;vaz-Vi
PA R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Name:_ hh'Mm/Judge's School Affiliation:,
Team Code #:
Opp Speaker#!
Opp Speaker #2 V/f7(
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good /
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimiiyuon rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for ruddor inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters affmyze the topic and the arguments
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 referencto authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectivel>e debaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant an ffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily (imderstandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please o r compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
i / i f \ ( J i n , r / ^ H i A / o ^ ~ l ~ v y \ A / f r / ' / . / IYvadt^p / dskmxP ^ QX
6 ? ( T ) C / &( Q m - i c L . f m a n w r ^ ^ r
^ coduSs^ cirpiUirmfS ,0
-ft) u;cyf>r Prop 2-^ yvcfy^ Opp^fl?^
(Q TSvOva C6vVy-kivb'uA§ Celled +0 Conchw/qf I / . y , ^ ' 1 y , . - y , ^tjvOvaI -pfAiL (p\-iXiy.QSL^^ P^M CODE #:' 1^ R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
o n t h e
(d) ad!^ ,Oppi-(
I toidd^'d'
irnficixc/ pyvp'^S nip<ateALjinDf Idu pol^, ctofvuij^^
H CitAx/ ifd<cic ^ ^hcJiLic^
pyvp"^ C£V^'{A^^V^ )
(tf)5AT:v\£? SM(4-& AUSi-evM- Wy«+<^ ^ -ifUMj
n n l 5 — : — ^ ^ . w i y t v t f s n - i T h ^ ^t O fi t h i s c l ^ . - u C c T n u - t( P r o p o r O p p ) ( V 1 ^
V p r i p s r i c i e £ k a i ^ o c ^ /
w i n s t h i s d e b a t e V
dhjL oppo d'oYx uJflX yo(d~k( ppfipsricf ai/x/ ho3 c££ai/ o(yv/ktdMkd/diAS d 'k imAcikovcf . v j i r t . Mirsu ,
cocxK 'c . 0 - ! ^ l u - r l ^ rdU ?n .P i ^vduS 'S o f - f yp i ' ca iA .d )£peCrf'C 0-^^ iVl - d€ptd -'/VL dtdtiT Pi li-Un£tAi d cu ASP- d
PA R L I D e b a t e
Praveen Tomar (*8)
G o " ^ 6 Z ^ T h ^ s t e r J u d g e ' s N a m e : Tr ^ l / r mO p p : 1 2 K r i s h n a s w a m y - L e e ( j . L h L C L IParliamentaty pebate/Novice Judge's School Affiliation: ,Ik^\ r^cJrnn frQh
P R O P O P PT e a m C o d e # : i / C , T e a m C o d e # : I 2 - ^
P r o p S p e a k e r # 1 p t s _ ^ 3 _ O P P S p e a k e r # 1 p t s . 5 2
Prop Speaker #2 ))\ T iA-gke/y pts«^7 Opp Speaker #2I ■ ■ ■ ~ ~ ~
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 rud^/w inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters smzdyze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the defers support arguments with
evidence—^which may include facts and references/m authority as well as general knowledge• Ailgumentation: How directly and effectively debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and ective were the questions and the answers
• Delivery: How well the debaters speak irymi organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /
• Courtesy: How courteous and respectnil the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offpr compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
Propi: oJi lyWiUvvj' Oppi: ^ xje^yjoa^ace-,
W - j f y /
P r o p 2 : O p p 2 :- t e ^ V d i T . c h -■jrc Lot jr) b&fi 0y>
IMi icW
Team Code #:P R O P
/ / ;
T E A M C O D E # :
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
o n t h e o o P ' w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
(Prop or Opp)^ ^ r i u p u i w p p ; . .
I O N : ^ , . J . ^ M . ^ k a k I C A
S r A p h ^ s r / j 9 r \ t f a } ^ i x y \ S ^ ^P A R L I D e b a t e
Praveen Tomar (*8)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 6
Gov: 12 Shin - ShevelevOpp: 18 Alam - RatherParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O PTeam Code #; / ^
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:_
O P PTeam Code#: /*B
Hkh
Prop Speaker #2
pts_22_ Opp Speaker # 1_
pts 7SK Opp Speaker #^
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:I 30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good/^
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimmdnon rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for or inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters alyze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the ddoaters support arguments with
evidence—which may include facts and refereis to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively he debaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant an^ sffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speaMn an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please fer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
Prop 1': pUeJ® Opp 1: cn^ C \€.aJT■ (j\oo ka r r j u r r ^ ' enh - owv j W
Prop 2: S/\J VJell0 ^ ( x . ] y p ^ ( 9 r i ^
CQ>r\h.r\h(y? - \)€yyix ^
Opp 2: 3\>cak vey (kJ
T E A M C O D E # :
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 .
Pp:p We( P r o p o r O p p ) J
^ ^ ^
Jane DeWitt (^2)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 0 2
G o v : 4 T h o m a s - R a l s t o n
Opp: 23 Clark - StrombergParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O PTeam Code #: A
Prop Speaker #1
Prop Speaker #2_
P A R L I D e b a t e
Judge's Name:
Judge's School AffiIiation:_
O P PTe a m C o d e # :
Opp Speaker#!
Opp Speaker #2_
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Goo/i 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimkfation rounds)
26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for or inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatere/ alyze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the baters support arguments with
evidence—^which may include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectiv the debaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant a^u effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters spe in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and reectful the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, 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 : ^1 " / / w j + ^ p v t fi h c r r \ l a u i c .
w v ( M / m A a ^ o c fi i u U i -6 1 « w ' - m l l b f e - n e v \ ^ 3 h e ^ J ^ W t L 5
P r o p 2 : / ^ O p p 2 :4 O f f o n M i M p P i r v H > q , p o i w h b , C \ t u \l y i A - W y w p c u p p p l i 1 z 7
V u J r i o P J u 5 T t c l j ^ \ [ ( U V U ^ ( a ^ a" i ^ ^ ^ A £ A c J o ( M U c c X n J t J r Z . C ^ O O { \ M h ) c U ^ ^
TEAM CODE on the OP? wins this debate.
Jho/^ \V\^pc£C^\^r\du^ fN.
Opp 2:4 p o i w h b C \ ^"Wwv pciAP ppll hp Oil^c>bi
Jub^Mjc h^uvRwz: a KiW— ^vtXdI y ULstC, UZA-CLbi ch£ fi
on the, OP? _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)( P r o p o r O p p ) . I f ^ j L A A A y ^
^ REASON FOR DECISION: TW fPP hhVTVU^r 0^ltCwe^i> 4^^-1-4^ an, rmwLpe> 6h:uyii^s enn \i,su^s,4 'Wz fn^dffU.£> Mymuyu- % fvJaUUkjMuij-Tru^. The fvt/p hUi^cd cw. yi&jim,
IWi V»uT-cUtirxJ m b^fcrvt- v)o&c h"iAnWn^nv- yzcc^m ht^ iamm i f -Mvtf X' icc^vxy'ncrYK is v-* '
P A R L I D e b a t e
Jane DeWitt (*12)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 0 2Gov: 20 Masters - FehringOpp: 4 C'Rafferty - FigueroaParliamentary Debate/Novice
jP R O P
Team Code #: ^
Prop Speaker#!
Prop Speaker #2
Judge's Name:_
Judge's School Affiliation: I
O P PT e a m C o d e # : 7
p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 1 _ p t s
pts Opp Speaker #2 D pts ^ Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: X
30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimina n rounds)
26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rud r inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /
• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debars support arguments withevidence—^which may include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively thebaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and eff tive were the questions and the answers
• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /
• Courtesy: How courteous and respectM the debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offer mpliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
ouJ-Ulu p-f f
1
TEAM CODE #: ^0 on the T ro P ^wins this debate.w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
(Prop or Opp)
^ € ? ^ i h e v \ . i r i c u f p 4 ^ \ n r \ m c ^ r ^ ^ ^ c n r x d ^ ^4€4Lm. ^cux i 1V1 ^ wu*^ c rusv \ dc is^ (c^r
PA R L I D e b a t e
Allison Banisadr (*14)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 0 9Gov: 26 Cohen - LemenagerOpp: 6 Tripathi - ZhangParliamentary Debate/Novice
PROP @ (3Team Code #: 3^(p
Judge's Name: 3av\]
Judge's School Affiliation:
Team Code #:
(P @
Prop Speaker#! pts Opp Speaker # 1 ^)
P r o p S p e a k e r # 2 p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 pts Q.1
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 inappcdpriate behavior
J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the ic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters supp arguments with
evidence—which may include facts and references to authorias well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters spond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organiz communicative style that is pleasant
a n d e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debars were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offer complimems and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e i ^ : A W c H e W V e v - t ? U - f - f I ) d u ? -
P r o o l - © - G l e a x - l v ^ ivoell
0) 3(xv€ U>C\3WM^ rt4ecVia>A»6.vM /
^ + 1 1 1 ^o,rewV poio- -fVia+ C'pp
P r o p 2 : / O p p 2 :(5 ^ocd )ob cS ainjc-fli^ Q, 900
Pbi»rl> pclHtcAl Ape^ievve p/e® good -jpf poirtflig 0^ £>pp
bard €v)d€vic^.T E A M C O D E # : p l G ? o n t h e
(Prop or Opp)
^ 1. 0 Aooct pre fw-ta-Hf'(prepo..d.^ce ^
u?ni V{£)i- uotn
'o^oA Trv««p .Moy not Vk ap«<,-,dleo>trai b«i woold Mo/p/b+o prfw«t e\j(iitnci. k +i'c,f (^ebyblfca»i no^vtjtAafioi^ - 300 ffuqed ^ ..
Oil Prpxdfv^-tfal rici-Ho'i ^ 5>p-eclTycpl 7-pVi f jpubhc tW Hf?un I
w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
) or Opp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : ^Giitcrt- job en t»t^ > e>-3p,vi1z«+-l<'n, .C)vtra.\ , rof prf wW Won<; evjd nff And did a. rfrf jr>to
l P « c W - t o - h « r c > o l i ; + t D n . / A " u pt ood ioork. !
P A R L I D e b a t e
Allison Banisadr (*14)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 0 9
Gov: 18 Zhou - ByrneOpp: 25 Raid - GerlacnParliamentary Debate/Novice
Judge's Name: ,\ / \ \^adr
Judge's School Affiliation:
P R O ]Team Code #: Team Code #:
OPP (P ®
Prop Speaker #1 ^ pts Opp Speaker #1Prop Speaker #2 p t s Opp Speaker #2
p t s ^ 6
_ p t s ^ ^
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 inapny^riate behavior
J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the pic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters sup rt arguments with
evidence which may include facts and references to authojmy as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debat respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /
• Points of Information: How relevant and effective Were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an orgai ed, communicative style that is pleasant
a n d e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the Raters were to opponents and judges
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 : « / O p p l : ,© ( X r « a 1 - d e b a V t . i a « j a i r t - o p o d P ' o p l e , J^ n c M e r c a v , U a v t ^ J@ g r e o d j o V > T ^ f | o e « i e . W c . A r t
examples dfi l fi " * * e> prc i ' l c leM+lA l e - t fCd lo" v. - te^ o l l o n A i i v o + t c v . l i - t U t
P r o p 2 : /■5dv-cM^ , or av,! g) good-to Co cre-feborn on onth-f-ro, .o,l con ron
Cartfr v>o€re foor^ butlyucve bij i^ovr ouJii CkCc^. op-
TEAM CODE #; on the __ g_ wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : T h l f . u ; q ' 7 ^ Q ^ I O ^ C M c l
did a good joV? Cxr uiiAC|\ Ov€vall , P«'Op V)acl -hroi c^ r-exavYi^le$> o lui^paci^.
Opp 2:
T E A M C O D E # :
- OiMuiurf vjU\ to"<A) mrTm//<y^ foL fCsIdofCathy Aguilera (*14)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 9Gov : 1 C ree - Nad le r
Opp: 12 Jarmel-Schneider - BernsteinParliamentary Debate/Novice
PJROPTeam Code #: G0\/ I
Prop Speaker #l_
Prop Speaker #2_ h)adlei
Judge's Name:_
Judge's School Affiliation: ir 0 (n(
Team Code #: ■: U •
O d d S p e a k e r # ! 2 . 8
Opp Speaker #2
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 rotmds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or m^propriate behavior
J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis:, How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyzp e topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters/ pport arguments with
evidence—^which may include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the deleters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effedsive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an o anized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easi ly understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement to.e a c h d e b a t e r :
A -
\a.dr
t o A S ^ y G
- ^Opi e
people^ ^6 (XieWiKh^t)^
fOifCfi o d ^ c t ~
Op,y.Sumt!-Schna(fA-'iUi/\f\Oo<^ , policies ®A rh / iX ) ^ (C t fCb . ^ Coy i l ^eY f / 20 / - n U j c rV / i " .
Q p o d I 1 ^ s b - h o a f
Opp 2: (bersh >l;cr r^
?dt^' { y d o a f o i / ^ ■0)fVJOnn!Aa,ho/3 - ! /s
^ ^ < Z X ) . . . i U A n n O i f ' , K l , U . .
TEAM CODE #: hOf lA on the Qfif ; wins this debate.' U ' ( P r o p o f b ' p p j )
^ R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : A
( ^ \ p e c 6 i u ^ o f -pcofdC CL't JjJiCcdtcLbate. poliM^ jOd'f' a^eCl^ o/Aryw'
ftlo-f- o-f Crcjibi '^ f t . 1 . 7 y S ! _ r
l i ( ^ o . o o ( A ^ QeiTdLoz-
) ' ( W ?
o ff '
13 ur \ \ugY—
Cathy Aguilera (*14)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 9Gov: 23 Barrales-Godino - PhillipsOpp: 18 Mart - JohnsonParliamentary Debate/Novice
Judge's Name: Ac?ii kJ u d g e ' s S c h o o l A f fi l i a t i o n : '
P R O PTeam Code #:
Prop Speaker #1 _pts 2U
Prop Speaker #2^ 9.(c
O P P u .Team Code#: CDP(
Prop Speaker #1 Opp Speaker #1
Opp Speaker #2
l A a d pts3n
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 analyze the tdpic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters suj rt arguments with
evidence— which may include facts and references to autho as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debat respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective re the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant
a n d e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the dAaters were to opponents and judges
Using the ab ve criteria, please offer complements and/or suggestions for improvement to <2e a c h d e b a t e r : 7 © ^ d r S u . ' U b k1 X I T s C A ^ ^
I . . .
„wins thirdwaler *"^^ iplxc' hfS^
• t r ,
j a S © - d e h i ,JAM CODE#: OOP 1>S ^"^mrtfiT^
pOttOjg CO)
^ w i n s t h i s
(Prop or(Opp)JREASON FOR, DECISION:
^ron^ ^ OA^jJjrmrdoe ^ftr\ h-fi-j
Vofsood deciS<'>r->^ t o O / j r ^
P A R L I D e b a t e
Qin Yue (*5)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a n n R o o m 4 4 4
G o v : 2 3 K a l l m a n - N i c h o l s
Opp: 20 Baetkey - BlanchardParliamentary pebate/Novice
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:
P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code #:
O P P
Prop Speaker #1_
Prop Speaker #2
Opp Speaker#!
p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rud^r inappropriate behavior
Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters an ze the topic and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debars support arguments with
evidence—which may include facts and references authority as well as general knowledge• A]|*gumentation: How directly and effectively th ebaters respond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and ef tive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in organized, communicative style that is pleasant
and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectMthe debaters were to opponents and judges
Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
d u d ^
J l U -
P r o p 2 : - y
O p p 1 : ^ t o t ^
Opp 2: -r A
T E A M C O D E # ; 2 - 0 o n t h e O P Q(Pro/or Opp)
w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
< ^ r r o p o r u p p jR E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : , ^ , n .
O d t ^ i u k ' - " T - •
PA R L I D e b a t e
Qin Yue (*5)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 4
Gov: 12 Kerr-Stein - LeeOpp: 1 Murakami - BocacioParliamentary Debate/Novice
P R O PTeam Code #:
Judge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:
Team Code #:
Prop Speaker # 1 /<Se W-- A pts 2- Opp Speaker #1 c a , c c c ?
Prop Speaker #2 pts_Z^5' Opp Speaker #2
ptsj i fb
pts 2 . "
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 inapproppime behavior
J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the tofnc and the arguments
o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters supppft arguments with
evidence—which may include facts and references to author as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debateespond to the arguments made
b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective w«e the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an orgaid, communicative style that is pleasant
a n d e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the daters were to opponents and judges
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 : ^ v e y u O p p l : ^. U . I / J I t J U H i S L ,
Prop2:
a/id Se>r 4^ ^ Hix. - - '
Opp 2: ^
T E A M C O D E # :
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :
o n t h e C P p V w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(Prop or Opp)
' I N r U K U t U l M U l N : a