AFF: .^7 NEG: Speaker Code - Joy of Tournaments fileKe A'vA UA_tu.^ uoUlck \iA^forktvf CM. . SPEAKER CODE #: L/^ on the _ V i / ... (quoted materi^contemporary or historical examples)

$Page 1: AFF: .^7 NEG: Speaker Code - Joy of Tournaments fileKe A'vA UA_tu.^ uoUlck \iA^forktvf CM. . SPEAKER CODE #: L/^ on the _ V i / ... (quoted materi^contemporary or historical examples)$
Andrew Schwartz (*18)Round 3A 1:30pm S3A f f : 8 Yu

Neg; 16 HanifVarsity L-D Debate

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJ u d g e ' s N a m e : —

Judge's School AfTiliation: /V 0(

A F F :Speaker Code #: .^7 N E G :

p t s S p e a k e r C o d e

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

Judging Cr i ter ia /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or su stions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (qu(d material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidencey• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebut speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments ofuie opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R V / C O U R T E S Y: /Did each debater speak in communicative style thatwas pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e : /

Ke A'vAUA_tu.^ uoUlck \iA^forktvf

C M

. . SPEAKER CODE #: L/^ on the _V -r jj REASON FOR DECISIONV i /

^ l l V M u . c

ega ive ^ jolo kil-l-'Y■ t ^ c4 : Joeo l S f^cc l \ vev>^

- T V / v o ^ ^

ôir\(p«=ixJ(V '"O

, \ | w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . ' \ j• e i S o i ^

Vc \u..e.

/ 0(A rW_ ^jfcdA'c^ £>'f A^PcvSeu.1 cul-h-J

C O D E # : o n t h e

X

Andrew Schwartz (*18)Round 3B 1:30pm S3A f f ; 11 G r e w a l

Neg: 8 PandeyVarsity L-D Debate

L I N C O L N D O U G L .Judge's Name:

Judge's School AfTiliation:

i eba t<

A F F : N E G :Speaker Code #: Speaker Code #:

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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggesting for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted matericontemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speechey• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/lWr side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the oppositi and rebuild his/lier own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant/easily understandable, and civil?

Using the above criteria, please offer com|mments and/or suggestions for improvement toeach debater: C(p5"CA f f i r m a t i v e : , / N e g a t i v e •

+ S o k i s o y V O ^ I i a CCross oyff\la4\c>^ sic

^ ( 1 , / ^

SPEAKER CODE #: 7^ on the I wins this debate. ^ /ii It'" r 'A — - ^ ^ ( A F F - o r i ^ b G ) > J , C a i v I ^R E A S O N F O R D E C S ^ \ V

Afe,-f. «=Jy o ^ f o i n i - / f - c / c r ^ U ' C - S

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJ u d g e ' s N a m e : T A I M

Judge's School Affiliation:

A F F : N E C :Speaker Code #: O p t s S p e a k e r C o d e # :

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

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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/ suggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case In response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidencquoted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidce?• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and iuttal speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the argumentf the opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• DELIVERY/COURTESY: /Did each debater speak in communicative style tmt was pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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

Affirmative: c (9 o pe R

— L^mJ

f e g a t i v e M i e j 5 e K > 4

p s x > c i - , T

- (\jij0jr - iM^ - CisLO^^ \MHSPEAKER CODE # : / j ^ on the w ins th i s deba te .

( A F F o r N E G )R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N

01^ ^ d/o aJuoS^. ccdc^

d fi X M ' - y O ' k : > .

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name: "T'A f

Judge's School Affiliation: P \/. i- .

A F F :Speaker Code #:

N E G :pts Speaker Code U: 11


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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speech• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposiu6n and rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant!, easily understandable, and civil?

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

Affirmative: £/iq- 'yc\

— /

_ ^ I ^

S P E A K E R C O D E

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

/ Negative CfcdaCo

_ , O e L t ' K s ^ - z M i a r n ■

l/ery

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

(AFF or NEG)

CT^)Judge-^-irogsfi""Round 3A 1:30pm R3A f f : 1 M a l l a h

Neg: 16 YuVarsity L-D Debate

LINCOt^ DQUJSI.AS DebateJudge's Name:

^ frvVikU I cAI ^ Judge's School Affiliation:

Speaker Code #:_ 7 ^p t s S p e a k e r C o d e # : N U

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 inappropriat ehavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for ii rovement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, conte orary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches? /• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her sidind how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposition ar rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, eay understandable, and civil?


A f fi r m a t i v e : Negative

S P E A K E R C O D E # :

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

: I on the Q wins this debate.(AFF or NEG); i S I O N y w , , . . U

L I N C O W D O U O L A S D e b a f aPr.v«UC3uW ,P g Judge's Name:

^ W bov-v-v/" T . . J 0 _ l 1

f 2 , w &

Judge's School Affiliation:"

A F F : . N E G :Speaker Code #: S>oL; [ ^ pts^ p Speaker Code #: [X) 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 inappropri behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions forprovement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, contporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches? /• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her sideynd how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposition anibuild his/her own side?• D E L F V E R V / C O U R T E S V : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, easil/understandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e : Negative\ / a A r t o - a r > ^ \ f . .



o n t h e wins this debate.

( A F F o r N E G ) ( ) . x j V

LINCOLN DOUGLAS. DebateJudge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliationiation: CI Cepr To HSA F F :

Speaker Code #: pts Speaker Code #:N E G :

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

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualiiy fi limination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved r rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments an or suggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolutiony• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evident (quoted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evi^nce?• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and uttal speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H ; /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being suworted by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the argumentsthe opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• D E L r V E R V / C O U R T E S Y: /Did each debater speak in communicative style thy was pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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

Aff i rmat ive: ^ 7Negat ive - f r£vU

•- F.-rslY-tUM

, J^ t ' ^ 1 / 7 / ° ,

• m a u v e : / k ' i N e g a u v e i ■ v - . f h

li'rkbJ / W\[lA - COiAt'evvft^'V, \ / \ \ 0 f . /

. / ^ . t s W ' l " is M - M — / ' t - j y , l , u , mM.,u) f '—

• C r 1 1 j J S H i c i X -

\c,hh chb\KER CODE #; 14 on the AFF wins th^ debate^ f /\ ff s

, , - V X V V y \ n P a >


R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N I I ^ I )_ 0 . u / \ / e t ^ w 3 C ' > V * A | ^ J - ^ 4 - c u

o n t h e A F F w i i(AFF or NEG)

j-iJj/(m P

AfF t>«-c«i\>^ N£G, . I<-J ■^' re-Â fr"^

' y'-<-)Vt "1 r -'ci-e 'o_f ''ij ixvA '' 'FaiI- cJ C — i I f ^ ] I

^<7 p r<i^ J jk- iJ TIna- 3 Fl-Fi -irr iAi^fJ

-j-o dyfV} l-€.(>) (,aUA (5{Ay\j ux C

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name: .Sa-L. p l< {/-6

Judge's School Affiliation. jC ( r r )' 'o H SA F F :

Speaker Code #: ^ ' -20 J N E G : .Speaker Code #: ^

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:3 0 = P e r f e c t 2 9 = O u t s t a n d i n g 2 8 = Ve r y G o o d /

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

Judging CriteriaUsing the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for imi^rovement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : XHow well did the debater develop a case In response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches? /• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her sidyand how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposition atrebuild his/her own side?• D E L F V E R V / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, ea understandable, and civil?

Using the above criteria, please offer complii nts |bd/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : \ / , . l , . . . . l A I H i . . ^ / . • .

A f fi r m a t i v e :

= V a l o J L i , . i

u ^ /

vavw>JA

5 r j c v t v j t i y

i > L ( ) v s A s h - l f L hl or»c)

K V | - ; a t r i ' v s f t ( y ^ \ p V \V- Wpvil f70\ fQj[S

U j j

M C . I P I V V ? V

S P E A K E R C O D E # : ' U o n t h e N S ' b a w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . i » i i , 1 )

^ ^ , ^ a A F f g ^ " f( R E A S O N F O R D E c i s i o N ^ ^ - fl f - 1 \ )^ ( fi i \ y O \ r s . \ j s / c i / f v / N ^ V C

4 - K fi ^ t ^ l , w ^ c r .

/u* I Ci

fOo n t h e

J


V A 4 - . I A X ^ ^R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N ^ .

Cc-VvWl'CLCM ^ l)nc4j til

K p r J r c c- - ^ a

ce -

f J t s IC i^ ' - 'W ^ , 1 / Ir ) v Y ; . < 4 !

sWJ iV-Tr^ lÛti J 6Uv\-4/ljl/li.)P

577. . f J—' ' f - ^ r " - ' ' ' •3U'=' l Witv/ 6VAI K-5»7 "iW V\f.rv -ITK "' '-irv

" t o - f ^w i t ^ io la voWvc^

S ^ - r ^ - l o ,V>vuv,r« i i r € , VAV^J" .

o Wj l-rM.cf/\A<.

hj^-^ VU, coulWciV. ccUockc;'tW-AfF^r W;iC

lv\ -^covîvv/ C)

f s3^ \ J j , r p rCJJ V-i i i f vtvvsA>A.Wl ^

-kvi- AôvAjt ,|KJ_ NPJ\s pOK/^J^ - OLi t " . ' 1 \ / ^

^ cjj- V-wlciJ H vr^^Wxo-^ VtôUoo. -|:W^ ' \ \aA>^ y. I I o-p ^0 1"^^ ' ( ^

Sineesh Keshav (*22)Round 3A • 1:30pm, R5A f f : 11 Tu r n e r

Neg: 8 VogetyVarsity L-D Debate

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJ u d g e ' s N a m e : I ^ H - A \ f

Judge's School Affiliation: 9 ^


N E G :pts Speaker Code #: o??-

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

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 /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/oi?4uggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : ' /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence ^quoted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evide?• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rejwttal speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments pi the opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• DELIVERY/COURTESY: /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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

t / ^ « f - 1 ^ ^ h n r » f i L *e a c h d e b a t e r : / ^ f r v i a T O M

A f f i r m a t i v e : - y — N e g a t i v e . , - w s m l. keWcArfia J-Jtu cXpv«.c« : ^ . Ov«4 a. -o.Jt "t>- d U A X A u L u ; c r f i ? . - v t v ® * • e r x d U J H -

•• CfeJU

^ SPEAKER CODE #: [_[ on the _ A F F 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(AFF or NEG)


^ n r . . - — I 4 V. 5 J - .

© sW« OLr4OL ce^Wk»o •• ,e<^celXa^-V J q H > J

P- gisJt Je. »-v/ cuvvflnqe.P«-oeAJL<LrJb

CsiUjes cerJCl© US =lAJwrN Wan- -Uev J-ejt.VwO cv\UnrviA"t"

Cn<uv^4ûyo»'A— u5-«vo I

y-ueJi«J2.oi W? Wfi- C-©*sOJW=1AA>C

W € ^

- ^LeAjre ' cS^-^ fYVL*v©^^

^ u I T ^c j ^ H -

ofvo-t<sjGU e C*vva%-\ IruU

Sineesh Keshav (*22)Round 3B 1:30pm R5Aff: 8 ChillappagariNeg: 16 YaoVarsity L-D Debate

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJ u d g e ' s N a m e : A n /

• A F F :Speaker Code


o?6pts_2_ Speaker Code #:

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:3 0 = P e r f e c t 2 9 = O u t s t a n d i n g 2 8 = Ve r y G o o d y

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 /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, conten rary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches? /• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her sidend how well was tliat value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposition atebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e : / N e g a t i v e

Vt> CIVCG?U«jul. 1 rv <>/vv-XA<r<S clouLctviLC/>. ,HNot WL curttu^ -H.#- feoJr / ^ Hva. |J.-voUJUV-

- r r v r t i . ê r U ^ t x • / _ O e J l 2 v - w e v ^ + o c / v J i e - • .

_ C a m J l C ^ o i j - ^ i L M J s d _ c j S M x ^ i C o I a .p v o n n c t i , A t j e w y t i ^ U j i x A / - i i w r a _ V v - A . - t > ^ / |^ ^ ^ ^ ^ - g o o i t

e^W.Vvj ; (Wt -^Wk' SPEAKER CODE u/ on the K lgfej wins this debate. —/ / - A T T C X T C ? r i \ U


- < 2 j a ^ ® l j L t A < L€ .

(AFF or NEG)

0 - V ^

^ cjuJl&X^ ®t VM o£ju/>te— U - r © - V ^ - e x A ^

C r v e i c s

. 0

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DebateJudge's Name:



< y N E G :ptsi'g Speaker Code #: / k pts__Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Go

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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or ggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (qucd material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttahspeeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supportedyoy his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the position and rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S V : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

Using the above criteria, please offer c(/mpliments and/or suggestions for improvement toeach debater: <.cj^


I i -c-f-r-f-

Negative

sJUuuuClaM} ■—KtfaJeLn -uJLm^

S P E A K E R C O D E # : o n t h e N w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(AFF orNEG)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N e M j J l k c u < A ^

(jO CaJ-

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DelêJudge's Name: ^ MTTi


A F F : N E G :Speaker Code #: Speaker Code #:

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

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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for inlfprovement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, contejnporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches? /• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her sidolf' and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• D E L F V E R V / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, e ly understandable, and civil?

Using the above criteria, please offer complinients and/or suggestions for improvement toeach debater:



/Negative{Uu. A.'UtAS —

on the A tvins this debate.( A F F o r N E G ) .

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N • « V T O c a a J L

Claudia Ault (*23)Round 3A 1:30pm S2Af f : 16 Pa te l

Neg: 11 KonaVarsity L-D Debate

Speaker Code #:

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJ u d g e ' s N a m e : ^ 7


N E G :Speaker Code #:

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 elimin on rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rud r inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quofed material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidenced• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebutt speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supports by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of Ufe opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R t E S Y: /Did each debater speak in communicative style that \yas pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

Using the above criteria, please offi compliments and/ore a c h d e b a t e r : /

A f f i r m a t i v e : i / o L c u - — N e g a t i v e

- h l j u i w - u M . / u . W ^

• suggestions for improvement to

te-ydA ^ f/5.

- i i I 6 ^ J

. f X A j h . J i C t J u c t ^

Z/.V , L

Qoy h iii HuAA^83)E #:

- - u

^ u p ôn the wins this debate. ^

(AFpW ^ A-z^cd^R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N ^ ^ ^n i " C J c

( M i f c U C f - f - ( d - ( M J ^ J J L a J i i ^ 9 ^

i W g ^ f < „ L< U d s ^ J J U Z u o ^

Claudia Ault ^23)Round 3B 1:30pm S2A f f : 11 M o n a s t e r i a l

Neg: 16 SuVarsity L-D Debate

Speaker Code #:A F F :

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name: C ■ A

Judge's School Affiliation: ^3~

N E G :

p t s o < y S p e a k e r C o d e # : p



J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions iw Improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, cmitemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches? /• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/hede. and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the oppositioo d rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant,y ily understandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e : . / N e g a t i v eI , r e c t u s ^ ^

s . ^ ^ Pa V i u J U o

^^5

i p a y u . - ' ' / t i l l O U i J i t .^ C l ^ - o r



£ U t o ( r 4 r d £ t y 7^ d J b o U y V ^ c ^ - c A O ^

m ^ v L d i i ^ U o j ^tSC

on th£ \ ^w ins t h i s deba te .

( A F ^ o r N E G ) .. < M y

a k - ^ y U S t « < ' © K o V S U ^ 'AUi: c^(uJ^ &Uk

Suh ct

Jo/ ]

^ Ov^ oî£to:-r 0^ ^7

^ 0 v J ^ ^ ® ^ ^ L ' f " i ^ \ ^ < ^ t j k ^ w A _ - . _ - P

Indu Kandasamy (*8)Round 3A 1:30pm R4Aff: 16 FangNeg: 10 Bali - Ar^ p-\ ^Varsity L-D Debate

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name: /^/^ / A^. SLi/tA^hi. r^n ^

Judge's School Affiliation: LopJe-lfA F F : N E G :

Speaker Code #: Speaker Code #:

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

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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments an or suggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution/• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidee (quoted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence?• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive andyebuttal speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being siported by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the argumentf the opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• DELFVERY/COURTESV: /Did each debater speak in communicative style th/t was pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

Using the above criteria, please mfer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : / nc a c i i u c u a i e r : I n 0

A f fi r m a t i v e : ^ ^ ^ \ N e g a t i v e

-

S P E A K E R C O D E # : o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(AFF or NEG)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N , „ i i \ L 0

< = : L . ^ a . . . ^ ^ r . L v V U J !

Indu Kandasamy (*8)Round 3B 1:30pm R4A f f : 1 6 L e e

Neg: 11 GrayVarsity L-D Debate

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name: AI^X H,

Judge's School Afflliation;_ Lo

A F F :Speaker Code

7 ^ptsL^ ' Speaker Code #:N E G :



J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or sugge ons for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted aterial, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal soeeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of theposition and rebuild his/her own side?• D E L r V E R V / C O U R T E S Y: /Did each debater speak in communicative style that waleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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


I ; - '

- O U w < . • /SPEAKER CODE #: I L? on the

■ V- •>

SPEAKER CODE #: on the A££_ wins this debate.(AFF or NEG)

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

\ J C . ^ o A f - H .Qtosc_i? c>./e.^ arl-itV/loAx. .

L I N C O L l N 4 ) O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name: r \ c .

A F F :Speaker Code

Judge's School Affiliation:_

N E G :Speaker Code #: U/1) ptsS -

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

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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments anc r suggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence/quoted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidce?• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rettal speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of me opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• DEL IVERY/COURTESY: /Did each debater speak in communicative style that \yas pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e : / N e g a t i v e ,

F f - C c J r \ ] - r ^ d , \ c U C -

* A/a'?

« y ^ r p , s ^ j J , ," t V " T € . / \ ^ O

C ^ \ M t . l / ^

S P E A K E R C O D E # : on the /[/ f G. wins this debate.(AFF or NEG)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N ^ | - ] ^ c/ \ / r r , . c ' v v . V W ^ Pn l E G - W k S V I r A • ) / )

p . ' . k WC V i - s - s ■e , ~ , r c . w \ ( A P f - j

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name:


A F F :

Speaker Code #: pts_2K- Speaker Code #:N E G :

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: y30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeryG d

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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and//r suggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidenc/lquoted material, contemporaiy or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evince?• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and iuttal speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being sunported by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments /f the opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y: /Did each debater speak in communicative style thM was pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e : Negative" Vl-oc<.vôi^ "vSVê^ q ^l^c^ ^ ô<uJ\ ) " / ^ ^ U " J

I / J - 1 ^' V U ^ ^ ■ ^ > r < i k v \

/ ' ^ u s [ J v v \ ^SPEAKER C0DH :3:


I .Jt>l Cy\on the Al T G- wins this debate.(AFF or NEG)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N , / . , i l l r r J !

^ . P A c J / - c l ; Ji'W., I\I^G'3

AFF : .Speaker Code #:


Judge's School Affiliation: ip\J h) 5

^ N E G : , ypts SO Speaker Code #: ^ L / i

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

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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or si estions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the eviden• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuual speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supn ed by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments /f the opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• DELIVERY/COURTESY: /Did each debater speak in communicative style \Mi was pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e : Negative

f v y x u

"3S P E A K E R C O D E # :


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

(AFF or NEG)


Judge's School Affiliation: hi 'S


N E G :pts7j> jSpeaker Code . 2 ^

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

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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or ggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidenceoted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence?• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rttal speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the argumenf the opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• DELIVERY/COURTESY: /Did each debater speak in communicative style at was pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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


v/OWyva</(jWi

'Si'yi

Negative



on the fl wins this debate.(AFF of NEG)

Claudia Ault (*23)Round 4A 3:30pm R1A f f : 1 6 Y a o

Neg; 11 TurnerVarsity L-D Debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DebateJudge's Name: C- >■


A F F : .Speaker Code #: /( pts« ^ Speaker Code #;

N E G :

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

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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or sigestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : . /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to (he resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /

&ou value debating emphizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quofed material, contemporary or historical examples) shouldbe used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttspeeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : 7How cleariy did the debater emphasize the value being supporte/by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( L n t e n o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of thpposition and rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that waleasant, easily understandable, and civil?Using the above criteria, please offer/ompliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : * , / - t j a tu c u a i c i : - /

— h o A d . h > a - v s a x h 3A f fi r m a t i v e : ^

, A

T...

/ 3 i / i n . < ? 7 7 ^ ^

/ y [ A ^ a --PvyuH

OJUd'iAvaI S P E A K E R C O D E # : H n „ t

^ aaa€^ $>UAi£. ^<SU^ ca^ iriU. op

REASON FOR DECISION

on the\(AFF

l A ^ U l A ^ ^^ p£A.lu/i^ C^d^tVLu^ ^0 iMj^ck

A O

- s ^ i n s t h i s d e b a t e . ^ a

- A u < 6 ^ f

J kd rB>LAA.Li.

Claudia Ault ^23)Round 4B 3:30pm R1Aff: 8 PandeyNeg: 16 ParkVarsity L-D Debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DebateJudge's Name: C . 4

Judge's School Affiliatioa:

Speaker Code #: — ^ N E G :ptsg^/ Speaker Code #: /C p t s

. r-' Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:^ 30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very GoodI _ 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)^ ! 26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavei J J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /

4 the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvem t fore a c h d e b a t e r : . /^ w o • C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /well didthe debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /

• E V I D E N C E : /ithough value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, contemporary opiistorical examples) should^ be used to support arguments. How effecUve was the evidence? ^ jy v rîuuiu• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches? /• V A L U E C L A S H : /How cleariy did the debater emphasize the value being supported by hisdier side, and how>4u was that value measured?( U n t e n o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposition and rebuildy&'her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, easily unders)dable, and civil?

Using the above criteria, please offer complimts aior suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : . .

( A f fi r m a t i v e : ^ / n ^- f h i y y ? ^ c U J ^ h u < /

ja/UyXTiXi SU.cry 6 ifUcp p iCcC-

ttu^ Cd,4>u^ ^. J

^ Z . O O - Z . - s - L PjCJU C:Luo ^

SPEAKER CODE #:

REASON FOR DECISION

^ 9

O n G < ^ S

N w a t i v e/IM.

^ i Z ^ 4 r 3 u , d . O u J r^ c e J l e x . , i K / z i / .

c a ^ J U \ J ^

cf^ Alu^ ijCUMh^

on the Meg _ wins this debate. ciu^(AFF or Gj)

c a y ^ y \ A ^ ^ U c - L A J> / l o c t X " f - i u L i r S t A - ^ ^ .^ JAX

^ m2 U,yY£ -A~

Andrew Schwartz f 18)Round 4A 3:30pm R4Af f : 10 Ba l i

Neg: 16 MasseyVarsity L-D Debate

A F F :Speaker Code #: / 0

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name: AkjA///J S


& N E G :Speaker Code

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Gooty27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimiimion rounds)

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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or s gestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttapeeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supportey his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of thepposition and rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y: /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was/leasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e : / N e g a t i v e . \ v . , A . r ^

i€.-foire lA-tZ-j-aJi jCeJ ^ e,V\v^c<} Hx<!rf - o \ W : c r i U o v o A | - f o v j j t v ( V ^

I k c A - U Z A ' F ( - k V^ If SPEAKER CODE #: L(_y on the wins this debate. \ ^ V X . .1 ( \

Andrew Schwartz (*18)Round 4B 3:30pm R4A f f ; 11 G e r a r d o

Neg: 8 SathiyaVarsity L-D Debate


Judge's School Affiliation: /\[A F F : . N E G :

Speaker Code #: pts (—C Speaker Code #: ^ 7

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) 726-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriat ehavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, conporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches? /• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her sidof and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposition anij rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, easdy understandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e : . i / / f ^ e g a t i v e r i i V J .) o h V o 4 - R e 5 - 5 ^

U ,y <£,H4 C. I :/-WOU, (Aykse 4ekW XVc t 0 C 5 > . ^ i - ^ ^ ^

- 3 r i v i w s ' ^ f c 1 ^ )J L s k - ^ W o 7 ^

SPEAKER CODE #: on the Zi wins t is debate. (Z\l\■fVovyXiAÂSON FOR DECISIS 7U. / , Ât<AtKl5A .^ r I , , ^ ^ ( l e 4 W

Negative

Lucas Tung (*11)Round 4A 3:30pm R5A f f : 1 6 N i e l s e n

Meg: 9 SterlingVarsity L-D Debate

A F F :S p e a k e r C o d e # : [

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name: LlAC4S


DtsZq Speaker Code #:N E G :


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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/oi ggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence ( ted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the eviden• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebtl speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being suppoored by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of me opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E RY / C O U RT E S Y: /Did each debater speak in communicative style that wis pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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


S r t x y /con+^Hdrvs Vo vC<y vvacAV.[(KCV- /\J-^ C^>rÂ WtJlS

Negative• - ? \ t A e v \ c ^ v e « y c a yV b b V t n V o . 0 .

* over vsjV%»^c.\rv V^ltA"e^crifIA \Vr^ rc>uv\<\.

l o ^ c r i h » r ) \ / - c r y

' ^ r e A , V A , \ - ^

SPEAKER CODE #: on the NFF wins this debate.or NEG)


YVy^cV^ Or- cSofrW OA ^\r*^ -(vTctiyvcWO *"W-, I Vc> tWc Uu-C'by]6»O\\A t>fc)ne^ WCfC' very OA ovi*rtb^ arû*vv4.Afb \'\C\l <r^

arvd ''tr<\AU r-b co(AVA\vy , y^V <»rgÂw^.■evÂ CY> /V^ robtAVU\•V\r- \rTd«A«<\<|( vrx fbvvc -

Lucas Tung (*11)Round 4B 3:30pm R5A f f : 1 6 Yu

Neg: 8 YuVarsity L-D Debate

Speaker Code #:_

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name: LvlCAs

Judge's School Affiliation: <\vY\es L(XWrir>

A F F :p t s S p e a k e r C o d e

N E G :



Judging CriteriaUsing the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvemenlTore a c h d e b a t e r :• C A S E A N A L Y S I S :How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, contemporary or l orical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches? /• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her side, and hoA ell was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposition and rebuild mslY\cx own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, easily undennandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e : N e g a t i v e

O o v e n o u j i A e y < . o r W < ^ r A r e - d s

JooJi ^»fc, j>.(rvt<r3 rel»yC.\ ' or werjf e-Qfrc-iWy.5 . + n r t - - e A - V V r O r ^ ^ , V « V o > » v C f r V W " e n a n A f c U t W' ' V i * \ o < , c o n ^ < d f c H o n ' - / r w t

SPEAKER CODE #: 2 on the ^ wins this debate.(AFF or^^)


noAit vtry 4+vooj wforwie fmnncWorVi •eniry. on -soowt-oiU-Mnorc. InViiV< (noA, a 4o\i"A Wi'vL>Vort« Wo® ariA. deVVory, M-o-j e«V\-e4 AVAv.<. <t\<.W/v-Vc ^ moir^ , h'lP~e. o^|>ne<.-K'Or) no'Aoirv^V-e^,dovriAy o*\,c V^/nV\^ vn«A,\c/-c VW*- At^»r\t.Kor>

Tricia Maxson (*2)Round 4A 3;30pm S2A f f : 1 6 H a n i f

Neg: 11 MonasterialVarsity L-D Debate

AFF: \ <£>Speaker Code #:

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJ u d g e ' s N a m e : O

Judge's School Affiliationiatio™:_MW5

pts_^ Speaker Code #:NEG: \\

2 . g -


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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/ory<mggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (moted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evident?• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebimal speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supptmed by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of me opposition and rebuild his/her ovm side?• DEL IVERY/COURTESY: /Did each debater speak in communicative style that pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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

(!toH n\OTe coriûoU5-Vo cic ^

^ - V o

■ ' J , •P > A s £ > - M A i "



on the AP"^ wins this debate.(AFF or NEG)

TnetaiVtaxron (*2)Round 4B 3:30pm S2A f f : 2 0 L u o

Neg: 11 GrewalVarsity L-D Debate

A F F :Speaker Code #: "2^0


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

Judging CriteriaUsing the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S :How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, contempocafy or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? X• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches? y• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her side, am how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) y• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposition and i uild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, easilyunderstandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e : / N e g a t i v e

ia%a ,\un you-f '■ y-o s.>iccs.4- ^ <i<s\p<>\ês

c p o \ r r f ^ h ^ V n q ^ V pTVLci oAdy^ cy foVio^viH

.povrTvV) w /SPEAKER CODE #: > H




N E G :pts Speaker Code #: ^

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

(AFF or NEG)

V HIna Habib (*22)—Round 4A 3:30pm R3Aff; 16 SuNeg: 1 Mallah -Varsity L-D Debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DebateJudge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: C>

Speaker CodeA F F :

p t s S p e a k e r C o d e # :N E G :

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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or sugg tions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : . /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /ithoi value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted;terial, contemporary or historical examples) shouldbe used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How Well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal spahcs?• V A L U E C L A S H : THow clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported b>yliisdier side, and how well was that value measured*( C n t e n o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in commum'cative style that was pleryhnt, easily understandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e . / j I j N e g a t i v e /

• U a , ^ ^ ^ ( J / -( 4 , 0 C a > c^J> hi)

J l i ' r t - f - j - f a- A - i U . ,

« ( X r c a v " T ^ r - ^ ^ l A t y u . " I 'i : > O U t ^ C t ^ ^ c U C x \ » ( '

-Ao ^ " fCs^ 'V- yC_.(?(,PS e ^ <j96hQ' ojd{ ■

SPEAKER CODE #: . ®n the ^ wins this debate.(AFF or NEG)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N ^

^ a o U ~ y - cC l v a J ^ A > d i c f o ^ .

,J4ifta-Habfirr22)Round 4B 3:30pm R3Aff: 10 QadeerNeg: 16 Patel. c t !Varsity L-D Debate

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJ u d g e ' s N a m e : S L


A F F :Speaker Code

N E G :Speaker Code 2 T

. M-i) Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:? 30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good


J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement £((re a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution?• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches? /• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her side, and how wej was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposition and rebuild his r own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, easily understmraable, and civil?

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

A f fi n n a t i v e : / p . N / g a t i v e v O c a \ r c ^ t c K

- f C a - l - ^ ^ . / , ^ 0 ( r J re ^ / i c u c A t . o z .

1 4 U A r - , /

! ' ^ 7 ^ ' 0 L / 4 s '- O h ' • f . X t

cckL,

Co C<r<Sx^ /l3 ÔSr/Tb?«A. - / ✓;

• K y l r - J h r o U ^ 4 ^ C


R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N / y .

o n t h e

(AFF or NEG)

^ 1 * " ^ - 0 Z v . / ' Z V / 1p-C- wins this debate.

LINCOLN pOUO^S Debate ,J u d g e ' s N a m e : v


A F F : N E G :Speaker Code #:_ pts« ^ Speaker Code #:_ .t»17

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very od27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for mination rounds)

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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/o/suggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S ; /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (qUoted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being support by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the Opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• DELIVERY/COURTESY: jDid each debater speak in communicative style that was n/easant, easily understandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e : , Negative

\ A ^ O

" i p - e o U e ? J ^

+ 1 2. 1:AI^

S P E A K E R C O D E #


■.2- Sones.-0 the ARPyw i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(AFF or NEG)

1/4. ^>4 A-eô.- ' > U ? / M J (0 i 2 u , y u j & ? f - e . i ~ .

,oJ

Oleg Tiktinslei (*20)Round 4B 3:30pm S3A f f : 11 K o n a

Neg; 16 LeeVarsity L-D Debate

L E V C O L N D O U G ]Judge's Name: [J\'

debatei V .

Judge's School Affiliation: (X ^

A F F :Speaker Code #:_ ptM. N E G :

Speaker Code


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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a y /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for i rovement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S ; /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, contporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches? /• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her si and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposition rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, e ily understandable, and civil?

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


z .

S P E A K E R C O D E # : . • g o n t h e t h i s d e b a t e .

(AFF or NEG)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N ^ P / / / 7 / /

Je-h^f-eS ^ , lUarh.L/al po\i\4-j, - <3 'IOO4LV •»

Roopali Bali (*10)Round 4B 3;30pm R6Aff: 8 VogetyNeg: 16 BronshteynVarsity L-D Debate

Speaker Code #:

LINCOmDOUGLA&DebateJudge's Name: KOODt^h PSq 5 i

Judge's School Affiliation: IH5AFF:

Speaker CodeNEG: 1G 2 ^

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: 230 = 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 inappropriajizfehaviorJ u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for intprovement for

e a c h d e b a t e r : . Z• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did'the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /thou value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted material, conteraraiy or historical examples) shouldbe used to suppor t arguments. How effect ive was the ev idence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeches? /• V A L U E C L A S H : /w clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by hisdier side, aM how well was that value measured?( C n t e n o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroi hly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposition and nAuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleasant, easily ihiderstandable, and civil?

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

A f fi r m a t i v e : ' * ^VolvAJt-V C - V \ u i r v u o

C, - cCfVlprC7MU6 /' C A i M ^ %

Vu -tec j . -

Negative VnluLV C - o f r i J ^ - • -

C, - Ban LmWettWj iW

V CX>S>'^X A A ^- I n c - c r t m e

G j > f % / ^ - , û - i ' ' \ ^ u ^ \ C £ (

SPEAKER CODE on the NJ (5 _wins this debate.REASON FOR DECISION TVÎ^ CAO^

d s J c o S i h J 0 ^ fi o o d C J 2 i j v ^t A ) / j « / i U \ a m n v t O A J L ^ o n r j - P n r

SPEAKER CODE #: 1&

y w w w — ' I A / 1 - V W l t v v j K / V J l > ^ V A » - . • I

âx,ah\jL tov A u i f J 2 > y A = ^ .

LINCOmDOUGL/V& DebateJudge's Name: k l' l^(|.

Judge's School Affiliation: \US

Speaker Code #: Speaker Code #:N E G :

Please award each speaker points based on the foliowing scaieJ /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good /

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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or sugs&tions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : . /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /

bf eraphizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoteterial, contemporary or historical examples) shouldbe used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal spfeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : 7w clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported h/hisdier side, and how well was that value measured*( C n t e n o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the osition and rebuild hisdier own side*?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was plsant, easily understandable, and civil?


A ffi rmat ive : Negative

SPEAKER CODE #: £

REASON FOR DECISION

wins this debate.

I] CoOpirX ^ o r N E G ) ^hio lAicuJUd 'fer ^6'Kur>

Katherine Jubelirer (*12)Round 4B 3:30pm R7Aff: 16 HuangNeg; 8 TaliapeneniVarsity L-D Debate

A F F :Speaker Code #: 1(0

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name: K-'.


pts Speaker Code #: %


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inapprom4ate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions r improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution? /• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence (quoted materi :ontemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence? /• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and rebuttal speeche• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/r side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the arguments of the opposhfon and rebuild his/her own side?• D E L I V E R Y / C O U R T E S Y : /Did each debater speak in communicative style that was pleas easily understandable, and civil?

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


7

Negative

I g y n

i U j u r


S P E A K E R C O D E # : o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(AFF or NEG)

Katherine Jubelirer f 12)Round 4A 3:30pm R7A f f ; 2 W i l s o n

Neg: 16 FangVarsity L-D Debate

L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name: iK '


Speaker Code # pts Speaker Code #: Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeryGdod27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for domination rounds)

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

Judging Criteria /Using the above criteria, please offer compliments an r suggestions for improvement fore a c h d e b a t e r : /• C A S E A N A L Y S I S : /How well did the debater develop a case in response to the resolution• E V I D E N C E : /Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidei (quoted material, contemporary or historical examples)should be used to support arguments. How effective was the evidence?• O R G A N I Z A T I O N : /How well did the debater organize both the constructive and/ebuttal speeches?• V A L U E C L A S H : /How clearly did the debater emphasize the value being supported by his/her side, and how well was that value measured?( C r i t e r i o n ) /• R E F U T A T I O N : /How thoroughly did the debater refute the argument/of the opposition and rebuild his/her own side?• DELIVERY/COURTESY: /Did each debater speak in communicative style mat was pleasant, easily understandable, and civil?

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


SPEAKER CODE #; l(f ,

N e g a t i v e ,

- I w X


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

( A F F o r N E G ) , .. . J . J

Documents

AFF: .^7 NEG: Speaker Code - Joy of Tournaments fileKe A'vA UA_tu.^ uoUlck \iA^forktvf CM. . SPEAKER CODE #: L/^ on the _ V i / ... (quoted materi^contemporary or historical examples)