Team Code #: Prop Speaker #1 pts^^ pts33L · iA5F(^r 00 îîNiFtcANTVf tIBW Îfi-tArN ^^€Pncc^ Jim Curl f 3) Round 1A 9:00am Room 416 Gov: 12 Wu - Ying Opp ... Team Code #: Prop

Kim Stephens f 23)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 3

Gov: 8 Abdussamy - SyedOpp: 21 Scott - AmbroseParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

PA R L I D e b a t e

Judge's Name:__{_^_y

Judge's School Affiliation:,

Team Code #:

bpp Speaker #1

fhetis)vn5L/

[ M ^ v r c

pts^^_pts33L

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 eliminatian rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for nlde (M'mappropriate behavior

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

during the debate• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaJcJre support arguments with evidence— which

may include facts and references to authority as weU general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively thpebaters respond to the arguments made by theo 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 in organized, communicative style that is pleasant and

eas i l y unders tandab le /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful 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 : /

Prop 1:"i" p-ersu<3.^lv-<-' om efkics /

/ ,ntfAs h

P r o p 2 : ' O

4

jp 1: ^ Q / CcrV^ ci s ^

- d i do n e

: ) W I

T E A M C O D E # :

REASON FOR DECISION:

on the yt Op wins this debate.(Prop or bpp)

A CDKf0^lhu.h-ersuAS\v^ one^,L Cf- ^^3 ¥50.21^1^-+ -- /e^w.9 aJ i re9Â)

Kim Stephens (*23)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 3Gov: 8 Vijay - CramerOpp: 22 Lacombe - AppelParliamentary Debate/Novice

Team Code #:

P A R L l D e b a t e

Judge's Name;


Team Code #:

bpp Speaker #1_

Opp Speaker #2

Prop Speaker #1

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


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

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

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

may include facts and references to authorily as well as gdneral knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the dehdmrs respond to the arguments made by the

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

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 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 : / Opp 1-

^jpe-S'-r■ f ^ O p p 2 : /

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

(Prop or Opp)^ 1 ' w j x •

l ^ j Z D F O f T s

iA5F(^r 00 îîNiFtcANTVf tIBW Îfi-tArN ^^€Pncc^Jim Curl f 3)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 6

Gov: 12 Wu - YingOpp: 26 Cohen - LemenagerParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:, 01KA

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1.

Prop Speaker #2,

Judge's School Affiliation:

Team Code #:

ViN pts Opp Speaker #1^ ptsp t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 , p t s 2 6 '

^ Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:^ "Pi AcfJA. 30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good/" * 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimifotion rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behaviorl o i m

Judging Criteria X• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters adalyze the topic and the arguments offered

d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the dpoaters support arguments with evidence—^which

may include facts and references to authority asll as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelydhe debaters respond to the arguments made by the

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 speal an organized, communicative style that is pleasant and

eas i l y unders tandab le /• Courtesy: How courteous and reso tful 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 : /

' P r o p 1 -

p t A v j i M P t t m t e i r i m r © pm m

Q - o e u m e ' i > o ^ n c ' ^ rQ fMM eooo f^rnnon - Iôk /\CI0>ibo

Q ame^Ti iMoems 0rt««T r\ne(- ? ww)

'Cmm<mOf(Si MTHeft-voooi. u^^cempcete @ T/w^-^ttnfH^tr !:

jsA:^n r^wHi i r^ 2.

/ A%MeiA nccop>r0 T?in9,(;Amn) ^ tricmPiîmiinn/Aemice^ OPP iQ iêrm) cotmi'iioNi O0 ipa^ e^TPtfiem Q pwrPf^/ t fi t tew. mto ow N)T

• TEAM CODE #: ' ^ on the pR>OP wins this debate.( P r o p o r O p p ) \

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : * ^ J p ^ t fl / n j A A A J ^ A t

mP AeJ^wdiiill ifW OMMC/I omJ uOAiî

U r v L ' : T E P A i e > L y i t a n r iiHe/ Kehu>p ALL. 69 ■rnGfL-nUE AuO HOT AvMyW^M/(ti ■

Opp 2:^ iflAPU T76 C0hir V 9 i ^ o ^ O H c n

T E A M C O D E # :

Jim Curl (*3)R o u n d I B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 6

Gov: 20 Caramucci - SundararamanOpp: 12 Holwitz - KayParliamentary Debate/Novice

P A R L I D e b a t e

Judge's Name:, 01 Â 6UP-L.

Judge's School Affiliation:. e a r n e r w ?

Team Code #:PROP ji[OV

Te a m C o d e # :

Prop Speaker #1 pts Opp Speaker #1 Ht)

Prop Speaker #2 6Ut>l/)At iV\AlJ Opp Speaker #2 KAY pts23o c e ^ .

m s t xi o \ 2 Q m

c t \ m n h A

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

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

Judging Criter^• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the topic and the arguments offered

d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efiiciently/me debaters support arguments with evidence—^which

may include facts and references to author as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effedively the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How relev and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters eak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant and

easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous aiespectful the debaters were to opponents and judgesUsing the above criteria, pl e offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement to' 5<77gAf(ft3 -We a c h d e b a t e r : / T P i f ^ . '

p p i ; / » : 2 4 A n o o f v i t - m i

T O H t o < » c , - m . « w f% 9077 'ye&ii t C0iV^ @(poo p&^ U.'7.) p p 2 : / o : ^ 7 , , ' ^ c o j u m r

^ p \ : l O ' O O / O p p i ; / » : 2 4 A d o o f O l , f t o i

^ c i £ m > i ' h T h W D T O f o l J t H c . - m i w

t t j s a u m v i — ^ ^ o p 2 : O p p 2 : - ^ C x M J d i f® F i p ' n - i m i ) a n w m . Q c o i ^ w e o t t ^ l t ^ o i M u a i ' j a r l i e r p e / ^ W t f .Q9ux\i ' , i t irDMPmw/^&mBue

^ i » r p e o u i m T m t i o F m u T i ^ .team CODE#; 17- on the OPP wins this debate. niUg

"lii hVc(kAxhj 'oWLÂipU. cJUfJUy (HM

(Prop or Opp)


Judge's Name: bAY

Judge's School Affiliation: _ ^ | ;;2!iiP R O P

Team Code #: Team Code #:

P r o p S p e a k e r # ] O p p S p e a k e r # l

Prop Speaker #2 ptsJ2^ Opp Speaker #2 ^'Vtrosl^ptsj2J?

_pts_25~Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:

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

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

Judging Criteria• 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 /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters shpport arguments with

evidence—^which may include facts and references to authority 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 effecti were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an org ized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

P r o p 1 : /— p o i i A - V

" '?oTs y4.e>r«Uec!lA l t a ? ? /

P r o p 2 : /

— C o O I c ^ W ' v c j

O p p l : - i ^ f c U j i -

Opp 2:

T E A M C O D E # : o n t h e ? P o _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : p^ ' W > C ) c>?P

ÔfNViTi PARLI DebateRor^tein Âv/

C(\^^^d^VL^'-KV

Round 1B 9:00am Room 417 l\Aw vV^

Parliamentary Debate/Novice \^V<C5Jo'r. ^ Judge's School Affiliation:. /CiP R O P

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1.

Prop Speaker #2.

Team Code #:

sSpeaker#1 V^QLJL^V^ pts *2*Opp Speaker #2.


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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anal e the topic and the arguments offeredd u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debateupport arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authority as well aeneral knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the dpoaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How relevant and effe(e were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an pfganized, communicative style that is pleasant and

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

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

TEAM COPE #: \ ^ ^ on the ^wins thisMbate. VvÔC_J9S^K^No>"( P r o J > o r O V p ) . O v - —

^0NE0R™N:

T E A M C O D E # :


C3^sIvn^ OÂ/vd. (^(575^^ -

Julia Miner (*21)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 9

Gov: 18 Knight - NguyenOpp: 20 Fields - GershParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:_


P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1.

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #2_ NaUM€IA ipts_bpp Speaker #1_

Opp Speaker #2_

D t s


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

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

during the debate• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters support guments with evidence— whichmay include facts and references to authority as well as gener knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaten spond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e X

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

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 diroaters were to opponents and judges

ove cr i te r ia^ le iUsing the above criteria lea^ o r c^pUments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : a m J /

Prop 2:

T E A M C O D E # :


i U C u j i A

m .Opp 2:

on the jfyi} > wins this debate.(Pr orlOpp)

l<w\r

(}XHhi^ 1''^ 'd[aJI iW mm

Julia Miner (*21)R o u n d 1 B 9 ; 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 9

Gov: 12 Chan - FoleyOpp: 4 Thomas - RalstonParliamentary Debate/Novice

PARlll Debate

Judge's Name:_

ge's School Affiliation:Judge's School Affiliation:,

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

Team Code #:

.-if bpp Speaker #1,Opp Speaker #2_ 'The mo--

j ^ r

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

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

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters^smalyze the topic and the arguments offered

d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the droaters support arguments with evidence—^which

may include facts and references to authority as11 as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelv e debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

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

easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and resn tfiil 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 : /

P r o p 1 : ,

J up p l : „ A

- M i r fi ' m

TEAM CODE #: //REASON FOR DECIS^N:/ .

Overall m

on the //V_W/_wins this debate.(Prop oropp)

■4- 06 15!r /pd'i. / :

i i r - (/ lyViaY^')\ y.t. y6s

Maia Vinogradova (*5)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 4Gov: 12 Krishnaswamy - LeeOpp: 18 Rahman - JohnstonParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:


Team Code §:

Prop Speaker #1.

Prop Speaker #2

P R O PTeam Code #:

bpp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2

i e # : / S/2aAwa-/^-

AfoAffsAc/i


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for eliminafiDn rounds)2(»-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude m mappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anal™ the topic and the arguments offered

d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debatsupport arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authority as well general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the Raters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

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

e a s i l y x m d e r s t a n d a b l e /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectfue debaters were to opponents and judges


P r o p 1 : D p p 1 :

— A / o f ^

Prop 2: 4-P r 2

/U<oA

TEAM CODE #: / ^ nn the Q f P

pp 1:

Opp 2:

C l j e / ' O T

— r j Z Z ' 2 r ? ' r r ' ^ * f

T E A M C O D E # : f ^ o n t h e ' w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(Prop or Opp)


U S > ^ ^ O p pU / O j ^ I P c t0 ^ O - f ^ P h J i

o n t h e

Maia Vinogradova (*5)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 4Gov: 18 Fong - KellyOpp: 12 Lawrence - PrivaiovParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!.

Prop Speaker #2


Team Code #:

teunbo^do

^ 7 -pts_ff_ Opp Speaker #1

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


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

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the pic and the arguments offeredduring the debate• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters sj ort arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debemrs respond to the arguments made by theother side

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

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 e debaters were to opponents and judges


Prop 2:. ^ &

Prop l :

P r o p 2 : ^ O p p 2 : f

^PP — (icziJoP reA- ôre. 7^TEAM CODeI#: on the ^ ^wins this debate. K/2xi^ s>poP:S t>7~ ~ ~ / i b , ( P r o p o r O p p ) >REASON FOR DECISION: bi.QHu>u-^ /Ua froP -M-Gy ^^^7^ V■= ^ C a 2 ^ r ^ J c U ^ A f o J ^ n k i j y fi ^ e j M S ^ < y L f -

/cf n<^l y s p -^ J U U X

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


Pavitdeep Basrai (*4)R o u n d 1 A 9 ; 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 5Gov: 12 Kwong - TanOpp: 22 Ov\ên - CoscarelliParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's Name


O P PTeam Code #:

Opp Speaker #1.

Prop Speaker #2 Ti . pts Opp Speaker #2 C(

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

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debat 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 th ebaters 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 o t h e r s i d e /

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

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

P r o p 1 : ÛfiiL CaL. TincA

.1: O&djlj/dA Q'O M d - ^

Prop 2:/)

f-i-/+ cewJ&xzci. .

T E A M C O D E # : on t he wins th is debate .

REASON FOR DECISION: i o c u

(Prop'o/Opp)


Pavitdeep Basrai (M)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 5

Gov: 2 Giverts - HanOpp: 23 Raesfeld - GoodyParliamentary Debate/Novice

Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiiiation;_

P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1 R MProp Speaker pts 3 y Opp Speaker #2 G 0Please award each speaker points based on the following scaley

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

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

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

offered dur ing the debate /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently4he debaters support arguments with

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

• Points of Information: How relev™ and effective were the questions and the answers• Deliveiy: How well the debaters eak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous anespectful the debaters were to opponents and judgesUsing the above criteria, pl e'offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Prop 1:

-t deZLi /JU

Prop 2; (r)

\ C J o A ^ u d L o n S ^

opp2:+, Xt)ouLg 2. -qovdT . J P s i j A d J U b O . 1 ) n ■ L P • A _

Prop 2: e; . Opp 2: Cu/^ -qB-lijuL juijl- )OLcJl

TEAM CODE#: c5

REASON FOR DECISION;

on the _®fljO__ wins this debate.(Proil or Opp)

Mariah Cree (*1)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 6 . ^G o v : 2 0 T a r l e t o n - E l m h i r s t , . ■ x , N ] C \ ^ i \ l n i T F f Ôpp: 5 Hinchcliff - Ying »Name: lU^ I y V-ylP a r l i a m e n t a r y D e b a t e / N o v i c e A . r > , n ) , / i - i ; n h \Judge's Schwl Affiliation: AylCJUy rllUf lOCjlOO/

PROP {AWrmcuti^) OPP (lêOOjbvcJ^T e a m C o d e # : . ? T e a m C o d e

Prop Speaker#! (lollin bpp Speaker#! Sfaoj /inQ _Pts. JjProp Speaker #2 pts Opp Speaker #2

H m E Z o S E IPlease award each speaker points based on the following scale:

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeryG 0a27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for Hmination rounds)

2d-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved fofrude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debajere analyze the topic and the arguments offered

d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently debaters support arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authorify well as generd knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effecti ly the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo 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 ak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant and

easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous anêspectfiil the debaters were to opponents and judges -n

Using the above critma, pleioffer qpmpliments and/or suggestions for improvement to >2e a c h d e b a t e r : Y ' ^ q

qood. uu^ Â > p p e 0 y ^ ^ O C ^ f ^ d ' e n ^ , y ^ e n t f n S ^!.T^ d4/dCi^C.ih^2,


Judge's Name:

Te a m C o d e # :

PROP {AWrmcubi^

Appm^ VOpp 2


TEAM CODE#: p on the _0jDjO__wins this debate. / fnChiCJU ^ ( P r o p o r O p p ) ^ ^

■-^•"ordbosion: ^ QeQ ihM^-HnrULiv OuMlJC ( (LQAjQojiJ) i Cui o- j jOi/mcch'on jCJkuj iwt.OTMTUL &A thjjyu miiruckjQ^ 'khiUJiJ^ iOtjUcM^ CLn.d^0i£<dMaJi

Qpp I inhodjU£j2£i {uiadik oWi. ip U.CJk A£j ou A em icU-

ea aJboAi

o A ^

a n j

Mariah Cree f 1)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 6

Gov: 6 Agarwal - MaitraOpp: 2 Brown - LisyParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:_

PROP (Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Judge's School Affiliation;

Team Code #: "X .

Speaker #1

thiSchsbl

Prop Speaker #2_ DiViidpp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2_

Please award each speaker points based on the following scal30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28=ryGood

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

Judging Cri ia• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively thebaters analyze the topic and the arguments offeredd u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficienjfeiy the debaters support arguments with evidence—^whichmay include facts and references to auth0nty as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and efp tively the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

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

easily understandable /

each deba te r :

( s e e d i r y ^ c k J h a s ^ S s m J L ^ a x n ^ a M n o i

(, CUinJe.WnJXUlcidw^^'^^"^ J i ie/~-M/ hmi. /5rtW lAJkCd 6VZ&SpeccHonX o w e - t t u . e n t i r e

r loYO d^wn cuhnklSj tJL^(g^rpL^ of 7 rr,inu-&^SPV y T E A M C O D E # : ( C o I# : J o n t h i s d e b a t e . - H r f y J L u X X l X ^ L ^REASON FOR DECISION:

*rop pr Opp)

^ ^ h t o M u i / r r ^ V j M j


Judge's Name:_


P R O PTe a m C o d e # :

Prop Speaker #1.

D P ITeam Code #: [

Opp Speaker # 1

Opp Speaker #2 TVnTOU

.pts_2=-7-

_ p t s 2 ^


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

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

d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaji support arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authority as weh/ general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively thebaters respond to the arguments made by theo 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 organized, communicative style that is pleasant and

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

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

P r o p l : , . , , i / _ . O p p l : ^ v - - H > u | a r < ' - ' C - < c ^ \ e

f t ' JP r o p 2 : ^ P e A i X C k a r O p p 2 : ^ _^ T - v i ? c l ^

C O U n r r i ^ J .

CMJJt

hoXp-T E A M C O D E # : ' J t v i w

' u , W r o S o r O p p ) D r j l l .REASON FOR DECISION: fêoiv |g lll(? d'obcU'^ bptOMJA, f e ! ! \ i O O A i 2 - , . ^ J

i ) O i ; « 0 L t L d c w C r u a K ( | i I ' d ^(ImcAvntwUrx rr]oJl>t. 2^ POH'K^ rfKUA puyfv acfe-is UJ<O^6.OAAoJ Q)(^ CQmert>ci-ÂA7. ^^nôrc4i' a/TccvH ■' i^SiOotUcA hov/y 5e.ciOKt^ a P<i

Kavindra Randeria (*8)R o u n d 1 B 9 ; 0 0 a m R o o m 4 0 9Gov: 12 Eng - MorgensteinOpp: 18 Le- LigutanParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:_


Team Code #:P R O P

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1_ ptsJ2^ Opp Speaker it 1l V l o Y 0 C i A A ^ n P - .

Prop Speaker #2 Tti/iXi/i m, pts Opp Speaker #2

pts 2g

Pts 23

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 inq)pronpime behavior


d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e y A• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters support arguments with evidence—^which

may include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debatere spond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

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

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


Prop 1: Q2y\\j\Qjh^QA • /

Ctloouc4f0nc!)1 ^ . 0 A J ( \ / \

^ - KJlcSJr ou j£V\saZProp 2 : cXôOJ&k^ c -U/ôUv/vov i

cmr r \ [ y

)pp 1: pOvaM(A| a

aA\c:( ccqiVI'CKC^ 0/

y)(Xo cIcfcyvVK't cUoUv/vo opp 2: Co pGo;. -(-(noaaCvi

T E A M C O D E # :


on the p TO-P' wins this debate.(Prop or 6pp)

^ v A o d l s i t ® U . LfouLC 3Xv"(d 9nc!3A'~ /)CvP

QIcxcxKS

d-pourprocess cxm^ py-e^âoA'^W(A/vovote. cy' f 0(5(5 OMyvvp I'54. (3- cJ cl'Vk

Cr^por iQAVfeS O-T lAj fvv 'cV^ V\cH" \^cnhd'0-c x m < u j m ( y i M ^

Sam Roberson (*18)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 3G o v : 4 M o s e r - P a s h m a n

Opp: 12 Kerr-Stein - LeeParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:.

P R O PTeam Code #:

OPPTeam Code#: V1

Opp Speaker #2_

p t s

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

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

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

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

may include facts and references to authority asell as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively/me debaters respond to the arguments made by the

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

eas i l y unders tandab le /• Courtesy: How courteous and resptful the debaters were to opponents and judges


"I 1= ^rwiV!5Cito\ \ iyK oppi:ôO(i* 5 ^ g W t D c d i Ac - " ! & ^ v w f t y C A U ' . f & A W . / I L / A u k r w k . » w t A J r / J r \ . r \ ^ i J f v J .

^ Prop 2: \OVNCa*\kWOAn OA Vn.(LHvVU\

l°PP2: iTîoVt^(<;Uc wWuoo SfwK Ml ft

( / . } c x ^ H x g oJUS*- CiS I pTJirnrd'^ joo dot^/

I V w i n s t h i s H a h a t A ^ J ' -T E A M C O D E # :



(Prop or Opp)

Oh*'>c 0^ al l \}^( C6 cf

Sam Roberson (*18)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 3

Gov: 4 0"Rafferty - FigueroaOpp: 8 Li - GharpureParliamentary Debate/Novice


June's Name:

Judge's School AfFiliation:

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker

Prop Speaker #2_

Team Code # ;

bpp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2_ >11Please award each speaker points based on the following scalej/

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = V Good27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)

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

Judging Gloria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the baters analyze the topic and the arguments offered

d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficie^my the debaters support arguments with evidence—^which

may include facts and references to au rity as well as gen l knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and ectively the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo 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 debat speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant and

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

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

Prop l :

VWrC gopd\iollK*t

Prop 2:Prop 2:

T E A M C O D E


, ^ y - 0 t e c i ^ ( P i

h <^0 gifi/ CAnf ( J M ( j o o

f t t O p p 2 ;

QoOcLcOorTl j -ha ye4<x fyi

y y i C h r : ^ ^ ■ ■

Pôp Opp)

Gmry Finn (*??)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 5

y QN\ 23 Clark - Stromberg8 Yang - Ho

Parliamentary Debate/Novice

& o \ / i ^ k j - pP A R L I D e b a t e t /

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1,

Prop Speaker #2_

Judge's Name:.


Team Code#:

bpp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2_

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

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

Judging Criteri• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debs analyze the topic and the arguments offeredd u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently w debaters support arguments with evidence—^whichmay include facts and references to authoritwas well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effecly the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo 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 spo in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant and

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

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

Prop 1:

f'nr r»i>Uii4AAAi fi(P ^ rvAd^ .^ 0.«,S * PfaNj

- t 1 4 ^ l , W W ^ ^ ^ p l a n' lAWrvpW ouf of 0<-M .JS^rue Av,

'sist\■m .

TEAM CODE#: 9 ^ on the ^(Prop or Opp)

~= 'gicScM Mfp

Sfdejl

l l ^ n1 1 ^ v o k H ^ a J II f V i

I (kJyviM

R o u n d 1 B 9 ; 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 5

Gov: 12 Dickerman - MillarOpp: 6 Vadrevu - NandaParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:

P R O PTeam Code #:


Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1 m

Prop Speaker

pts 2.5 opp speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2_

<r21 'Vpts Z . ' ■

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

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

Judging C|dteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the ebaters analyze the topic and the arguments offeredd u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and effici tly the debaters support arguments with evidence— whichmay include facts and references to aumority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and Jnectively the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How rvant and effective were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debs speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant andeasily understandable /

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

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

■P r < y 4 : d i d i A j 1

U mA.

oHiLc ldr i di

Prop 2: 2 ^ Opp2: apMi£AU*\ Xyd&iA., ^ jouA^ My/

TEAM CODE #:_ on the Opp wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : > . ^ a - ^

- J ^ S X P M X I X O A i M f c r v n t n d . U i d ^


Christina Arias (''25)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 9

Gov; 1 Murakami - BocacioOpp: 23 Kallman - NicholsParliamentary Debate/Novice

: CVwis-hcv,Judge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation: ^ H

Team Code #: P]P Team Code #:: 2 3 .

Prop Speaker #1 BbfACtQ pts_^_ Opp Speaker #1 N'CWo^S pts_^Prop Speaker #2 pts Opp Speaker #2 K>cv\lyV>^ pts^ C \ \ ^


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


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 withevidence—which may include facts and references 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 ective were the questions and the answers

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

• Courtesy: How courteous and respec l 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 : /

P r o p l : - W < r A ! > 3 p p 1 : G o o 1 V J - V n V X ^

2' Goo5 co."Ai>c^ Opp 2:U O c V X t o m O V V >

T E A M C O D E on the T wins th is debate.(Prop or Opp)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : , , J L ^ A - V A o u r U

+\AtvJ .-VNAie S(hrVN«V\V^ \A^\ O^J-e/AV\ IW 'Vvo V\C^^ ^>ac\-\cr


Christina Arias (*25)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 9

Gov: 20 Katewa - ColenbranderOpp: 12 Lyons - WyszynskiParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #: X O

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: S

Team Code #: 17-

Prop Speaker#1 Co pts_2J, Opp Speaker# 1 Lv[ 6 xdteP 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

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

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

Judging Criteripr• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the defers analyze the topic and the argumentsoffe red dur ing the debate /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficientl]e debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and reences to authority as well as general knowledge

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

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

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

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

Prop 1: OJe^MV )ppl: Shooîj)b X

P r o p 2 : O p p 2 :l o T

C V-€O ^ J

TEAM CODE#: 11


on the O yP wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

V m 6 V U . : > ^ y , \ v 6.evA^Vv*-? ^ AVv« v-eÂ VWv CoA:w~)r\tfr.\

John Hubinger (*2)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 7Gov: 18 Moran - AndoIFOpp: 6 Mohiuddin - SharmaParliamentary Debate/Novice

Team Code #:P R O P


Judge's Name:_


Team Code #: o(( ■■ t

Prop Speaker ^ e A ^ ^ pts Opp Speaker #1 2^^Prop Speaker#2 f P A pts Opp Speaker#2 j*!". pts Please award each speaker points based on the following scal

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28=/ ryGood27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qi fy for elimination rounds)

2(h25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Rested for rude or inappropriate behavior

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

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficient^ the debaters support arguments with evidence—^whichmay include facts and references to authiOTity as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effi tively the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How releyt and effective were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaterpeak in an organized, conununicative style that is pleasant andeasily understandable /

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

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

P r o p 1 ; . S W - r f

(pbiU-AProp2: J ' I I ,t L Opp2:

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 .


o n t h e f y \ T w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(Prop or Opp)

Ar lAjoi-hv 'D(f6Aii^ TVte-H^ l/^ST aF ^

7 , < 5 P ^ O M t r T c e > o n ' m ^ ® « .

John Hubinger (*2)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 7

Gov: 18 Gil - ParejaOpp: 1 Cree - NadlerParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code#:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2_

PA R L l D e b a t e

Judge's Name:


Team Code #: oft \

Pt8 2- bpp Speaker #1. k. oOpp Speaker #2

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeryGk5od

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

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

d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently Ae debaters support arguments with evidence—^which

may include facts and references to authority/ well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectily the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How relevanUmd 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 pectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

Prop I:

• Q o t i A

P r o p 2 : / O n n 9 - X I I - r i r . V \r r o p z ; / < T s I 1 ^ " P P A /

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

( P r ^ J c r O p p ) ^ i 0R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : , i . n / / f ' ^

iUrA^t iV-Vo (ÂOCLJ^-h


Mark Cabasino (*10)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 0

Gov: 23 Arroyo - StephensOpp: 12 Liu - FuParliamentary Debate/Novice

Judge's Name:_


P R O PTeam Code it:

Prop Speaker #1.

Prop Speaker m A oa l 7

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2_

I O

("U

t-%

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

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

Judging CriterM/• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the delpdters analyze the topic and the arguments

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

evidence—^which may include facts and rererences to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effe6ively 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 reley t and effective 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 d respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

Prop 1:

Looj/rtcy .f(L - l

P t o p j / O p p 2 ;- a J f \ G o o A i ^ L I , A ■ '

+ , / I F P V

^ A P f - a sT E A M C O D E # : i ) o n t h e / O ? ? > w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . . \ ^( P r o p w ^ p ) ^


^ c o f J u t ) L / / \ ^

>PPl: Goo^


Mark Cabasino (*10)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 0

Gov: 18 Mart - JohnsonOpp: 12 Ng - HuangParliamentary Debate/Novice

Judge's Name:.

Judge's School Affiliation: (2)P R O P

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1.

Prop Speaker #2_

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1_

Opp Speaker #2


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination roimd26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappfopriate behavior

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

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

evidence—^which may include facts and references to mjuiority 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 X• Points of Information: How relevant and effe ve were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak,in anXgaiiized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

P rop 1 : (Xc i ' c

CcJryUrcOj .r.

^ 15.V

Prop 2:Cy -5^

) p p l : , / C

-h. /fnF-

^

Opp 2:(01/- <V,

C k U - ■ o < — C ^ r .o f . J .w

i f C k X L , f a f j . j f O^ f ! o I Z ' ! )

TEAM CODE #: ) on thef i wins this debate, x v , / ^R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : - K ^ i M a ,

f r y L f f J i f c j ( ^ , c J - h o^ / l ^ i p I k / V / - i y ^

Tim Aboudara (*26)Round 1A S iOOam Room 444

Gov: 8 Kurada - GundimedaOpp: 20 Masters - FehringParliamentary Debate/Novice

PA R L l D e b a t e

Judge's Name;,

10'. Z-6D

Judge's School Affiliation: \ ts- o

P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code #:

O P Pt - O

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

Prop Speaker #2 pts 3"^ Opp Speaker #2

pts_2£

. p t s j 2 ^


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

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

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

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

by the other side• Points of Information: How relevant and effec e were the questions and the answers• Deliveiy; How well the debaters speak m aiyeifganized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

Prop 1:C < - » I ( W H S

" t o T u s " C o \ 3 r t ^ T OV o w l _ , ^ - < Z » - - - t * - ? Q ? C ^ \ y

Prop 2:(^(3) VAJCszvL- ow-

T E A M C O D E # :


O p p 2 : 0 1 _ A .

VAA,VÛ=r^ 'vbjr "-OEjXv, V: =K5T C— -T-rû.ki_

O ' T V » v x , £ . Y > r t


(Prop or Opp)

T T j « T _


Tim Aboudara (*26)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 4

Gov: 6 Iyer - IyerOpp: 12 Shin - ShevelevParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Judge's Name:.


Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2 pts_3dZZ


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


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

evidence—which may include facts and references to aptnority 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 speakm anganized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectfubme 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: (J)

( 3 ) O C V u - v C T T .G ) /

0 " C ' X v - v ^ . V ^

ATrAc<^_ Cppc.v^r

Prop 2' ^C2-ie\fv*A.v5T

G £ ) P r W

TEAM CODE #; on the ^ P wins th is debate.(Prop or Opp)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : O o ^ ^ o* r P'PctZyoô A^W U).\r-\=^Tics/^Cy A»~op v t o A < - ^

Opp 2:0 Co ^\\ •■rvKPu.ii@) GxiCr) O P -

( 2 )

G) C^Tt/v- " * ' L c : s j x \ = s ^ l c I / L ^

iOv:>p.<T *0

Min Fang f 6)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 8

G o v : 2 5 R e i d - G e r l a c h

Opp: 20 Cheng - ShifsParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:_ A lVl

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2 p ts_^

Judge's School Affiliation: I

O P PTeam Code #: 7^ d?

Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2 ^

ts_:2Pts ^

Please award each speaker po in ts based on the foUowing sca le : -30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good

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

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze A«? opic and the arguments offeredd u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters sjlpport arguments with evidence—^whichmay include facts and references to authority as well asgeral knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debmers respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How relevant and effeptwe were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in anX ganized, communicative style that is pleasant and

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

Using the above criteria, please offei ompliments and/or suggestions for improvement to. ie a c h d e b a t e r : / f - t n C K C l ^ Y— n < 1 . C A l m w A yP r o p l : O p p U - f c l e ^ r A h J

j V v \ o t ^ | - l ) . ^ u l < l S v < p p D V - f < ? c l h y

— JLa eviieûu ^ u y ■ /

Prop 2:_ Cow IJ hciVQ.

u-u r I \iyL^

- O tyÛ l ock 0 , - f

-f M-ve tj nUmkeva f-h>yCwV pOirrV .TEAM CODE # : P 0 on the ^

C\v(\ SvtppDV-f<?cl by"4 Pel'Vecjj T-i

6on)J ■ /Y]j>rvV iVi r(?bw-H-A I— ( o u U # r ) o o 4 4 i l y

Opp 2:

(X(Q not^ C bn-M" aI .

t 5 0 j <?sjwins this debate.

( P r o p o r O p p ) i / I VREASON FOR DECISION: ^ pp JjJ a r jd l^fâni ftyeuJ'i tke ar^yîru^'f' mosfU^c>y) -kkjt liMiACiD lyfiorci\ oU^fLe. w/ga-fe <7i0i OL©-t- bene-f''h "to •

Min Fang ^6)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 8Gov: 5 McKinney - StankusOpp: 18 Zhou - ByrneParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTe a m C o d e # : b


Judge's Name:_ AAi'/i

Judge's School Affiliatioa: P So p p " " "

T e a m C o d e # : / ^

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

Prop Speaker #2 \c kiUlflgy ptsbpp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2_

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

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

Judgineîteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectivelv^tne debaters analyze the topic and the arguments offered

d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e y /• Evidence: How appropriately and ef iently the debaters support arguments with evidence— whichmay include facts and references h/authority as well as generi knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly md effectively the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: H relevant and effective were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well thebaters speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant andeasily understandable /• Courtesy: How coious and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

Prop 1:A h - U C r V , , I

_ ' T ' ' U 2 ^ l i ' f r U

Prop 2:

+7? S^(U

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

* K.a[/e

I c J s J b x A ^

6 "T H-rAU ) cjv\<\ (AA-j-h . uÛliU-O p p 2 : g f f " g c h V e

TU ^^n^lysiS- CP re'\ô^c,\p(jzeff^t+iVe . ^

— TLs. d-eji i/ey < ci<|d L© mare StriteUjypp wins this debate.

( P r o p o r O p p ) \ IREASON FOR DECISION: Cpp -(:e<2-vvv> oasiVA Wy \ S CD!yim£?n Coy<2. (j-f-tlvc pl Cn. ckxaA ("H • AI -îys4 yc'^v Lci^c| Ci\ CA

t - 1 : 7 - ^ D 5 ^ \ ? P \ \ f n r e J ^ j c ^ i r D K 4 K i 2Cii C \yl \S c>i i xYy\ch\- .

Benny Der (*14)R o u n d 1 A 9 ; 0 0 a m R o o m 4 0 2

Gov : 18 Zhu - Phan

Opp: 8 Mao - Tong-SeelyParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name;


P R O P.Team Code#:

Prop Speaker#!. Pts^\

Team Code #:

bpp Speaker #1.

Opp Speaker #2_


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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anaMe-the topic and the arguments offered

d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debatets support arguments with evidence—^which

may include facts and references to authority as well general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the haters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

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

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?4he debaters were to opponents and judges

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

Propl: r® Sfc

Prop 2: . Opp 2 :

T E A M C O D E # :


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

.. < 5r /v<jL>se\x> 9OXA5\S o HmSse-'/vj \ cXQ XA V

C) 9o''') v XjV Vt:X^-<^vi ewuiw^^ /

4 . " * ^ ^ • ^ V J C V i 5 > '

9a>Q • «■ oo VMI\ ^ "b vvi- \ oo■^cvt.e\^j.£>vv \oCfv "5_ ujcxS

KjA.S>fP^^^SiOc:T^ O^ loVvjj ,- y)oHy\

» SKxjWeci •S^v^M.'V W-'iS'\)OOS« 'bJSixK^ ? 7 fa . ^ MstciAS

cv -A^s 4^>! tS?o«-«Ic) b€^Q<Sc\- Vax-Co-o-U!,^ . 6 ^ • V

^ ■ ûeôxV 2^ 2^V<A_VvlO0Vj\{i CxSQr CV'c - VA- JVA-O

■W ^ N ^■ . > ' ^

0 ^ V c ^ ^ - V - < ? c > v A - ^

Vvcv^ ooc-o^^ )<ys5--e>0>A-^V\. - ToNa-

Benny Der (*14)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 0 2Gov: 12 Feng - JacuzziOpp: 6 Anand - GuptaParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliationiation:

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #2_

Team Code #:

bpp Speaker #1_ pts_ 6.pts_3:0 Opp speaker #2_


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

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the topic and thp guments offered

during the debate• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters support argurnpdts with evidence—^which

may include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond/Co the arguments made by the

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

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

Using the above criteria, please offer complimentsd/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : 5 ^ ^ «P r o ^ r : ^ ^

\ 6 c V c \ A I N V A A \ H S \ S

P r o p 2 : / ■G p p 2 : ^ ^ v v V

/ ^ v S V ^ . " 'T E A M C O D E # :


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

(Prop or Opp)i U i N J f U K L U H ^ l M U J N : \ v

6 ^Wovo^ ^S< jS : iQoC V ^

Anton Kast (*12)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 8

Gov: 20 Baetkey - BlanchardOpp: 2 Lanzone - HubingerParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name


i:

P R O PTeam Code#: Team Code#:

bpp Speaker #1_ (- CAkfProp Speaker #2

ptsTAP t s


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for eliminationrounds): 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude opdnappropriate behavior2 6 - 2 5 ^ F a i r

Judg ing Cr i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anale the topic and the arguments offeredd u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debatsupport arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authority as well general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

/ ■• Points of Information: How relevant and effi tive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in anôrganized, 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 offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toeach deba te r :

o r ?

M l i P r o p .t 5 < d ~ 4 c N , \ j r e ( s .

C u d ~ e > i Q 3 < 2 r ^ e r s ,

TEAM CODE #: ^ on the wins this debate.(Prop or Opp) iiz C>*' po'Arf r»\ k la/vvAAmT "Pf/Wr.

T > t 7 A C r i X T T M ^ i - ' T O T Z - V X T . 'REASON FOR DECISION:

Joe Caramucci f 20)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 2

Gov: 6 Tripathi - ZhangOpp: 12 Chao - WangParliamentary Debate/Novice


Judge's Name:.

Judge's School Affiliation:^

P R O PTeam Code

Prop Speaker #1_

Prop Speaker #2_

>O P P

Team Code #:

pts_2i2. Opp Speaker # 1 ( p t s 7

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 = VeryGoojr

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

Judging Criteria //• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatM alyze 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 thebaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and referees to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectiy 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 effective were the questions and the answers• Deliveiy: How well the debaters spm an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

P r o p 1 : ^

f

)pp 1: O.'S

Prop 2: C>-K.'Jt ^Jl'' f o p p 2 : ® ^

CVvcM-'

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


Opp t<3a-SvC-V c\«e-cvr

Anton Kast (*12)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 1 8Gov: 8 Chen - LinOpp: 23 Barrales-Godino - PhillipsParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #I_


Judge's Name:.

Judge's School Affiliation: i 1opTTT

Team Code#:

Opp Speaker#22

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

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination roimd26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or ina^ropriate behavior


during the debate• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debatere pport arguments with evidence— whichmay include facts and references to authority as well a / neri knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

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

e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e /• Courtesy: How courteous and respect 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 : /

P r o p 1 : ^

P r o p 2 : / ^

TEAM CODE #: ^


{-Ha ^PP 6^dLcc5»Af2?c^ CiaS

bc?,\e 4o abo[G [%e,O p p 2 : ' ^

5 C A u J h ^ \ A / \ C { c 4

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

C{cc::r

e M [ S > ^ C d x / a i u ^ ,

Chris Day ^16)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 5 1Gov: 18 Valle - PollardOpp: 12 Bystrom - GastParliamentary Debate/Novice

PROP ^Team Code#:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2


Judge's Name:_


Team Code #:

b p p S p e a k e r # 1 _ p (

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 = VeryG0da

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

Judging Criteria^• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debilrers analyze the topic and the arguments offered

during the debate• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently e debaters support arguments with evidence— whichmay include facts and references to authwlty as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and eff vely the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

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

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

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

P r o p 1 : _ c o o MCTKer

CO old

Prop/ — ôod pc>i#4t c/'Jid

t o

Opp 2:

T E A M C O D E # :


o n t h e

- ^ o o d v ) O V C e— ^ o o d < v V

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

(Prop or Opp)

Joe Caramucci (*20)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 4 4 2

Gov: 2 Greenwall - VineOpp: 18 Alcantra - ThompsonParliamentary Debate/Novice

P R O PTeam Code #;


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:_

Te a m C o d e # :

Prop Speaker

Prop Speaker #2 ptsjJ_ Opp Speaker #2_


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

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

during the debate• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters supppiiWguments with evidence— whichmay include facts and references to authority as well as geuCT knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debate espond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e y /

• Points of Information: How relevant and effective;(wre the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an orgaiiized, communicative style that is pleasant and

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 thpmebaters were to opponents and judges

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

P r o p l : < ^ e ? o A //Oo)-

D p p 1 : 6 ® * ^ .

Prop 2:

T E A M C O D E # :


Opp 2:

on the L/ (T r wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

Documents

Team Code #: Prop Speaker #1 pts^^ pts33L · iA5F(^r 00 îîNiFtcANTVf tIBW Îfi-tArN ^^€Pncc^ Jim Curl f 3) Round 1A 9:00am Room 416 Gov: 12 Wu - Ying Opp ... Team Code #: Prop