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 ^ ^
^oir\(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
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 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?
Using the above criteria, please offer 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
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 . .
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
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 >
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 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-^A 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
w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
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^ l^Uti 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\ -^cov^ivv/ C)
f s3^ \ J j , r p rCJJ V-i i i f vtvvsA>A.Wl ^
-kvi- A^ovAjt ,|KJ_ NPJ\s pOK/^J^ - OLi t " . ' 1 \ / ^
^ cjj- V-wlciJ H vr^^Wxo-^ Vt^oUoo. -|: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 ^
A F F :Speaker Code #:
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)
w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
^ 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^4^uyo»'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
Judge's School Affiliation:
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 . ^e 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
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N
- < 2 j a ^ ® l j L t A < L€ .
(AFF or NEG)
LINCOLN DOUGLAS DebateJudge's Name:
A F F :Speaker Code #:
Judge's School Affiliation:
< 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^
A f fi r m a t i v e :
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 Del^eJudge's Name: ^ MTTi
Judge's School Affiliation:
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:
A f fi r m a t i v e :
S P E A K E R C O D E # :
/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
Judge's School Affiliation:
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 ^on 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
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior
J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /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
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
£ 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^ o^i£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 :
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior
J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /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 : /
A f fi r m a t i v e : /
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:
Judge's School Affiliation:
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<.v^oi^ "vSV^e^ q ^l^c^ ^ ^o<uJ\ ) " / ^ ^ U " J
I / J - 1 ^' V U ^ ^ ■ ^ > r < i k v \
/ ' ^ u s [ J v v \ ^SPEAKER C0DH :3:
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N
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 #:
L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name:
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 # :
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N
o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
(AFF or NEG)
L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation: hi 'S
A F F :Speaker Code #:
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 : /
A f fi r m a t i v e :
v/OWyva</(jWi
'Si'yi
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
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- >■
Judge's School Affiliation:
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 r^iuuiu• 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
Judge's School Affiliation:
& 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
L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name:
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\■fVovyXiA^ASON FOR DECISIS 7U. / , ^At<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
Judge's School Affiliation:
DtsZq Speaker Code #: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 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 : /
A f fi r m a t i v e : /
S r t x y /con+^Hdrvs Vo vC<y vvacAV.[(KCV- /\J-^ C^>r^A 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)
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N
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^ ar^u*vv4.Afb \'\C\l <r^
arvd ''tr<\AU r-b co(AVA\vy , y^V <»rg^Aw^.■ev^A 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 :
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior
Judging 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^^)
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N
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 -
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 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 cori^uoU5-Vo cic ^
^ - V o
■ ' J , •P > A s £ > - M A 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 N
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
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate 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<>\^es
c p o \ r r f ^ h ^ V n q ^ V pTVLci oAdy^ cy foVio^viH
.povrTvV) w /SPEAKER CODE #: > H
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N
L I N C O L N D O U G L A S D e b a t eJudge's Name:
Judge's School Affiliation:
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
Judge's School Affiliation:
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
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 £((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 ^OSr/Tb?«A. - / ✓;
• K y l r - J h r o U ^ 4 ^ C
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 / 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
Judge's School Affiliation:
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 #
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N
■.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-e^o.- ' > 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
Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good
27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate 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 : /
A f fi r m a t i v e :
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 % / ^ - , ^u - i ' ' \ ^ u ^ \ C £ (
SPEAKER CODE on the NJ (5 _wins this debate.REASON FOR DECISION TV^I^ 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
^ax,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?
Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /
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-'.
Judge's School Affiliation:
pts 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 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 : /
A f fi r m a t i v e :
7
Negative
I g y n
i U j u r
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N
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 '
Judge's School Affiliation:
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 : /
A f fi r m a t i v e :
SPEAKER CODE #; l(f ,
N e g a t i v e ,
- I w X
R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N
o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .
( A F F o r N E G ) , .. . J . J