o o j u ^ w ^ j . - f c e a j i n . a x t o o - i , - e a ^ u - - f ...€¦ · 'qte -roc.o...

YujQun -' Q t e - < > r O c . O

PA R L I D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: M-Q^^ i^ry^

Team Code#:

Prop Speaker#!.

Prop Speaker #2_

P R O P

Soiru'fc

yVcLn

Team Code #:_

pts Opp Speaker # 1 "TlTOLt

Uu>«J tL

pts Opp Speaker #2 0 jpClTQ pts

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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a .• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anmyze 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 as v l as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively debaters respond to the arguments made by the

o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an 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 respectM the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer mpliments and/or suggestions for improvement toeachdebater: r hcOo:\i-baJtaoyn o»>aM- -fo b€.P r o p l : / D p p l : , ^ ^& c o d ^ o ^ < ? r e - S »

O o J U ^ w ^ J . - f c e a j i n . a X t O O - i , - e a ^ U - - f -

P r o p l : / D p p l : ^G o o d ^ , %houc>/inc>r aJUoc î m p c x c - i S l o u 3 ^ r a . fi e \G o o d P o i + l ^ o i A A l n . ^ ô a S g o o d V o l . r W ^ s p ^ e c f m S n o V r eG o o d P o i 5 O A J « . T h o c t A l n . P . ^ âaJ good Vol. tW ônoM a+c ^ 7®"^ SpeêcAjiS rnVre

P r o p 2 : ^ ' * O p p 2 : aVo\*^ Soc*jn() -ôo^, i ux>IAAJ -boD^ ao ^ "Poi.

7 ^ , V b u . S t s v M - t h o * . 4 - K i L ' / , o J . u s a > ^ ^s R « > u ) / c ^ o o h O ^ - b ' n ^ ^ ^ db ^ . T > » r r \ v , - p x V ^ U ) V ^ ^ - H a o u a V s . G o c d ^

s 5 U , u ) / a o c h o ^ - f a n ^ ^

d . : x v + 2 ^ ^TEAM CODE #: O li*® prOP. wins this debate. irv\©>rc <yYM^ (P rop o r Opp )

REASON FOR DECISION:Good de.hoX. 0 WimoJbsJLi , Opp 4o b«. ajguuCf <s. jS-jLtJJJuL, -^KiS poJiXA^ 3^)ooX>'^ ♦— doe^fvt iruLA-J <x

^ Mov^> v-ocu^rviou-p cc JLCt(-c. ryioire..

ajguuCf ULA-jJ^ O- poJiXA^ 4d«'b«X-^ f— doe^fvt ir\JLA_A» <5.—

^ M0V^> v-ocu rviou-p Cc JLCt(-c. ryioire..Prop IL more. 51-« +f5tic9. oAd U)r.vie Ofp »*l<u3e some. <*<1re.'H*Jti3cC'>"ot S, ■iVve. ?«op Vv>^ ' SYn>npiM- OtfgjraO o oj-a torYVejrrt-<5. CscAV*

S i d e s . > - o e r e 9 r e a _ + ' o

JudgeR o u n d 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 8 0 4Gov; 3 Yuan. Bonot Ko5hIc-iO - Vi^rrTOpp: yVah iUy iy -Tidn f ^^voaJ la^N o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e ^


Judge's Name:_ M ujbaâLCJU^

Judge's School Affiliation:

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #2_

(CjjCf Team Code #: /Dts bppSpeaker# 1 UJClS-A^ pts_

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

' D o V ^ J « ra -

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


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

dimng the debate• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters si ort arguments with evidence— which; ^ n^y include facts and references to authority as well as gepml knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debars respond to the arguments made by the

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

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

Usiiig the,above criteria, please offer rampliments and/or suggestions for imprpyeip^nt to

r>,ore - u>l-Hu^ -jbra. bocLtjdS ^H f e s b r i c o n - f s e n i J i ' o i r v . ^

P r o p 2 : • , O p p 2 : V S o a r c a .I J L i U x J y w M - . - V o c e d i d m \ 7 o u J r

• P h o o u i h . J L e ^ o p i ^ T v w 4 - 0 ^

each debater: S-p€>4 eda-c.«dc4.oo«-4r,*o W- 'i• feood ^focLLLna A

- f o b e P K o r o o ^ Q - /9d:ihJUiL>ppl- (brQcdt aunsuoex q-o -evv*, poi ;( J o A t - t J U j ? o + t o L y - f e i u n I K I A ^Poti cdLu>o^SCx>od^ s.e«u5 Aj ico-ft SpiLQJMâQ . TKM

r> g, tOi

SbuutrO - H o l V

âdc)^re«is

4 . > p w t d O c u ^ f i X W

Tvw 4-0 IQC, inr><?rTt,hhooL^h' PoAi- A-e-fc opf Tvw 4-0 Iqc, roar^ <atA^»vc^ tJt>u-v Sf^^C'K*. Kion 4^ +' btf&tu-st <5oa*V (vnJer^sb*AJ <a^KqtuYifiiTl'J o u ) r » . G r - e ^ 6 j o n + t u . s t o JT E A M C O D E # : o n t h e p r o p w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . . 1 o . ± ^ S ! y

(Prop or Opp)

" T W j l h o u r ^ e .

Uufc ô p p 6 i d{ j - t x p e n tc o i o .

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : - —c x j n o - » - Q u m a 4 i J t . ^ d o r v t -

c u - e . ' 9 v - o p n O o d o .o O G r e n f o v o ^

hreCLiA^ St>vy.p ev^c o- Poo o-'u)- r v \ A o p p J v > o - a f i

0 rAi. VkaJLis .

d o n + t u . s twins this debate. 5 O sowutt+w -i f W " t H a j n .

I dorvi- +V>,v,le f+s «'^-h-a-+»■9v-of rOok o. soTwa, oA^wjitxanl;l a o f c " t ^ ® P P . T K * ^p r o p S w o u o l J

c O

p r o p- fcKOj j fe

Lfl. Opp5\riO lA g_J

T V i J ^ i s

k ixve J~'p o o A t< x ^ - f c K v c o i : ^ » r \ * ' b I . i .

aui-ôumju^M' j thcd' re^bj^^jd .

JudgeR o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 8 0 5

Gov: 7 Chan - FoleyOpp: 3 Chen - JonesN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e

Team Code #:P R O P


Judge's Name:_


Team Code #:

[ c iCQ^

Prop Speaker #1 0 H ptSc3.^ bpp Speaker #1_ ptsc3SProp Speaker #2 FO L pts 03 Opp Speaker #2 OH S pts3^Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /

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

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved foi4ude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• 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 efficiently the Raters support arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authority asell as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and efifectivelj e debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant andective were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in4n organized, communicative style that is pleasant ande a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e /

• Courtesy: How courteous and respec™l the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

Prop 1: (Ôocf ,

, ejLr\ckI C-BProp 2:

)pp 1: (QOacJi Î c h M x A i d t

Opp 2; _cJL

T E A M C O D E # :

REASON FOR DECISION:

on the wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

(Xo WccoiL oc

yuJLâSo o^cL

' y u o U J C < - o V \ c : L ,

JudgeR o u n d 1 B g : 0 0 a m R o o m 8 0 5Gov: 4 Khan - BaigOpp: 10 Baxter - NamN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e


Judge's Name

Judge's School Ai¥iIiation:_

: rrUJlJUU fla

Team Code #: Te a m C o d e # ;

Prop Speaker #1_

Prop Speaker #2_ 15 A I pts r?bpp Speaker #1_ B R V ptsopp speaker #2 N3 pts3^

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeiyGop(a

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaten 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 thebaters support arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authority awell as generd 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 aeffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak^n an organized, communicative style that is pleasant and

eas i ly unders tandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and resitful the debaters were to opponents and judgesUsing the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

P r o p l : / L p l : { j J j L i ! c ^ c kj j . C J L > ^

C L J U M S l j l ,

Prop 2: LO-JUy

)pp l :

Opp 2:

T E A M C O D E # :

REASON FOR DECISION;

on the _ J _ __wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

iO S C O ^

n - iI 1 \» ) f c )

, _ s\^ _s

1^

^ 1 1c a £

l^'i

= 54

H 1 4

JudgeR o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 8 0 6Go v : 1 0 F i e l d s - Ge rsh

Opp: 3 Jia - JiangN o v i c e P a r i i D e b a t e

P R O PTe a m C o d e # : I 0

Prop Speaker #1_

Prop Speaker #2


Judge's Name:.


O P PTeam 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 dfinappropriate behavior

Judg ing Cr i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyM 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 pport arguments with evidence— whichmay include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the dehtuers 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 an orgmiized, 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 were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer com^e a c h d e b a t e r : 7

Prop 1; V

Prop 2: + C(W\4 cSlfiAASPeaCi /

j v O i i e e / e / ,S9«2C)A V/ CUIC V\tQ

ments and/or suggestions for improvement to \ - ^ \ A1. \)JOvX(X \A0Ne c\Vie\n uoo

l ^ m V ^ | f Q e W J

( N H O k V \ - \ \ \ f .\vvQ!u!)v \y v!toS()iA< 9|V09'fcKvjOW <

- yoy \jG^v® p p 2 ' y i f p ? i f ®

slOJU Jcu/b cAl r-f^ yc\;ir ^i/id

T E A M C O D E # :


on the 0V\ wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

? f < ) P ^ c b % l C C K ^ ^ S O c f S d 6 9 9 , \ ) L - i^ c V a s i 0 o a - ,\ w ^ M c A d d v v > c T

JudgeR o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 8 0 6G o v ; 1 0 B u r r o u s - G u n n

Opp: 3 Firsov - KwakN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e

Team Code #:


Judge's Name:.

Prop Speaker #1.

P R O P

Guvn)

Judge's School Affiliation

Team Code #:

bpp Speaker#!. H-VMProp Speaker #2_ feui r rous Opp Speaker #2 T\CSO\| tsPlease 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 elimmdnon rounds)

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anze 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 debajdrs support arguments with evidence—^whichmay include facts and references to authority as welLas general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively theydebaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effve were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in amorganized, communicative style that is pleasant ande a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e /

• Courtesy: How courteous and respectfiiLme debaters were to opponents and judges

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

\ ( * s v S c a K l f t - - b p p 1 :(\ViV\OcVts" rwHiii0d:' (\S'S,C\SSS. 3 'p«i\iO(iTrwvv<^v

W iS ^ Wife, (r*nd cjf/vAi loit- wjovv W ^

- \ o d c M A A j fl t A - G ^ 6 o w1 » c e a . \ v v ^ ^ • y : a v v > ^ e 5

JNQsicK v\A(Af9 cVcjaiA\2 \_ ) ^ M V v K d / i ^TEAM CODE #: S on the 0<^ wins this debate. Sy dCD S

(Prop or Opp)REASON FOR DECISION:L O W i N r w j : ^ i ^ n v ^ i a i u i N :

^Vjcvym' -^CVB (M V\t\-p\cl(:|V)j ^ OV l?A/l\ -^0^ 6^^ )«.coi^f5e 0% yj2i\e\r ^

P R O PTeam Code#:

Prop Speaker#!.

Prop Speaker #2_


Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation:.

Team Code #:

% tpts Opp Speaker #1 ^3^

Opp Speaker #2 Y Z_pts2iPlease award each speaker points based on the following scale: X

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

2<h25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved M rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debateis 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 thebaters support arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authority aell as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectiveiythe debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

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

eas i l y unde rs tandab le /• Courtesy: How courteous and respefiil the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

Prop 1:

*Yiorc- 00010*1

Prop 2: Opp 2:

T E A M C O D E # : X )


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

JudgeRound 1B 9 :00ann Room 807

G o v : 3 M o o r e - G o m e z - S i u

Opp: 7 Liu - FuN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e


Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation:_ DVi-V •P R O P

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_

pts3^

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1.

pts %0 Opp Speaker #2_

O P P^ .

Z..I pts. 25

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

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the deba 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 tbeJaebaters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and referees to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectiyidy 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 md 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 re ctful the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

Prop 1: )pp 1:

'cLlv\

C \/nc/'Y ■Prop 2: Opp 2:

TEAM CODE #: ^


on the ^ ' wins this debate.(Prop orOpp)


JudgeRound 1A S iOOam Room 808Gov: 3 Chimni - Lansing -Opp: 5 Zaheer - ChaudhriN o v i c e P a r i i D e b a t e

Judge's Name:_ M-lLUiy\}ArUA


P R O P O P PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker

Team Code #:

,pts, JA Opp Speaker#!. 2-Ai 6(: a otsZSPts. 23- Opp Speaker #2. _pts.

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeiyGp<5d

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

evidence—which may include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effecti ly the debaters respond to the arguments made

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

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

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

Propl:^ . ZSi - /V,fVvZ-/^ /

. r /i - 2-r/C - 2,g/P r o p 2 : /

— - +

T E A M C O D E # :


Opp I: ^C \A

PoT3!>eXv<'

Opp 2:

on the. fRof(Prop or Opp)

wins th is debate .

JudgeR o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m R o o m 8 0 8

Gov: 3 Cuddihy - NavruzyanOpp: 4 Iyer - IyerN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e


Judge's Name:_ M^LUIaTKAAJudge's School Affiliation:

P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1 /V-AV / ts 2.4 Opp Speaker #1 [Prop Speaker #2 (L Obih / / V pts 2 Opp Speaker #2

^ 1 1 1 [ptszrvts_2Jh

Please award each speaker points based on the following scaley30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28=ydtyGood

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

Judging Cri ia• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively thebaters analyze the topic and the argumentsoffered during the debate /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficieiw the debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts andferences to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and eftively 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 t and effective were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaterseak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily imderstandable /

• Courtesy: How courteous anespectful the debaters were to opponents and judgesUsing 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: )pp 1:— Cxd>oc

Prop 2:- Cr(ro

Opp 2: (S'-zadJ oLoJiAr^^^ ;

CXAJ (xJoAAJ xlXu UdxAAT E A M C O D E # :


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

CAJt. (^^NlLi^Ch

JudgeRound 1 9:00am Room 811 (single flight)Gov: 2 Booth - BroganOpp: 3 Deng - QianN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e

P R O P _Team Code #:


Judge's Name: (Q b-fhO |E> A DA fJudge's School Affiliation:_

G P P _ /T e a m C o d e # : < /

Prop Speaker#I " ^0 pts Z'j Opp Speaker#1 / pts 2^Prop Speaker #2 T ( ' f pts Opp Speaker #2 ptsPlease award each speaker points based on the following sc:

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 eiyGood27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qify for elimination roimds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Resved for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Critwia• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the deleters 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 me debaters support arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectiyely the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

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

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

Prop 1:

^ " Pol- y ^ W W

P r o p 2 : / v v > - ^ v e 6 CN<>Opp 2:

REASON FOR DECISION:(Prop or Opp)


Gov: 3 Chen - JonesOpp: 4 Khan - BaigN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e

Team Code #:


: : L (Judge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation: C ^' t-kar-i-P R O P

Te a m C o d e # :

Prop Speaker#1 vts^Prop Speaker #2 Oi\-gA pts

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2_ fskorxjtslM

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

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters alyze 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 defers support arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authority as w as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively tl debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How relevant and ef tive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in 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 respectfUyme debaters were to opponents and judges

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

P r o p 1 : D p p l : o o ^ l A f O r

c a r ^ o f o i r . '

Prop 2: CoukJ be tAWeJ ie«-er

o^fkarv(/ l '

0 p p 2 - V e r y s a o J iO O t / n t o ^ o r WA e M - ^ ^ a ; l 4 - ocril 0-^

T E A M C O D E # : on the Pp _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

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

r e ^ o A S e + o t k . . + c o u ' i d b e e A < ,mo'-c 0^04:^6^, p^e.sscJ Ic^.c o-J ^,0^ Icl:^C?f

COuA-fer-S Ly f-ka OpOoItioA ,


Gov: 7 Vainberg - TranOpp: 10 Fields - GershN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e

Team Code #:


Judge's Name: -OV

Judge's School Affiliation:,

P R O PTeam Code # :

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

bpp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2_ fie ldPlease 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 rut r inappropriate behaviorJudging Criteria /

• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analwe 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 debater support arguments with evidence—^whichmay include facts and references to authority as well knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the d aters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How relevant and effecti/e were the questions 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 thebaters were to opponents and judgesUsing the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Prop 1:

p l ( y c h i tc H e d . 7

Prop 2: N^VAceoly a w r •

TEAM CODE#: 7 on the

^PP Lcipô !A cpr <z\ctii ar\ C(fU5cfiiov\

3 - ^ 0 ^ x 7 < ? A < J •(?J 5 (< jl\e d "fkoojyK .

Opp2: Gdol niff\dx>r02r\Co 0 pciric\ersvS' e ck, fkoujr^ +0 coAclus i ioa^ ju^- f

Ho 3(1 , l f \ (Ls i 'o n t h e ' ^ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(Prop or Opp)i r r o p o r u p p ;REASON FOR DECISION: proPor - Me a tvcK croif eJ cr >*sn-{"p/'cotla c/'foif/'cxN , >v<;hrM0il Iffp'SCS |V\ loyic

C<"\tenI' 'Ofvs. S&w^cil octriiaJlî 'nsiâ/"edicol bilb) werg r\ai effeicC-Vtl , It dino o fg^-fo Ae, pAopoAgn-f- J/d-e.


Judge's Name: Ct)Y \)rvnC



Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

Opp Speaker #1 BvA n)Opp Speaker #2

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analy 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 debates support 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 effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an 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 respectful debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer coiraliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : ' /

Propl:e\\)ocl lopp l:Ar(7\Winr\Tm (J not^ r n w m c n r W - T W t i - v x c ^ n «

P r o p 2 : A m H f r r < ^ o p p 2 : e A o o o \ o o r v \ p « ^ r f^ * < A c ( 7 u w c \ m - e ^ ^ > o c i c ^ c ( c t ^ c e . ^ J„-weV tncV-gvj »uircw drv<A

t > n c w .p n c w -

TEAM CODE #: ^REASON FOR DECISION: '

o n t h e _ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(Prop or Opp)\ \ — ^ r r /R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : d C I W t l M e N I o t C n c C

iPARLI Debate

Judge's Name: CPnmnC H^nC

Judge's School Affiliation:, ^ H C

P R O PTeam Code#: Team Code#:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker#2__MfVVV

bpp Speaker #1_

Opp Speaker #2_

c v \ ( 7 \ n

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 eliminatipn rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude ordnappropriate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyz e 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 debaters pport arguments with evidence— whichmay include facts and references to authority as well as neral knowledgeArgumentation: How directly and effectively the debars respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /Points of Information: How relevant and effectivywere the questions and the answersDelivery: How well the debaters speak in an org zed, communicative style that is pleasant ande 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 were to opponents and judges

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

P r o p l : - « V d c a U C T r t c i - e t b o dK K C • > e r \ ^ J c r ^ e n o u c i k \ «f x i l d e n c f .

Prop2:eA60d deiwervjU-v t r v i l o p j u j fi n d Jc dcAuonrc\v| «Yddre-t<e< Uvft<^ COUflrWjc vtcwon-r •

TEAM CODE #: t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(Prop or Opp)J i v / p \ J L


b c \ w c r v j c t i m Y ^ r e c l T \ > u t T i n d- s u f f K U r M - C C N f ' ^ c ^ m c e .

P A R L I D e b a t e

P R O PTeam Code #;

'' Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2_

Judge's Name: ElVJudge's School Affiliation:

Team Code # :

bpp Speaker #1 SCQ-H-

Opp Speaker #2 QlnAW

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 fo limination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior24-20 = Poor

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 deters support arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authority as -wAx as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively debaters 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 respectml the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

1- evi'AecccPpp 1:P r o p 1 : - T V. v c e d 1 : ' X U t M- v ^ o v ) a V v W q / c V C V u . t 0 ^ u p v J ^ y o oC C J O U l c x ^ j v ) d q c \ \ \ - ^ \ < \ P o i n - V S ■CCiold ^.xzjep buEr>CT b-e- cs-\>\s2_^

j \ )dojC hc\.v<-

Prop2;-X reaU.\ y.v jc opp 2>-W P"" ' " Vtcaos^

J^VA bo .v r ^ -Vba -v env j v roo , - x r -e^WvA hvc j ^ rV O Q V - 9 e o ( p \ < T O V b ^ r ' 3

T E A M C O D E # : O o n t h e V \ O \ — ' w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .


Vvop vjbcxs ~Vo Ivovi bVujv\ ^cvS I;SQK<^-^ cxr\; c an-VvvCv acc-es.'b, Vo r or-e, be-n fiVSO??'

6 a s


G o v : 3 F i r s o v - K w a k

Opp: 2 Booth - BroganNovice Pari! Debate

Team Code #:


P R O P .

Prop Speaker #1, its2S

Prop Speaker #2_ y-vfscv

Judge's Name:. %\\\ OxoJudge's School AfBliation:.

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2_ ,ptsZ3Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very od27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify folimination rounds)

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters alyze 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 deteters support arguments with evidence—^whichmay include facts and references to authority as w as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively tl 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 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/me debaters were to opponents and judges


P r o p p c s v t ^ P P 1 : * " c x n d X ' nI L u J a s r ' - V c \ - H N e j ^ r u d c ^— ^ S V ^ £ V c V . v \ / g o o d j ^ l

S ^ v « r \ C c e h o v k l ^ L . S V f i ,r . o r e . t s S u ^ S c o f X O O . A . i n I ^- P r o p 2 : / ^ 0 p p 2 : - x [ \ ^ b t / i - u o v .--X Uf>v; JprOOQh\ C(P QpoVd pa\j<^ p:)inK> ^ um^

TEAM CODE#: on the OPP wins this debate.

ya .-\oXjCq^VVSC

) p p 1 : - C d a U a a r o ,je c\ v/-(

— ^ h c b ^S f ? c v V \ C c < c h o v ' <l b p o - i M n a r v ^ I v i o . < 4 -

c /vc> ra (SSuS- P r o p 2 : / J■ - X p ^ ^ O Q r > \' C 'VxVnot] I captni \ i s

V > a v ^ r M S r t . a r q u f ^ ^ ia . c A a \ . n < ; ' b - V b e ^ v s o

T E A M C O D E # :

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

vjooS) ab\e Xo -ex^fexc^ ac^avn^-Vdw^vrvQv ttS adv)QniaO|t^

V

(Prop o)

\ j r \ ^


G o v : 1 0 B a x t e r - N a m

Opp: 3 Koshkin - VishtN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e

Team Code#:P R O P

PA R L l D e b a t e

Judge's Name: vVnAVX


Team Code # :

Prop Speaker#! _3o3Prop Speaker #2

bpp Speaker #1,

Opp Speaker #2 QSW a( , .5

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

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reeisonably 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 efficiently the deb ers support arguments with evidence— whichmay include facts and references to authority as well as 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 eff( tive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in amorganized, conmumicative style that is pleasant and

easi ly understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges


Prop 1: NJ OTLj

ccavjias n-gK (Ucod m poqwvncvatP r o p 2 ; ^

k H t^ ie , Mov)^( k ^

-ttAsa

)pp 1: -tpvc A- t\M

^diA-V C lH (i cut

T E A M C O D E # : S


W\ V| CvAf 1-^ yCVcSS -OC/llS/< T U W ^ ^ T c \ 1

^ p e a c h J ( ( v ui \ p \ r e . ^ c r t - e ^ p q 3 C I A - f o° ° n . ^ ^ V o

V v \ 6 ^ 4 f ^CIK^ &Ar \lv\v/-Viic\\ <Y.C,IvjS [(^ff e f g C t V ~ ^ f V O S ) A ( A - t t i J A

9ood-


Team Code #:

Prop Speaker

Prop Speaker #2 (WAlTVPt^ptsU

Judge's Name:_ FrariQ' SaMctJudge's School Affiliation:,

Team Code #:

bpp Speaker #1_

Opp Speaker #2

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

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for eUi ation rounds)2<»-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for de or inappfopriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• 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 d efficiently the deb ers support arguments with evidence— whichmay include facts and references to authority as weir is 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 eftive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an rganized, 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/me 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 : / ' J C W - ' ^ V O ^ d i H '■ // pass (Ootes SjOseciKe-c-

\ v i s e d - U )I ^ ()Q.oimsed(Si^uA|pl.. fcuwts ^

c l e a r - ^ " € X P \ f t v i c m « v A c ^ &P r o p 2 : O p p 2 : . .

M(x) m ^^lS5

M v U £ < 2 e a t < v i c i ^ d b M - H A c p t w r .w e \ K W i v j . ^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 .


a\paA VvMi'Vvipg S ooc. Oi dc-loaAers.)vsevafva. mdS VIGcH 0t.0iS(iA<F)9 C\v/)(N AsA spcPvW - v/O

\i>ad VAA<Vt c v\o(\v vstv -vvNiC v tvq. l)wH-CClilAp(xre (VVAPftcVs WAasinciM dVvy Ws VpT ier


Gov: 4 Iyer - IyerOpp: 3 Chimni - LansingN o v i c e P a r i i D e b a t e


Judge's Name: ^Judge's School Affiliation:.

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1 P ♦Prop Speaker #2.

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1.

pts_2^ opp Speaker #2_

,ts_!.2;2

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Goody/27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimi ion rounds)

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

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

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debars support arguments with

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

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and effi ive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in anX)rganized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

^ t . / n / > I t I

Q

e i O l £ > c C -i-ifiu. caSt&j

Prop 2: labels aU Opp 2: lootê ex/ 'a aai 'ga 'Hc- i .

< L > J , i a h d c . c (

T E A M C O D E #

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

on the r^îp wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

O f ? 3 W Ûo*/e, \oeue£'(s '7


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliationia t ion :

: PR O PTe a m C o d e # : " r

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1

. 3

C- i^ 'Opp Speaker #2_ ^ p t s ^ ^

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /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 = Reserve or rude or inappropriate behaviorJudging Criteria /

• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters 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 thebaters support arguments withevidence—^which may include facts and references 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 andycffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak,ii/an organized, conununicative style that is pleasant

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

Using the above criteria, please offeiycompliments and/or suggestions for improvement toeach debater : Luc^lJ- / ! - ^ o c d - S .P r o p l : 6 v « 4 - 2 . ^

„ . , r r l i l t / >

P r o p 2 : ^ ^ ^ y . O p p 2 : 0 t o o 4 >f d u h i O i ^ l y s r s , ( ^ a c L

. / ^ / < = r \ C t v a u f c . e y e .TEAM CODE/h6;9ir

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : i t , , /

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

(Prop or Opp)


JudgeRound 2 11 lOOam Room 811 (single flight)Gov: 4 Bardalai - RangwalaOpp: 3 Moore - Gomez-SiuNovice Pari! Debate

Judge's Name:^ / U ^ V \ f '



P r o p S p e a k e r # 1 p t s _ 2 ^ O p p S p e a k e r # 1 - ^ j V

Prop Speaker #2 A\c\.\ p^g Opp Speaker #2 jlflOQlfe ^ pts

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

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debates 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 thehaters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and referees to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectiveiythe debaters respond to the arguments made

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

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

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

P r o p 1 : p o t f r M a^ c / e /

-'cSUovir ovi e/c^\ociic -vo

- /- f t A , C h

T r o p . 2 : - —

Opp 1: Couvr«^v/s-fajk Y>ctQe^ -

-jo(/va<Hc( cx>MdsMJtvjvnVv7 ^ ^

(pp^i ^ couincjH y— - f - - T « * 3 ~ .

- ' K . l t 7 ^ A t W f o T ' W v c k ; ;' } 6 L ! 7 1 ^ 9 ^ - g y t o j t t A n J \ ^ \ o r r > ^ © f

l a o ^ e j x A J e H - ^ v c v i O x s ^' ' j b i a 1 ^ 9 ^ - g y t o j t < A n c ^ \ ^ \ o r r > e &

ICV o f V /K .

T E A M C O D E # : ^ o n t h e 0 ^ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(Prop or Opp)


^Ytx^ C/>Kf[*Al40C ,AV(^ kcvo( vAeU \iAO\J^^ 0\AK C i ' V f n i f i w ^ V V v a a < l v C .

JudgeRound 3A 1:00pm Room 804Go v : 3 F I r so v - Kw a k

Opp: 4 Iyer - IyerN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e

P A R L I D e b a t e ,

Judge's Name:.

Judge's School Affiliation:_

P R O P. O P PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1.

Prop Speaker #2

Team Code

D t s O p p S p e a k e r # 1 p t s j UOpp Speaker #2 "X^j ots 7,^

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

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

0 5 - r ; J u d g i n g C r i t m a• alysis: How reasonably and effectively the Raters analyze the topic and the arguments

bfferfed during the debate /• ] yid[ence: How appropriately and efficient!/the debaters support arguments with

evidehce^which may include facts and rMcrences to authority as well as gener knowledge• Arg eptatipn: How directly and effcOTvely the debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points ofjnformation: How relevW and effective were the questions and the, answers•. p l r ; How well the debaters akin an organized, communicative style that jspleasant

arid easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous aiespectful the debaters were to opponents and judgesUsing Jhe hoW plse offer compliments and/or suggestions for iUiprbveht toe a c h d b h a t b r : ' /

Prop If". ' A I ! . f , .

Prop 2: -" ' i U A \ ■

" Cp od . ArVVW/Vl,3

\\\^ UV\JLCUar oVvmA

Opp 2: u-\-UA'\VV

~ y \ o '

T E A M C O D E # :

REASONFOR DECISION:

o n t h e _ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .((ProSorOpp)

- 'gHACf UAU-t^- t lOVvS ,

~\A(r f t


Judge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation;,

1 ' s p o Y \ ' \ ^


Opp Speaker #1.

Prop Speaker #2 pts 1*1 Opp Speaker #2

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

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatersalyze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the deters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and referencto authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively ™ debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and active were the questions and the answers

• Deliveiy: How well the debaters speakiiyui organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /

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

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

Propl: - dOV^ \ / Oppl: cjooiA yuicC ( A V ) * 1 V o " U o \

owu- jvvvti /

P r o p 2 : / O p p 2 : -

- V 7 I ^

(J/A

TEAM CODE #: ^ on the wins this debate.(Prop or(6pp))


O f f V \ a M V Y ^ ^ > ^ C o y u X f c - f v" W \ c y r ( ^

T E A M C O D E # :


Judge's Name:_



Prop Speaker #1 Tratf)

Prop Speaker #2_

pts_2i Opp Speaker #1 l/t*<

pts 2^ Opp Speaker #2 iCd


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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debars support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and references tuthority as well as generd knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the haters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /

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

and easi ly understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer ccpliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : / § k t rPropl:vi/<ll df<janl?c(jL Opp 1: t/eru ojSoriU h> ieaM eu/M-

C O } d t n c ^ . y o o / n ^ H i * -AtruoO) ct^(L 6ptefrK hcct^t/(ta >4 hetno falked

/ o o ® c t - / t f ( 5

Prop 2:/ ( J i o t h i l . k c l ^ u 9 o d b r ^ i i - C B m m i ' f '/ C r 9 r f n e o t h t r » * U f i n a t u ,

and. eiffu-hfoe Kb iBond nioee piofMirtn*; cohtn l-olk-

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

(Prop or Opp)REASON FOR DECISION: Q}Pp ^

C o i n l

0- P«n, r o ^

t : COitlife 1l)iiar fr/rathyg XiS"-fmicoYton, d»[em, npfeali

"(A 'i'no)©, Ut\Y ftpo&^ /

> 6 6 y y v ^

l/i'- Cih"irtr\t I- c^lmfA«l6p: CO \' — no 6u, £Unce

^ CC>7 {/{iUl lCCpriS0f^

-coix\i/ py î-IZlTl

> » 0 . , • „ C o „ r i jnoh- fo COnnrvf^t cn'r^fc

I'i FPI' })£f(9re emov f\ -ujffAeiie^ câa. (jj ^ ]a //- I ^ Z Z I T o r ,

im.'Rati'at bi'w PltrtUmfw, neh iamrvv/f- crTmctf,./ . / r ^ h> Oklakonvf- Irvi .fuot^ capthUl C,iimts" S I / ' ( 3 t t C J O l ^ C S i / J / 0 6 J i f r O K " _ J r ^^ J f . / lAodUrit j ^ fht jHtH-

j• fi» Cnttnl-ft/C—Jjne jâ/CeS îWrOlUcihowo- CDC rtfo" no «'"'< ""®-Pf''3®0 Weojfi/ttW tiK t .b rto fncenM/t. "''■^ njeur PCtoneri

" soy. rnyjfdco in ioufK,

RIP* Cojf O Kio }9urc^ \^ l®^ iP>fPwk n i«/e. c c t ; ^

^ 5 P ' u M n r - o ^ / e^pttdonifi ShooicL^noh te able h dtMt

n r r - T ^ S ' . o i _

jHtep^ M r e k o j dPjT. ' - 91 S»<^ ie -u

-"^/ijecr jhc Pf.soners"C jPf'Jonfo

«M»0»i.> iuffeit Q/ M u r d t r e a / - M i l l U » a l l i

- » " "■Rt: uco^ 25XZ V56—

Lyo. i.'j ,1 pCijso rvv «aPert4fW" tlMiim Itccurf, ca»>i^(- Jwiji II|£M-4PPa£.»-,i5.,Ca;,Vk

ftr.'Ji o liri U^htti Ir eth'an^ »nlu ont ctiie

o p p ~ ^-tn<.tii|.fi/t. nil. f© ^,1),

W*.D»o't-M.p ( mi-l,-« o f/w


Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation:, !«/ -£■P R O P

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_Fulrfi

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #2_



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

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the deters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and referencto authority as well as general knowledge• Argumeptation: How directly and effectively mc debaters respond to the arguments made

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

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respecl the debaters were to opponents and judgesUsing the above criteria, please offe ompliments and/or suggestions for improvement toeach debater: /ha6. o. a*" ctthrm, ufeMhittProp In )fat cMtn I: Clear 1st Sffeth- To cfauf C<^l-ifewh,l ooM more f ro ie fg f t na l . bo i l t d dwn da A i , .

Prop 2:

PeenatA uoac po}i\H un,rfitt nef oiirotek hhtffs

Opp 2: jf.

y o u ^ 0 ' "T E A M C O D E # : on the wins th is debate .

(Prop or Opp)

oalue^ a^er Ktwc^n^ '/'I >Atmr. kiW f»r 3 /Jl/, Jf

^ o / . c o o v i i ^ u rIC". AflK-ssual

TE'.t-reacLrt^il) ferifltn lt\lt\ of \-smattrrd) oiiirtOV cfcamt /-fia/- \f £ ; W p f i « w W 1

S I — ^ — iJ i e j ; M < a t w ^

^ - r x b ' r ^ 'fro«v> ^9oc i ^ (Purees. ^

not- p/»(^

-boynq nr>ix}er£al gwsclj cont-rliwI-Q k f-bj^ ^ y ^ O f t fi r v n AI D ! P w > fl l D C l ' i V r ^ c ycooz-h. )fiOifclt/' f« ftej. Hxtk

- r f u n d v o t . i ^ ^ n ^ ( y C /VMS

S^tc m ppi.• £<i^ /ihrftk. /owM'^ /w«»rt fii'ljji.

It-Pf»c(fiff„; j iu,'JA0.1

pAOP 3


JudgeRound 3A 1:00pm Room 806Gov: 7 Liu - Fu

Opp: 3 Deng - QianN o v i c e P a r i i D e b a t e

Judge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation:>1 Affiliation:

P R O PTeam Code #:_3

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2 ^

Team Code #: 3O P P

pts ^ Opp Speaker # l

pts*^ Opjj Speaker #2 IDe-no

S T .

pts 2.8

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

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

Judging Criteri• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debars 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 tl debaters support arguments withevidence—^which may include facts and referees to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and efTecti\y 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 am effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters spealpn an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

I O p p l : £ l o u )

^ n r ^ o r o L j ^ J t i M , ( } ) o o d4 o

( ^ O e c ) U > V v « . r <

t ^ <^bGccC X)nt>roJLi^ , Goodcoos tAieoU. tAi-CJLSL. VCHA cuCiA-fVuy)'!' cOO'-- hc*-A> cj.

o - r e , b ^ n e A ' f c d a . j ^ - t

.ons^bia: Opp 2: speaJUjun^^ C o f t fi d d H . 4 r C o ( \ e ,

k t u n c n * ! ! } . ^ n o u > 0f , J - t V v c n X A h .M s l . n o t b a d . J

S o c o r c e s .

Prop 2: Good *re(uJ6Mtons botJk -tokji 4 - c ? v u L " f c f c ' » b b o c l J Lm o r e - H v c c n - f e . S h o u )

inrypcL-c^ > 5p<aJj(u'nj boJ.V s u - C L , - t J B o m c c c : . k ,

TEAM CODE#: ^

S f ^ .M m j i ,

dfomaJKcI

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)


TUutre IS a sfdes 4o tKiS debcobe. Lo^is^cofi moroJl. <^PP won moroiLajhgvuiv)^4 , "tUA. 4KA."ir entire rnovaJL oi-^tMrLfijf>4- to rVots u>a.s o—'T K j t r e

K o V s c o a s Q —

JudgeRound 3B 1:00pm Room 806G o v : 3 C h e n - J o n e s

Opp: 5 Zaheer - ChaudhriN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e


Judge's Name:


P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1.

Prop Speaker #2.

Team Code #: ^

O p p S p e a k e r # 1 u PtS^Co

ptslXp Opp Speaker #2

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: 30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Ver3 ood


Judging Criteria/• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debates 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 tdebaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and references 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 and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speamn an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

P r o p 2 - ( J < 2 j ^ O p p 2 :I c ^ J •d . l a C a s e - ^ # / O C u c y e ^

TEAM CODE #: on the If ^wral ihis debate.(Prop or Opp) Cu . O p (ag

( 3 i ? ' T k , c / ^ / M * I / ' . o

S t > e s ( A d i r ■

u A J U y l k ^O p p 2 : ^ 0 , ' ^ f t - E f T- t -

4bU..tj r( p c o ^ C ^ U i u ^ e u ^ ,'9 prue ofiPoA ' Unfli jw-t


JudgeRound 3A 1;00pm Room 807Gov: 10 Burrous - GunnOpp: 3 Jia - JiangN o v i c e P a r i i D e b a t e

Judge*s Name


: C h e o n

P R O P O P P

(Xih€clnxlPr£p,

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1.

Team Code #;

Opp Speaker #1_

Opp Speaker U2_

21-, S

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

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

/J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a / ^ ^• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debat 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 / 7 5 ^ ^ ^• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the baters support arguments with evidence—which may include facts and refereis to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelVthe debaters respond to the arguments made x' -|b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant andyective were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak ,in4n organized, communicative style that is pleasant a n d e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e / ^ ^

• Courtesy: How courteous and respec l the debaters were to opponents and judges / 7Using the above criteria, please offe/compliments and/or suggestions for improvement to '

r •

each debater:

Propl:

"~-lnj -\t) m+egrak msi acDupkof -la+istics £ iaiig sitxe,||Mr tr'iHfiA VJO-K ^ wof \\m^(40odProp 2:^ 0 / ■, poiihVwW~ kdl/C (Kfl'Mt WDCt

con+0^ / Owfmore-Cor id rHT Clanfi hm of

,, -ftr boh prop onrf ovpSfCi iierS;O i ' l v t m o r e W h f t t " O i

SPZaficq i v C m o r e W h f t t - m) p ^ 1 . ^ ^ e x e c u b o n U

— Oaod ase of^Cbu.tmo.\ceS^ ^ ^^crtdihdih)

— e l a b o n M o n o f

A r m i a . e )T E A M C O D

7 ^ point wjw '- 'J(itH^ \fywre /

I M imorehe baii'i; of

Mlain yjh^ beneUalTu ewcalE # : o n t h e

-don f-hdo

'

u r n

VwjO^ Opp2: — Sirvn -er r ^huMlo imici'iiu —opod ( rcyxhtza-iiori SpeAidnr e o n r e s c i u U D y )

^ Oiood use ^ 4h^ Proofs amutn-e/H-' n ^ P i d c i l 7 t - f w K f - ) f1 on ap\^ea.l proce^seQ o^ndh e ^ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

( P j g p ^ ^ p ) /■ , > .REASON FOR DECIS ION:^ f / ^Qon 1 )(;Cloie mAfch-.. > .

fe-Her oraftnizA-hon, of r&soiuho-n +'["fi r&ltoOmcM specific con enhoni o.nci

otciitLM, of conCr€-k -eoidencc

of r&solodioo -+-r m i a n d

("Lore c.ppeapyaicesJ«

nec€.cs<ri h e n i u r e .aml+ArnvcerKe

o-f

JudgeRound 3B 1:00pm Room 807Gov: 3 Moore - Gomez-SiuOpp: 7 Chan - FoleyN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e

P R O P


Judge's Name:. Cheot^Judge 's Schoo l A ffi l i a t i on :

O P PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1.

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1_

Opp Speaker #2_

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

f

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters aifalyze the topic and the arguments^ o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and referenceo authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively t 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 e:TOctive were the questions and the answers• Deliveiy: How well the debaters spesikm organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

I Propl: Iom o^r^(Urn^r?•^ Opp I:uou clanH&d -tiiai- mmSrN — rn(■|i uour cri- entiri and -fheof did noh^ ckxlkn e H-, 'd- should noy be -Hie '((eHminin^ -fecHev-of +fie ^ y~ CicldrecJ -Hie "b^nefih" "

Prop 2: _HieirWM ri in order Opj 2:^ " t n a i e n a i i ' s m " 3

~ do fiO'h (A-H-ftCJc -Hie ' 1 (; pic|-lti ir(XSpe(d-.:i\oa ire-(uied [prrmknce^ T E A M r n n E ^ . ( o n t h e

— <^ nei/iSi't" definitions' p p l : b e fi r c - fi A f t . 1 .-lp prone h-cChcro does huSin cs profi+ UAn n-Hgmj€ au me-n-l -h'on?)~ Aooid unmcessaru rej 'h'oyi and '•'wirnrvi"'5.

-Oiood Usbon (Sieaf u/aH of Chin^. jssae.PP 2:' wc;d poin-h c# Sieinbreui^l^vOn dl-nni- t)oyiopL^ôr\

bcu^",.. HP. "-if %T£Z'- do nJ2± -'QreeJ" and-Hi ir d>scre(w c e iSM-e of- childlabcr-OtSpecH^ôu pre'Tulence —stKibl-e Use of- lo^lc inT E A M C O D E # ; I o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . ^ 5

/Q I Xp'f time diecrefA^c, benêeigi»d reHu-H I \ Qn f. aroumeny^ c.QrnmunIsM andP r v p d i d n o i u s e t - c i , ^

b f c o r n r n m i ^ m , u ; a . l i

JudgeRound 3A 1:00pm Room 808Gov: 3 Reyna - YangOpp: 10 Baxter - NamN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

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

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

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

o f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the deMters support arguments with

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

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant and ef tive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in ai rgeuiized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

P r o p 1 : / D p p 1 :

C \ « K V ) i i » o s ^ < ; V \ c V + 0 v O ( ! ) l ^ c a n ^ d s j ^ Q/P r o p 2 : / O p p 2 : i \

0 ( W \ H 1 T D K J p h o o j ./ \ V v \ f t _ - v V v e . V " i c w

TEAM CODE #: 3 on the fOO wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

REASON FOR DECISION:: v ) C c S i s i c v ^ \ < a A i A f i i : e s a : v H « c M - a l i .

•\Q xodx-od -fad^, ^ A-f-feet soctdaj\ v l c A f v o ^ k + c ^ t r c d ^


Judge's Name:TlP\yiC-SJudge's School Affiliation:,

P R O Ps Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1.

Opp Speaker #2

JudgeRound 3B 1:00pm Room 808Gov: 3 Chimni - LansingOpp: 4 Bardalal - RangwalaN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e


Judge's Name:_


Team Code #:P R O P

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1 CV\\V O\

Prop Speaker #2_

pts Opp Speaker #1 CK ptsP^- ^pts * Opp Speaker #2 W COA pts.2 '

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 for ri e or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters aWyze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debars support arguments withevidence— which may include facts and references tyauthority 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 effe ve were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in anganized, communicative style that is pleasantand easi ly understandable /

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


P r o p 1 : / O p p 1 :Ovrevcvl' vtry g^cVi-

rovcfi ryqci io <0/oj^ w * uvvfjduiaKV^-VoOfl.,i M c T e . /

P r o p 2 : /

CH^ A\S \i-k-

G(A&C OUSM McJ OW- -CAW (hT E A M C O D E # : 3 o n t h <

Opp 2;fXV-so

\j\/y3u\£X"c' ■f"K- £(iv\Ae [oicc V e O v - V d \ ^

wins th is debate .

REASON FOR DECISION:(P op or Opp)

I \ ) 0 - V € < 3 - ^:cll)f\pV€S • 'I \1^13,VI

JudgeRound 3 1:00pm Room 811 (single flight)Gov: 3 Cuddihy - NavruzyanOpp: 4 Khan - BaigN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliationiation: San flAdflV) ScnocjP R O P

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1_

Prop Speaker #2_

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1_

Opp Speaker #2_

1 f \ a

i ; - ) -'Iry-hhC Tf-a OU 3

TEAM CODE #: ^ on the J Oj wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)


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

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

Judg ing Cr i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anale the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debater/support arguments withevidence—^which may include facts and references to apmority 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 speak m an orgMiized, communicative style that is pleasant

and eas i l y unders tandab le /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful thydebaters were to opponents and judges

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

U5C rwfc i/r ,os<i more

i

^ C A k 1 - ' ^C t w C ( T w

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

OfP Ia/&I I ■

JudgeRound 4A 3:00pm Room 804Gov; 3 Jia - JiangOpp: 7 Valnberg - TranNovice Parii Debate

Te a m C o d e # :


Judge's Name:


P R O P2. Te a m C o d e # :

Prop Speaker #1 0 \

Prop Speaker #2

pts 2-^ Opp Speaker # 1.

Opp Speaker #2_v u r n V M r ^

V / .

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

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analv 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—whichnmy include facts and references to authority as well general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the d aters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How relevant and effecwe were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an 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 debaters were to opponents and judges

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

Prop 1. ;

' rcVu^Ui . /

Prop 2: _

a r t \ r \

tjooA fC-Vv-tuU.

Opp 2:

' l U C AV

T C W m U -

' CX,V\c\\ 7 t (Kl OtVYVWv-q VY\vr<-

(^4 "lOH U4'\VV^

TEAM CODE #: [ on the ^wins this debate.(Prop oirOpft

REASON FOR DECISION:- ^oa m^rtvwivn-u , *,.1 o<p<p', VV^,K

^YVX- . (xvmA V>(,-v-itr wniuw-W

JudgeRound 4B 3:00pm Room 804Gov: 3 Deng - QianOpp: 2 Booth - BroganN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e

Team Code #:


P R O P

Judge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation: ^

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1_

Prop Speaker #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 scal30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 Good

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

Judging Gloria• 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 authcmty as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effevely the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

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

easily understandable 7• Courtesy: How courteous and r^pectfiil the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

P r o p 1 : ^ ( t \ A \v v N L V A t /

P r o p 2 : ^

- ( L V K c U v X c C

TEAM CODE #; ^


V-»-b

^ dv \ ^ CJL


(Prop or Opp)

JudgeRound 4A 3:00pm Room 805Gov: 4 Bardalai - RangwalaOpp: 3 Chimni - LansingNovice Pari! Debate

P R O PTeam Code #:


Judge's Name:


D P ITeam Code#: 3

bpp Speaker #l_OnWnj_P r o p S p e a k e r # 2 p t s 2 - ^ O p p S p e a k e r # 2 p t s 2 ^

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

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

Judging C ria• 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 efficieiw the debaters support arguments with evidence—^whichmay include facts and references to authmty as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and eff tively the debaters respond to the arguments made by theo t h e r s i d e /

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

easily understandable 1• Courtesy: How courteous and rrepectfiil the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

P r o p 1 : /- ocj fWfOckvctedt

A s V" " n o v e : ^ \ o \ S o O0 9 9 ^ ~

3 p p 1 : -

- c ^ o o d , e S s a \ V ^

Opp 2:-ve^ ce3a^cA^>\- \foc^C.0J

c JUlsJ onS cjSoJU. j

T E A M C O D E # :


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

(Prop or/6pp)

Kols^ cAeaor v^-^VsjVvo(vs L5=s:^U2kl^ a j l o o A V ^ r v V v o Y v j

JudgeRound 4B 3:00pm Room 805Gov : 7 Chan - Sco t t

Opp: 10 Burrous - GunnN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e

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

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker#2__CV}C^


Judge's Name:


O P PTeam Code #: \ r]

p t s b p p S p e a k e r # 1 o r o u j

pts 2^ Opp Speaker #2 t5Ur»r>


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

Judging Critep4a• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the deters 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 e debaters support arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authonty as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effe(ely 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 debaters spe in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant and

easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and reroectful 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 : /

^V€o ^ooc\

V\aV cr^CAve\VNCXV>>*to cAi\^

P r o p 2 : /\AJOrK\. Qo V^TvCtCAhO-u

T E A M C O D E # ;

Opp 2:

— V -

on the ^ ^wins this debate, ^ reocREASON FOR DECISION: '

S \ > r o o p o ^ V

(Prop orfopi

JudgeRound 4A 3:00pm Room 806G o v : 5 Z a h e e r - C h a u d h r iOpp: 3 Chen - JonesN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e

Team CodeP R O P .

Prop Speaker #1.

Prop Speaker #2


Judge's Name: m.C

Judge's School Affiliation:_j

^PPTeam Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2 CheVY

inn HS



Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatersalyze 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 deters support arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authority as 11 as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively tne debaters 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 andeasi ly understandable /

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

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

Prop 1: O-Se

do v)OA<.TS /

1: reW-V; dorv + cJrcjp

4 K(Jo \fcAtfs

Prop 2: qoo<A

■tViL'rx V-Ci-V Yo

Opp2: 5iqnp0'5^ rO\<r'/ ^ ^vA\oi8-

: 5T E A M C O D E #


on the yi6!p wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

JudgeRound 4B 3:00pm Room 806Gov: 4 Iyer - IyerOpp: 3 Moore - Gomez-SluNovice Parii Debate

P R O PTeam Code#:

Prop Speaker #1.

Prop Speaker #2_

pts2Gpts^^


Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Aifiliation:_

Te a m C o d e # :

Opp Speaker #2__0) .pte23.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 fop limination rounds)

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

Judging Criteri /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debars analj 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 efficientlytife debaters support arguments with evidence—^whichmay include facts and references to authorifar as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effecely 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 spe in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant and

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

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

Propl: do\«-vWACiry Opp 1: ipicwt/ dWefSC (ivgi/weiotsVv^o>t. deVaA

^ l i v e ' r V p U , ?C«)o v)oH*S> / v-e.cKyc^4 povnVsProp2; (jop V yorop-\he pilh S Opp2:0<5-C-T'' ^

T E A M C O D E # :


on the OPip wins this debate.(Prop Of Opp)

JudgeRound 4A 3:00pm Room 807Gov: 4 Khan - BaigOpp: 3 Reyna - YangNovice Pari! Debate

Te a m C o d e # :

P R O P


Judge's Name:_


Te a m C o d e

Prop Speaker #2_

bpp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2_ .Pts_2?


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

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters a lyzQ 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 de)>aters support arguments with evidence—^whichmay include facts and references to authority as as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively mQ debaters 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

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

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

P r o p l r / c h ; A J t / Mffo ecySJ

I^AC/C' as ft./rvii oi" *vior^;

fjcor Sfeech u^cpp'f(t'fiCj entPOCjh. TVit sytech u/ec

LA^tW cic

Prop2:spcrttl rt\e(t ftmt lUfbuot,!.I | a « / C ( / ^

i?CQXY\Oj Ce>otlb rort

Oppliyc^cjr ijolomt atexit/ huhSfu<M hi- cl/io,ao„,-%cL at /.VjKyo<3( paints i^ir» UJafi j-o /•/,,mutr ait H-'Wr tJin i~pol,vcai, r

O p p 2 : v o o ^l-h< 6.0 -Hivie fnnrf

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

(Prop or Opp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : P / o c o r t j a s , - . . L :. „ ^ t ) e i ^ c r • h a i l ' m o i e g p r o n a i f i n ^ < A i \ < i n

y

1U6»1««A' ooflhf H) place ualoc. on caM.f'iuy^ Clwtf.y-t'' hKefft/Bi^ iHw» (i'n p}i;).,>cj. 1iH*n£« (i'n p9i;).,>cj.

-ffof

O-ef-cl/iatachf". t/ol l"w Ni/C: &cnctol (Melfifre.

'^an ie fatted^'OU»,i UU uhooi-'can^flk <»/■< h^ihtoo^(fCiKt foU'ctei noy chufa(,fcr-feofle CAJ/ch raii crf Can jfr.Vfi ^ Mier

Rl. b(yrtUr fo rnOMilj vhan poUciesm-.p»or Icadco coo,-A U a-elccPccS

Rf. TnHfi'h'Peofit io nap £>(,/.«

^ R ^ ' F f . ' c n d s " " " ' ' " M - f ti -fli-mdS ytiMien coo r.- ' " I / ,

ccsnom 'cs

LlProduci'fui-a^^nhc. nttiiPitiidciiP needs a«0(il cita's,'ons

[ fk can te Covs. Uaieo. ' r 0: Motaul-C .0<£m o r a l s

/1/iVofi, |;fi'ri tr

-Jlioold j «s;rfern-uJV,o,?cih.<j rL , i-. i , l -4«al2e f.'CTirfs

/blfeutl litiu. g(joJ. fjioy.fe.

^wcl r fec' i i 'ons, 'Ifojie/ -jy ,)£/- ccfl}e>rf

'Beirf, amtcahit ^5,,.;. ,,

I m o M i U f t

JudgeRound 4B 3:00pm Room 807G o v : 3 Yu a n - B o n e t

Opp: 7 Liu - FuNovice Parii Debate

Te a m C o d e # :


Judge's Name:_E, 2LUQ m\\0\

Judge's School Affiliation: OobKn Hi

P R O P3 Team Code #:

X

Prop Speaker #1 6on<F

Prop Speaker #2

. P t s O p p S p e a k e r # 1 L i / ;

pts 3^ Opp Speaker #2 Fo

.Pts_A2

_pts_2_J

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 elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for ru^le or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatersalyze 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 deleters support arguments with evidence—^whichmay include facts and references to authority as \11 as general knowledge

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

• Points of Information: How relevant and emotive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in m organized, conununicative 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 respectM the debaters were to opponents and judges


T E A M C O D E # :

o t c i

h o i ^ e n o u g h i v b s h ^ J ^cohere / ik

Prop2:^(5^ aft o debckf^O^pl: ^rec^v [/Q\ovv^t iRAv uoceK\' S p e o . x L t t , r e a ) \ ^ ^ c > n e i p o b \ W O Y \

1^^ ficpur ot( vrv)eni:s hcuL w c'lcoe y^ci e coo/ p inh, hof- Aij/ sf(>ech6 o o > i > /

n c / y ^ f c <

H 4 o ; c ) t r /


(Prop or Opp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : ^ l a t

b f f r e f h W a m y \ ] ( f r t D p . y u . o j ^ . . o ./H>o, rhe fW cH-errpM more L-

y y f o o t U J t r t n o h c u e r e e fOPP Ct, haot i oj dL fOiT^V, he ,■/UUi/naKI vV,eir M5yv e(i as SKcnj"! Ceclo,-ei/e r/> n.®r q|/ ';

Qvc^hy }-o Seek fi ry>o( ruh^ (uaiutOef: Tmmofksi.hu • ' k. .. . \ Rl'^/lledccc^l cfiVcPwriesCwon oft'e cij/cuje\'°' fo^cÂ >, Sca/rh L,/- ■

'Se^ti (1o^ &ch,eot J rcseonh f tnmi/oi-fOn^-UC-.moi, pqify,^ ftofco^g / KfêortUV.Med tca t t c r cc t âene , 5e< . r ch i r â n ,

-^6111 a;&r^5ppjg fgch ^ i ^^>neuJh.reTt-^cn<Vit cocoz-CIa fr^ Wtor.# wpioftal/fu

lumflfii li-u,, Conc-er rmofe Pjene-ht PS!eafeh '.'7, 7" f~• „ " O f R i u v e $ > , o i ; l d s ^ ' e c i f r c d l f ,

(Ur:(5yerj^py(c/-fon ^ ^ ^ (OA of ^,,,^>,6

L t x Y \ c i ^ c e ^ v ) t f c a ^ * ^ O Y

'p-y\t>tv\eQe mei/ihai

LoV^ C^cUm^fp\ms ^)^«^' {tiO\ m<0n - ^c]fQuta, rhctt- {tiOWyfxOn - cmral ertdu c, ftr eorchJ)rcL ni£?f efcj ku/ ^ûJh^r /^"? jfu,

Y f U d ^ P U

s e , m < w v , o v w . ~ : -bho iY t ' / 5^ dpceC!^ ^Gfipue ho^we rUt

JudgeRound 4A 3:00pm Room 808G o v : 3 K o s h k i n - V i s h t

Opp: 10 Fields - GershN o v i c e P a r i i D e b a t e

Team Code #:


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: LCV)\ \ SP R O P O P P

Team Code#:

Prop Speaker #1.

Prop Speaker #2_

b p p S p e a k e r # 1 p t s

Opp Speaker #2_


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)2d-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatere alyze 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 thehaters support arguments with evidence—whichmay include facts and references to authority awell as 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 anjffective were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak an organized, communicative style that is pleasant andeasily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and resp tful the debaters were to opponents and judges


m o " H & v ' v i e . a c \ A < ^ \ \ e i / ' Q c dmHi ■'rVw S f \ utvr ^ CCM/^ Sae ^ ^«I icres.^ b ^ t ^ c u

^ cvg().vv^z^ rt( .(Fsp,cf£ii'yP r o p 2 : ^ - W ^ C d O c X J r i I v a \\ASUJo (/WCA,iO/tiAV Mo UCIT 2iy)c\ ©OOd CcHA \Ai HAQ. cWpft'Vptf I'C CS

^oo d^cXA ^ik)d^\)

TEAM CODE #: ' 3 on the _wins this debate.

OvXKiOSl /v ^ ^ \ (hV\CSi ^^ ( W v X V n o M - H W ) A V > C U \ ) H K ) 6 ^ V ^ " 0 — ^

1^1^; V \N^ \ \ACI!^ -^oMCACiS/^,M(\VV; cgVjV VK cd/\Q V(V^ UJd • /O

^vrety-oi^i \iaif j/^ ^(TU/f/yvH; 'V V \} K \ cm\[A , 4 icdKQ^

dVtc^s 6f e l^V.

P A R L I D e b a t e

P R O P .Team Code #: V0_

Prop Speaker #1.

Judge's Name:_ ScHoIaJudge's School Affiliation:

O P P _Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#2 V .Vj MKy


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination roimds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor * <20 = Reserved for rude/^r inappropriate 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 arguments with evidence—^which

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

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

easi ly understandable y• Courtesy: How courteous and respectM the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

P rop 1 : Opp ^ \ o f f tgvey-c / t / c jo j on- V o o . \ S \ A A T b t ) ^ C C V V H i y . [ A l s o

- e x p o i w c j i A I A W , \ A c - " ? ! o w ?v i d e . m o s O fi u V J O d l - [ o ^ o d d ^ -

fVfdse dw^-VioPtcAliTu 3\AAycu V)|fou#\ vf-^06--\lAai

fveiA ^iwgV) dicvV(>ccMDTfAdrts, attdctpd - \ \\'0i V\ie o o A ^ ^ e z c M . V M K ' — > t ^


o n t h e \ \

(Prop or Opp)TEAM CODE#: on the_ ld _wins this debate./B(j\\A

(Prop or Opp) C \VPV\J\ \l\VCfiR E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N ; i ^

So Imk^ <^VSo V)V.^ A\V#/vy\cst / so I [ fm

IVlf\pc(c^^ I [0c\^e f(M-S d^ciask.

JudgeRound 4 3:00pm Room 811 (single flight)Gov: 7 Chan - FoleyOpp: 3 Firsov - KwakN o v i c e P a r i ! D e b a t e

P R O P


Judge's Name: i 'i/'/cJli a t i n i i !

Team Code #:_J7

Prop Speaker#1 C<r\cnn

Prop Speaker #2 PoJtc.


O P PTeam Code #: ^

Opp Speaker #1_

Opp Speaker #2_ fi'rsov.Please award each speaker points based on the following scaler

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

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

Judging Crit a• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the deters 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 mt debaters support arguments with evidence—^whichmay include facts and references to authorias well as 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 relevantjfsA effective were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters sp in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant andeasily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and rectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, pleaseyoffer compiiments and/or suggestions for improvement toeach debater: v/o+e-rs oy^VV^ pSLajc,e more ^r\C h o r a x J - ^ r + - H a u n / © a ^ ^P r o p 1 : 3 P P g o o e 1 « r e x = ^

- t ; K o c u y K . . K o u o e e y y j i .e n ^ ^ a g . s - y ^ . ^

P r o p 2 : O p p 2 : G t o d S o j e - P u L u i r x ^ •

W + . < % l l o u o . V o c ^ u y ^ c o c u ^ . c o o c ^ e

e Y \ j L T"''

T h t s

T E A M C O D E # :


on the p ^wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

I S + o i ^ d < l . \ > a i A . + K « . f < r o p . O y f ^ r c U i S U -o p p h a j e K Q . r r , p . e j j _ 5 . " y o o o D o - t M e j i r - \

+ - P t t J V N C .^ood -teaxns • Iserjefi/s S t i ' l l

o o j u ^ w ^ j . - f c e a j i n . a x t o o - i , - e a ^ u - - f ...€¦ · 'qte -roc.o...

Documents