each debater: · 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to quality for elimination rounds) 26-25 =...

OYOintsisJ f>oU-fycaJPraveen Tomar (*8)Round 3A 1:30pm Room 234Gov: 12 Lustig - GerenrotOpp: 26 Galli - ButlerParliamentary DebateA/arsity

Judge's Name:

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's School Affiliation

Team Code #:

: Jrvh Sck/^J

Prop Speaker # 1 ( a<?'

Prop Speaker #2

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2_

A \ e ^

p t s^^

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

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debater? 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 baters support arguments with

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

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

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and resp ful 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 : JCKfJ e>o[cujK

O p p 2 : ^

T E A M C O D E # : I Z

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

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

(Prop or Opp)

Praveen Tomar (*8)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 234Gov: 6 Mattegunta - NandakumarOpp: 14 Fogarty - PisterParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O PTeam Code #: S

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker

P A R L I D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:

Team Code #:

pts_2j_ Opp Speaker # 1_

pts Zft. Opp Speaker #2_ ptsP-7

Please award each speaker points based on the following seaj«f:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 =/X/ery Good

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

Judging C eria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively th/debaters analyze the topic and the arguments

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

evidence—^which may include facts ana references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and rffectively 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 r vant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debars speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

P r o p l : O p p l : G s o & djjri. JcL/fr\th(n\ verty cJ-erAj 0\e<rJ

Prop 2: Q\sex^

' CaXA

O p p 2 : c v J/ b o l A + s • l e d y h n ■

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

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

Mr Bennett f21)Round 3A 1:30pm Room 210Gov: 9 Li - LamOpp: 12 Krause - HwongParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation;

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

pts _ Opp Speaker #2Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: X

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good/27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimjXtion rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for 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 defers support arguments with

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

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

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respect l 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 : , /

T 7 ^ ^ r T 7 T ^ i / / R O

, -Sfits l-eKVavXih , /o p 1 : ( ' ' /-+-s-rR3M^ ■pTS" /

Opp 1:

A T ? i - r < 3 ^ / fProp 2:

- f - ' U o f < - e ^ ^

€L <^3=>s7T/VC T

^ L ( ^

- t A t > 9 o w \ ^ io - p - p ^

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)REASON FOR DECISION: -p ipP

'€^A'* 'T^C3l ' 'A(«:2 i2- t -W12K0 K1 ) \AR(?Sl^M -Sito-Pe. 6oni^^ —FH(£- -I?T22^1Xvy TSriH&yf7( j r 'T^ AMO PTi-ee.A\ )17 cRa^v/ ' '<0 '^ o

- ^ 4 " ^ ^ ~

o n t h e

O^-TUlhji^

Mr Bennett (*21)Round 3B 1;30pm Room 210G o v : 2 3 K o r n f e i n - R a e s f e l d

Opp: 4 Murphy - DeWittParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O P,Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_


Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

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 elimination rdunds)

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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analy 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 debate; support arguments withevidence— which may include facts and references to thority as well as general knowledge

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

• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in ap rganized, 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 offe ompliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : ^

p r N A T C O o l < 3 ' O S ' 7 3 ^a m i /

— v d k u c i

-prNATe

- F < o u u r 7 < 3 ^L c i ^ t ^ ^P r o p 2 : / Opp 2:

^ TEAM CODE#: 'o<-7 on the ^0^

i<Jr> CJ-f~Aw/

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

(Pifop orlOpp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :

/HOOH' 'srf>c ' 2 XfO Acq.rC c_f t D ( ^ o o fi ^ - r / n f V i ^ ' r - 7 c r ,

Mitesh Meswani (*8)Round 3A 1:30pm Room 205Gov: 22 Hansen - RogersOpp: 4 Figueroa - Clark-CloughParliamentary DebateA/arsity


Judge's Name:


f - ^ r u i

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_ Opp Speaker #2_

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

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaternalyze 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 baters 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 am effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speal n 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 fer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Prop 1: Oppl

Prop 2: Opp 2:

T E A M C O D E # :


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


Mitesh Meswani f 8)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 205Gov: 6 Sawhney - ZhengOpp: 14 Banisadr - WeinerParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

Judge's Name: \ T ( £ / A

Judge's School Affiliation: J V /

Team Code #:

pts Opp Speaker # 1_^

pts f Opp Speaker#2

pts <3^ J

p t s X < ^ \

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

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

evidence— which may include facts and references to au ority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the defers respond to the arguments made

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

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

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

Prop 1: Opp 1:

P rop 2 : rp Opp 2:

TEAM CODE #: ^ / 4 on the wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)


PA R L I D e b a t e

Vinod Mozov (*8)Round 3A 1:30pm Room 222Gov: 26 Nevin - HatcherOpp: 2 Holt - BroganParliamentary DebateA/arslty

Judge's Name:

iation: -U

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2


O P PTeam Code #: 2.

pts_ Opp Speaker #1_ Hitp t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 /

pts 2G

pts zS

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

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

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

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

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

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant aim effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speal 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 of r compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

0 P r o p l : O p p 1 • <

ftffrC / ^ V t ,

c2jr»vyir»«r tdJt-

Opp 2: <

T E A M C O D E # :


on the f~/ _wins this debate.

^ Je-M's^'nor^A ^

Vinod Mozov (*8)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 222Gov: 20 Cervantes - LaCarrubbaOpp: 4 McKenna - JohnsonParliamentary DebateA/arsity


Judge's Name:

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

P R O P

Judge's School Affiliation: J_

Team Code #:

_pts_ Opp Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2 l.ixCarYukl€L pts 5.7 Opp Speaker #2 pts ^ i


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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the 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 port arguments with

evidence—^which may include facts and references to au^rity as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debars 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 effectiwere the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an org^mized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

r m '

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

^ ( P r o p o r O p p ) . .REAS^ FOR DECISION: ^ 4,^ ^

U.:«yuz^

■fj-e cr>iroyCo^ iKeCr a.>:^xJnyM2iih 9-UA - t r C K


Chris Day (*16)Round 3A 1:30pm Room 211Gov: 5 Li - Liao

Opp: 20 Mubarack - TroupParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

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

pts 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 elimination neiunds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or ip^propriate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze e topic and the arguments

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

evidence— which may include facts and references to aj ority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the deters 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 effece were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an ptanized, communicative style that is pleasant

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


P r o p l : O p p l :

P r o p 2 : 1 , , , ^lOSlC^

-PaSA" H Wcv-J Ati

C \ C j L % Q x

C0'>v3lwCi

Opp 2: <2Jb\yJir^1^ Gp^ 0| lo \vv \o^>^ IT

ap+ f - l .

T E A M C O D E # :


on the o?? _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)D E C I S I O N : ^ c i o y i , ^

CX> c\CLj-)-i>^ p«<a2^ Ct«A.A


Chris Day (*16)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 211Gov: 3 Cramer - GriffinOpp: 26 Shimizu - McDowellParliamentary DebateA/arsity

Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation: P R O P

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_

Team Code #:

p t s Opp Speake r # 1_

pts Opp Speaker #2 SW uv^

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

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elinmiation rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for i^e 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 d aters support arguments with

evidence— which may include facts and referenc to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelje 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 andydffective 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 respeomil the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

P r o p l : C l - e ^ c i i C e O p p 1 :^ ( y y k l o S i C a l J f t o c o / '

c k l i v ^ / ^ C S ^(yiw po. >V

P r o p 2 : J ' i o o j O p p 2 : G > c ; 0 ^I c s ^ c s i l o f

P r o p 2 : 1 ^ ( 0 2 . ^

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

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

cizl lVl^W ) 0[QA'^ ^ OiAcWfrf^^

Joel Jacobs (*3)Round 3A 1:30pm Room 224G o v : 8 K a u s h i k - M i s h r a

Opp: 12 Ho - HoffmanParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O P.Team Code #:


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: J

O P P \Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#! (NV

Prop Speaker #2

pts23. Opp Speaker #1_p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 _ _pu?L

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 elimmation rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for i e 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 debaters support arguments with

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

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


Using the above criteria, please offer /ompliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : / ^$ ( « • < . * O u t J . J , J O p p J .

^ C u i a ' ^ - A o r I ( 1 ^ ^ ^

Prop 2: 9 * -fwyfrst, p2:S,-tkpn>Ww Kv )i;"Cw5«»\ Uk lA I 5jle<xh w<,s W fvo cjurt; OAjia) itj ekpl«\ hJ Nur wr of Adlfo^

f ^

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 .

^ASONFORDECBtA (bo i

iQSIONiW'vc \\Ki /VV)r>tai4yB^ 0 '(urfhiichnMsiq ^lAct owak fw Ka ro Vo\ce c

- I A a * r \ I ^ n o d / ^ / U « L C l ^ t D / h A J aO u t / n < i £ h n M 5 j ^ ^ l A c t O A[gla'5Uy\ A%€l4n»' w. L cavsJ 2OQ ccct U(\rtwJ WAJ. POff-

■ - ' ' . . I I A I I J / t J . 4 . . 1 ' I • 1 L L — L• f f ^h no j f .b i i Wfer W u / f l f i a to i \OTi^ . H j iKuoV^ i ,~ Om. ■SALT t/lt 'itXify mdu/eJ vi Hr, jiiiw«K wsfc.Ofp, /\.!v\«S!', CUlA/CM^iiotisk. enacho (a>of L

Joel Jacobs (*3)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 224Gov; 12 Dahan - Williams-BaronOpp: 8 Sriram - SharmaParliamentary DebateA/arsity


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:,

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2

Team Code #:

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

D t S O p p S p e a k e r # 2 _pts Z-GPlease award each speaker points based on the following scale: /

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeryQood27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify formination rounds)

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatanalyze 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 baters support arguments withevidence— which may include facts and referents to authority as well as general knowledge

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

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

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

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

Prop 1: Picdb- Oil) S(ien)

r c o m p l i m e n t s a n o / o r s u g g e s n o n s l o r m p r o v e m e n t t o

l i m y w i ^ O i t o M , C f t i j ' x , U W ( h w j h ' "

oim.5o3<yZ*pl<»y^ A « / I T '^*?(( \ 1/ hl i«LC»rp3, ^4 'O^sUclt ' fel oe^ivnProp 2: m Sfp Opp 2:Qy<J felj oA Tk W® yu.J i j j f l <w i t ' ' r es f t r Jo l ' dA» t t4c , j o "> Jam. , i j iw

Oo-Nt pJiJa OAVI « 1 (L y.. bWTEAM CODE #; IT- on the wins this debate. ^tTlC-O W

o n t h e

(Prop dk Opp)REASON FOR DECISION: q /l/k,'>(\lo?r of 04 jOutliC l«iW Of\\(y\f X CfoJ0, X QtA iboJ: htb Wtik ip /Hon. Gaotk <5^ U»t0i\5 iMfl

f ijQviiiiA ■(nxihiMr fc. '' Rdflm. k. Vi^trtn 1a.Ia.. OIktn Ikrjr.'t ....aia CSam a/*.. i. Xa.. a_ .a.. . I \l. . 2ajWy Ojjf o cy tpo uic VAj,)t"\;oa\7t U. "foe" \Jijo(] irj Kij/a

Pali Pandya ^9)Round 3A 1:30pm Room 212Gov: 6 Vadrevu - MehtaOpp: 14 Hardwick - DerParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O PTeam Code #:


Judge's Name: cxti Q


Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #]_ pts_^Sl Opp Speaker#]

pts opp speaker #2 A/d/LcJ U5-M

p t s _ ^ ^

p t s

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

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

Judging Criteri• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debars analyze the topic and the arguments


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

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• Points of Information: How relevant 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 rectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

Prop O p p l :

I ^S I^

P r o p 2 : A , r . J P O p p 2 : ^

TEAM CODE #: Cp on the j KJBp wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

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

(a pe./2-£a<aiJve. in (< tr \-eC• % e . ^ y o o ^ 3 3 r x » ^■ ^ ^ ^


Pali Pandya {*9)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 212Gov : 26 Ska r r - E rns t

Opp: 3 Curl - FeinbergParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_

Opp Speaker#! <ts o?7

pts <S 1 Opp Speaker #2_ Pet n b g-

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very G0od

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debateira nalyze the topic and the arguments

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

evidence—which may include facts and referents to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively/me 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/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 respecnul the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

Propl:^,e^

QK ef OJUL S-

Prop 2: ^

O p p 1 : Q r r \ 0 , pPeASw.(xsiv^

Opp 2:

U 1 1 K J / 9 a N w ®

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 : ^ ^ i J ^^ 3' Ouf .' rnerU^ jai{. /) rCr?i We/Ce.

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

(Prop'cfr Opp)

Allison BanisadrfM)Round 3A 1:30pm Room 206Gov: 8 Ghosh - MoturiOpp: 12 Chin - RosenfeldParliamentary DebateA/arsity

PROP ^Te a m C o d e ^

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: / WO P P ^

Team Code #: 19^


pts^0 Opp Speaker#2 p t s _ ^

Please award each speaker points based on the following s< le:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 2 Very Good

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

Judging iteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively tKe debaters analyze the topic and the arguments

offered during the debate /• Evidence: How appropriately and effi ntly the debaters support arguments with

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

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

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


P r o p l : . / • O p p l : yM t a r . Y

© 6 e o d i "

prthUvwt, wuxke, ca^ iT-driven s^cU-fv, ^ Vetfr-HiAvi CiJrrvpflcK).POP'i M rehutM dcdi.4 -Cflo.vt" CVi^lU^^ AOvroLO ^ ccrforakb^rV did tiAApde iAcurd i d t i v \ p ? d e i 3 c u r .Prop 2:

g> clw, mzv^drc./ \ J o f e r f — —bod dl\d»/>'t i^z\A\cP\^yf'raHOovii ivfi^ V)a.rtM^>-T E A M C O D E # : o io n t h e

ifpProtft,O p p 2 - _ c A d e b f t f e ./ J > r e - c - l e v e v c P .S C^ctval l^ 3re«+^ ^

3cvr polite(5 good 4o br'll^a eoMCr<f£ ^)L(\HAp}f^ -DvferXde or rvDp > narrovo corpomH9 f P wins this debate,

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

Vtr vv-,«. level deb«-Ve. Pr.p d-d reat job, bo+ Oppwat? Q\rVi>"tav)dii ,


Allison Banisadr (*14)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 206Gov: 1 Jones-Solari - CondelloOpp: 26 Espinoza - RamirezParliamentary DebateA/arsity

Judge's Name:

P R O PTe a m C o d e

Prop Speaker #1 ^ pts

Prop Speaker #2 Clo[Ad io pts 24?

Judge's School Affiliation: In

OPP QTeam Code #:

Opp Speaker #1

O p p S p e a k e r # 2 r g Z - p t s

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

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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze dre 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 port arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and references to aurity as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debars 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 effectiv J ere the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an oratozed, communicative style that is pleasant

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

Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for mprovement toe a c h d e b a t e r : b l d f S ? L o e r e ] A l A o f | : ^ b ) i c•0^ labor-f> olo vwore \AarAAj (\Aav\ c cx>d\ o I judged kwS'eol oa 0tve/).P r o p 1 : /

p v e v a M /S> (dood -+0 cHz. i f Ao-h

p r o v i d e d . /G o o d " h j l a r v f e

O p p 1 ■ . X ,® c lear abouf bzAe-P\ 'b> ^ io

u n l a v o b v f

con+e> t*owi -+Vift+ toe«ef|-b "to i'lMO.U uviio^ ii' <p>/+we\5hfd IPV^ .^^5,problevMfj tf-f pw-fi-fe, -l' Job&, prVcfS.•fo ôci etv) as? <x tobolf-

Opp2:i?aw\c. at? covv^^vêv^t^? -ior :1 erpeaber.

P r o p 2 : O p p 2 :^ £?od ccl- d\rec+/u^ Opp i?aw\(L at? covv^^vêv t;? -/or d. e feaber.

pD\» -h7 dcar)v|0 ) g c > o d a t r e r o l o U

p o i .TEAM CODE #: on the Pvap wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)


Prop (X be-tfc j&b of iMeoboirm -Vvie ar vi«ev\-fe / -HkviaO>.ga\0 + -Wi€. iMv'+val agrefot- iri-a dc"rd


Qin Yue (*5)Round 3A 1:30pm Room 213G o v : 2 B o o t h - P r a c a r

Opp: 26 Inman - YoungParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2_

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

f t / L

pts_2 Opp Speaker# 1 I ultupts_l4. Opp Speaker #2 _pts_2i

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

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

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

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

evidence—which may include facts and referers to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelVthe 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 an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

Prop 1£)C(AUA

Prop 2: Opp 2: ®

T E A M C O D E # :

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


(Prop or Opp)


Qin Yue (*5)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 213Gov; 8 Munshani - BavejaOpp: 9 Nguyen - DoshiParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

pts T/l\ Opp Speaker#1 U

pts_2ii Opp Speaker #2_

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

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debate 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 baters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and referents to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelyyme 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 OTfective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak iiu organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respec™ 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 : /

P r o p /6) Mil 1^0- W

Prop2:

Opp 1;

^ r " "@ Cne'l

Opp 2:

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

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

V ^ fi j c f m w e - / f ' /

X

<r iM f^TToA/ ollj\CoARound 3A 1:30pm Room 232G o v : 2 3 M a r i a n - H a a s

Opp: 4 Cunningham - Yau-WeeksParliamentary DebateA/arsity

PROP ^Team Code #: 3

Prop Speaker#!


Judge's Name: J


Team Code #:

(I

Prop Speaker #2 A(a //p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 1 _ _ p t s _

Vis2^ Opp Speaker #2 C/îA pts 2^^Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:

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

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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze tKe 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 sjilpport arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debars 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 effectiv ere the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an ormmized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

v A / y W ' 4 v - u / e F i ^ - r - t - v W - ^P r o p C V L c k ^

a j - M u h " 5 0 - 4 - / w c ' ^ / ^ y ^ 4 .

i j l m S 4 ^ J

JUpK il, V-a/yi/AoA^p l CV<.K>4 o- jl Mylte.r t / L - v & e L ( M A L i p . o h - y h l - d h o A ^

l6UV \C

' J W C U ) \ J L ^ ,^ TEAM CODE#: on the/^0/^£^^2_wins this debate. ^ ^

— ^ ( ^ ^ T J p ' o r O p p ) Q ,

ÂSONFORDECISION^y^f^ (^jf, AJi UoAOA <y\ \ A AM^J I j( / / v e y : a J c J U / L , ^ U i < ; h p j h ^

J l S U J < 5 " ^ o ^ / ' o < U j L o y i ^ ^

fSilT E A M C O D E # : on the(Orn '

(PmptifQpp)

fA> \r AJ yy ®y7 <C ^ c o / f ' I ^ I j ' 0 ^ - q U ' \ i - o ^

_wins this debate.

.Pc/TtoA/Round 3B 1:30pm Room 232Gov: 10 Sinha - CummingsOpp: 9 Omarkhil - BoreczkyParliamentary Debate/Varsity

P R O )Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2

D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School AfFiliation:_

OPPT e a m C o d e # : J

Opp Speaker #1 joA C p t s

O p p S p e a k e r # 2 0 I n f s


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

Judging Cri ter ia /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters amt ze the topic and the arguments

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

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

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• 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 respectml the debaters were to opponents and judges

H o U - t ~ o / o j T j T t l B V C o M ^ u p / !Using the above criteria, please ofw compliments and^r suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

^ ^P r o p 1 0 O p p

T S fi C / f b C T V

^ f i U P f \ x M - h 0 y M 4 Y U ( £ ^ ' U . < J L r < ^P r o p 2 : 6 ^

m A c S u J h ^ J i f y A l i l A f \

V^»6» TEyi CODE #: o" the this debate./ P i T * n r » r n i - » r * " \

^ 'UTE,V / D k j ^

C O D E # :

v ^ / ( o ^ e

V / T U » • t ' *


(Prop or Opp)REASON FOR DECISION:/^ o^srv^ i^ccu/ic

(v(C ft/-' Af J O- <-G2. <»//O yuitcHo /IvO r COdx. (f


Jesse MacKinnon (M)Round 3A 1:30pm Room 207Gov: 12 Wh i te - Ha l l

Opp: 8 Singh - BarmaParliamentary DebateA/arslty

Judge's Name:. ^

P R O PTeam Code #:

VlA\Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

DtsSI

Judge's School AfRliation: ^

oppTT e a m C o d e # : O

Opp Speaker #1 $ > W

Opp Speaker #2

i a t i o n r


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for eliminatioi unds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or^appropriate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a y• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analy 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 debates support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and references to thority 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 eff^uve were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an/organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

Using the above criteria, please offeimpliments and/or suggestions for improvement to each debater:

P r o p l : 6 V ^ O p p 1 :\ y ^ . / A y v j v A -

W « ^ w V V - W o f

o\)5oVoV.

O p p 2 : 4 a A

T E A M C O D E


C l u C c b v A ,La^ VKtrv<^ cicttyV-n

V s p - ' A W i ^


(Prop or Opp)t D E C I S I O N : J \ \ I

iWv-, ^!nVw\..vf- ^^5 Co^r.Di:X^ 1 J u x ^ r ' l . ^ . _ L A X \ : . h « v \


Jesse MacKinnon (*4)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 207G o v : 2 R u b s a m e n - P a r t s u f

Opp: 26 Chu - FragaParliamentary DebateA/arsity

■ : XJudge's Name: :X /'iscUJudge's School Affiliation: BaUo OX) d

P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2 <<5V^

p t s^ Opp Speaker # 1

Opp Speaker #2_

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

27 = QDo4.(but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimina n rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude/W inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anaj e 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 debates support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and references tputhority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively thebaters 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 eff ive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in amorganized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

X "r . . . . . v . - j L U r t - 4 . 0 ^

■ ^ P r o p ^ L , N ■ O p p 2 : ( ^ ^ ' ) f w n o ,

.^ec(v"c^/yVo^-

T E A M C O D E # : Q h on the OPP wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : , , , N \ ^ 1 1 . »

W f ^ i c J ^ y ( T c ^ V i - V i V - ^ ^Co'-focM A^Wr \5 aiAj 4U3

James Lawrence (*12)Round 3A 1:30pm Room 452G o v ; 2 6 R o s e n t h a l - D o n d e r o

Opp: 1 Salkeld - WilsonParliamentary DebateA/arsity


Judge's


P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2

Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2 ptsjy^


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination roun26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze thp opic and the arguments


evidence— which may include facts and references to autbz ty as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaj s respond to the arguments made

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

and eas i l y unde rs tandab le /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful thebaters were to opponents and judges

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

Prop

Prop2:0(5-«rc(iiai6

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

C-) "i folci> Df (Wli allilfe

( j { f c ^ .

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 : . , L / L T I

Wlffil,( } ^ { ^ ^ 4 ^ 5 .


Judge's Name: \)m,C

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's School Affiliation:_

G P PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_

Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2

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

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

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

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently tl ebaters support arguments withevidenee—^which may include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effecti\ 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 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 reectflil the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please/ffer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : q p c ; W I j o D w }Prop 1: (i) / . Opp 1:

P r o p 2 : ^ ^ O p p 2 : G ) , .

o t L i , rT E A M C O D E # : on the pPp _wins this debate.

(Prop or Opp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : P e t ( t s ( L


Casey Elsa (*22)Round 3A 1:30pm Room 221Gov: 3 Kennedy - NogueiraOpp: 26 Amato - RingstromParliamentary DebateA/arsity

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

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

iatinn* '22_ S,

\ 3 ^ v . P t s Opp Speaker#! k M A T < ^

P r o p S p e a k e r # 2 p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2 I ' n v p t s


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

Judg ing Cr i te r ia /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analy^ 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 debaJ0rs support arguments with

evidence— which may include facts and references t uthority 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 eff tive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in organized, communicative style that is pleasant


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

P r o p 1 : - 0 , ^ ^ 1:

d: r-ecfl .tad -

r r - . U .v> i

>8 I C & I /P r o p 2 : O p p 2 : , ^ ^

C t ? - A X " l ^T E A M C O D E # :


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

(Prop or Opp)


Casey Elsa (*22)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 221Gov: 12 Katz - HuynhOpp: 9 Barnes - GiiieParliamentary DebateA/arsity

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: "ZTZ.

P R O PTeam Code #: \ Team Code #:

Prop Speaker # 1 f i SOt | pts "Z-S Opp Speaker # 1 G-\

Prop Speaker #2 Opa At "H-q uAjfats Opp Speaker #2^ :\ / 1 - V - T k l ] 1 1 1 - 1 A l _ _ ! • _ 1 1 ?

^ V '

pts 3o

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 eliminadem rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude;0r inappropriate behavior

/ J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a y ^• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters an ze the topic and the arguments

^ offered during the debate y/• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debpiters support arguments with. ' evidence—^which may include facts and references/fo authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively debaters respond to the arguments made

b y t h e o t h e r s i d e /• 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 respep l the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

Propl:

' y v r r / v o

O p p 1 : ^, ( i f . r • Adi c vf- ^ t Ar7y\ i- |

] 0 c c . C f - € < v r

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)

0 \ j \ ^ '


Min Fang fG)Round 3A 1:30pm Room 208G o v : 1 2 S u t t o n - M o o n

Opp: 8 Meswani - HarithParliamentary DebateA/arsity

Judge's Name:_

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2_

Judge's School AfFiliation:

Team Code #:

[ /1 -Ct

P \ / H 3

u - t ton Opp Speaker#1 A-lg ' WAOiOpp Speaker #2_ H i U. p t s ^ l

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Verv0ood

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

Judging Criteri• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debars 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 tKe debaters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and refnces to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectix 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 id 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 to .e a c h d e b a t e r : / " - h ■

O p p 1 : ^ - f Ut o u l i a m v n o y € / ^ i / ^ ' M y t p p L ' c ^ L U ^

/ O / A - t c A r . n . f f P

Prop 2:C ^ ) k v \ \ \ A O / ^ i i V / ^ J r i A / V . 1 J _ l . \ / : / 5 V ^ ^calmly Qjz\\ver\

- llouo ~flu ATynnnv»-H Cire

T E A M C O D E # : on the ^ f wins this debate.X H i A i Y x f t i 1 O H l o e 1 ' ^ w i o s i D i s a e o a i c .

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : p y > ) p j r c t t j r yCtryJ ^ Titx f^C Onc{ SPljSfy^ pG c PY Z P^ I ^ ^

i u d y l a o n e U c A i b n C a m A c > , \ - { 4 1 L ^

Min Fang (*6)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 208Gov: 21 He - BartenettiOpp: 4 McAvoy - VivianiParliamentary Debate/Varsity


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:_

P R O PTeam Code #:

O P PT e a m C o d e # : ^

Prop Speaker# 1_ pts Opp Speaker # 1 M Prop Speaker #2 pts Opp Speaker #2_ \J i v \ 0101 n I Pts^Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very G d27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for mination rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved f0r rude or inappropriate behavior

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

o f f e red du r i ng t he deba te /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently t debaters support arguments with

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

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

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

Using the above criteria, please/ffer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement to

P r o p l : _ c o u U " f " i S+ u S j A j > f o v 4 ^ ( K

^ o \ / v r \ : C •

. 1 I w e n —

n S ^ c l n v 3 o Y ^ n n ^ p e A ^P r o p 2 : ^ ^ O p p 2 : _

^ A r < ? - ^ Y ' p U ] ? \ a C .

T E A M C O D E # : ^ ' o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .( P r o p o r O p p ) . 1 L j J . ^ kREASON FOR DECISION: 15 A/out; vvin . P>o^y iMrn 4'd

a r x v t r - h ^ i M e ^ l(\W\ U/M ituc jg^ArAl pwU.r etK|>|oye^

Round 3A 1;30pm Room 223G o v : 8 P a r e e k - M o z a

Opp: 12 Yan - ChuParliamentary Debate/Varsity


Judge's Name:_ 'S'Judge's School Affiliation:_ 'ZGb

''ow/kl

Team Code #:P R O P

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1 Mo2-

Prop Speaker #2

XiXSr ^ Opp speaker # 1_

pts A. Opp Speaker #2_Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Verv/dood27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify f Iimination rounds)

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

Judging Criterig^• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the defers 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 efficientlv/tne debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and reences to authority as well as general knowledge

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

• Delivery: How well the debaters sak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasantand easily understandable /

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

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

Propl . d fn4 'M. i {o iA& Opp 1.AACIC Ik ffp'poneKh, av^U.Me*cir

d ^ a u m e * v k . w / L a r c A a - t - l A i i o vI k i - n u t b U ^ s W f l y 7 ^ I

4ketvv^3 / A i A n a e r J " • L o ^ c / l U y A - l (

T E A M C O D E # :


o n t h e

* Lo^ULlty 0^11

C ^ a . o L V i ^ k kw i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(Prop'or/

A . AdAiAA.h/>\J lo"i-f>yiKUi dd^S. "/^r£ koAnA Ikc/n'-

Af U- iA "S'Kk[tWj - 'Bko'fankaj Grovor (*.0)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 223Gov: 14 Stephen - MiskelleyOpp: 8 Archarya - SinghParliamentary DebateA/arsity


Judge's Name:_

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

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2


Team Code #:

i-cciA S'fivation:

pts ^ Opp Speaker # 1p t s . O p p S p e a k e r # 2 _ _pts^

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

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

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


evidence—which may include facts and refe]ces to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effecti>y 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 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 reectfiil the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

O p p i : v W u€ C r < - l e / ( < O L

" W - f t o d S k d U .

i q a n d a k d - e s s V NoY OuHi^v^tra-hue. Soi^c^ \bi[ CO\A^( foonnôy+iVVL, md-

I/Vs T CdA\/\nuM 6<da:lHy^ ciwose LuuTia-'^)[a.^y^'pUs ■ Pz-ce. ^ -îJievad. cfiAvudCAA^) M 4 Q n i 4 u i £ t l ^ c S c r ' s

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

« - r r o p z : ' ' -

Pi-cxilctd h'h oP'<^fftdi w i r , " W - TI U.)Ca.tv\'p Us . Ptse. bK

yvuiQ n C-h^t jcU. e. Oi\P\ht i [ \k/ ^ r ^ v n l T E A M C O l l E # : K ' o n t h e .

. J-ddei/

T E A M C O ]'LLuuLe ' j e Or PppclCiL f f : 1 ' o n t h e

*rop^r Opp)REASON FOR DECISION.^ ^ \/Ji 4h ôfn£i dMiifWm d i y l h i u c + < j , A u . ^ c U \ U u S

-kak-t-dA loaic, iisWidl doselv i=>W \s)urc Vi rc. h {Ca./ly :j sud lUd

Jane DeWi t tn2)Round 3A 1;30pm Room 209Gov: 4 Choy - MooreOpp: 26 Davis - EscarcegaParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O PTeam Code #:


Judge's Name:vJ^Judge's School Affiliation: U) f \

O P PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #2_ Jivitw

pts^ Opp Speaker # 1_pts Opp Speaker #2 Pts 7.


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

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 debater upport arguments with

evidence—^which may include facts and references to ajitmority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond to the arguments made

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

and easi ly imderstandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful mt debaters were to opponents and judges


v / t V s i i> 4 t W - / . P / A i v t v u \ N ^ \ g

P r o p l : . / , , , O p p l : .- f 0 \ A J X J f \ \ n A U w / k . . \ \ j L V i } l O L Y ^ i v t

_ ^levorfcMivv,

4 r S

> r tSsfc'srJ-rs:- JH11£l|l I

TEAM CODE #: ^ \P on the ^PF ^wins th is debate. ^ 4-REASON FOR DECISION: llfU

l o l o b v j i M 4 4 a A v t 4 ^ 1 6 4 \ A n ( M M C ' i v k U y §l O 4 ^ 4 l A j i i d A - V V l i m / U A V ^ t X w ^ ô l i ( rTr^V \ i /Y y i r r L ia jMj2^ {/AJ- Y/^YtS^HOn cr/^ t \[cim54hi5) 4- [cff % /toV)V7>-)iw>{\. 0?? Lo\jJid\^CM^ of VYNA^DVlKi tT> T^YÛÂ^tLh(r(^ ^


Jane DeWi t tn2)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 209G o v ; 6 Yu - M a k i n e n i

Opp: 14 Aguilera - ZhouParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O PTeam Code #: ^

Prop Speaker #1_

Prop Speaker #2 HV\tlVH

Judge's Name C AAJ 1 f-l"

Judge's School Affiliation: 0 iO P P

T e a m C o d e # : '

p t s _ O p p S p e a k e r # 1 _ p t s

pts Opp Speaker #2 A Hl \-t\A ptsy ^Please award each speaker points based on the following scale:

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good

26-25 = Fa i r27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for eliminatiorf rounds)

24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude orinappropriate behavior<20 = Reserved for rude

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• 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 debaj s support arguments with

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

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

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

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

P r o p l : /

Prop 2:1-

b f f t u - U I w i m • 'T E A M C O D E # : _ j o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

( P r o p o r O p p ) ^ . A iREASON FOR DECISION: DfP Ij l5 yY\0X6 ^ C^VO\/J V Wc *T

W W i l l i / I V . T l ' i n V t

O p p 1 : r * L -f Vuu^ {)jUK^r ^ Y?t^t hcY^ t-U4?c r\-v; rY\

_ ^ U V H / - l A A ^ ?c?wr oax WU ]oSjr'^^^yio}-

vK' (xvK uo a; n^5, .6s6i=B»e*k VlMp^ K


b ? P r^\j^yC (X^ VXVWCTAA^


Brittany Aboudara (*26)Round 3A 1;30pm Room 201G o v : 2 0 C a o - G u n n

Opp: 5 Deng - QianParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1_ CaoProp Speaker #2_ Gmn

Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2_

pts

l A n t s

Please aiyard 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 rmMfds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or impropriate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze e topic and the arguments

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

evidence—^which may include facts and references to autnority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond to the arguments made

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

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

P r o p /

0 QpoUL ^(aJUUU Q

P r o p JG r e U f c o ! ^

< S > ' p o x -

& , c b n f ; 4 e i A t - ,

Spc/te/"o peof-fic/tY {k'sNM

Q ch ieY

{pcocytei^uSkOHcplcg uJUjLiA.

O a £ j P p d

T E A M C O D E # :


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

(Prop or Opp)

oarndX. I^w^t J&ffOi r oc

iy Dpp 'Si ^y\ a.

iPCijtlLjZ/'iS "f '~'POaI d

Brittany Aboudara (*26)Round 3B 1:30pm Room 201Gov: 5 Hanvey - MooreOpp: 23 Greenberg - KollingParliamentary DebateA/arsity

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: ^

O P PTeam Code #: ^ ^

Opp Speaker #1_


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

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

Judging Criteri• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaJ;CTS 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 t debaters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and referees to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effecti y 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 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 respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please oner compliments and/or suggestions for improvement to. . t . \e a c h d e b a t e r : / '

( ^ C c u r t i o u ^ / J A -l a c k e d

, t c i h o r L U e u m @ ^

0 Seef7>\T E A M C O D E # :


' ^ S h v K s ^ j

r j f p u fi o r fi o i l ^ / > L g

E # : o n t h e 0 i r w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . ^

cd- CKcl

iaH<^W i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(Prop or Opp)

o f - - b ) p V(7f~opp. .

"' Uu-Bcdprefiarezfi^yi

OY^cp/^ -fUa^ Lafhc .Q2eYd-f-c €xLfUfaLC t r x d D e p f k - f o f - i ^ P ' ^ O i i J .

/ e j, dt i t i Y -

each debater: · 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to quality for elimination rounds) 26-25 =...

Documents

Transcript of each debater: · 27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to quality for elimination rounds) 26-25 =...