P A R L I D e b a t e

Vinod Mozov (*8)Round 4A 3:40pm Room 307Gov: 12 Li - LiangOpp: 23 Hynes - GriffinParliamentary Debate/JV

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2 Ll

O P PTeam Code #: 23

pts Opp Speaker #1 pf

ptS 2^ Onn Snpak-prOpp Speaker #2

p ts 28

pts ^ S

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

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

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

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

• Argumentation: How directly and e^ctively 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 debaterpeak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

^ c r T r e1 2

U.C(L - j/ ^ p I/ P r o p 2 : ^ . / , v r ) ,Opp2:

'

T E A M C O D E # : on the __^p__yvms this debate.( P r o p o r O p p ) ^ / I

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

r o-a v o '

LoK .51 4 V-)

n e e 4 r ^ a X 7iVYfU' "Ati)

P A R L I D e b a t e

Vinod Mozov (*8)Round 4B 3:40pm Room 307Gov : 12 Yee - Mo r re l l

Opp: 5 Moore - KoshkinParliamentary Debate/JV

Team Code #:P R O P

^ 2

Judge's Name: VfM.rG I

Judge's School Affiliation:_

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

Prop Speaker#! \

Prop Speaker #2 V -C

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

Opp Speaker #2

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

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

Judging Criteria/• 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 tiie debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and refj nces 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 relevanff d effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

Using the above criteria, ple offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : / t 1 1

Prop2uLtkivw- • f! ,t r r A 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 :~ n c - D <

- r - y W ^ f T G - V VA 1 ^ 4

on the Q _wins this debate.( P r o p o r O p p ) , r s r ^ 1\ J i . ' A ' X \ 1 M A • J T 41 •Ar6y [riLCi<\hrih

' A I )

PA R L I D e b a t e

Ethan O'Rafferty (M)Round 4A 3:40pm Room 301Gov: 6 Giang - ShenOpp: 16 Day - SiebelsParliamentary Debate/JV

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2_

2 ^

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 eliminatioiy unds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or^imppropriate 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 debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and references to thority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the Raters 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 anganized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

Prop 1:

2 ) e y e . /

Opp 1:

tSa<sf

y r r , t

0 COf^k(-t) T|

r€

TEAM CODE lift7R 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 ^ '(Prop o^^pp)

(U<ye.

PA R L I D e b a t e

Ethan O'Rafferty (M)Round 4B 3:40pm Room 301Gov: 3 Wang - Aghadjian-NewbrcughOpp: 26 Castenada - GirimonteParliamentary Debate/JV

Judge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation:

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2

Pts 2^ Opp Speaker # 1p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 2

Team Code #:

irifHO'iK-C Pts

/ ' f ' € i TPlease award each speaker points based on the following scale: / 1

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Good / \27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimii on 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 to authority as well as general knowledge

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

• Points of Information: How relevant and effi tive 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 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 : /

V ^

.Propl:

Prop 2:

TEAM CODE#: J-. on the wins this debate.

.f delw/ M' C " ) k - p i y f -c y i > r o c t / 4 ) ,

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 : n L a , - n , 1 L ^ J

ey^ejW^ofeiW>7 \T^ '

o n t h e

(Prop qw i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

PA R L I D e b a t e

Sam Roberson (*18)Round 4A 3:40pm Room 311Gov: 21 Corbett - SomerdayOpp: 5 Bonet - YuanParliamentary Debate/JV

P R O PTeam Code U:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2_

Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation:

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2

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

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

Judging Critma• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the dwaters 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 efficientiythe 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

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 sp in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

Prop

liCFV UQ, motcv-o e\A\>o \oo/\

Prop 2 ; VOV0m«-

a m

TEAM CODE #: ^ on tR E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :

O p p 1 : y J S V O A<?-1 ''J lie- b

Opp 2;

e i t + A ^

J-ih o n t h e _wins this debate.

(Prop or Opp)

^ 9 f [ ) f ) d ^ t o : s

PA R L I D e b a t e

Sam Roberson (*18)Round 4B 3:40pm Room 311Gov: 5 Yang - KwakOpp: 14 Wang - BronfmanParliamentary Debate/JV

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

P R O P

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

p t s _ O p p S p e a k e r # 2 _pts'2Please 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 elirnination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for 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 defers support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and reference 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 elective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in m 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 rampliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Oppl; wWtTI<-

CA&

Opp 2: ( 0 CUo'\u aM

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 :

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

(Prop or Opp)

P A R L I D e b a t e

Robert Stromberg (*23)Round 4A 3;40pm Room 303Gov: 4 Carter - WyattOpp: 26 Stewart - LittleParliamentary Debate/JV

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:

P R O PTeam Code #:

O P PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1 WJ

Prop Speaker #2

pts Opp Speaker # 1 TTL^ pts_Z2^

pts *2-^ Opp Speaker W2 /<! t2JV ^\sPlease 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 eliminatfon rounds)

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anaWze 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 debat support arguments with

evidence—^which may include facts and references to/authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the haters 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 OTganized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easi ly understandable /• 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 : /

P r o p l : yLA>1> o wC /

- - ' X U t C - n . o L ' of o O - M e r t O /

Prop 2:

Opp l :

+ ^ ' E d vG o o l >

15 tHer" UJ i T \ 3 mctl^- / J r r t ^O p p 2 * \ ( V Vo v / t ^ w t fi 5 ^ f- e O P A J ^ S C T T C A I6^npef<rr

v ~ 0

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 :

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

/yiAt>G Sc^ASe , /) l/ seVL, ' T-rxJCT-l xj2 r> PLAPJ I (2n^D'f>S o U f D o y

Robert Stromberg (*23)Round 4B 3:40pm Room 303Gov: 21 Banks - MurdoughOpp: 5 Jia - JiangParliamentary Debate/JV

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

PA R L I D e b a t e

Judge's Name:_ ' } ^ r z : r - T

Judge's School Affiliation: CNVut

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1 n/d

Prop Speaker #2

pts_2^ Opp Speaker #1\

p ts "^7 Opp Speaker #2 c

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

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for/ imination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved rude 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 the debaters support arguments with

evidence—^which may include facts and referees to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectiyy 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 dsA effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters sp in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily imderstandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and rectful 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 : /

P r o p 1 : / O p p 1 :

Prop 2:

, A p o - D p o ( . n j - r ^ \ J t f e i JU > P U j i - r v ( I f e r n s '- & D 0 i - D ^ E l T V A O U e

TEAM CODE #: 2^ on the tOPP wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

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

T H e o p p O v r B e r r a Z - ( S e - ^ c w o ^C L - o s < = ^ !

Opp 2:

Maia Vinogradova (*5)Round 4A 3:40pm Room 310Gov; 8 Lakes - MaruduruOpp: 26 Streeter - WagnerParliamentary Debate/JV

PROP ^Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#! Llfco9 _ptsProp Speaker W1 pts <3^

PA R L I D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#! \A/CkJOpp Speaker #2

X 9o2 ^

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

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

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the topip d 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 a uments with

evidence—^which may include facts and references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters reond 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 weree questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organizedjommunicative 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 the debatms were to opponents and judges

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

Prop l :

•f PPX W'ene

P™p2, ^ ■ /qf Cjpqnuj^.

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

Oppl :

Opp 2: G

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

i ) p Po n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(Prop or Opp)

PA R L I D e b a t e

Maia Vinogradova (*5)Round 4B 3:40pm Room 310Gov: 21 Woerner - MinerOpp: 12 Yan - ChanParliamentary Debate/JV

Judge's Name: ^ ^

Judge's School Affiliation: ^P R O P

Team Code #: Team Code #:

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

Prop Speaker #2 ptso^^ Opp Speaker #2 YtxyyiPlease 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 elimiti on rounds)

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters an 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 debars support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and references authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively th/ 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 ctive 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 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 : /

Prop 2: /- Ote.-iy\ri^^y- Opp2;J— i t

TEAM CODE #; c^-l on the wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

REASON FOR DECISION: TjZO^

T E A M C O D E # :

P A R L I D e b a t e

Judge's Name: ct&\erS

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #:;

Judge's School Affiliation: V \ f 7

Team Code #:

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

Opp Speaker #2

) t s l 7

ptsz^y

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

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

Judging Criteria/• 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 debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and refg?6ices to authority as well as general knowledge

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

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

• Courtesy: How courteous and rectful 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 l : < J - < , a O p p l : ^ c ; c ^. w ' . W v . f ^

Prop2: (Joo ■ olv.v e.,$OVvv<^

Opp2: Gvoi

TEAM CODE ^ on the _wins th is debate.( P r o p o r O p p ) L . ^ I ' H £ >

REASONFORDECISION:/' k«v+-Urs, tOe

sWjf

\'\w3C>S<: iMAAJi'hi ^PA R L I D e b a t e

• u m i a n y / l u u u u u i u f z t j ) p /Round 4A 3:40pm Room 305 S K^G o v : 2 3 S h e r m a n - G u ^ 'Opp: 8 Sadana - WaghParliamentary Debate/JV

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1

pts S Opp Speaker #2 \!\}QiPlease 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 eliminad/dn rounds)

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

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters ;)dlyze the topic and the arguments

offered during the debate• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the dejraters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and referencto 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 an ffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speakan organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

M J . ^dJA^

Lu cO

O p p 1 : w ^

V I ; h ( / y \ ^nAJhrr ^7r -|7Vv\)W'

T E A M C O D E # :

c r ^ ^ p e ^ ^cluU'/- bfrCU Wcu^fn^y j I

on the Cy Pfy yvins this debate.(Prop or/6pp))

^ \ > S t r ^ j p o ^ - ) O i m f y \ Q M \ J ^ s ^' P A R L I D c b d t c

Round 4B 3:40pm Room 305Gov: 3 Wolf-Jacobs - NagarajanOpp: 22 Beatie - ThorntonParliamentary Debate/JV

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #llV&-

Prop Speaker #2

pts Opp Speaker # 1 CO yiJu)pts -22 Opp Speaker #2_ nbkJ>

atsQ^

Please award each speaker points based on the following cale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding >258 = Very Good

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

Judging^riteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectiveiyrhe debaters analyze the topic and the arguments

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

evidence—^which may include factSy d references to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly an effectively the debaters respond to the arguments made

by the other side /• Points of Information: How mevant 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 courteous/ d respectful the debaters were to opponents and judges

7Using the above criteriayplease offer compliments and/oi u^ tions for improvement tOjjA

tpd/

TEAM CODE #: on the Jt-C^P wins this debate. *( [ P r ^ r O p p ) , ^

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : , , y - j j ' C ^ / o . ^ '

M i c kM Pk iAM^ aU ^d p c M T k / H ) 7 ^ ^ , p i ^ 4 L u l Z ^

PA R L I D e b a t e

Jenny Holt ^2)Round 4A 3:40pm Room 312Gov: 6 Su - Her

Opp: 8 Ganguli - SanghviParliamentary Debate/JV

Judge's Name;;

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2_

Judge's School AffiIiation:_

OPP ^T e a m C o d e # : U i

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2_

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

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

U s p t ^ s J/ J u d g i n g C r i t e r i ^• 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 tl debaters support arguments with

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 reectful 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 1 : O p p \ : ( s > O O e \ . S' ) o o c J ( C s > o t x ^

Prop 2: (ciV to©- (W; s (cMr ^ f c - rb

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 Jthe

\/Av^ins this debate.

(Prop or bpp)

cmc i ^ ckMA ' (Xlirni'i- Ts ^

!p(zoy uld<^

PA R L I D e b a t e

Jenny Holt (*2)Round 4B 3:40pm Room 312Gov: 5 Visht - CuddihyOpp: 14 Kapoor - BergerParliamentaty Debate/JV

Judge's "j^ tDi ^Judge's School Affiliation:

P R O )Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #2 (2^pts/3y Opp Speaker # 1 I'CM

Opp Speaker #2

Dts ^

Please award each speaker points based on the following scaliK30 = 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 = Rested for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Cri ia• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the baters analyze the topic and the argumentsoffe red dur ing the debate /

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

• Argumentation: How directly and effe ively the debaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o 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 speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily imderstandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and respectful 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 : /

P r o p 1 : 3 6 0 0 1 < ^ [ 1 ^ M l JSlovw- cliMn CL -t'lAU Asif; ^ e,\/\cUnuycmA 5T&n>y

(iPfypoli 'Ccv KcMA^iMtxHS I'M Sc ?

101)1- a if -ift-l-imrt p VxHtyi- 6^

* — V I NProp 2: (;)OOcA 0pp2:(pC0cA CCV^V/\dnCf^ - ,

P c ^ . T . c ^ / l ( t l e ^ u k i c i j U * ^ \ f , P 9Prop 2: (pOOcA WriV-6<^. Opp2:6oOc1 CCvnWcHO^. ,

P o.i: - c^/irti-lji- ukiciju*^ (jpoocA \o\o

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

(Pro||» dr Opp)_wins this debate.

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : \ o\ u > ( - c l M n n - C A y j i A n u d r . C j ( x i c 4 ^O v V < n — ^ ^ ( M y - j C n ^

pd ry,

t t p i a , $ t m u M m e 7 5 ^ / ^ u m v ? ^ ^ ' ^ r i o ^ .Jim Curl (*3)Round 4A 3:40pm Room 313Gov: 6 Sawhney - JeongOpp: 9 McDonnel - YiParliamentary Debate/JV

Judge's Name:. 0 / M C W ^

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's School Affiliation

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#! ja)N6-Prop Speaker #2

ptsM.

ptsVlOpp Speaker#!

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

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Goo27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elinndation rounds)

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

evidence—which may include facts and reference 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^ctive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /. • Courtesv: How courteous and respectM the debaters were to opponents and judges '^Pe-eisuid/i'^ufnlc

1 /«CPPWC ; \i/>(UMS:ce- <x CP "Ner BeU£FfK'<the above criteria, please offer rampliments and/or suggestions for improvement cfiP'nilSJMmfei each debater: / oPp,OI0f'T>^&UTeiNmAUP(icf'-Of^W^oPli.

4)^(^&«M>Propl:d;ofc-4U£ / Opp hdu? - ^:'8 .QMHTK0i>i»irwej cn>B/biDN'Teo^@ W B m p c & i F * z . / P W P

i t t » f i m t i i - u ( » e @ f f X > t > P O I S M p r n t N / t e t ^ g T ^ - 4 r r n r i r

cnarm' / j tAfir f^rm't ) t P Y / W i ^ F p j . o p f 7 f ; t ^ ^ X 3 / F K JT H e Q & C 0 0 Q A \ / 6 r p v M i P L f hi>P^rmaefj mmm ^ffAKy 0 WEh-v^ner m^(of u c m c i ^ ^ c f l a f r p ) t ? / 2 . p j I P 0 ? ? O H * i €E^oNTizewpip.wiwMfDw dor ,h j y

( P r ^ o r O p p ) , . , ,

R > l /

THePMT/ §&0OO^fWe^^ ) P € ^ c n < w 5 ^ ^ 5 r ( A K yfucmci^^cflaf r

O F F , i N I V A U P R c P ^t i o m c u h ' i i o N

O p p l : 4 . i 3 ^ . < 8 V

u t i e H F f ^ Pp)( |ZepPP6i^

t t x i ) / o N ' r f o i ^ p ? . d u rP 0 P U T G ( } 6 F P # : o n t h e

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

opP/upXh/^dCMlfh' itM h^UnMyfu} 'ip^aMYPfXUcft2 ^.

'topic: ^HouLi> if^pe^e icm uMiTb on i^eni(>)enoFCOHMmyiPA R L I D e b a t e

Jim Curl (*3)Round 4B 3:40pm Room 313Gov: 12 Guan - SchmidtOpp: 8 uddin - maddhuriParliamentary Debate/JV

P R O PTeam Code #: 13^

Prop Speaker #1_

Prop Speaker #2

Judge 's Name:: J / M CU9.L

Judge's School Affiliation

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1_ UDP/A/Opp Speaker #2

16 16

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

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

G o o d Xi m i n a t i o n X u d s ) ^ide oXappropriate oeliaviorpgj ^ P

/ W u i > a m e/the topic and the arguments

— * X A V T T T U X J . \ J . X V X X X W U W L a T U L W X O V T W X W V K J V r j ^ ^ V / X X W X X X O U X X V X J V X V X 0 W U

PoUcH WnFimm^nbTOf^n/mAcnH^tC < f P3c)AJsing the above criteria, please offe ompliments and/or suggestions for improvement to

^ p m u r n e a c h d e b a t e r : P ^ •w O F © a / f ^ 2 m a s H t © w .

^ ^ ^ P r o p 1 : 4 . ' 5 / - - ' ^ / O p p 1 : 4 ; - / c p p

laewt wg>7 M 0 r L a t f l i f y « < 2 r / e w J N ' r t o ^ / u c T i e W L o a O H , _

QeipcDcofii/€i o i/<L/fe i ( %oO^Fef(t ef2QwoiA;tu.AuoiJv$0 i2a> to/>cce-Pioi/rm 10 otubconimr.

r t A v B f a 4 ; f e 5 f t e . ™ P 2 : N a a ?(?'et v6e eO / THKYdn/Ntcenes/p e w u ; o N ' r & ^ z _ / — D ^ A ^ U ; 7 V j - O d w r t A U A r q - 7 D ^

0YW(»®utaraPHa«.Nr:fSiw/Bov(3 aw^iai® POO .ViotOuCrQ- /2 lOoF/ertt). ftT - ^k.r

T E A M C O D E # : l ) o n t h e O T P ' w i n s t h i s d e b a t e , / ^ ^ a j . P f 1 t ) N ^ P 4 t ^ l ! ^ . c d v i i ^ f -

( P r W M. R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : _ , ^ ^ 0 0 ^ ?

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a X P hAnalysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analXthe 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 debat support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and references tuthority as well as general knowledgeArgumentation: How directly and effectively thehaters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /Points of Information: How relevant and eftive were the questions and the answersDelivery: How well the debaters speak in mforganized, communicative style that is pleasanftPteTifg'and easily understandable /Courtesy: How courteous and respectm the debaters were to opponents and judges

(zera-t^'.

, i /A^e RAHTO rvu>t>moi^ ^M ixjuKu^ ^^0/^ce-mr/rm TO oQit^conmr,ji/fV0fa4;f65fieProp 2:(?'et^v6e fi) -nuKYOfip e w u ; o N ' r & h i 1 — ^T O m i . ' 1 3 ^

N o r

TEAM CODE #: \ o n t h e

WtAoM^ hem^ ^ irt( '^nip^i fitc c0Up^ov\'10 Tin u 4 OiU-'ku 'o) ,

Madhuri Vadrevu (*6)Round 4A 3:40pm Room 304G o v : 4 W h i e - W h i t m o r e

Opp: 26 Brown - HallParliamentary Debate/JV

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1 pts( 7

P A R L I D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1

u r I L t

DVHS

pts_2L7Prop Speaker #2 IOV>\'V^AO^ pts *7 Opp Speaker #2_ pts

r I I I I I I I T ~ -Please award each speaker points based on the following scal

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 =y4ry Good27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to quali for elimination rounds)

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

Judging Cri ia• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively thehaters analyze the topic and the argumentsoffered dur ing the debate /

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

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

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

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

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

PropliVeVU cXjlQ* CKy Opp\ j J ^ ^

Cvood C U ^ « 'v X t o p ' / o f t

P r o p 2 : O p p 2 :

C s s J t v ^ o v v ^ ^UAc jC '

OppoKef?C:3J(Lv^ - <^ocl Speako..Opp 2:

0\J^ '

^ < ^ o c l S p e a k w

•pp2-. CboocA

W « > ^> . ^ n n Y - T l - U - O V A ' T ^ \o r h

T E A M C O D E # : on the _fro4L_ _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

W oppovlWVS

REASON FOR DECISION: P o pQAVtAaAA\/<2. OV) v O e c x > f e

- c A '

Madhuri Vadrevu f 6)Round 4B 3;40pm Room 304Gov: 21 Fulop - BennettOpp: 12 Cohen-Simayof - DrakeParliamentary Debate/JV

P A R L I D e b a t e

Judge's Name: . o n

Judge's School Affiliation:_ JDVHIP R O P O P P

T e a m C o d e # : Q l \ T e a m C o d e # : _ _ _ L 2 =

a ^ i i _ C o W K - S f « r ) C iProp Speaker # 1 OCT^ Y\ pts 2-^ Opp Speaker #

Prop Speaker #2 " U l

p t s 2 - ^ O p p S p e a k e r # 1 ^ p t s / x '

pts_2r Opp Speaker #2 Q PK ptsPlease 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 eliminatioiywinds)

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

Judging Criteria• 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 debat support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and references ty thority 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 ef ive 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 respect 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,:SW ci e>yoppi: Veru0 b>4- 0 4 "CtAsK- T)4re

(X h TEAM CODE #: I on the 0 3p' wins this debate.( P r o p o r O p p ) .REASON FOR DECISION: ^ V^- V-^

Q o K V i ( y 6 ? p r o v

(4>KvWtXiM|. —too\Jh ALe. 'un?l-iAV^v^ -S-<Ai?povf

-pvJo

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : 1 ^ 4 V€ r(jo KV1 vvy

r o v ^

PA R L I D e b a t e

Judge's Name:_

Judge's School Affiliation:

P R O P . ,T e a m C o d e # : V

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2 O f

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1

^ ^ Opp Speaker #2 \^tr~ pts *2^^

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 roumi26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze tl opic 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 debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and references to autl ty as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debars 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 an orgzed, 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 the haters were to opponents and judges

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

P r o p l : / ^ P Pp < f ? / A : h s . a , A ^ ,

-W^5>»VV . / C^C) iA. \ r£ f^^^^ (O/s PN»/aP r o p 2 : / O p p 2 : ^ ^ ^ _ I t ^ A J - f d j ,f c o A h - c f .W r f c ^ / i o t ( + < c s t o / s A f d - .

-W^5>»vv vyunr\^S . / C^C)iA.\r£f^^^^ (O/s J^urT/itA PN»/aP r o p 2 : / O p p 2 : ^ ^ ^ _ I t ^ A J - f d j ,

p.oL^'Uc^ ^ W -U do/sFkrcJ- . y(rveo^^( & p p . f 4 s ?TEAM CODE #; I on the _wins this debate.

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

P A R L I D e b a t e

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

P R O P

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation

Team Code #:

f-g>A

: L-oU^g-l

Opp Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2 _ pts 2- ^ Opp Speaker #2

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

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters mjdlyze 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• Argumentation: How directly and effectivel e 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 speal an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and resp6:tful the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

Co,\n£d -/tiid' e cLi-CiAou \ Mc (U^€ - -) ej -vO/t-h,cW 4-HcG-

U u L s Y & i 3 h 2 ) ^P r o p 2 : Z ^ ' O p p 2 :

{ ^ - i z A u c Y ( e ? / \ C ( + S

C c 5 U ( A U e h c c ^ i A f t ^ O S ^ u o^ c p \ \ q \ A / . 0 n e y > ^ C i - P / ^ n y v .

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

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

!A.(X(\.l^ ^/v \oo^ ^)Scs^ hi/Y ckfc( ocV 5c?/v\ex>A(2.