PROP - The Joy of Tournaments€¦ · 10/01/2016 · T E A M C O D E # : o n t h e ( ^ xZZZZV...

P A R L I D e b a t e

Mark Cabasino f13)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m E 4Gov: 14 Eng - MorgensteinOpp: 10 Dara - RanderiaJ V P a r l i D e b a t e

Judge's Name;

Judge's School Affiliation:

P R O PTeam Code #:

P r o p S p e a k e r # 1 A j _ p t s

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

T e a m C o d e # : ^

Opp Speaker #1

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 enougl/to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 p Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judgii Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the topic and the argumentsoffered during the debate /

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

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond to the arguments madeby the other side

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

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

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

fUcS\-i\' (r/Q ) A j - r ^ / s r f ( o / v 6 ~ 0 o ] >

yyp/iMO oAi2 c A W D T bA fi c p o x , f u g ; - .

Prop 2:5-ooD <pA 5S fOAZ/Hr t/gTL-Y/(/v/0

A J f A S z j c ' - f

/fcD.j(?,T.oAJX AAP eao/rrc,u/ fe/XJ "Ji/'T E A M C O D E # : o n t h e ( ^

x Z Z Z Z V ( P r o p

J A (J 0/iPP CAS^' THOLGHT fe^TTAUoA /IPP IC A/VD C Pi/€ /2^^ ^ V 2 j r t < 6 o o 4 C L c y . I M d f L f C o r ^

_ O - T W B A " ! W u - i - r rOpp 2:

6(^p oootHdaj cDpiV St^iUfeAJcff^b-

I A A . ,' I I ^ a J / 3 C e ^ O T: ^ ^ ( J Y = f A f p

7^ ASWtw i n s t h i s d e b a t e . .

rorO ip)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :AfF'f CAfC iwAr A &r M'oet PLfiTKGC) 0(/r; AW0 A(? HAP MO/! fcyv/«/iCivUX U i i ^ g o > e L APsAJA-n .A j

iOoOA'G-C Sj-TH-T c ? v A ^ t T H P - O . ^ ' r

, • X / i / i ^ w f ^ U ) T 6 r ( c o ^ u i Z r r ^ f ^ j S . A i A

PA R L I D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

PROP(C, T e a m C o d e # : V


Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#! CAfiêiL-

Prop Speaker #2

pts Z<7 Opp Speaker #1

pts Z ^ Opp Speaker #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 inappropriate behavior

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

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

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

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

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

/


/

P r o p 1 : O p p l : ; v ; ^ ( j ^ A ^ J >^ ^ A n ^ , A . /A V O v r T H # / P D I A / T S , T f t t i

A fp IC A ' - fl 2 .C / TH fc , 4^ O A ) y o T 7 K / / ^

- T o / V / v c r i v ' - . r ,

P r ^ 2 ^ ^ - ^ ' A - c V 0 o v^ P ■ 1 &ST/F ' ' i 'W- ( U/0^ ' 6E^ .4A<0 .HOHfP exfiiyfisi T" V-v4_6yF (e^ "J/-

f x / ; - " , " "T F A M r o r i F i l . ) w i n c f h i c ^

A L / c j T H C p t c A - f

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

boÂ' LET f.OX'Xw i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(Prop or Opp)^ V - - ^ r ^ r r /REASON FOR DECIS ION: l Âvb 2 .C Aqp I c Zc . 'V£6 - ' /AT T,A>es IT Felt fo-rn rtf2(W.v/6_ Pc^PoR-n.Â-C

/3T TiA>fS fxnv i s ip r - ' t / ô to o /» i / vS- Co^< 'ess lo^/\(rfitîrc TH61/2- Cxjt/ . ACp Oi,A^,A/4u o,.v GT DAAÔ-eieo.-<i Aaw rtjur

^ ( j a a j C ^ £ 0 l ^ ) y v t ( t C ^ / T S / A ; A ' / p ^

PARLI Debate'

Liru Chin (*14)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m E 3Gov: 23 Campagna - MortensenOpp: 17 Day-ShahJ V P a r l i D e b a t e

Judge's Name:


r . i

X i^ i

^ '5k f'V L

i ^i 'J

^ r9 h

i It i

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

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

Prop Speaker #2^^^*^ Odd Sneaker#Opp Speaker

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

27 = Good (but possibly not good enougl/to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 4Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging riteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively me debaters analyze the topic and the arguments

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

evidence—which may include facts anceferences to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and efwctively 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 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 understandable 7• Courtesy: How courteous and reectful the debaters were to opponents and judges


P r o p 1 : ^ 1 t ■ ' I I

\ v^ ^

Opp 1:

P r o p 2 : /^ « J n f i v t ^

< ^ p r * d t i a . t nA Vi>a

^ x-CL.v l ls^oLl i^

O p p 2 : « -

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

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : , . . . ^ ^ - U vW » v s ^" _^v«-vVl"(J2. - +0 £.Ue-(-c-jpK^ M jM-o-rw* a f l r l o . - K - e - . 3 - " f A - o ■» - « t 8 ^

V / ^ . " 2 - - t y y . - t o I P r v W

X v^V\5fcs'ec^«^ ^\m(^wsui^ \ 6US4I-c^^ P A R L I D e b a t e

L i r u C h i n ( * 1 4 ) f ^ r \ 'J o u n d l B 9 : 0 0 a m E ^ J u d g e ' s N a m e : ^ C J ^ c ^3 o v ; 1 5 B a r b i r - D e n g ^D p p : 1 3 J u n g - H o u c k [ iJ V P a r i i D e b a t e J u d g e ' s S c h o o l A f fi l i a t i o n :

Team Code #:P R O P ^

L i l Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2 pts 2-(gOpp Speaker#]

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 roupus)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inamrfopriate behavior

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze thopic 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 suj rt arguments withevidence— which may include facts and references to autho as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debat 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 re the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters spegik in an organ ed, communicative style that is pleasanta 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 ddwters were to opponents and judges

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

P r o p 1 : /

12ta€-£e Itlic-\ C L ^ I . /

P r o p 2 : \ \ p ^J

PP 1* VNJvO •

t / ^ t x C L e - « v ^ ^ • j i t

Opp 2:

ATP Vjje. £X \/ie-fv-vc-^yv-w WWC<_

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 : ^

^ V V - C ^ ' A L O j y e J l _

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

Kimiko Cheng ^21)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m 1 2Gov; 3 Brogan - ModiOpp: 10 Shingwekar - VichareJ V P a r i ! D e b a t e

Team Code #:P R O P

^


Judge's Name:

Judge's School AfYlliatig'n:

/OPPTeam Code#:/ ^ ^

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

p t s O p p S p e a k e r # 1 ^ ^P t s ® P P S p e a k e r ( / / C h ^ l / ^ C p t s

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

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

Judgin/Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively/he debaters analyze the topic and the argumentsoffered during the debate /

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters support arguments withevidence—^which may include facts ana 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 rele t and effective were the questions and the answers

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

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


P r o p 1 : /.Acsot

' " ^ 1 i f c j i i i r

V ^ II j[ ' IITI III I r

P r o p 2 : O p p 2 :

- p ^ c v x v >

yoy? ITEAM CODE #: V Q on the Z) wins this debate.(Prop or 6pp)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : ^ A \ A r ) o / \ r / O i v w f c A

^ . . . . - K o J i

»lna.AA/!3

: 5 - ^

j » J L

4i,- r-

Kimiko Cheng (*21)Round 1B g ;00am 12Gov : 15 Lee - Pe led

Opp: 23 Banks - CorbettJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

PA R L I D e b a t e ,

Judge's Name:

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's School Affiliation

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker # 1

Prop Speaker #2_

pts 21 Opp Speaker #1_

pts_2i Opp Speaker #2_


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

evidence— which may include facts and references to authority as ell 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 th/questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, coWiunicative 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 debaters Were to opponents and judges


O f f

o d J i ^

0 A -

o n t h eTEAM CODE #:

Td/Vsuir'

ft- _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

R E A S O N F O R D E a S I O N : . ' . / - W

c W ^ . O f f f - T -

U ^ v ^ c ^ i ^ V A A

VM^WS.


Mr Olson ^23)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a n i E 2

j3ov: 14 Vaisse - ScottOpp: 27 Manni - BtownJV Parii Debate

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Judge's Name: ^ fV ^

Judge's School Affiliation: 23P R O P

1 * 4 Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #2

ptsMpts_ T

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2

p t s f

_pts_2^'^

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

26-25 = Fa i r

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to quality for elimination rounds)A ' % i \ T » f * / 1 f 1 • •

24 -20 = Poo r <20 = Reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior

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

o f fe red du r ing the deba te ^ /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters support arguments with

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

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

and easily understandable Iv /• Courtesy: How eourteous and respectful me debaters were to opponents and judges

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

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

P r o p 2 l ^ O f '

y i j r ^ o P i a

TEAM CODE #: 7n on the 6rP wins this debate.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 :

T ^ p c f \ - ^ ' 7 ^ / ? < v \ T u J T' Q s s f s s ^ / > / v o m P

Mr Olson ^23)R o u n d 1 B 9 ; 0 0 a m E 2Gov: 15 Lin - Hu 'Opp: 25 Hassan GoodyJ V P a r i i D e b a t e ;


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affillation:_ ':?3

Te a m C o d e # :

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2_ L l f ^

Team Code #:

pts_2 _ opp Speaker # 1Pts 3 Opp Speaker #2_


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

/Judging Criteria

• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the topic and the argumentsoffered during the debate

• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the debaters 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 madeby the other side

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


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 :

/

U f » \ y / n 3 p « i n

P r o p 2 : /iy>o9htay i ' f

O p p 2 : ^ 0

<o- r3

T E A M C O D E # :

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

on the CAjr wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)

- J - M d i ' s u i H i ' d AElizabeth Murphy (*5)R o u n d 1 A g ; 0 0 a m G 2

Gov: 10 Wang - LinOpp: 15 Steinberg - ZhouJ V P a r i ! D e b a t e

Team Code #:P R O P

10


Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

( \ l \OD 0'

Prop Speaker # 1 WC\

Prop Speaker #2 i-f pts iSi Opp Speaker # 1 S"!-t / Vtpts ZG Opp Speaker #2_


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



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




P r o p 1 : I ' /UCca/ hui jl^ouUl

^ C ( A l l V i \ L ^ /AJLIP 0 7/a I ' i

P r o p 2 : /Oooc\ to Or? T^7/.V&+ ^ > C c a I m ,

. ^ Oppl: iinAAx jOh 0^^

^ j o i , ni(ndOpp 2:

G o o d i s d J C \ QC a l i M ,

T E A M C O D E # :


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

Prop (riO~l -njjuch u t fY- t o U S n o 4 y u l x ^ C A t n / " / o / i i c i t n d o ^ i o l r yiLdjo\Ji y) u. io Cu^s dl PcL \t'ci(MKjni-cAAy dt>rl

^ u i b p c r H f k o i A ^ / u e . / O p p J ' c i ( o h , / k 1P ^ O l P ' S V C i i u t L I N I L C H A X J A A k k u i . vy CMCiU\AtJiir,'l •


Elizabeth Murphy (*5)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m G 2Gov: 14 Kwong - TanOpp: 25 Stephens - FlanaganJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

P R O PTeam Code #:


Team Code #:

Prop Speaker # 1 jO. M

Prop Speaker #2_

ptsjl£_ Opp Speaker # 1 /ig

pts3S_ Opp Speaker#2 pts_3if








J-


/ ^ S i r x u a A - f / ' i v i e _ P y i / aPropl: S-tok «-•/- Opp 1: $,UcU "ft( j o o o ^ O S e 0 ^ ( o m f - a c - l(oufj I'iMlyioVe aA£<ly5i^ 7re hcU/i So noV ^y

/ s o - S h s aI ' s / S h o u k ) C c A f MProp2 : S io - f t y sk iH c< i i n - f - r o ' hUdk

d o k - f f > p- f h a - f T j f f t v J

sMd AO-fT E A M C O D E # : Z s o n t h e C

OdoA job a-l


\JAC

I Aoi Sopp(r\-i Cucj'^AAiAyie Opp wins this debate. Do€6 jp ^(Prop or Opp) ^ O-j^ pi ^ /*

d . . \ n O - T

cUoA ^ {AJha-i P/dipa^f'^yo^ / fui-e /S


Aahok Vijay plO)-R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m G 4Gov; 23 Crenshaw - BulgerOpp: 11 Nour- KuoJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

Judge's Name:_


P R O PTeam Code #: Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

pts ^

P t s ^Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2

a /p t s ^





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

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

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


Prop 1: O p p l :

Prop 2: Opp 2:

T E A M C O D E # :


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

(Prop or Opp)


Aohok Vijay (*10)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m G 4

G o v : 2 3 B o d i s c o - R a n s w e i l e r

Opp: 16 Chou - KimJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

Judge's Name;



P r o p S p e a k e r # ! _ p t s

Prop Speaker #2_

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2_

d/)yn. >ts.









Prop 1: O p p l :

Prop 2: Opp 2:

T E A M C O D E # :


o n t h e

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

•

Teresa Skarr (*27)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m G 3Gov: 10 Yang - HoOpp: 19 Rahman - ZhouJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

^(WJ^ cint. UJIP A R L I D e b a t e ^

Judge's Name:

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

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2


Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#]

Opp Speaker #2_

a-T.-s

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

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

Judging Criteria• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the daters 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 the debaters support arguments withevidence—^whieh 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 and effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in/an organized, eommunicative style that is pleasant

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


P r o p 1 A . , | o p p i : * ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ .^ M ' h r _ J i a o nV \ A f A < 7 / - A k J j x A J - r / X x J ^ J A ' i u f V i- f - S T C A ^ u v ^

— Pn9\fi^ YV^^lo^ct4^^

• P^op2:M^

+ - 4 ^ / - / ) - l A ^ j j l

w - \ b ( n P c f ^ m d ^ d ' p u U

o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .XL )rfJ^ fY) team code #: / W on the Ojf)f) wins this debate.Q^GiO rTT 2W. C^lATf. (Prdp^Op^^ R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : , / ) i . ^ P r t

" f t < ^ ^ . 1 , ^ - I L r j C M O j

(Prdp'o Opp)^ R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : , / ) h ^ P r i i A . o i D m t O A A M

- t o . O f f ^

uhAo V i A nnodM i^ ( 2A ;>u fVu i ' kL^acPI P A R L I D e b a t e ^Teresa Skarr (*27)R o u n d 1 B 9 ; 0 0 a m G 3Gov; 14 Bernstein - Jarmel-SchneiderOpp: 11 Tong -fungJ V P a r i ! D e b a t e

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

y Prop Speaker #1 D pts ^ Opp Speaker # 1^ ^ r o p S p e a k e r O p p S p e a k e r # 2 Q A

I t s

pts (p

— N — '

4 5:



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


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



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

' - M o d r

^(y<p(n r\^J i

df\ r c 4 J K k C M o

each debater: J P<Ji: 4^ ', P r o p 1 : , ; ■ , ^ . w

oppr-T&t^^ . - ^

Z VA c o J I ^ H o v d - o ^ ' s ^ ^ j ^ m ^(


[(Pro^orOpp)

k c L l r ^ y u w n r o u n d

Sam Roberson (*19)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m G 5

G o v : 6 B o n e t - S t a n k u sOpp: 14 Rettenmaier - PinedaJ V P a r i ! D e b a t e

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2_

pt^SDD t S


Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2

,ts_y


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

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

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

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

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

Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement to^ e a c h d e b a t e r : /^ /I^Propl: OPPl: gOO(]

TO UOdf

TEAM CODE #: ^ on the 0 / /Tb w ins th is debate . ^R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :

(Prop or Opp)

r N p ^ f

Sam Roberson (*19)R o u n d 1 B 9 ; 0 0 a m G 5Gov: 24 Lacombe - AppelOpp: 14 Stroumza - ChenJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

P R O PTeam Code #:


Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#! I

Prop Speaker #2_

^ pts3^ Opp Speaker #1, f 0 ^

pts3 Opp Speaker #2_

DtsZ-1

_ptsjZ3


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to quality for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inapi^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 the pic and the arguments





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

P r o p 1 : / W t . / O p p 1 : Hv / ^ \ v > T Y v fl ' V I " A c l I j \ f ^

P r o p 2 : O p p 2 : V J - c

f ^ o J l J o y

TEAM CODE #; LM


on the Py^ 0 0 wins this debate.(Prop or 6pp)

,


Bill Holt n)R o u n d 1 A 9 : 0 0 a m E 5

Gov; 14 Huang - LucOpp: 5 Johnson - MurphyJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

Team Code #:

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2_

.tsSsL Opp Speaker#! JdurpavOpp Speaker #2 nW

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using the above criteria, please offere a c h d e b a t e r :

Prop 1:^0od /mpliments and/or suggestions for improvement to

U b \ n < v \ ] A \ \ u b fl b w

P r o p 2 ; /

(700(1. W

^ 4 / V T I [ - _ I

O p p I f j o o d i u ^good

Opp 2: eyceiUhUr cU

j o ( i c ( p i n t H H d " ^

TEAM CODE #; t7


o n t h e

(Prop rPpp)w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .


X o p i r W P v a i U i\ _ . . I \ '

bv oui I?x-UlUi^ oifhci-k^

Bill Holt fS)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m E 5Gov: 14 Bystrom - GastOpp: 10 Pandit - MandalJ V P a r i ! D e b a t e


Judge's Name: Ho/^-

Judge's School Affiliation:_

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#]

Prop Speaker #2

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

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^ 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 argun ts withevidence—^which may include facts and references to authority as well/as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond 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 qi tions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, comnmnicative style that is pleasanta 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 debaters w to opponents and judges

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

P r o p l : 6 < ) 0 c ( O p p / f : J o o c f jnunifl ysim «|Ancl«l"/5 -fW5 /ankvP'cn,Prop 1: 0^

Oi/0\cl

Prop 2: OoJsK't u i 4 : ( c M u n i .

c l > v - '

uM aliWtiMa CMuniiKtat/ Opp 2: ^ emllfi

W P«Artfc> /f^ f«d J 0 b seou/^J f <T E A M C O D E # :


6 o o d T i

on the OPl wins this debate.(Prop ir Opp)

O y ^

"liuflh Q/vc - DPp2-an(3f Vgl b oXf /

Dan F ish lowflS)Round 1A 9 :00am 11Gov: 5 Jayasuriya - SchuizOpp: 23 Vawter - OlsonJ V P a r i i D e b a t e


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:_

Te a m C o d e

Prop Speaker#!

P R O PTeam Code #:

O P P

pts 7?r Opp Speaker #1

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 OUc>f>/P t s

p t s

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

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

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

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively Ae debaters respond to the eirguments madeb 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 mv organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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


P r o p 1 : - /

t/ovxe

P r o p 2 ; /

O p p l :

^ O p p

o e . ' j O fi X e - N t U - ^ K c L W , c o i ,^ J ,R A M r o n R 7 ^ n n f h o n ( V w i t i « f h i ' « ^T E A M C O D E # :


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

(Prop or Opp)

^ \ a v O ^ f o i - v k j t i - o W v«.Co.;V- cuuUC^ ^

Dan Fishlow (*15)R o u n d 1 B 9 : 0 0 a m 11

Gov: 21 Fields - GershOpp: 14 Iran - VainbergJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2_


Judge's Name 3^^Judge's School Affiliation:

O P PTeam Code #: /V

Opp Speaker # 1

ptsZ3l_ Opp Speaker #2 p t s _ ^

_pts;z2r



/

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' support arguments with



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 tl^e debaters were to opponents and judges

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

Prop 1: Opp l : C iXx.Ce.

Prop 2:

T E A M C O D E #: z:/

0PP2:

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



Kathleen von Raesfeld ("^25)R o u n d 1 A g ; 0 0 a m 1 3

Gov ; 14 Lee - Fa i rch i l d

Opp: 23 Woerner - MinerJ V P a r i ! D e b a t e

Judge's Name: \f 0



Prop Speaker#1 i-LCy

Prop Speaker #2 foUrcKt (<

pts<3? Opp Speaker # 1 ptsc3 ' 6

pts '6? Opp Speaker #2 Dn |.

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

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

Judging Critery• 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 th debaters 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 and Effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak inAn 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 cc/mpliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Prop \ A Wi ^ flvtUc-f /- W \ ^ ft. ^>oci I dttL-Vo "y7'^

- d f t * \ 6 V 4 f f u ' J I LOVjtAVCUo iVv-CfrvA.( ^r-VVurt

Prop 2:

Opp 1: He LlKfl. road slrtso^ "S-fyfed Auvd cxrvd uAS Cj0>^uma»^

-t ovtArL r Uias pejrJfcL4lvj OL« utjO<+ \ / 0 U -

Lo^H oloA-C

O p p 2 : L+ VOrvl U)tU CVAfVvvvld Unt-WJaa cxtAo£t-ap^-goVa m<. ar^.w.>ks «+

T E A M C O D E



(Prop or Opp)

\;Oov\ mov^


Kathleen von Raesfeld (*25)Round 1B 9 :00am 13Gov: 23 Nearon - VonSosenOpp: 14 Liu - FuJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

P R O PTeam Code #: C^O

Prop Speaker #1_

VteSoSOf\P r o p S p e a k e r # 2 - S S c p t s o L 1

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#! L>U

Opp Speaker #2

3?. 5


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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyzpahe 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 hority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the craters 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 effecjtlve 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


P r o p l : « /-da(vVtl-\or\

rV£ol 4o v/our SOrHvit

\|tXJL Aid CaryGw+ilC K d /P r o p 2 : /

pexl' pAr-Wr,

O p p i : s W, g l ' w '+ C-\tWr c cti'M'koVvS (XM S mrf\Anj v lUvyoWr c l ^A r - f o -Pfldc to

dtt.«.4-c

Opp 2: + IwcrrK- U)\U\(Xrd pr6tesSiov>Qli<>>w-f MOVL luttl Vt4i4 -[>flrA« c\eMy

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 .


SolvjtACY - wje*c irv>V pTtse»vW daorli


Judge's Name:

P R O PTeam Code #:


Team Code #:

ion:^^

Prop Speaker #1 "S

Prop Speaker #2

Opp Speaker # 1

Opp Speaker #2_

p t s _ ^

_pts_^Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Gada27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elhjunation rounds)

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debatersalyze the topic and the argumentso f f e r e d d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e /• Evidence: How appropriately and efficiently the deters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and referencto authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively 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 ective were the questions and the answers

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

• Courtesy: How courteous and respectml 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 : /

lA-fU -

P - P ^ ^ / v .

T E A M C O D E # :

C J fP C ' i " -

f - 3 L - —o n t h e \ n w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

(Prop or 6pp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :

\


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: S-A-v A (r S>P R O P.

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #2 "Z-Wl? v'

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2_

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


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


evidence—^which may include facts and references to authpnty 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 effective ere the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an org zed, 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 baters were to opponents and judges

Using the above criteria, please offer comjmments 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 :

P r o p 2 : ^ O p p 2 : ^ C ^ ^ ^ A s A —

T E A M C O D E # : on the 0 ?(F _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)


Lori-Jill Seltzer (^^5)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m G 3

G o v : 2 3 W o e r n e r - M i n e r

Opp: 14 Bernstein - Jarmel-SchneiderJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2

P R O E


Judge's Name-L^QP \"


Team Code #:

Opp Speaker

Opp Speaker #2j ,«Y)Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Ver)ood27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to quality for limination rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved r 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 th ebaters support arguments with

evidence— which may include facts and refere es 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 aneffective 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

Prop 1: CienrVU dvd l

IjXgB av^J^

dxlcb d-1 Uil fksKk^ô

Oppl:GoaJl PGOoâXCL-

Using the above criteda, please ofj r compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : / O J L g ^

UjP O-fCur^QjC

rOvPJN

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


- opp2^ ^ -a-r(Uv_GAj}fo cl-iarC ooldUcjjj^ oJj

w ' < re C j O - P w i n s t h i s d e b a t e / ^( P r o p o J O p p ) ^ .

cLsâr" *^\r--po\vUw i n s t h i s d e b a t e .

coo^ I^ iAô^ i iu .bcxoLA uL l^âJJâdC, ,r r o p O p ^ t m h jc A u 2 n l L j U j n u J T, 0 - L > , h o T v l l j J ) O C C O r o fl i Lc K a oLiiij'T-Jn CK>, QLU)

Lori-Jill Seltzer (*5)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m G 3Gov: 14 Liu - Fu

Opp: 10 Yang - HoJV Pari! Debate

P R O ]Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#! L Il_

Prop Speaker #2_

' 2 ^


Judge's Nam


Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2

tZJr

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

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

/



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


Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions f(^ improvem^t tou s i n g i n e a n o v e c r i t e r i a , p l e a s e o n e r c o m p l i m e n t s a n a / o r s u g g e s t

P r o p I : O - P p l - G y D O d C O J O c TO - f o o

k>£LQ/vAA Li5

P5°P \GcjqA- GC

DCX)>>1 Ovoju:

CKoJ)-acduod) sCb'iv^.

CODE #: ( ^


' ^ \ ^ c k a S ) ' t e p i c j ' ,

l3(j7f.oJ§0^ l e i a d U d < I d<1- I OCkiAW O r 'UMy<-U fOi JJ exjfl^ P O i k J I

9 11 t h e t ^ C A I ^ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . U n . ' - r , i i o * / f i I ,

<r -V O

> o o „ d J d L 4 ) 0 1 K I F'I on the rrC?IJ wins this ^bate. VJLOm OuUj

( P r o p o r O p p ) . i ~ L \ ^ ' T T ^ D i rKj-^o^ oj ' ' "bspicj, (bo-r' 'r v i K j j j

I r i - o T ' r h p i o


John Brouhard ^6)Round 2A 11:00am 13G o v : 2 3 Va w t e r - O l s o n

Opp: 14 Eng - MorgensteinJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

J u d g e ' s N a m e : 0

Judge's School Affiliation:_ _aP R O P

Team Code #: Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2 0

pts Opp Speaker # 1

p 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 = Good

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

Judging Criteriy• 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 thydebaters 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 an ffective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak m an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

P r o p l : 0 ^ ^ * ^ 4 . ' O p p l : J , j , , ^

Prop2:^ , ,^ i " " i ' - " - 0PP2:

: a j .T E A M C O D E #

REASON FOR DECISION: . A .j. .i...

. . V - . J . - . . ' J J , " i JI

^ O . 4 - ^

on the f <-»A wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)


John Brouhard (*6)Round 2B 11:00am 13Gov: 11 Tong -fungOpp: 23 Carver - GarciaJ V P a r i ! D e b a t e

Judge's Name:_


Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2

P R O Pn Team Code #:

p ts Opp Speaker # 1r C

pts Jiif Opp Speaker #2 .Cry/CrPlease 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 eliminationd unds)

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

Judg ing C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analj 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 d aters respond to the arguments madeb y t h e o t h e r s i d e /

• Points of Information: How relevant and effe;mve 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 respectfidahe debaters were to opponents and judges

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

P r o p l : U / M l i O p p l : \ / i ^ J p ' K . /] / / > c J r L J ^ \ ^ ^ 4 .

J i q U j i r y * > L / i / \ A ^( ; 9 f > — 4 ^ / V . 7 ^ , / . V r J . . ^ ' • ' W / ' N

, ^ \ ^ ! > 6 A v < ?r - c - P . 0 P 2 : - - r - v-r-y > jU^ 'cr-'-y

F " - . K

<U(., V/;j y ^TEAM CODE< XI on the CQ wins this debate.

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

0

P o rT E A M C O D l

9.A Jvparli

C. 1 ". -<-5-o .paU

P R O PTeam Code#:

K • $ ' r ^ - T ^ AProp Speaker îKUian O U PtsxS'Jg


Judge's Name: auJudge's School Affiliation: Lp uJ ik H'S ,

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #2 '

pts.2_BliJ PP Speaker # 1 Kja U 66/pts_3J3_ Opp Speaker #2 P) rt\r\Aof\A

^ pts. _E^ 6iW^5 pts

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

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reservet r 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 th/debaters support arguments withevidence—which may include facts and referces to authority as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and cffectivofy 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 ana 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 resptrctful 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 : /

P r o p 1 : y v t o . W O p p 1 : » ' S iC K f o c 7 ^ f r s i j y o w

: S p e e c y h ^ f r 0 1 " U^ S j ( h J r - t oT V M L - ( h J - S - J ^ • 5 c C ^ o i Jh [ £ U Y ^ h ^ r \ ^ y t ^ Î o i e ^ = ^ £ . t . y c e ^ \ i 0 ' r ^ u i t ^ p p o s i " b ' o o -

T ^ o p 2 : O p p 2 : V i , P / ? . . i r ^ \ o b .° P P J o i j ." f b p / v p { ' : 3 u

T ^ r o p 2 : . - ^ c v s O P P 2 :h j l \ i o ^

a I W - ^ ^ Î < ^ ' • ^ 5 < x i ] ( S % t J r c ^ - y ^ p c i ^ c s . \ i s

t O c 5 w X ^ A u ^ y \ ^ \ 3 > n o > o r ^ c * : > h - c r ^

TEAM CODE #: g>^/ on the p>P wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)


rr\^j£c. s

^^côosT E A M C O D E # : o n t h e


David Duncan (*25)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m G 5G o v : 1 0 D a r a - R a n d e r i a

Opp: 23 Crenshaw - BulgerJV Parii Debate

Judge's Name:

P R O !Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#!


O F FTe a m C o d e # : A 3

Lc5W(f i

Prop Speaker #2

) pts<^ r■ Opp Speaker # 1 D/ /dg_ :$ /ytiA? pts 3

\ g r ^ c f \ ^ ^ O p p S p e a k e r # 2 p t s

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

27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rouofls)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or inapi^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 thepic 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 authori as well as general knowledge

• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters spond 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 organiz 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 debars were to opponents and judges

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

P r o p l i S H A ^ v ^ ^ p p 1 : V - d i " . ^

, Prop 2:OvV XV Opp 2:buX HOv\ va^ S-VoSy:^ Dr^iVYK

s f . a - f - s f W f v 4 ^ / i .

Vi w^ SpO'-> "S-*- 49 lbohxp<, \k\A C.cU&c^rT ^ 6(n/\ -9 (V r CS/'

TEAM CODE # : cP ^ on the 0 (P w ins th i


' K ' j Q ' / o ,C-lxf^-T. cSr^^ "S^'^'AAle 0+-r o z l e X i V ( S o b s ^ > a < ? 5 ' ^ ) ( h O ^ K i

on the 0 (P w ins th i s deba te , J t - ag . ^(Prop or Opp)

4 ^ M l

R o K . - Hr \ < ^ V .

CoC^'^ A.S ^-ro<3vC> 4 LK-v'VA t-/ Co/Vl /'VeCci tS

rO~oJ <-'wvt- 7i <2--i7V\ f -yvv-w c:_"UvZ(3t-<- ''r\

"Ap -WTs V d y O -tf J . /

rJc 5 f cn-JtLY'pgTsr-^ 2,..rw:/i'^' ^ 9 /W^

^Vu aA^â/C-'

R><-eÛ ■3 . <

I l?uo^^^^P-rY\*^6cJr otn i-j<— 5 «2-5>-'t / j>vOV3~\x,w—

roe. <sA>,:.c ■fo<= O TVv<—— < i » ^ ^ >

■♦ < • ; . + s , < v > ^Str\aM " WrvNjaVS

i- ^)\5«2\ r > o a

rvy\ Kjc. 'C4o=v> - \|yjfa^ck Uyo - g-^v^ he^ ''-^Z^-vjsVb^/

UxjyJ. r-%.? /v'c^ - iVw. /cc p-f,^ <2 «^-<rvx cso^

/ ^ C J - > O

- AJ^t rC'f^'h'^ -^r'^t:4' ^/l'^-\i^

~ hxz. 5-» x'vv< t-vy> '*c?f'(r\ôUA\

C/O r\ - Ue. ^vvS

^ I • .

l3VW^^

2 ' < ; . ' 5 ' e - \ .A y ^

C 5 W V - J " i - I S * *

Obcs,-^- ^.s.+ .'s^cL^-A'-ir^M. {^4 Îa1\^ c:u>wvf.^'K-f-ivK 4 he. 's f- >L /Vc-Tjw^

t^^^rvvc<^ ~ feLrtyyê,-

/ ) 0 ^ ^ S J h i ^ A M S

Cj^Â. A^ ^-KrV +N<^-v


Karina Giang (*8)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m G 2

Gov: 5 Johnson - Murphy -Opp: 24 Lacombe - AppelJ V P a r l i D e b a t e

Judge's Name:


P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #2 , Jo/y L,<rr\

Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2

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

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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters armlyze 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 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 ef tive were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in ai/organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

P r o p l : ^ O p p 1 : ^ ^cncl

Prop 2: > 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)REASON FOR DECISION: p je 0/2c


Judge's Name:


P R O PTeam Code #:

Prop Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2 1/

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2_

Ptsj£Z

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

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

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

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

• Argumentation: How directly and effectivelj e 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 fective were the questions and the answers

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

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

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

Propl: d^Lj Oppl: dfoad

Uy £rvdd

P rop 2 : /u>^ Opp 2 : . (A /

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

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

. , . „ . . /Katrina Fehring (*21)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m E 3G o v : 1 4 R e t t e n m a i e r - P i n e d a

Opp: 15 Barbir- DengJ V P a r i ! D e b a t e

Judge's Name: y c - h ^ r ^ ^ c

Judge's School Affiliation: Jd>A /vU in/)P R O P


Prop Speaker#!

P r o p S p e a k e r # 2 — p t s _

Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2

V - P A A . / —

, 0 : 1 ^

Ip ' / _pts_ 7Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very G<K)d27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to quality for elimination rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved foc^de or inappropriate behavior

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

evidence—which may include facts and referen to authority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively ine 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 respectftil the debaters were to opponents and judges

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

P r o p l : ° P P ' • .C D \ r , C c c L v ^ ^ ^ W - F c ^ M c i .o p e i c L ^ U - ^ ^

Prop 2:

pWwiA ' k ^TEAM CODE #: 1 ^ on the

^ QkJIa^I^: h H i . C . . U


'1 ^ <>op- ey-Ctdewl €V< UA|o(t. . . i ( r , a _ - ^

^ ( A ^ y 2 A J i / \ f > ^ • - > I V ^

r \ ~

f ) I !■ f ! i o k . Y e . d M ' < ^ « " k iK e S r , l u k o ^ . - - W 4 ^ P A ^ L I D e b a t e ^) 'S H (j> >

Katrina Fehring (*21)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m E 3

G o v ; 11 N o u r - K u c

Opp: 23 Campagna - MortensenJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

P R O PTeam Code #;

.lA.C?pts0 1

J u d g e ' s N a m e : _ ^ A c ^ ( \ ^

Judge's School Affiliation: K A,

Team Code #:

A-r \ /\

Opp Speaker#]P r o p S p e a k e r # ] _ O p p S p e a k e r # 1 p ^

Prop Speaker #2_ fJokCts ] Opp Speaker #2Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /

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

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude or ina^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 the pic 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 supj t arguments with

evidence— which may include facts and references to authori as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debater spond 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 organiz , 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 debates were to opponents and judges

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

Propi: pvrs^^Vf'oi^ppi: pre - \/^ -U A - i P 1 y I A J

X : \ . . k c a w ^

P r i p 2 : r ^ i

^ O o A o - y V ' P o . j i v v v i ' ^ S * -p p ; - ' ^ W t a i k W p Y 7 , ' ^

vvm.-«,-OA)cU'vjTEAM CODE#/ '2-'5 on the OdP wins this debate.

P P 2 : AI i l / L c A K o v O V < ^ J j

n 2 X M / J c V ^ L A Ai ^ w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . .T E A M C O D E # / o n t h e O p Q w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . .(Prop irbpp)

o n t h e

^ 6 6 r v A O s . O f fbepve-ki'H 1-/ pe\U^ '

*lW.UL'?c4,&' ^ P A R L I D e b a t e

Eszter Erdeiyi {*^4)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m E 2

Gov: 25 Hassan - GoodyOpp: 10 Wang - LinJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

Judge's Name:


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

Prop Speaker #1 pts Opp Speaker # 1 U 1(^-3Prop Speaker #2 pts Opp Speaker #2 ^ C?


DtSSPlease award each speaker points based on the following scale: /

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = Very Goop27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimu4tion rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for ru or inappropriate behaviorJudging Criteria /

• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analVze 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 debatesupport arguments withevidence—which may include facts and references to hority 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 effecti were the questions and the answers

• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an orgized, communicative style that is pleasanta 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


P r o p l : O e t A ( S f ^ T I W ^ O p p l : e f t S " /1 SoGSCsST EQgr cct-QP c W E ) \ 0 & . C A i O f C \ y ^ - S K . f V h T ' U e D I D ( J & T T t < ^0S.IP6 woi?>S.''C/(tCG'' ''so (ouh'g.gfG' i o) tto foe PoV

/ c^TlU'C.UTlg'TO S0C4e^Prop2;'^St lOGiG (VfWieO Opp 2: "BeST

1 T h 2 w C > T T H ^ c o i o - r T r c r , II K P A O T C O I S O G f e v j r S T T O

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 : T C l 3 ^ 7 ( M ^ D e ^ S G T OfVUL&oh.ern' pep-s.'Veeriy-e' f"urr KCKZ^ T^OTue■Y^pfTo sfTulUG eiAnerVy c-foo u'fvug" soeAjTWVrT^riNiG is i2^e(+i

U T ^ " f r C C ) T r t r V T " S . V H 5 S T I O M e - O T V r ^&0-??(Wl(JG ^^G.TgTcH

T E A M C O D E # :


Eszter Erdeiyi (*14)Round 2B 11 ;00am E2

Gov: 10 Shingwekar - VichareOpp: 23 Nearon - VonSosenJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

Judge's Name:



Prop Speaker #1 SVVA ^ 30 Opp Speaker # 1 pts_2^Prop Speaker #2 p ts_^0_ Opp Speaker #2 p ts^3


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

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

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/mth

evidence— which may include facts and references to authority as well as neral knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the debaters respond to tife 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, comrmmicative 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 debaters we o opponents and judges

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

P r o p l : ^ t T H S C P o O 0 S > ^

HAH I SuG6 TT?fO k ) T H r

Cf>a)SeoT o'3e^iT7\ 4 l O o X G o o c >P r o p 2 : O Q ^ ( s > £ )

| J c w » f e r P r w f H ^ s u S

G W P i T i + e i O " a g s u & t P r u p -'^ryvuTi MKD 'fo<rJT£."Tgtrowfntv i h7n/€'^ i s e N . . " o e t t aT O t + r / ^ T T n ^ " \ S u 6 & < ^ t < c ^

c w T n c TO p p 2 : ( 5 o C D 0 ( ? J 3 P C 1 S ) G C C D' (Vv>(?aAf lS ON) "KJCTT oeB nN((So f i x - s - T T Z ^ ' S u T i o u f n v j ( ^ n - ^ s f e e e p t i

I J C W " P r w f H ^ s u S f ^ Q j j r P T L / l - o u i & r ^ o s

TEAM CODE #: IG on the wins this debate.REASON FOR DECISION: £OjD|pO-e-C^6vjt ofr (a^cLsL' tKod&i oic clfo{! (k^^cleJ^o-

Winnie Wang (*10)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m G 4

Gov; 25 Stephens - FlanaganOpp: 6 Bonet - StankusJ V P a r i i D e b a t e


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: V"j P R O P


Prop Speaker #1 TIcxYIaCProp Speaker #2 S •€(> pts >L

Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker §2_


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

Judg ing C r i t e r i a /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyz he 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 aumority 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 effecti 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 th/debaters were to opponents and judges

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

— g r a n d /-pi€< 5ant_<yeoA Cowixty

P r o p 2 : ^

-good t re';o((A±!oA5

Opp 1; oiyd'-3^ ^m\ £llrmt on pon s- >\T)V('€"4iA.ppoHke lo-fovm&t;oA^ ( Y v o ^ e [ / ) i e ^ d L .

O p p 2 : Q— O A

Coywtc'iio^ hH-T E A M C O D E # :



(Prop brOpp)I V E , 2 - V O V ^ l N r w i v W I N . j

3 ( r t K ( j x e v e i ^ g c ) o c \ o n P i A T-fk pOpf 4fcl-e lYvOre ee buikltng. gv


Winnie Wang (*10)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m G 4Gov : 27 Lave l l - Cohen

Opp: 5 Jayasuriya - SchuizJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

Judge's Name: lA/inni-eJudge's School Affiliation: JMncfhn H'Vl

P R O P ,Team Code #: 6t&\/ "7- Team Code #:

Prop Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2

G)k Opp Speaker#!

Opp Speaker #2

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

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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a y• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters analyze the topic apu 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 argdments with

evidence—which may include facts and references to authority as11 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 y• Points of Information: How relevant and effective were th uestions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

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

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

Prop 1: Cg 4. ^ / /^pp 1:

sgs^ hvovc- yr _)2:/.AV£l( . / Opp2: 5c1iIa|2-

— cl-fciir5peAcA. -ft) ^I/okJ

Prop 2: IjHYtl I— ny, co**k»-- V U l fi

T E A M C O D E # :


on the ^ ^wins this debate.(Prop dr Opp)

I \j(M. 'foV' Opp b^cans^po'in'ls Qooci sappoio

HMAQKSL 4t)


Peter Brown (*27)Round 2A 11 :00am 12

Gov: 23 Banks - Corbett . > ^Opp: 14 Bystrom - Gast tW-ac- > \J V P a r i i D e b a t e

Team Code #:P R O P

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: ^

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker #1Prop Speaker #1 pts^Tl Opp Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2 pts TTj Opp Speaker #2_jWi,pts ZT)

_ p t s nPlease a ard each speaker points based on the following se:

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 =7ry Good27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to quali for elimination rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Rese d for rude or inappropriate behaviorJudging Critecla• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the deleters 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 me debaters support arguments with

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

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

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

C j ) > l ~ a W V V - ^4 1 ^ ^ 4 U . /

Prop 2:(2y O p p 2 : o fc \ / i v

T E A M C O D E # :


on the Op j ^wins this debate.(Prop'or Opp)

^ =■ o C - ( w . < 9) A O - X


Peter Brown (*27) ,R o u n d 2 B 1 1 : 0 0 a m 1 2 i iG o v : 1 6 C h o u - K i m A sOpp: 14 Lee - FairchiidJ V P a r i ! D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: W)

Team Code #:P R O P

I V Team Code #: OPProp Speaker#!

Prop Speaker #2_ pts_^

Opp Speaker #1

Opp Speaker #2_


27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for eliminatioil ounds)26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved for rude (inappropriate 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 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/ thority as well as general knowledge• Argumentation: How directly and effectively the d Daters 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 respectfiMhe 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 : /

Opp 1:^.^-^

Cjy^\J eWW W

Prop 1:

vU of

P r o p 2 : O p p J 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 .(Prop or Opp)


« l U 4 \ < , o ^ | > . o f l

I A S ' P G ' \ o ^ L v v. ' p \ A c v. r - r > i < { ^ X V C - V / V N A * ^PA R L I D e b a t e

Pauline Honaryar (*15)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m E 4

G o v : 2 7 M a n n i - B r o w nOpp: 3 Brogan - ModiJ V P a r i i D e b a t e

P R O PTeam Code #: <JO \J ^"7

Prop Speaker# 1 MAHrl»

Prop Speaker #2_

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: V Tgy rv\ py V

Team Code #:

Opp Speaker#]

pts ^"7 Opp Speaker #2 cL<pts

_ pts_ ^Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeryJGood27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify fo imination rounds)

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

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

• Argumentation: How directly and effeetivelj e 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 feetive were the questions and the answers

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

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

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

Propl: OroL / Opp 1: iA)fpl<ôA I CLjlc^^- V?iA"b u t - ( H . s . v t V i l t - t i ' Vu l x j Y. O . WA • s l o o J ' S ' f -

UL-. ,/gt) P OJU /

b u F i v o F ^ ^ i

P r o p 2 : O O D r - \ < - o n " o p p 2 : \ - oa ^ c H < ^ k ' ' c ! U < « b | K \

A b j L , \

V i e / » V ^ i v v c n - ^ c - D ^ V v - e ^ .

TEAM CODE #:_ on the Opp wins this debate.^ I ^ (Pro D 01* Opp)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N :

OvexnutVl IMIA- ôcl C<i-y^^c{.tÛL tJCfC-*-.

U S F ^ ^ § U i a I A s . v b s . ^ / . ^^ ^ * P A R L I D e b a t e ^

Pauline Honaryar (*15)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m E 4

Gov: 10 Pandit - MandalOpp: 23 Bodisco - RanswellerJ V P a r i ! D e b a t e

Judge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation: > 2 1 r v \ •

P R O PTeam Code #:

O P PTe a m C o d e # : ' Z -

Prop Speaker # 1

Prop Speaker

ptsOpp Speaker # 1 S> c-O P«s_2^pts < (_p Opp Speaker #2 R. t/> SvO£ 1-6 C pts_J2jLp


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

Judging Criteria /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters ana) 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 debaj^s support arguments with

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

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

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

P r o p l : 0 w O l - O p p l : ■awJL./waUjvifi; oernJ {ckjLc^^cK. ,,ov - ia/»va.lLjvi"'s >ebuM. &jfce.tb^vN

Gyc-tixvi" TSVccl o(ebu.lW-'f-

Prop 2: ^u/&v\ Opp 2: ft Pca>0 rvvavvx.s> '^u»rYiI C O u ^ V - e . ^ A C V M •M r t u L . v ^ \ r P o o e y c e X l C W " O O t c w W-

e n ^ V U , .Y w u c U . ^ ^ ^ ( l \ ) € c a ^

TEAM CODE #: Z 3 on the (Dyrp. wins this debate. L^vAVt i.(Prop or Opp)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : .AUJL. 4-0 'CycclU-v < r YwiwWb <>Y\

Opp 2: ft PcvO rvvawx.gko>>^ck ^£r»)oiu)

^ . "U m s

ILS) G O U / W P ^

V I a j l

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

EAtvo 9jl\ VIajlD V « \ ^ t w


Doug Barton (*23)R o u n d 2 A 11 : 0 0 a m E 5Gov: 15 Steinberg - ZhouOpp: 14 Huang - LucJ V P a r i ! D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: SA/ J/iLLTP R O P


Prop Speaker #1 pts 3^ Opp Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2 pts 2 ) Opp Speaker #2_

p t s _ ^

Please award each speaker points based on the following sc :30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28=eryGood27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to quali for elimination rounds)

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

Judging Critenfa• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the deleters 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 tne debaters support arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and refences 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 am effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speayin an organized, communicative style that is pleasant

and easily understandable /• Courtesy: How courteous and resp tful 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 : /

Prop cl^ U/)jaI

Oppl :

/ Opp 2: a-^ ^Prop 2:/ I L

/ lJl>^

TEAM CODE #; / g"


on the Tf-op _wins this debate.(Prop or Opp)


Doug Barton (*23)R o u n d 2 B 11 : 0 0 a m E 5

G o v : 1 4 S t r o u m z a - C h e n

Opp: 15 Lin - HuJ V P a r i ! D e b a t e

P R O PTeam Code #:

Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Prop Speaker#! Opp Speaker #1

Prop Speaker #2 pts^8 Opp Speaker #2 n )ts^ 7

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

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

Judging Cr i ter ia /• Analysis: How reasonably and effectively the debaters anal™ 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 debate upport arguments with

evidence—which may include facts and references to hority 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 effective were the questions and the answers• Delivery: How well the debaters speak in an org ized, 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 thebaters were to opponents and judges

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

Propl: o p p i : '

Opp 2:

6 Jh cMT E A M C O D E # :

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N : / / X n i / ) '

iJj^ Mdi' rPc P^oPoJt ^on the y/ZbP wins this debate.

(Prop or Opp)

PROP - The Joy of Tournaments€¦ · 10/01/2016 · T E A M C O D E # : o n t h e ( ^ xZZZZV...

Documents

Transcript of PROP - The Joy of Tournaments€¦ · 10/01/2016 · T E A M C O D E # : o n t h e ( ^ xZZZZV...