prop team code #: team code #: 23 pts opp speaker #1 pf ... · • courtesy: how courteous aiya...
Post on 28-Oct-2019
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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.
top related