Varsity OX Debate - Joy of Tournaments · 4A L " 0.0* Aff 0* 16A L " • 0.0* Neg 0* 24C W 0 0.0*...

A n n a D u b o n4A Bishop O'Dowd HS

Nathan FrancisNikhil Sawhney

6A Dougherty Valley HSLarry (Shuchen) LiangS e a n L a

68 Dougherty Valley HSChristopher LiM a t t h e w L e e

60 Dougherty Valley HSRohith NugalaAndy Fan

6D Dougherty Valley HSWilly FanAmanda Yang

6E Dougherty Valley HSDavid SiSImone Stevens

9AThe Head Royce SchoolJoshua HulBenjamin Elliot Tjandra

10A James Logan HSBryan Dan NgoJessica Lee

108 James Logan HSKImika SunaharaPhoebe Hansen Murayama

IOC James Logan HSToria Frances WilsonSarah McMurry

10D James Logan HSAaryan SinghSamantha Dao

11A Lowell HSShannon LeeAyra Rahman

16A Pinole Valley HighShuxin ZhouCaleb Kornfein

21A Sonoma AcademyEmily ibanez ArroyoA r l s S a x e n a

218 Sonoma AcademyConnor DuncanJack Greenberg

210 Sonoma AcademyLlam KollingAlexander/Ford Stolp

24A St. Vincent De Paul HSJoseph BisgaardColin BIrkenstock

248 St. Vincent De Paul HS

Dylan CashmanJonathan Carlson

240 St. Vincent De Paul HSChlsato RuoEmma Page

24D St. Vincent De Paul HSConner Crosby

Sunday, Jan 24, 2016 09:23AM

Varsity OX DebatePreliminary Round Results

2 4 C

W 00 . 0 * A f f 0 *

6 8

W 00.0* Neg 0*

6 A

L 0 -0 . 0 * A f f 0 *

1 0 A

W 00.0* Neg 0*

0 . 0 / 0

3 - 10 . 0 / 0 0

2 1 8

W 00 . 0 * A f f 0 *

1 0 D

L "0 . 0 * N e g 0 *

4 A

W 00 . 0 * N e g 0 *

2 4 D

W 00 . 0 * A f f 0 *

0 . 0 / 0

3 - 10 . 0 / 0 0

1 0 A

L " •0.0' Neg 0*

4 A

L "■0 . 0 * A f f 0 *

1 6 A

L " •0 . 0 * N e g 0 *

2 4 C

W 00 . 0 * A f f 0 *

0 . 0 / 0

1 - 30 . 0 / 0 0

2 1 A

L0.0* Neg 0*

2 4 8

L » •0 . 0 * A f f 0 *

2 4 A

L 00 . 0 * N e g 0 *

0 . 0 / 0

0 - 40 . 0 / 0 0

2 4 A

W 00 . 0 * A f f 0 *

1 1 A

L " •0 . 0 * N e g 0 *

9 A

W "0 . 0 * A f f 0 *

1 0 8

W 00.0* Neg 0*

0 . 0 / 0

3 - 10 . 0 / 0 0

2 4 8

W 00.0* Neg 0*

1 6 A

W 00 . 0 * A f f 0 *

1 0 A

W 00 . 0 * A f f 0 *

2 1 A

W 00 . 0 * N e g 0 *

0 . 0 / 0

4 - 00 . 0 / 0 0

2 4 D

W 00.0* Neg 0*

b b«od

6 D

L "■0.0* Neg 0*

1 0 C

W 00 . 0 * A f f 0 *

0 . 0 / 0

3 - 10 . 0 / 0 0

4 A

L 0 -0 . 0 * A f f 0 *

0 . 0 / 0

2 - 20 . 0 / 0 0

6 D

L 00 . 0 * A f f 0 *

0 . 0 / 0

0 - 40 . 0 / 0 0

9 A

L 0 -0 . 0 * N e g 0 *

0 . 0 / 0

2 - 20 . 0 / 0 0

2 1 8

L 00 . 0 * A f f 0 *

0 . 0 / 0

1 - 30 . 0 / 0 0

2 1 C

L 0 -0 . 0 * A f f 0 *

0 . 0 / 0

1 - 30 . 0 / 0 0

2 4 8

L " •0.0* Neg 0*

0 . 0 / 0

2 - 20 . 0 / 0 0

B E

L 00 . 0 * A f f 0 *

0 . 0 / 0

3 - 10 . 0 / 0 0

S B

W 00 . 0 * A f f 0 *

I S A 2 4 D 2 1 C

L 0 * L L0,0* Neg 0 * 0 .0 * A f f 0 * 0 .0 * Neg 0 *

1 1 A

W 0*0 . 0 * A f f 0 *

2 1 C

L " •0.0* Neg 0*

1 0 C

L »•0 . 0 * N e g 0 *

1 0 8

W 00 . 0 * A f f 0 *

6 C

W "0 . 0 * A f f 0 *

6 A

L 0*0 . 0 * N e g 0 *

1 0 D 9 A 1 0 8

0 * L W0 . 0 * A f f 0 * 0 . 0 * N e g 0 * 0 . 0 * A f f 0 *

6 D 2 1 A 2 T B

L 0 * L L0.0* Neg 0* 0 .0* A f f 0 * 0 .0* Neg 0*

2 1 8 6 C

L 0 * y y 0 *0 . 0 * N e g 0 * 0 . 0 * N e g 0 *

i O D

L 0 * y y 0 *0 . 0 * A f f 0 * 0 . 0 * A f f 0 *

9 A 1 0 8 1 1 A

L 0 * y y 0 * y y o *0 . 0 * A f f 0 * 0 . 0 * N e g 0 * 0 . 0 * A f f 0 *

2 4 C B E

y y 0 * L 0 *0.0* Neg 0* 0.0* Neg 0*

6 C

W 00 . 0 * N e g 0 *

6 A 2 4 C

y y 0 * L 0 *0 . 0 * A f f 0 * 0 . 0 * N e g 0 *

6 D 2 4 D

y y 0 * L0 . 0 * A f f 0 * 0 . 0 * N e g 0 *

6 E 6 8

L 0 * y y 0 *0 . 0 * N e g 0 * 0 . 0 * A f f 0 *

2 4 A 1 0 C

W o * y y 0 *0.0* Neg 0* 0.0* Neg 0*

2 4 8 2 4 A

W o * W 0 -0 . 0 * A f f 0 * 0 . 0 * A f f 0 *

P o l i c y S P u F o S a t J a m e s L o g a n H S P a g e 1

6 A 0 . 0 / 0

L 0 * 1 - 20 . 0 * N e g 0 * 0 . 0 / 0 0

P O L I C Y D e b a t e

Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:

Team Code #: Team Code #:,NEG

Aff Speaker #1_ 2hoiA pts_2y|v Neg Speaker #1Aff Speaker #2 pts tpCjS Neg Speaker #2Please 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: Did the debater provide a logical, clear explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

and use of evidence?• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?

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

Q{oi?cA f fl : N e g h

-to sU>v- QitJi (iMrtol -h

C ^ A f i l n i l l i J i ' h i p C T ^ I y » . f t i

- SlPaJ ^ y^uyit^ ^ dlear^ bpst ^p t w h h . C S 4 ^ - i k t

T E A M C O D E # :

REASON FOR DECIS ION

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

(AFF or NEG)r u K . u j i i ^ i a i u r s / /

doei (Of ^ ar>cJ ei/mAU^ -idShopvim-pd<nX oi'i'dt Opncift h

Hendri Tjandra (*10)Round 1 9 ;00am Room 310Aff : 6 Fan - Fan

Neg; 24 Stolp - BisgaardVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:I l l a t i o n :

N E GTeam Code #: Team Code #:

A f f S p e a k e r # ! N e g S p e a k e r # ! _ p t s %Aff Speaker #2 \ fie p ts Neg Speaker #2 p ts

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



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

Affi: nJt'U— yt/ll i<h C' A V- \ / d \

A f f 2 : ^' a v f r ^

— A / » 6 / < » ? - r /i J t c ( 4 -

TEAM CODE #: ^ on the wins this debate.(AFF or NEG)

REASON FOR DECISION f>r^

John Ngo (MO)Round 1 9 :00am Room 317A f f : 4 D u b o n - F r a n c i s

Neg: 24 Carlson - RueVarsity OX Debate


Judge's Name


: To/tAi

Team Code #:

AfF Speaker #1_

Aff Speaker #2_ L f \

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker #1_

Neg Speaker #2_

N E G

ptsj2:jpts_^8






A f F I : f 0 " J J ] I n / l ^ ^ e g 1 : C ^ ^

AfF 2: 1»wpr p r -c A ^- SKvr-P hJr cJjb r

"V lbc5 » /X ^ ' 0\JtC J

T E A M C O D E # : A


j 7 r e | ^ . ^on the ^p-'p wins this debate.

(AFF o^ NEG)

ey\/v <^(.

Khanh Truong (*21)Round 1 9 :00am Room 314A f f : 2 4 B i r k e n s t o c k - C a s h m a n

Neg: 6 Yang - SiVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:_


Team Code #;

Aff Speaker #1

Aff Speaker #2

A F F N E GTeam Code #:

Neg Speaker#!

Neg Speaker #2 i -






A f f ^ N e g l : i d i B f fi l T r

TEAM CODE #: ^ on the wins this debate.(AFF orgE^

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

^ n b g t ^

C f J i r % ^ c K

T E A M C O D E # :

HalOT>teyasmT9)~l^CDTTCn 9:00am Room 311

Aff: 10 Murayama - WilsonNeg; 11 Dao - LeeVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:_ m f e i hJudge's School Affiliation:

A F FTeam Code #: jO

Aff Speaker #1

Aff Speaker #2 /YIl vrvc^ pts

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker #1

Neg Speaker #2

N E G






[ / o r O L~ G^Lfivrly

— • r " * - '

A f f 2 :*2*

Negl:,Uot'5 cjf- Uoolcl I .W to oT

N e g 2 u A ' . ^ ^

_ U/OuCcl Ka-Vp■fL<_ f>£.bl/^hd "h. u/Uy gUoi/L^ U/|V->

T E A M C O D E # :



(AFF or NEG)J K U b U l S i U N r / ) /

lofts' ô u r c j ^ i ■ ^ A f F M A ^■ FL

(oh JÎAJU yb/0 . Cj5>Ôe^ (A>ÂA, ,

Ajay Gupta {*6)Round 1 9 :00am Room 312

Aff: 10 Tjandra - NgoNeg: 6 La - LiVarsity CX Debate


Team Code #:

AfF Speaker#!

AfF Speaker #2

A p t s _

Judge's Name:_


Team Code #:

Neg Speaker #1_

Neg Speaker #2_

O'Cy.ce) I

L a . pts J 6

pts^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


a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? '• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?


O w a t L i ? .

n ^ \ A ^ s < c ^ v y > \ n ^o W ] v t X ^h u ^ o t . f k i ^V>ot

-Neg 2 : ^^ p -V- tA

VDf'TvvYcr prr,cp' < J

T E A M C O D E # : I 0 o n t h e


JIoIA

. 6 r » W

on the P P wins this debate,(AFF or NEG)

S/y6 i ^ \A. W) jQ,Ay\X^

Ms Brandt (*24)Round 1 9 :00am Room 307Aff: 6 Sawhney - LiangNeg: 21 Saxena - DuncanVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: CvCvT 'S

Team Code #:

Aff Speaker #1

Aff Speaker p u l l

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker#!

N E G Z \

Neg Speaker #2






y / - i

A f f 2 : Neg 2:/

= 6T 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 .(AFF or NEG)

Jenny-Gfrangn(*€)Round 1 9 ;00am Room 313Aff: 21 Greenberg - KollingNeg: 10 McMurry - SinghVarsity CX Debate

A F FTeam Code #: ^ /


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: Sl/As

N E G

Aff Speaker # 1 t ' ' t

Aff Speaker

Team Code #:

ptsZ ^ Neg Speaker #1 ^\A

Pts* ^ Neg Speaker U2 M Of T




and use of evidence?• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY AlRGUMENTATION: Did the debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?

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

Affl: 'SpofeX

N e g 1 : [ ^ A c \ - e c r J u d ^ Uj rJs)

e U n i y t o M b V l -

Aff 2:" d l-^ar n CA, qJh, ^ po fCe ^

Ti -cP^r \pc^p \ 4^ )Enkanee /l>riVe ICne

' <2r^< Uec-y ftn^J. i s .

iU^].

N.g2: 5»I4 /Wit..drc't^y 'i Ua/* ^tAS^

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 .

(AFF or NEG)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N . . / ^ U c L -fCC OVJt-rsi^jk^ PnViJeJ 211' . df FC2„ FCC 3« /IFF pU r,J. .'s», ct

Mom or Dad Francis (M)Round 1 9 :00am Room 306Aff: 24 Page - CrosbyNeg: 9 Stevens - HuiVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name: LakcJudge's School AfFiliation:

Team Code #:

Aff Speaker #1

Aff Speaker #2_


Neg Speaker #1_

Neg Speaker #2p t s N e g S p e a k e r # 2





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

AffS^: vje\Aiol be ^

Aff);

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

Negl: Ou.r-4^ ()l,UA

r v e t t f - b e i - fi -

- 4 - 0 ^

< ) « u ^ ^ %

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

(AFF or EG)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N ^

W I AV 1 0 ( 5 ^ v e ^ o y J ^ - U a s h

06' \xM\/ ilofil/U

Pinole Policy Judge 2 (*16)Round 1 9 :00am Room 315Aff: 21 Kornfein - ArroyoNeg: 6 Lee - NugalaVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name;jj


Team Code # : XN E G

Team Code #:

Aff Speaker #2 KH pts2_?_Neg Speaker #1_J)

Neg Speaker #2_





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

A f fl : N e . l : - ' V v . - V c ^A f fl : v o o r c i j t j r N e g 1 : ^ '

c > r i / o r . k - t » r - ] r ( L Cd o y i f L

Neg 1: - ^ c'«-^j//Tcs> c p ;>

^ - V W ^ V C

^ r f x a j ^ \

^ O f : k t V S o c , - , _

\ / y P - t o O t r A t S f k J e . ^ ^

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

< 4 - A f f fi T p ( A F F o r N E G ) , . w v i L -REASON FOR DECISION fW. lAitu C<aF( ^ +1^:-tx.v^^:vj,Vy ^ to^.-kr

lAC ^s,o\Oty>cy s. oi <A4-e^vc' 6-( ^ (aVM>-"1^

David Lee (*11)Round 2 11 :00am Room 316

Aff: 10 McMurry - SinghNeg: 6 Sawhney - LiangVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:


Team Code #: Team Code #:

Aff Speaker #1

Aff Speaker #2_

p t s N e g S p e a k e r # 1

pts.$ZV Neg Speaker #2

N E G^

)ts<9?8

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

Judging Cri ter ia /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear explanation qa critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sufficient quanfity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater present Reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an understandablRinteresting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtesy towar opponents and judge(s)?Using the above criteria, please offer complimenRand/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

r ' \ V ^ 7 ^- 5 1 ^ c i ^ v w , t — f s J f i i C x ( > < » S f v r > - v P i f f - > 6 \ o ~ i y

r U T K , S l ^ ^ h u i _

A f f 2 : •J — S i ^ t x ^ U ^ : .

V^V^/vlC ^— A W v - v D » v < p , J v O . C 1 _ e > c x j u ^t e c t e « « j v . ^ ) p < X A J ^ i < - h r " J ( y .

: 1 1 / '— 5'lv#vv / C«^2,W. I ^4/*^

-- pO-K-Uf'\~ ^<XC

Ow, -L-KJI,. Cjcx t- 'V CjjRfZJviviKe>CXjftwA.

o n t h e

(AFF or NEG)T E A M C O P E # : I t ? " o n t h e w i n s t h i s d e b a t e . / < S C W » ~ ^ « v o \

( A F F o r N E G ) V 3 ^ 1 -REASON FOR DECIS ION

Vlv«>vk_ tti b^of . A/GCv rr^pC^ I ^^UX^cL^ ^ d t M ; - V I V w , H ( / v / v x x A i r W - % ' 5 S o w - t f ^ " t o

L(. $iAW

M 6 ( a ^ 3

' "VrfeOv r riTL, -XAC'J <K^ <^ r<iU . 7 * vnc U ^ - U r ^ ^ : l ^ C ^ - v ' W ^

< 7 ^ 0 O t / v x c w ^ * ( c ^ r r t ^ x p / s x v ^ i c O ^ r v < r i v -J V \

Mom or Dad Francis (*4)Round 2 11 :00am Room 314Aff: 11 Dao - LeeNeg: 6 Fan - FanVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:


N E GTeam Code #:

Aff Speaker # 1 ' )q

Aff Speaker #2 L-<

Team Code #:

pts Vis Neg Speaker # 1pts Neg Speaker #2 V .

ptscj-^

p t s ^Please award each speaker points based on the following scale: /

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = VeryG< d27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify for elimination rounds)

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

Judging Criteria /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear explan ion of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sufficier quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater pent a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an understsable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtesywards opponents and judge(s)?

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

J c - o / ^A f fl : ^ / N e g j ; r p

W w . , - H c ^ - v v i ^ t x ^, U j V u J i a ^

A f f 2 : ^

T E A M C O D E # :

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N l " t U / i v T u r i o^ ^

J ^N e g 2 : ^ \ « s o \ p r a ^

VJLOon the IVff _wins this debate.

(AFF or NEG)

Debbie Crosby (*24)Round 2 11 ;00am Room 315Aff: 6 Lee - NugalaNeg; 10 Murayama - WilsonVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:


Team Code #: Team Code #:

^ Aff Speaker #1 (xiCx pts ZS Neg Speaker #1_Aff Speaker #2_ Lee _ pts 2Xd Neg Speaker #2

N E G

p t s

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

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

Judging Criteria /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear expiration of critical issue(s)?• PROOF; Did the debater support arguments with sufficirt quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an orderlVpresentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an undersdable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtew towards opponents and judge(s)?

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

< 4 - /-doold fcifi

'Cxt^ ^o-v sVK)r-V /- ^ o o c S ^ /L e e . / V / J v \ j C »

A f f 2 : t ^ e \ o ^ \ / N e g 2 :- UXiAV povt'V'V?: /

— K N C A / ^ r v i A

r»j^ • -VvDvj wVe■ c v o r r ^ W o . ' A l ^

TEAM CODE #: /D on the.

f A O v - t U V i c ) l > A A ^ f j )N e g l : s / ^ I ( O ^ i d

-< ocA cAecKAr oCcrr- U > c n . y c v \ i V r V r W c U " 5 c r

N t 2 : ' W M jgood- vjt! c/*roryVev cMJi Of6vvi»XiV

on the l\l<2^ wins this debate.(AFFor6fEG)

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N , ^ ^ \ ^ y U r y

(jbDc qUerhorv, (ood \jye 4

Mei Yu (*11)Round 2 11:00am Room 311

Aff: 24 Stolp - BisgaardNeg: 21 Kornfein - ArroyoVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Aff Speaker #1

Team Code #:N E G

2-1

Aff Speaker #2 l3 Ip t s . N e g S p e a k e r # 1 _

P'sJiX Neg Speaker #2_ a/w/dPlease award each speaker points based on the followiiscale:

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

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

Judging^ri teria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logica(<xlear explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support argumentwith sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater mse an orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Di(e debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater di lay courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?

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

A f fl :

6i\n?c\Neg 1;

- t ( r y Y V * 2 _ . ^

A f f 2 :

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

Neg 2:A / 0 i c ( - h t P

XJ -lAAULidcjy 1 li

/ i / a


wins this debate.

(AFF or NEG)

A d c U - ^ W ' s f ^ 4 ^ ^

Pinole Policy Judge (*16)Round 2 11 :00am Room 306Aff: 10 Lee - SunaharaNeg: 24 Page - CrosbyVarsity OX Debate

A F FTeam Code #: I 0

Aff Speaker # 1

Aff Speaker #2 SvaAA


Judge's Name:


N E GTeam Code #:

^ Neg Speaker # 1

p i s N e g S p e a k e r # 2

Please award each speaker points based on the followi scale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding i8 = Very Good

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

Judging riteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logicalyclear explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments With sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater makWan orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did tl debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater delive n understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?

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

d . e o j d i - v M . / a l t 5

. . _ . d , V ^ 1 ^ { j L ^ r . . i y t -

+<5 S O

S o v ^ o v ^f f -Cr {-V-t Z -W . ^

. . _ V , V ^ ( j L ^ r

O A A o k i > < 0 ^ < 2 d c T ^ » t \ . ^ v A j o r ^ ^ ® U T( t ^ i c c V U s a / ' co ^ V o r

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

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N V I - v J . f U u • + . . / / <

( C f > l r C < - ' A 0 O ! - r c < - S O - v S l j > y S U o n y i ^ ^y 4 ^

Ajay Gupta (*5)Round 2 11:00am Room 312Aff; 21 Saxena - DuncanNeg: 24 Birkenstock - CashmanVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:


N E GTeam Code #:

Aff Speaker #1

Aff Speaker #2_

(av> pts 21pts

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker #1_

Neg Speaker #2 pts_2!7

Please award each speaker points based on the followingale:30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 2 Very Good27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to q lify for elimination rounds)

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

Judging C eria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, cl explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make ^ orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the/Abater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater displcourtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?Using the above criteria, please o r compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : / , l J L

A f fl : ( L . i N e e l : ' h 3^ N e g l : W X

? C C U > ( k c r j £ d ^

K<ejQ<A/( ] A f f 2 :

" W r AN e e 2 - k r o - ^

( L S T a d e < , J / k^ 3 o y U k l e M

C i ^ - i U i l / . ^ ^

T E A M C O D E # : c m ~ "T E A M C O D E # :



(AFF or NEG)

^ KJAJ^ lr\rt/\iM-ekyCt iATif^ nof '=\£.t''yxn^

Pinole Policy Judge 2 (*16)Round 2 11 :00am Room 317A f f : 24 Car l son - Rue

Neg: 10 Tjandra - NgoVarsity OX Debate


Judge's Name:_Âovt:


N E GTeam Code #:

Aff Speaker # 1 Ccwb

Aff Speaker #2 oc?

Team Code #:

p t s N e g S p e a k e r # 1 _

pts. es' Neg Speaker #2Please award each speaker points based on the following scale/"

30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = V Good27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualify/ror elimination rounds)

26-25 = Fair 24-20 = Poor <20 = Reserved rude or inappropriate behaviorJudging Criter• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear e lanation of critical issue(s)?

• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretationa n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an ordly presentation that was easy to follow?

• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debatpresent a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an und^standable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?


A f f 1 : 0 n e e d i r vC A c ^ t M p n . r T r c f r y

S' gfSv"^c cvn vjj d eoc

'"7^ Neg 1: ^

O SfeoW^ -ô fe-C; rvo-ti -<0c fi C - S b r w o c J ^

Q ) C c T i C t S Q . r e s p o o s ^ . ^ C . r o ^ C ^ r )0 T b c i

T ' o ^ o J b u u - C a - fc-UGAC>-cAiLriC* If Neg 2: Cc>'vv^,c<otCCfe^<'_r -< OJ'^\jrr.Qrrfj Cl^(

G ) I H i Â f f 2 : C o ' v v v \ * - » o ? f

0 ) \ c r c . c - e o c y > < p c . i • ' > <"-£;> tv4-fcc_l -e^-fUckS ^

<3 ^ "tUfi oubote. c/o pXsiA-Ccv(bo a. to9rcQ.f COVN©^ «ÔO

Q. CUjAPe t/C^CX ofT E A M C O D E # : / O o n t h e

(AFF orNTC)REASON FOR DECIS ION

o d c l n e ^ T W V ^ r -A c 5 - t o l e C ^ C c ^ p ^ d C A A c i d o t f j o ^ c X r f u . e C ^ U o i w

t o o c A u c U o - ' > k o W > Z I I \ j - t c s p - e ^ ^C S ) C N , C f e K , A ( C ^ o s s + y j f v ^ ^ J '

ul reaj NE(3C r<?sf«' dec( /vort ePTeofrvjp^



Judge's Name: Ch^iJudge's School Affiliation:

N E CTeam Code #:

■hlut

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker#]

Neg Speaker #2 p t s

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


Judging Criteria /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sufficient antity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an orderly prentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater pret a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an understanmble, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?

Using the above criteria, please offer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toeach debater: 4')c/-e((eid Qwodl 1^'" feoW tirud: " G S X

A f f 2 : ^ e g f ( H ry ^~ & 6 6 i p o l > d m - h s h o i v /

polntcaiCcuw^ Cm9(L

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

on the ntf ^wins this debate.(AFF or NEG)

Mr Parnes (*24)Round 2 11 :00am Room 307Aff: 6 Yang - SiNeg: 16 Rahman - ZhouVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name

Judge's School Affiliation: ST- v/iAJced/T

N E GTeam Code #:

Aff Speaker#!

Aff Speaker #2

Team Code #:


p t s N e g S p e a k e r # 2 p t s ^^

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

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

Judging Criteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear planation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sunicient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an oi erly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the deer present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an uraerstandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display curtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?Using the above criteria, please offer mpliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

A f fi :

fKcC£> CKA/

S f o l c c ^ ^

l A * p v e , ( l o o y v. /A f f 2 : / .

SLOwU • y'v / I . A n

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

Neg 1: sLovjij -Ova-ws .T " i ,

l c . o + • M A - e - u W -Neg 2- OuoA^m^ <i£)«A-4- 1pv-»ia3 T"

( 1.3.-b if isw i n s t h i s H e h a t e . v k

(AFF or NEG) A , C o t - .

- ( I v j L . d C i l A » < M « J s c ^ 4 W 1 V < .b j o o V < W A r f ^ p ^

llvc lJ£C^ /vu*.Le ^ ewjD^-^ ^iA^.:AAA.«AAi"

•e'Xp<;>uvA-Ac:flvx O? Ae Oc «ilfe Uxx.v/ 4-U^ \ajl ^^4JJLaaaj2^^ " HuU" \x)e^ stuuld^Ai ''tU^

vU2. lrvj>uo kovo (\AM<^ povMiU

< \AMaaaa£xv Ia CA \kiL "{\ r"s Il + S « . ^ / ) € ^ 4 A ' ' V L A J O r V - "'* jOC, sIuiOVHaa-'-V l,\M>.t- mA-1 vA4aAAVW!U~S (J>ev(*M. , \aJLii£iJ.' e.UJC Cljwir Vo>vO <XuA^ pouwJlA lnc\.u«. U '<:W■ \r&ir j>l.c«ie. T??

Howard Murayama (*10)Round 2 11 :00am Room 310Aff: 6 La - Li

Neg: 4 Dubon - FrancisVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name: iVtUJAtt


N E GTeam Code #:

Aff Speaker#!

Aff Speaker #2_

Team Code #:

pts 2tg.8 Neg Speaker #1

p t s 2 C ^ . & N e g S p e a k e r # 2 p t s * 2 1 7 .

P t s O

Pts *217. S

Please award each speaker points based on the following scal30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28=ryGood27 = Good (but possibly not good enough to qualw for elimination rounds)

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

Judging Crit a• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clea xplanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with fficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make anderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the dwater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver anderstandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater displayurtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?Using the above criteria, please offe/compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Affl. vVv'V* up WvyceIke, oolvy'io stcS c \ v ;€< ^ C M o C * t \ r v « C .

o n

o o c o - s e o c c ior\ voVvt

Aff 2: 9oLtc C u<uct . aVsc) Neg 2:ItACi V>cA<W

St "O Srtirocj^ •

NV SpecJ XcatlM addveis\r> i kc .ec4&c^<v\'tc. , bcA Wd "tib tVse to "îrv.

"to k)ocJDdoovs 4QXVMOCXSb o d c c h u o r s n o c C f ^ A r e t V \ o r ^ .

en c(lco"b'te.n ca<\cisi(«>U.(Vc£. ^<A S^(50CX^C -to .

- t i i , d c j o C 5 V \OfxS. tô-V ÔOXlGZcJt co-(d5 .

Po<.vvHi ov>: Vv»«-o kP4=* CcV«AYVtet/A cO GCtfcV"does ns^ vocvVL..

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 .(AFF or NEG)


k f t l n & c £ C c n t c v > t ^ S i ' u d t Ve - t -^ o o i c d c < \ < o c j c O C c V v o V c j c ,

c s Q - - f t * r c j a c i - d v S c u 5 5 t t . r \ ^ v s e 0 - 5uk>cy*< CiBogc>3 u)ould cS .

lei a.

1 0t)w\ 31

KSaP >\D0'> r Sulx-kkrf*- "ff ""


Judge's Name:


N E GTeam Code #:

Aff Speaker #2 So y hi

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker #1

Neg Speaker #2

pts^^

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

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

Judging Critem• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear planation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with siinicient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make anderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver amunderstandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater displa;ourtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?Using the above criteria, please of compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

l & o o d e v C ^ e s . H t >J- j>, A Jouf/i-hirn o«uy4 4 ^K j t t r O l H t / ' t .

^ poftrfYN e g 2 : _ ^ *

of -fit

T E A M C O D E # : o n t h e wins th is debate.

(AFF of NEG)R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N < m , / a . # ^

k f ^ l s a h l e - h ^ ^ ' T ^ -O d 0i( Cfddtif jBgre -Hie. Ihkaftt- hdwfn OoJ eA'4Z(jn.

pro\/fcU eA/fdinCt

Pinole Policy Judge (*16)Rounds 1:00pm Room 313Aff : 6 Fan - Fan

Neg: 9 Stevens - HuiVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: f\KOL£ f/+1^16

N E GTeam Code #:

Aff Speaker #1

Aff Speaker #2

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker#!

P t s . N e g S p e a k e r # 2

pts_25

pts^C

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

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

Judg Criteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a loeji l, clear explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support argunWts with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debatw ake an orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATIONid the debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater eliver an understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debr display courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?Using the above criteria,jplease oifer compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

My' |M|>ew6 J cwwt bbsmNeg 1: .Qterr A-TTMr

i;rMUie [K PUfS^ f S A j T . x c ^ i f t w M c n g q ;

7® w\^ yTOXCi^i ^

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 M O g r S b U m O S

V ) / M A I d e M b W T R W" I V S H j P r < 7 2 > W . A - O ^ A D / A A r t A f e e L

wins this debate.

(AFF or NEG)

Most SOU/SM^^

"A 'tS.V-Aj*-! .:VV-I:f ' .• ■■ • ■ ;"■ •■' ■• " r ', '"■: ■"'' ' ■ '''i \ ! V , : v : n - . v ; i n J A - r . ' " f t " " . v

j a r i t i w r . - ^ - - . • . , > - r , v . v s . ;

M f i - W T C i : * • ' " ' v ' . ' v ' ' * • ' • • ■ " •■ . . .♦ ' ^ .J - '■ ' ' . • • • ' . • * / ■ . » ;■ • > »

- . 5 ; : '• i'.. --.v v-^v'' .'•■■" Ji'-J

.-.A',»; iV»B A--.. ■V-;, ■!•; :-vrs.--' - ■.■"■■_,

; - . . ^ i . - ' 1

Justin Kornfein (*21)Rounds 1:00pm Room 306Aff: 6 Lee - NugalaNeg: 24 Birkenstock - CashmanVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name


: dusi:- r>

Team Code #:

Aff Speaker #1_

Aff Speaker #2_ LuLy

N E G

pte 7p t s

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker#!

Neg Speaker #2

jT kAr\f /To<

p t s

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

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

Judging Criteria /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear expiation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF; Did the debater support arguments with sufficiwt quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debateiresent a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an undefendable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courts towards opponents and judge(s)?

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

l o ' 7 ^ / > I 1 1 - 4 I I N , ) i

p L u Y ^ c w ) < - -t j o o V A W ^ ; f {

pLuiy »yvTc.jf J «-£>oVA W

- h .

A f f 2 : . ^ / # U

- T o & ,_ n ^ i X c ^ f— : ^ / X a r u l 7 ^

O C o \ r \ r \ ^ t 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 .

(AFF orNCG)REASON FOR DECISION , // ^ J, A. -yi-du

^ATej4x><2^-Eteeti Gaur (*6)

Round 3 1:00pm Room 310Af f : 24 Car l son - Rue

Neg: 10 McMurry - SinghVarsity OX Debate


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation:,

N E GTeam Code #:

AfF Speaker # 1 C(XCSOAfF Speaker #2_ R.UO ■

Team Code #:

pts Xy Neg Speaker # 1p t s N e g S p e a k e r # 2 I T K '

pts_2=j[

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

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

JudgingX^riteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logic£ lear explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support argument§>with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

and use of evidence? ,.f• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater m e an orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Dij^'fiie debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater play courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?

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

A f fl : / N e g l :O V 1

A f f 2 : Neg 2:4 - k X X

- ( ^ c r © e l ^ ^ '- T 6 - I K a i . • e ^ . C r c r t ^ r v ^

« \ . . . . y n r v - o s - f f - j k . . _ 'v v C L ^ n n z s & d " - ^ - r • •• c c ; - c J - j b V w v .

U ] ; ' ^TEAM CODE #: on the wins this debate.

(AFF or NEG)

Mr Carlson ^24)Round 3 1:00pm Room 307Aff: 10 Murayama - WilsonNeg: 21 Kornfein - ArroyoVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: 'S fi S

Team Code #:

A F RTeam Code #:

Aff Speaker #1 tAj\\Sof\ pts Neg Speaker #1_Aff Speaker #2 ^,r pts ^ ^ Neg Speaker #2

N E G

f/1 ^e/i'






A f f 1 : — A j i U / A N e g 1 : ^

t A A w l - " f , m a J t i / s .t A / A A i , ! A \A f f 2 : C m c c ^ N e g 2 : f r C C o y e q C O \ / l .

TEAM CODE #: Z / on the ^ 3 » wins this debate.T E A M C O D E # :



(AFF or NEG) ■^ A ' I f * ^

l O - U V V A . ^ ^ ^MJJ (PoU^J C/p'iUI, %o-i/\ >

Mei Yu (*11)Rounds 1:00pm Room314A f f : 1 6 R a h m a n - Z h o u

Neg: 6 La - LiVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name: I


N E GTeam Code #:

AfF Speaker #1

AfF Speaker #2

iOv| Pts

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker #1

Neg Speaker #2 ptsJ: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 elimiMiion rounds)

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

Judging Criteria /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sufficient ( pntity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? y '• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater prespht a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?

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

A f fl : Neg 1:

So

A f f 2 :

CImNeg 2:

y k j O 9 ( ^ \ A

T E A M C O D E # :


on the /n if wins this debate.(AFF or NEG)

Osr\}j\i\{SL

VCHAM14


J u d g e ' s N a m e : H |

Judge's School Affiliation: Q fOOf A

Team Code #:

AfF Speaker #1 n \ r [ 0 ^ {

AffSpeaker #2

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker#!

Neg Speaker #2

N E G

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

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

Judging Critem• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clemxexplanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments witl fficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an rderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater displcourtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?Using the above criteria, please o r compliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Aff 1: N e g l :

A f f 2 :

u T t Z . r j « . ^ ^ £ \ \ a A P ^ C t

v i . 6 V n 9 w

A ^ ^ u x J j C ^ 0 - M e ^

\ r - 0 f ta c i W ^ i — r

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

^yxA' —

t A r r o r i N n u j JREASON FOR DECISION Tlo ntr ^^ c L U ^ W i J M o a ' ' I T ' P ^

,Co

0 --X v^Us-lr'^i>W^ •c?y 6<iisu/

i e A y _ J U J F - U ^ ^ ^ C r o n ^ s - , 7^ > < . i u

^ t r t 4 C - C — ,

V . / T C^ Lr -M WU^-^ (=^ '^f

J ■ J- ^ 4^-XH=i" ;>> |v>sv,'t^< Q « a d I ' ^ ' - ^ T 5 1 I A I A^ \,<UU'^^ 'T slrUcM^

Mom or Dad Francis (*4)Rounds 1:00pm Room 316Aff: 6 Yang - SiNeg: 10 Tjandra - NgoVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name: UiJudge's School Affiliation:

Team Code #:

Aff Speaker#!

Aff Speaker #2

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker #1_

Neg Speaker #2_

N E Gl o

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

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

Judging Criteria• ANALYSIS; Did the debater provide a logical, cl^ar explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments witn sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make/ orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?

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

A f f 1 : ( o

A f f 2 : e v - o U p o ^ ^ f r ,

Ovv/WH . /

^ yio'l- O-b nn^ci <ZPot

N e g 2 : I

T E A M C O D E # : on t he _ _w ins t h i s deba te .(AFF or NEG)


Ajay Gupta f5)Round 3 1:00pm Room 315A f f : 4 Dubon - F ranc i s

Neg: 6 Sawhney - LiangVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:

Judge's School AfFiliation: k>t>/

Team Code #:

Aff Speaker#!

N E GTeam Code #:

Neg Speaker #1_

Neg Speaker #2

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

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

Judging teria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, ear explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments wnh sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make n orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did tjdebater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliven n understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater dis hy courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?

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

A f fl : N e g l : S f o T PN e g l : ,

pvoOnri-^ .4 N o i A l A - f ^ t f X t f

4 V ( W t ' ^ ( P ^ ^ y( > A / L

TEAM CODE #: ^ on the I /vV B wins this debate.(AFF or NEG)REASON FOR DECISION pp hp< Old v:l-6 ayru.A-

^Uo^j A t f tcJ ajAr^ i^ hJtpS ' Iaca. 'j»v-s-T>-vW , Me^ VJiA/^f-rry^ tfv. X'Le^U\J4.V Jl^ CyxyvJct^ -

H€riey-Mayashi~(*9)Round 3 1:00pm Roonn 312Aff: 21 Green berg - KollingNeg: 10 Lee - SunaharaVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name: 9 o r ( K

Team Code #:

Aff Speaker#!

Aff Speaker #2

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker #I_

. Neg Speaker #2_ M

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

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

Judging Gnteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logicaLdear explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support argumenty;vith sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: DkVme debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater delb r an understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater play courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?

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

O A / o m

l U

I i - r t i e W & t f 0 p e e ^n-Hie9- axiMss>s>eii, n&eM^it i f t?. / i fcc i '^eme. tP9^ t t f>&

OUi? Idpj/ki

[p 'S'p&e^ TEAM CODE #: \ on the " wins this debate.

V6HHm.j (Mfm m m ' .

up or o.npvm^ i

o m e ^ ^ ^ ^ me

o r A r o v m A

)f^ a. ianxam um&.7 # m s u / e i ^ y y r

efWok,t e ?

X rhcie^/ t t . / T W T t v , , > — > V

n e i / ^ i c h ^ -""■■'kvSONFORDEaS.ON

i h e o A J > e / ^r ^ i A A i 5 ^ 4 t p " ^ o i i A e i a G P A m ^ r e ^ t 4 U A p i v y i r A i \

e r 6 h ^ y ^ L ^

- r g l M t f a a J a s H f ^Round 4 3:00pm Room 312Aff: 10 Tjandra - NgoNeg: 4 Dubon - FrancisVarsity CX Debate

POLICY Deba te

(Lo< is IJudge's Name: t


N E GTeam Code #:

Aff Speaker#!

Aff Speaker #2 S)ii O

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker #1_

Neg Speaker #2_

/ p t s _

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

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

Judging Criteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear lanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make anp/derly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver aiymderstandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater displa ourtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?

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

Aff 1:

Aff 2:

N e g l : ^ S ^ k t J

I ^ c ( - f y ^s h e ^ I ' ^

T E A M C O D E # :


on the I ^ ^wins this debate.(AFForNEG^

John Ngo (*10)Round 4 3;00pm Room 311Aff: 6 Sawhney - LiangNeg: 24 Page - CrosbyVarsity OX Debate


Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Aff Speaker #1

Aff Speaker #2

Team Code #:N E G

pts 7^ Neg Speaker #1

Neg Speaker #2_

p ts j^^pts 2^

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

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

Judging iteria• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, ar explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make4n orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did IM debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater delivef?4n understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?

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

A f fl : t

A f f 2 : OcM

T E A M C O D E ¥ :


o n t h e r a Y ^ d e b a t e .(AFFo/WEG)

Pinole Policy Judge 2 (*16)Round 4 3:00pm Room 313Aff: 10 Lee - SunaharaNeg: 6 Fan - FanVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name: Ap


N E GTeam Code #:

Aff Speaker#!

AfF Speaker #2

Team Code #:


Neg Speaker #2_ VaJp t s

pts ^

Please award each speaker points based on the following scale30 = Perfect 29 = Outstanding 28 = V Good

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

Judging Criter• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear e lanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an or rly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debr present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display coesy towards opponents and judge(s)?Using the above criteria, please offer c pliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : / z ' . . . i

V 0 \ ( J L I 1 : -Aff 1: V 0\ (JL I c\fcur

M b X O L /- c J l C c M r \ r y k x A

/- (jood (Aw'S'uiex'a- ovo-svA f f 2 : /' cLQ-av u a /ô

- V © O C t c r o

(yveo^\Jciv<c ^ <x li-H4e boo IcJocJ

A i u i e ^ e v o i C t ttcf ui)OC c{\)eôv\ b<r?bj."e— do nid (zvfeY'r'^pf

C V O i V

N e g 2 ; - l e ^ d c » n » ^ c ^ O J J- c X e o y r

--Osf Qcck £>ra(XoiZcdhov\ , fO\n{:S rv\o.(MCi2f2oc\«o oppoC-Ved u?i"trtA

TEAM CODE #: [ (0 on the {\ 1 gA wins this debate.(AFForl^DG)REASON FOR DECISION ^__PqÔ*c • 'SVnovaJCC^

vSVireiAa-bh 1 or ani zc4lO c4' -ftA €a.ohc x v t s U ) e r -

CMA0<dA£2A.


Haley HayashI (*9)Round 4 3:00pm Room 310Aff: 24 Birkenstock - CashmanNeg: 16 Rahman - ZhouVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: (RovC

Team Code #:

Aff Speaker#!

Aff Speaker #2_


Neg Speaker#!

^ pts^_2l5 Neg Speaker #2 2 b . ?

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 = Reserved fo/rude or inappropriate behavior

Judging Criteri• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear e lanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an or rly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debr present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an unrstandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display coesy towards opponents and judge(s)?Using the above criteria, please offer mpliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : . L j l n o Ve a c h d e b a t e r :

. W N e g l :

"■"'.•J

4 o - I

\l \AAO<]/U\

A f f 2 . ^ ^

' - a 4 ' K

■ j a , K b e

\s> be- 1/iA.Ot^ '^''9'"A f f 2 : r . ' "

^ >jO«d-L 4. |V,?44<.4S ^• v a J o e ^ 4 . 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 .^ ( A F F o r N E G ) . ,

R E . ^ O N F O R D E C I S I O N 4 . i > p i ^ c A l / / t / A i s . o

S - O I u c i a c u j t i i A ' A - L

. C r . C o 4 . ^jO«dX 4. e>4t 4 ,V,?44<-4S %Ur Jcels^Vy-Ou.j\ g. 4a4 .VC .

AUd .'d

^ ^ M

Round 4 3:00pm Room 306Aff: 9 Stevens - HuiNeg; 10 Murayama - WilsonVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:


N E GTeam Code #:

AfF Speaker #2_

Team Code #:

p t s . N e g S p e a k e r # !



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 Crityia• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clearyplanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with surficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an oraerly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the delr present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an unrstandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display coimesy towards opponents and judge(s)?


A f fl : N e g l :

A f f 2 : Neg 2:

T E A M C O D E # :


on the /t r 1"^ wins this debate.(AFF or NEG)

looYo ^o|i/j?hcq [ksJ \ ■ T

Ajay Gupta (*5)Round 4 3:00pm Room 314Aff: 21 Kornfein - ArroyoNeg: 6 Yang - SiVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:


Team Code #:

Aff Speaker #1_

Aff Speaker #2_

Team Code #:_

pts A I Neg Speaker #1

Neg Speaker #2

N E G .

Pts


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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

and use of evidence?• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtesy towards^pponents and judge(s)?

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

J-Negl:

h £ A r c n ^

fc:Lo(^ '

^ T "Neg 2: UlJ t

a v \ & v o j ^ y o

TEA ODE#:_::Ji G on the wins this debate. yGll rnJi- tCO cJ")- ' ( A F F o r N E G ) ^ 'REASON FOR DECISION 7 -

r Q - U - e ( X A y - ^ i A v ^ - e A y J ' s

Mom or Dad Francis (*4)Round 4 3:00pm Room 315Aff: 24 Stolp - BisgaardNeg: 6 Lee - NugalaVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: B-sWop Q'P

Team Code #:T e a m C o d e # : T e a m C o d e # : _

A f f S p e a k e r # 1 _ _ p t s N e g S p e a k e r # 1

Aff Speaker #2 i pts Neg Speaker #2

N E G

Aff Speaker #2_ Neg Speaker #2 p t s j n


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

J u d g i n g C r i t e r i a /• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clear explanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? . /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an orderly pres 'tation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater preset a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an understandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display courtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?


Affl: ponwW / Neg 1: Vv^ ^

A f f 2 : ^ N e g 2 : ^ c W < ^

[ i i t i

TEAM CODE #:_ o n t h e

REASON FOR DECIS ION(AFF or NEG)

_wins this debate.

9«Yi\-e{ -bo'Jl jH9te..P9HeyTkidg^£>€y^Round 4 3:utlpm Room 3T7Round 4 3:uDpm Room 3T7Aff: 6 La - Li

Neg: 24 Carlson - RueVarsity OX Debate


Judge's Name: PV^i ^

Judge's School Affiliation: 11

Team Code #:

AfF Speaker#!

Aff Speaker #2

Team Code #:

N E G

S" Neg Speaker # 1 ^

Neg Speaker #2

p t s ^

pts^. 3





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

A f fl :

r v \

vvo 4- jVs*f -dT/Ct." " v . , e A / \ / V A A A A / k x > ^ - f e

A f f 2 :

Hrn* r o»~A-^ 9O\/\A€ vvv®VM_ rwoj o-F c»vku

f n e T N / J t r v t ^ - w U x ' l t o p

N e g l :- " 1 ^ a o y r v ^ O ^ y c r fl / V - Q / ^- < r V w v - V v v ^ 0 | ^ r K - > « 4 '— ^\ .<AS\A>ev<L VA/K>v^

Neg 2:- \ ? v v ^ V i ^

- j o U ^ v A / W u - W C f o

T E A M C O D E # :

R E A S O N F O R D E C I S I O N , , „ / h

-flAt -« -K/rvoi- OA035^^ Cfsrse^ cKY^S> vA^rVWrv^^ iir /rJtfen.

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

Mr Carlson {*24)Round 4 3:00pm Room 307A f f : 1 1 D a o - L e e

Neg: 21 Greenberg - KollingVarsity OX Debate


Judge's Name:

Judge's School Affiliation: LOCiAQ

Team Code #:

Aff Speaker#]

Aff Speaker #2

r > A o

N E GTeam Code #:

Neg Speaker#!

ptSftir^ >(p Neg Speaker #2 \CoU \

p t s

ptscyftwS*

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

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

Judging CritOTia• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, clea xplanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with fficient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an wderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the dter present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an imderstandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display <rtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?Using the above criteria, please offeryCompliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

Affl: GioocSC-Vnolol OC QcV:H.ce*.V lepra, vudrcnfoccV ecorvo(vca bo^KdooV

CVtecTAc She'll

( a o o d ( l 4 C .^vkcLe^ ^GCLicne^

a e e d . S

Neg 1: \j>orW O A o c r A . ^ .

trv "XewbvV^SAjeUVcTvcc. vcljeoorsV . \vX<L >rOoc Vk6A,

Neg 2: VevM ôecS techn ticjruc..ciiicCcecc VvaVpi te'u fcjE

Coo'^^'V \S wi\cyt«c^

TEAM CODE #: 5_\ on the M^G?. wins this debate.(AFF or NEG)REASON FOR DECISION Aff rvV e-ftcecX SbWeecy cfcjoitvee fe .

IcoclcciootS o-C-V^cyrw-o So^fyêVvWice -bewoV (Sm*^ ^KX^CT -briplcctlcbj or^ boclccikcuf "ôV wJa-S use <»(: VxicfejcioffO•Co f6wci' js'tcl ceel cc' se d'tS-Ws-V In "toLia co(vv nl€3 4vV e-PfecVVeiL

^ o>rXi>\lc(v s*MV)6 UVcrtoe.. cle»fev soVvjcno Vv jc ©dicSivcSScct ""VS .

Mr Parnes (*24)Round 4 3:00pm Room 316Aff: 10 McMurry - SinghNeg: 21 Saxena - DuncanVarsity CX Debate


Judge's Name: fvAVi

Judge's School Affiliation: SK \IS

Team Code #:

AfF Speaker #2

Team Code #:

Neg Speaker #1_

Neg Speaker #2_

N E Ga \

I - /

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

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

Judging Crit^ia• ANALYSIS: Did the debater provide a logical, cleai?4xplanation of critical issue(s)?• PROOF: Did the debater support arguments with shfFicient quantity and appropriate interpretation

a n d u s e o f e v i d e n c e ? /• ORGANIZATION: Did the debater make an orderly presentation that was easy to follow?• POLICY ARGUMENTATION: Did the debater present a reasonable discussion of policy issues?• DELIVERY: Did each debater deliver an imderstandable, interesting and persuasive presentation?• COURTESY: Did each debater display curtesy towards opponents and judge(s)?Using the above criteria, please offer mpliments and/or suggestions for improvement toe a c h d e b a t e r : /

A f fl : l U t t j

w l T U e o V - ^ y ^ - e x o j ^ ■ e n ■( V > . « . . U - t e ( 5 > , , J „ r . , o

Acs ^ AR \ 6Ac. ) ou- i -

k J ^ o -u & e k W l k i L M v ^ - ^ . o n y - e s u v w. o f 1 A c CU . 1 ^ ^ i M - r .

T E A M C O D E # : 2 4 o n t h e t d w i n s t h i s d e b a t e .(AFF or NEG)


A : F F ^

\JO' "UfiAA/ 6XAj4X4.W\fl.v€tS Srv\3-<Jpy( K ) 4 - e i < a A / * A . ♦

Varsity OX Debate - Joy of Tournaments · 4A L " 0.0* Aff 0* 16A L " • 0.0* Neg 0* 24C W 0 0.0*...

Documents

Transcript of Varsity OX Debate - Joy of Tournaments · 4A L " 0.0* Aff 0* 16A L " • 0.0* Neg 0* 24C W 0 0.0*...