Results and NSDA Points
Placement at EMHS Congressional Scrimmage:
Novice Chamber A:
|
|
|
|
NSDA Points to Record:
|
|
1st
|
Kaden Martinez
|
Rio Rancho
|
24
|
|
2nd
|
Tiana Griego
|
CCPS
|
23
|
|
3rd
|
Mary Jo Guarino
|
Rio Rancho
|
22
|
|
4th
|
Justin Mirabal
|
Santa Fe
|
21
|
|
5th
|
Kevin Hala
|
Onate
|
20
|
|
6th
|
Emily Hooper
|
Onate
|
19
|
|
Ties for 7th:
|
Isabella Lobaina
|
CCPS
|
18
|
|
Tie for 7th
|
Arianna Brett
|
Highland
|
18
|
|
Tie for 7th
|
Mateo Amadour
|
Santa Fe
|
18
|
|
Please look at ballots and make sure your students actually spoke. If they did not speak, no points should be awarded.
|
Novice B:
|
|
|
|
NSDA Points to Record:
|
|
1st
|
Zachary Burkhalter
|
Onate
|
24
|
|
2nd
|
Alejandro Lazo-Loya
|
Onate
|
23
|
|
3rd
|
Anani Shomour
|
Sandia
|
22
|
|
4th
|
Antonio Martinez
|
Santa Fe
|
21
|
|
5th
|
Tony Malono
|
Rio Rancho
|
20
|
|
6th
|
Enzo DiLibero
|
CCPS
|
19
|
|
7th
|
Celeste Barton
|
Highland
|
18
|
|
8th
|
Ariana Montoya
|
CCPS
|
17
|
|
Please look at ballots and make sure your students actually spoke. If they did not speak, no points should be awarded.
|
Novice C:
|
|
|
|
NSDA Points to Record:
|
|
1st
|
Addison Epps
|
CCPS
|
24
|
|
2nd
|
Isabel Bliner-Yazzie
|
Sandia
|
23
|
|
3rd
|
Shaya Guerro-Roybal
|
Highland
|
22
|
|
4th
|
Zachary Hanby
|
Onate
|
21
|
|
5th
|
Leigha Rening
|
CCPS
|
20
|
|
Tie for 6th
|
Patton Brooks
|
Highland
|
19
|
|
Tie for 6th
|
Santiago Griego
|
Santa Fe
|
19
|
|
Tie for 6th
|
Lily Taylor
|
Santa Fe
|
19
|
|
Tie for 6th
|
Jesus Sanchez
|
Rio Rancho
|
19
|
|
Please look at ballots and make sure your students actually spoke. If they did not speak, no points should be awarded.
|
Novice D:
|
|
|
|
NSDA Points to Record:
|
|
1st
|
Eliana Merhege
|
CCPS
|
24
|
|
2nd
|
Dash Wrede
|
Santa Fe
|
23
|
|
3rd
|
Leslie Garcia
|
Highland
|
22
|
|
4th
|
Esme LaPointe
|
Rio Rancho
|
21
|
|
5th
|
Renee Petrie
|
Eldorado
|
20
|
|
6th
|
Walter Zacherl
|
La Cueva
|
19
|
|
Tie for 7th
|
Zaid Zeyaee
|
CCPS
|
18
|
|
Tie for 7th
|
Monique Martinez
|
Highland
|
18
|
|
Tie for 7th
|
Christopher Rodgers
|
Onate
|
18
|
|
Tie for 7th
|
Jacob Lyons
|
Santa Fe
|
18
|
|
Please look at ballots and make sure your students actually spoke. If they did not speak, no points should be awarded.
|
Varsity Chambers: LOOK AT RANKS IN TABROOM. They are correct!
|
Rank in tabroom:
|
NSDA Points to Record:
|
|
1st
|
24
|
|
2nd
|
23
|
|
3rd
|
22
|
|
4th
|
21
|
|
5th
|
20
|
|
6th
|
19
|
|
7th
|
18
|
|
8th
|
17
|
|
9th
|
16
|
|
Look at ballots and make sure your students actually spoke. If they did not speak, no points should be awarded.
|
Comments from Novice Chamber B:
Overall Comments and RFD
Those who gave more speeches and asked more questions gave more opportunities for me to judge the quality of such and determine how well they did in the competition. However, the amount of speeches did not always mean someone did better than someone else so the quality of the speeches given and how often they asked questions was considered. Overall the competitors did a great job discussing the ideas of the bills and having some debate over what is the right thing to do in each scenario the bills present. My advice to them, however, is to really pay attention to what the bill is saying beyond the ideas. For example, for the bill regarding homelessness in New Mexico, a federal court cannot decide things for individual states so that bill either must be changed or not even considered. Another example is in the bill on giving prisoners minimum wage, there is a clause that says something along the line of abolishing the 13th amendment. It is really important you look at the finer details and go more in depth than just the reason the bill is being made in the first place. For their first Congress, they all did a great job!
Zacharay Burkhalter
speeches given: 2
- good job at arguing the unpopular opinion and holding up his stance during questioning
- good use of directly referencing the bill
- asked great questions during other speeches that generated a larger discussion
- quick tip, say "I move" not "I motion" (grammatically incorrect) but otherwise good use of procedure
Ranked 3rd because he had some great speeches that argued his points better than those ranked below him and asked a lot of questions during other speeches but was not heard as much as those ranking above him which allowed them to be ranked higher.
Alejandro Lazo-Loya
speeches given: 1
- speech on proposing an amendment was a great discussion starter but was not fully carried out to have a part in the debate
- good use of questioning throughout the session
Ranked 5th because he only gave one speech so there was a lack of participation in the debate but did a great job at staying involved by asking questions and keeping the conversation going.
Tony Malono
speeches given: 0
- an attempt was made to ask questions during the session and continue the discussion
Ranked 8th because he was only heard from once and I would have liked to see more participation in the discussion.
Antonio Miguel Martinez
speeches given: 1
- good use of pathos to convince the chamber to vote for the bill
- brought up some points that were not initially thought of ->great job doing that and bringing up new ideas
- good use of statistics and evidence
- held up fairly well against questioning and maintained a good stance
- some good attempts at asking questions
Ranked 6th because a very well made speech was given but there were not many instances that he asked questions, making him largely absent from most of the discussion.
Angelina Garduno
speeches given: 6
- good use of bringing up history and considering the relevance to the current day
- doesn't always have sufficient reasoning for the power that the bill has
- ex banning confederate flag bill, is people being offended by it enough to justify banning?
- some use of sources to support point with some good uses for statistics
- shows importance for the bill/resolution impacting our lives
Ranked 4th because there were a good amount of good speeches but during questioning she did not maintain her point that well all of the time and did not always focus on what the bill is saying.
Eco Chavez
speeches given: 7
- good use of sources and evidence from reliable-sounding sources
- sometimes got a bit off topic with the topic of the bill (discussing the origin of civil war when discussing a ban on the confederate flag is not quite relevant)
- great job at picking apart a bill for what the wording actually says rather than just discussing the big ideas
- good use of discussing the reasoning for going aff or neg on the various bills
- good use of an introductory quote
- great job at responding to questions and holding up his stance when asked about it
Ranked 1st because he had great speeches and asked great questions that showed an understanding of the topics being discussed.
Andre LaJeunesse
speeches given: 7
- good use of citing known and credible sources and good use of statistics
- makes good comparisons to the topics of the bill and other instances that those ideas come up
- looks at multiple angles for the argument
- expands the subject of the bill to different areas it has an impact
- in some cases, certain subjects were downplayed which lost credibility (i.e., downplaying research on climate change)
- generally did a good job responding to questions and asking questions
Ranked 2nd because the speeches were done very well and he held up his points well during questioning, but some ideas were downplayed and not fully explained.
Anani Shomour
speeches given: 1
- interesting use of incorporating ancient Greek philosophy
- good use of reasoning and evidence and responding to questions
- some questions asked during the session but not very common
- overall hard to understand (likely internet issues but nonetheless I have a hard time judging what I can't hear)
Ranked 7th because an attempt at a speech and questioning was made but it was not as strong as the other speeches given by fellow representatives. Furthermore, sometimes it seemed as though she was chatting with someone off screen and not fully paying attention which was distracting to me and maybe the other competitors.
