Download Math 3 honors easy study guide and more Summaries Mathematics in PDF only on Docsity!
Biomedical Debate
Event Summary
Biomedical Debate provides members with the opportunity to use debate as a platform
for researching the pros and cons of a biomedical issue and showcasing what has been
learned. This competitive event consists of 2 rounds and each team consists of 3-
people. Team members will participate in the Round One written test containing
questions about the annual biomedical topic. The teams with the highest average score
from the test will qualify for the Round Two debate(s). This event aims to inspire
members to be proactive future health professionals by researching a given health topic,
evaluating, discussing, and thinking critically about the issue, and refining verbal
communication skills surrounding a complex biomedical issue.
Dress Code Competitors shall wear the HOSA uniform or proper business attire. Bonus points will be
awarded for proper dress. All team members must be properly dressed to receive bonus
points.
General Rules
1. Competitors in this event must be active members of HOSA-Future Health
Professionals, in good standing in the division in which they are registered to
compete (Secondary or Postsecondary/Collegiate).
2. Competitors must be familiar with and adhere to the “ General Rules and Regulations of
the HOSA Competitive Events Program (GRR)."
3. All competitors shall report to the site of the event at the time designated for each round
of competition. At ILC, competitor’s photo ID must be presented prior to ALL competition
rounds.
4. The annual debate topic will be selected each year and will be announced in HOSA
publications.
2021 – 2022 Topic:
COVID-19 Vaccine Should be Required to Attend School (grades 9+)
Official References
5. Competitors are encouraged to learn as much as they can about the annual topic.
All test questions will be developed from the following references:
o Nixon, K. (2021). Quarantine life from cholera to COVID-19. Tiller Press, An
Imprint of Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York. (*Note this is a printed book)
o World Health Organization. (2021). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
pandemic. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-
coronavirus-
New for 2021 - 2022
The order of speakers has been revised.
The rubric format has been changed to a single document, so it is more convenient for judges.
o UNDP, UNAIDS, WHO, O’Neill Institute, Georgetown University, Inter-
Parliamentary Union, IDLO (n.d.). COVID-19 law lab: Collecting legal
documents from the COVID-19 response. Retrieved from
https://covidlawlab.org/
o The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. (2021). The history of vaccines.
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/timeline/all
o Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). COVID-19. Retrieved
from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html
ROUND ONE: The Test
6. Round One Test Instructions: Each team will be evaluated in Round One by a fifty
(50) item multiple choice written test. Competitors will be given sixty (60) minutes to
complete the test.
NOTE: Chartered Associations/regions may use a different process for testing, to include but
not limited to pre-conference testing, online testing, and testing at a computer. Check with
your Area/Region/Chartered Association for the process you will be using.
7. TIME REMAINING ANNOUNCEMENTS: There will be a verbal announcement
when there are 30 minutes, 15 minutes, 5 minutes, and 1 minute remaining to
complete the test.
8. The team test score average from Round One will be used to qualify the team for
Round Two.
9. Sample Round One Questions (Based on a previous topic)
1. What federal agency is responsible for the U.S. recommended
immunization schedule?
A. NIH
B. FDA
C. WHO
D. CDC
Topic specific website
2. What is the fundamental barrier to vaccination across countries of all
income levels?
A. Vaccine hesitancy
B. Fake vaccine-related news and information
C. Inequalities in access
D. Fear of safety of vaccines
Topic specific website
3. Of the following vaccine-preventable diseases, which can result
in liver failure?
A. Mumps
B. Diphtheria
C. Hepatitis A
D. Tetanus
Topic specific website
14. A timekeeper will keep time for each part of the debate and will call time at the end
of the maximum amount of time allowed. Speakers must immediately stop speaking
when time is called.
15. Teams are permitted to discuss and write notes during all parts of the debate,
however, table decorum will be evaluated on the rating sheet with the intent that
teams will conduct themselves in a professional manner without distracting the other
team. Paper is allowed for note taking.
16. At least three (3) team members must speak in the debate.
17. Judges will have two (2) minutes to complete the rating sheets when the debate has
ended.
Final Scoring
18. The test score from Round One will be used to qualify the team for Round Two, and
will NOT be used as part of the final score.
19. In case of a tie during the paired matchups, the highest averaged test score will be
used to determine which team advances in the bracket and/or final rank if needed.
Competitors Must Provide
Prepared topic materials (per rule #11) for the presentation round in hard copy only Watch with second hand (optional-Round Two only) Paper or index cards, to use for note taking by team members (optional) #2 lead pencils with eraser Photo ID
BIOMEDICAL DEBATE
ROUND TWO – RATING SHEET
Section # _____________________ Judge’s Signature ____________________
Team # _______________________ Division: SS ____ PS ____
1. First Affirmative Speech
Excellent
10 points
Good
8 points
Average
6 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE - A
JUDGE
SCORE - N
A. Arguments & Evidence (Persuasiveness)
The arguments & evidence clearly expresses the team’s viewpoint in a highly persuasive manner.
The arguments & evidence mostly expresses the team’s viewpoint and provides responses that are persuasive.
The arguments & evidence somewhat express the team’s viewpoint and provides moderately persuasive responses.
The arguments & evidence are slightly persuasive.
The arguments are not persuasive or there is not an argument presented
Excellent
5 points
Good
4 points
Average
3 points
Fair
2 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE - A
JUDGE
SCORE - N
B. Flow & Logic of speech
The content of the speech flows smoothly, is thoughtfully constructed and makes logical sense.
The content of the speech flows smoothly and makes sense.
The speech flows moderately smoothly and makes sense most of the time.
The speech has an inconsistent flow and makes sense some of the time.
The speech does not flow or make logical sense.
C. Relevance of arguments
All arguments were accurate, relevant and strong. Was able to defend position.
Majority of arguments were accurate, relevant and strong. Was able to defend position.
Some of the arguments were accurate, relevant and strong. Was somewhat able to defend position.
Arguments were not accurate and/or relevant. Was unable to defend position.
No arguments were made. Unable to defend position.
2. First Negative Speech
Excellent
15 points
Good
12 points
Average
9 points
Fair
6 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE - A
JUDGE
SCORE - N
A. Arguments & Evidence
All counterarguments were accurate, relevant and strong. Was able to accurately defend position.
Majority of counterarguments were accurate, relevant and strong. Was able to defend position.
Some of the counterarguments were accurate, relevant and strong. Was somewhat able to defend position.
Counterarguments were not accurate and/or relevant. Was unable to defend position.
No counterarguments were made. Unable to defend position.
3. Second Negative Speech
Excellent
10 points
Good
8 points
Average
6 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE - A
JUDGE
SCORE - N
A. Arguments & Evidence (Persuasiveness)
The arguments & evidence clearly expresses the team’s viewpoint in a highly persuasive manner.
The arguments & evidence mostly expresses the team’s viewpoint and provides responses that are persuasive.
The arguments & evidence somewhat express the team’s viewpoint and provides moderately persuasive responses.
The arguments & evidence are slightly persuasive.
The arguments are not persuasive or there is not an argument presented
Excellent
5 points
Good
4 points
Average
3 points
Fair
2 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE - A
JUDGE
SCORE - N
C. Relevance of rebuttal
Rebuttal was articulately stated and offered strong relevant, researched data to support the argument.
The rebuttal offered good research and supported the argument.
The rebuttal offered mediocre researched data to support the argument.
Little relevancy was offered in the rebuttal. More data/supporting information needed to support the point.
No rebuttal was offered or the rebuttal was not relevant to the topic.
7. Overall Debate Qualities (AFFIRMATIVE)
Excellent
5 points
Good
4 points
Average
3 points
Fair
2 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE - A
JUDGE
SCORE - N
A. Voice Pitch, tempo, volume, quality
Each competitor's voice was loud enough to hear. The competitors varied rate & volume to enhance the speech. Appropriate pausing was employed.
Each competitor spoke loudly and clearly enough to be understood. The competitors varied rate OR volume to enhance the speech. Pauses were attempted.
Each competitor could be heard most of the time. The competitors attempted to use some variety in vocal quality, but not always successfully.
Judges had difficulty hearing /understanding much of the speech due to little variety in rate or volume.
The competitor’s voice is too low or monotone. Judges struggled to stay focused during the majority of presentation.
B. Stage Presence Poise, posture, eye contact, and enthusiasm
Movements & gestures were purposeful and enhanced the delivery of the speech and did not distract. Body language reflects comfort interacting with audience. Facial expressions and body language consistently generated a strong interest and enthusiasm for the topic.
The competitors maintained adequate posture and non- distracting movement during the speech. Some gestures were used. Facial expressions and body language sometimes generated an interest and enthusiasm for the topic.
Stiff or unnatural use of nonverbal behaviors. Body language reflects some discomfort interacting with audience. Limited use of gestures to reinforce verbal message. Facial expressions and body language are used to try to generate enthusiasm but seem somewhat forced.
Most of the competitor's posture, body language, and facial expressions indicated a lack of enthusiasm for the topic. Movements were distracting.
No attempt was made to use body movement or gestures to enhance the message. No interest or enthusiasm for the topic came through in presentation.
C. Diction, Pronunciation* and Grammar
Delivery emphasizes and enhances message. Clear enunciation and pronunciation. No vocal fillers (ex: "ahs," "uh/ums," or "you-knows”). Tone heightened interest and complemented the verbal message.
Delivery helps to enhance message. Clear enunciation and pronunciation. Minimal vocal fillers (ex: "ahs," "uh/ums," or "you- knows”). Tone complemented the verbal message
Delivery adequate. Enunciation and pronunciation suitable. Noticeable verbal fillers (ex: "ahs," "uh/ums," or "you-knows”) present. Tone seemed inconsistent at times.
Delivery quality minimal. Regular verbal fillers (ex: "ahs," "uh/ums," or "you-knows”) present. Delivery problems cause disruption to message.
Many distracting errors in pronunciation and/or articulation. Monotone or inappropriate variation of vocal characteristics. Inconsistent with verbal message.
Excellent
5 points
Good
4 points
Average
3 points
Fair
2 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE - A
JUDGE
SCORE - N
D. Decorum, professional behavior toward other team
All statements and responses were respectful and appropriate. Decorum was professional toward the other team.
N/A Most statements and responses were respectful. Seldom interrupted or talked over other team members.
N/A
Decorum was not professional. Statements and responses were consistently not respectful. Interrupted or talked over other team members.
Excellent
5 points
Good
4 points
Average
3 points
Fair
2 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE - A
JUDGE
SCORE - N
E. Team Participation
Excellent example of shared collaboration. Three team members spoke and carried equal parts of the debate.
All but one person on the team was actively engaged in the debate,
The team worked together relatively well. Some team members spoke more than others.
The team did not work effectively together.
One team member dominated the debate.
8. Overall Debate Qualities (NEGATIVE)
Excellent
5 points
Good
4 points
Average
3 points
Fair
2 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE - A
JUDGE
SCORE - N
A. Voice Pitch, tempo, volume, quality
Each competitor's voice was loud enough to hear. The competitors varied rate & volume to enhance the speech. Appropriate pausing was employed.
Each competitor spoke loudly and clearly enough to be understood. The competitors varied rate OR volume to enhance the speech. Pauses were attempted.
Each competitor could be heard most of the time. The competitors attempted to use some variety in vocal quality, but not always successfully.
Judges had difficulty hearing /understanding much of the speech due to little variety in rate or volume.
The competitor’s voice is too low or monotone. Judges struggled to stay focused during the majority of presentation.
B. Stage Presence Poise, posture, eye contact, and enthusiasm
Movements & gestures were purposeful and enhanced the delivery of the speech and did not distract. Body language reflects comfort interacting with audience. Facial expressions and body language consistently generated a strong interest and enthusiasm for the topic.
The competitors maintained adequate posture and non- distracting movement during the speech. Some gestures were used. Facial expressions and body language sometimes generated an interest and enthusiasm for the topic.
Stiff or unnatural use of nonverbal behaviors. Body language reflects some discomfort interacting with audience. Limited use of gestures to reinforce verbal message. Facial expressions and body language are used to try to generate enthusiasm but seem somewhat forced.
Most of the competitor's posture, body language, and facial expressions indicated a lack of enthusiasm for the topic. Movements were distracting.
No attempt was made to use body movement or gestures to enhance the message. No interest or enthusiasm for the topic came through in presentation.
C. Diction, Pronunciation* and Grammar
Delivery emphasizes and enhances message. Clear enunciation and pronunciation. No vocal fillers (ex: "ahs," "uh/ums," or "you-knows”). Tone heightened interest and complemented the verbal message.
Delivery helps to enhance message. Clear enunciation and pronunciation. Minimal vocal fillers (ex: "ahs," "uh/ums," or "you- knows”). Tone complemented the verbal message
Delivery adequate. Enunciation and pronunciation suitable. Noticeable verbal fillers (ex: "ahs," "uh/ums," or "you-knows”) present. Tone seemed inconsistent at times.
Delivery quality minimal. Regular verbal fillers (ex: "ahs," "uh/ums," or "you-knows”) present. Delivery problems cause disruption to message.
Many distracting errors in pronunciation and/or articulation. Monotone or inappropriate variation of vocal characteristics. Inconsistent with verbal message.
BIOMEDICAL DEBATE
BRACKET SUMMARY SCORESHEET
Due to the bracketed nature of this round two event, this Summary Scoresheet will be used to calculate the total judge scores for the
Affirmative and Negative Teams in each paired matchup. Each judge score should be recorded below, and then the team’s average
score calculated. The team with the highest average score will be deemed the winner of the paired matchup and will advance to the
next paired matchup, following the schedule of the posted bracket.
Round: Section _______ AFFIRMATIVE = TEAM ID # _______ NEGATIVE = TEAM ID # _____
AFFIRMATIVE
TEAM ID
JUDGE # SCORE
JUDGE # SCORE
JUDGE # SCORE
TOTAL AVERAGE SCORE FOR AFFIRMATIVE
NEGATIVE
TEAM ID
JUDGE # SCORE
JUDGE # SCORE
JUDGE # SCORE
TOTAL AVERAGE SCORE FOR NEGATIVE
Winning Team = ID# ___________
Judge's Printed Name and Signature: ________________________________
WINNING TEAM
(check one)
Affirmative Team________
Negative Team ________
Biomedical Debate Seeding Chart for 8 Teams
Team # Score 1 Semi-Finals Finals
1 Highest
2 8
3
4 5
5
6 4
7 Championship
8 3 Match^ 1st Place
6
7
2nd Place
2
Consolation
Match (^) 3rd Place
4th Place
Instructions: Add the scores of team members to arrive at a team total, and then divide by the number of team members to get the team average.
Sort team averages from highest to lowest scores. The team with the highest score after the test is seeded #1, the team with the next highest score
is seeded #2, and so on until the chart is filled with the top 8 teams.
Note: The electronic version of the Biomedical Debate seeding process is available at the CE Useful Tools page.
Biomedical Debate Seeding Chart for 32 Teams
Team Score 1 Semi-Finals Finals Semi-Finals 2
1 Highest
12 25 Championship
Match for 1 st^ & 2nd
17 The two teams who
did not make it to
the Championship
match play in the
consolation match
26 20 1st Place 19
29 2nd Place
30 4 Consolation 3
31 3rd Place
4th Place
