Canadian Debate STEM+ Contest

100% free & 200% fun

A contest to boost your confidence.

$0.00

The best thing in the world are free

You may refer to the detailed steps to complete the enrollment process for the individuals. For school registration, contact us at [email protected].

Most rewarding contest

Infinite return on your investment

Up to $250.00 Prize

Medals & Scholarships

School Grades: 5-10

Registration Closes: 19^th May 2023

Preliminary Round (2022): Results

Final Round: 3^rd June 2023

Final Results (2022): 16th July

Debate Contest finals · 2023 evaluation rubric

Original historical rubric. Each criterion uses the published bands: 18–20 Excellent, 13–17 Good, 8–12 Fair and 0–7 Poor.

Arguments & Reasoning

Well constructed, persuasive, strong arguments and analysis

18–20 · Excellent

Provided strong, well constructed arguments with good analysis in a sequential and logical manner

13–17 · Good

Provided good arguments and often provided analysis in a logical manner. However, minor omissions were noticed.

8–12 · Fair

Some relevant arguments provided however, they were not explained properly, very limited relevance to the topic

0–7 · Poor

Very few or no relevant arguments provided and were not explained to the audience. Moreover, the main ideas are not clear and confusing

Content & Evidence

Supporting details, examples and logic, use of Rhetoric

18–20 · Excellent

The main arguments are clear and are well supported by detailed and accurate information, examples or evidence. Thoroughly develops the topic with relevant facts, concrete details, quotations, and examples.

13–17 · Good

The main arguments are clear, but the details are somewhat lacking and not linked fully. The development of the content looks good; limited evidence of relevant facts, examples etc.

8–12 · Fair

The main ideas are somewhat clear, but the development is all over. Not many supporting details, facts, or examples are provided to support the ideas expressed.

0–7 · Poor

No or very little supporting details / Irrelevant or unrelated detailed if provided at all. Mostly personal opinions with no evidence or logic

Organization

Structure, format transition, components of structure - Intro, Main Ideas, Conclusion

18–20 · Excellent

Information is presented in a logical order. Inviting & compelling lead and conclusion, consistent control of direction throughout. Roadmapping and strong team work is evident

13–17 · Good

Proper format, roadmapping and structure can be seen; however, the transitions are merely suitable and somewhat evident. Teamwork though present can be stronger

8–12 · Fair

Some sense of direction and a somewhat logical and effective structure. No roadmapping, minimum transitions and basic or irrelevant lead and/or conclusion; limited teamwork

0–7 · Poor

No roadmapping or proper introduction and an abrupt ending with no conclusion. Illogical order with no recognizable structure. The ideas and points made seem to be all over with and no teamwork

Refutation

Challenge the validity, relevance or practicality of an argument

18–20 · Excellent

Many effective counterarguments were made that mitigated most of the other team's arguments. Effective summary, good rebuild of their arguments and strong conviction on their side.

13–17 · Good

Some effective counterarguments were made that refuted and mitigated many of the opposing team's arguments. Good rebuild and summary of their own points at the end

8–12 · Fair

Few effective counterarguments were made that mitigated other team arguments Somewhat of a summary at end of their side

0–7 · Poor

Barely any / ineffective counterarguments were made. No summary or proper closing at end

Presentation & Delivery

Clarity, inflection, audience attention, flow and eloquence of speech

18–20 · Excellent

Good flow, strong use of tone of voice, use of gestures, and level of enthusiasm are convincing to audience. Strong eye contact & audience engagement. Use of strong vocabulary and terms.

13–17 · Good

Often engaged well, was able to use rhetoric well to convince on several points. Eye contact was often paid some attention to audience. Used speaking time effectively

8–12 · Fair

Rarely engaged the audience, more of a readout, stilted or uneven flow. Some use of rhetoric and used more than half of their speaking time.

0–7 · Poor

Not clear, didn't engage the audience. The flow was interrupted, long uncomfortable pauses, very repetitive, didn't use their speaking time effectively

Debra Miko

CMSC Advisory Board Member

Debra Miko is the executive director of The Speech and Debate Canada Foundation. During her impressive tenure at the CSDF, she rebuilt the organization to become accountable to its members and focus on our youth first, all while growing the nationwide debate activity. She has worked with hundreds of students across Canada and internationally as a judge and supervisor for the Canadian National Team.

Her enthusiasm for Canadian youth is second to none, as she puts their welfare at the forefront of every decision. We are extremely fortunate that she is on our team! 

HELP US TO HELP OTHERS

SPREAD AWARENESS AND DONATE

We want to help students all across the globe. Please help us spread the word. We are confident that the participants will have fun solving some of the coolest math problems with our unique approach, allowing them to try each problem more than once.

We also need funds to run this program, especially for licensing costs involving specific tools. The anticipated cost to facilitate this is over $15,000. We are relying on the generosity of our donors to help meet this cost, as we will not be charging the students any contest fees. Therefore, we will greatly appreciate your support and donation.