• Other

I believe that the adjudicator did not apply the criteria correctly for 3 of the categories in which points were deducted.

To begin, in the “Topic” category, the judge stated “Good topic. Connect it to the audience right away.” The speaker started with “Imagine this…” and described a scenario where a young adult was not compensated for his work. The speaker used an attention getter to create a connection with the audience right away. I think almost everyone in the audience can relate to having a job, and what it might feel like to not be paid for it.

In the “Style of Delivery” category, the judge stated “I didn’t notice many language skills/stylistic devices (repetition, alliteration, parallel structure, etc.) I’m really impressed with your memorization!” I believe a point should not have been deducted, because the criterion states “Are stylistic devices used appropriately?” The judge deducted a point for not noticing “many” stylistic devices; however, there was no comment about not using them correctly. I think this was an error of application of the criteria, and the point should not have been deducted.

Lastly, in the “Physical Delivery” category, the judge stated “…Your final hand gestures were also gimmicky, like someone said you needed to add more gestures, so you found random spots to add them.” I feel like this was a bit harsh considering the term “gimmicky” isn’t even applied correctly, and over the course of the season, the speaker has received comments from other adjudicators to add more gestures so he did. The judge also commented that “When walking from one spot to another, do it only when it feels natural. I like that you use your space, but it seemed overly forced.” This is a frustrating comment, because at the district festival, at conference, and at sub-district he was given positive feedback on his movement. It’s incredibly difficult for a young adult to be complimented on something, and then at the final contest–at state, he is told the opposite and loses a point for it.

Overall, this student memorized an 8-minute speech and received scores worthy of a silver medal at District (24, 23, 23). He performed the same speech at state, didn’t change anything, yet received a 22. I strongly feel that he deserves at least one of those points back, if not all of them.

The referee committee read the comments from the adjudicator and believed that the comments did justify point deductions. We do not agree with some of the language used such as “gimmicky”; however, the adjudicator did justify point deductions. Under “Topic” and appearing engaged with topic, there is a comment about connecting to the audience. Under “Style of Delivery”, there is comment about stylistic devices. In the definition of the category, effective oratory is “characterized by clear, vivid, and forceful language and appropriate stylistic devices such as metaphor, comparison/contrast, irony, allusion, analogy, etc.” Adjudicator comments about lack of devices in appropriate area of evaluation. Under “Physical Delivery” the adjudicator commented about gestures.