Reimagining debate adjudication: A case study on the Munāẓara Engagement Model (MEM) and judging paradigms

This thesis presents a proposed judging framework for the Munāẓara Engagement Model (MEM), a modern debate format inspired by the tradition of Munāẓara. While traditional Munāẓara emphasized inquiry, respectful objection, and truth-seeking, it did not include a formal judging structure. MEM builds on this foundation and introduces the role of the judge to evaluate the quality of argumentation and guide the debate process in a competition setting. Drawing from a range of established debate models—such as Parliamentary, Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, and others—this study considers various judging paradigms including critical thinking, communication, hypothesis-testing, tabula rasa, game theory, and also proposes the "Ādāb paradigm." These paradigms are examined in light of MEM's unique goals and structure. The judge's role is explored in two dimensions: institutional, which deals with procedure and structure, and assessment-based, which focuses on evaluating argumentation. The proposed rubric based on the dialectical, rhetorical and logical focal lenses was tested through a series of mock MEM trials to evaluate its clarity and practicality, providing a foundation for further development and refinement.