18/11/2016

DEBATEGRADINGRUBRIC

DEBATEGRADINGRUBRIC
Ontherightsideoftherubric,pleasewritethenumberrepresentingwhatyouthinkwastheperformancelevelofthedebateteamin
questionforeachcriterionbelow.Thencalculatetheaverageforeachteam.

LevelsofPerformanceforAFFIRMATIVETeam

Criteria
1.Organization&
Clarity:

Grade:

Completelyclear
andorderly
presentation

Mostlyclearand
orderlyinall
parts

Clearinsome
partsbutnot
overall

Unclearand
disorganized
throughout

Verystrongand
persuasive
argumentsgiven
throughout

Manygood
argumentsgiven,
withonlyminor
problems

Somedecent
arguments,but
somesignificant
problems

Fewornoreal
argumentsgiven,or
allargumentsgiven
hadsignificant
problems

Excellentcross
examanddefense
againstNegative
teamsobjections

Goodcrossexam
andrebuttals,
withonlyminor
slipups

Decentcross
examand/or
rebuttals,but
withsome
significant
problems

Poorcrossexamor
rebuttals,failureto
pointoutproblems
inNegativeteams
positionorfailure
todefenditself
againstattack.

Allstylefeatures
wereused
convincingly

Moststyle
featureswere
used
convincingly

Fewstyle
featureswere
used
convincingly

Veryfewstyle
featureswereused,
noneofthem
convincingly

TOTAL
SCORE:

Mainargumentsand
responsesareoutlinedin
aclearandorderlyway.

2.Useof
Argument:
Reasonsaregivento
supporttheresolution

3.Useofcross
examinationand
rebuttal:
Identificationof
weaknessinNegative
teamsargumentsand
abilitytodefenditself
againstattack.

4.Presentation
Style:
Toneofvoice,clarityof
expression,precisionof
argumentsallcontribute
tokeepingaudiences
attentionandpersuading
themoftheteamscase.

_____
(Divideby4)
AVERAGEFORAFFIRMATIVETEAM:_______
LevelsofPerformanceforNEGATIVETeam

Criteria
1.Organization&
Clarity:

Completelyclear
andorderly
presentation

Mostlyclearand
orderlyinall
parts

http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/phil338/hout338rubric.htm

2
Clearinsome
partsbutnot
overall

1
Unclearand
disorganized
throughout

Grade:

1/2

18/11/2016

DEBATEGRADINGRUBRIC

Mainargumentsand
responsesareoutlinedin
aclearandorderlyway.

2.Useof
Argument:
Reasonsaregiven
againsttheresolution

3.Useofcross
examinationand
rebuttal:
Identificationof
weaknessinAffirmative
teamsargumentsand
abilitytodefenditself
againstattack.

4.Presentation
Style:

Verystrongand
persuasive
argumentsgiven
throughout

Manygood
argumentsgiven,
withonlyminor
problems

Somedecent
arguments,but
somesignificant
problems

Fewornoreal
argumentsgiven,or
allargumentsgiven
hadsignificant
problems

Excellentcross
examanddefense
against
Affirmative
teamsobjections

Goodcrossexam
andrebuttal,with
onlyminorslip
ups

Decentcross
examand/or
rebuttal,butwith
somesignificant
problems

Poorcrossexamor
rebuttal,failureto
pointoutproblems
inAffirmative
teamspositionor
failuretodefend
itselfagainstattack.

Allstylefeatures
wereused
convincingly

Moststyle
featureswere
used
convincingly

Fewstyle
featureswere
used
convincingly

Veryfewstyle
featureswereused,
noneofthem
convincingly

TOTAL
SCORE:

Toneofvoice,clarityof
expression,precisionof
argumentsallcontribute
tokeepingaudiences
attentionandpersuading
themoftheteamscase.

_______
(Divideby4)
AVERAGEFORNEGATIVETEAM:_______

STUDENTNUMBER(toremainconfidential):_______________________________

http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/phil338/hout338rubric.htm

2/2