Organization and Clarity: Viewpoints and responses Viewpoints and responses Viewpoints and responses Viewpoints and responses are are mostly illogical or are attempted but lack are mostly clear and exceptionally clear and fluidly unclear. Connections are fluidity; clarity and proficiently ordered ordered. vague and scattered connections between points are inconsistent
Use of Arguments, Examples Argumentative statements Argumentative statements Argumentative statements Argumentative statements are and Facts: are simple or incomplete; are briefly developed are logically presented expertly presented and Ideas are poorly Uses some relevant and developed; developed; SExI points (Statement, supported/illustrated; evidence to illustrate Central issues are clearly Intellectual analysis of issue is Explanation, Illustration) are Case studies may be poorly argument but explained; speech clearly established through provided to support chosen and/or irrelevant, comprehension of effectively simplifies key critical thinking; Addresses may rely heavily on evidence/studies may seem aspects of argument; variables in statement and anecdotes inconsistent; Case studies are well- successfully breaks down arguments/support may be chosen and analogy well complexities; repetitive utilized Focus of illustrating points rely on case studies and Analogy; Anecdotes may have been successfully attempted
Use of Rebuttal/Refutation: Ineffective, little or no Rebuttal is attempted, but Rebuttal is mostly Rebuttal is specific to refutation. Is confused few effective counter- effective and addresses arguments made in the opposing easily by opponent and may arguments are made; most arguments made by team’s opening statement; not reconstruct argument; points made may not all opposing team; engages Expertly reconstructs his/her does not engage opponent address opponent’s opponent team’s argument; skillfully arguments; at times debate engages with or “clashes may seem like “passing with” opponent; may use both ships in the night” implicit and explicit refutation
Language Style: Student language style is Student sometimes Student has a clear sense of Student has a palpable sense of choppy and does not conveys a sense of audience audience; effectively uses audience; expertly uses reflect a sense of audience. but frequently incorporates rhetorical devices; may rhetorical devices of speech colloquialisms; speech occasionally incorporate an writing; language seems to have may frequently incorporate “um” or “like” but it is not a flawless fluidity “ums” and “likes”; may distracting unsuccessfully attempt rhetorical devices.
Presentation Style: Few or no style features Some style features were Most style features were Many or all style features were were used. Not convincing. used convincingly. used convincingly. used convincingly. tone of voice, use of gestures, level of enthusiasm