Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 106 views

    Debate Rubrics

    Uploaded by

    api-235393740
    This document outlines criteria for evaluating the performance of affirmative and negative debate teams. It provides four criteria for each team: organization and clarity of arguments, use of arguments for or against the resolution, use of cross-examination and rebuttals, and presentation style. Each criterion is graded on a scale from 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Debate Rubrics

    Uploaded by

    api-235393740
    106 views5 pages
    This document outlines criteria for evaluating the performance of affirmative and negative debate teams. It provides four criteria for each team: organization and clarity of arguments, use of arguments for or against the resolution, use of cross-examination and rebuttals, and presentation style. Each criterion is graded on a scale from 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest.

    Original Title

    debate rubrics

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document outlines criteria for evaluating the performance of affirmative and negative debate teams. It provides four criteria for each team: organization and clarity of arguments, use of arguments for or against the resolution, use of cross-examination and rebuttals, and presentation style. Each criterion is graded on a scale from 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    106 views5 pages

    Debate Rubrics

    Uploaded by

    api-235393740
    This document outlines criteria for evaluating the performance of affirmative and negative debate teams. It provides four criteria for each team: organization and clarity of arguments, use of arguments for or against the resolution, use of cross-examination and rebuttals, and presentation style. Each criterion is graded on a scale from 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Levels of Performance for the Affirmative Team (John Locke)

    Criteria

    1 Grade

    1. Organization &
    Clarity:
    Main arguments and
    responses are outlined
    in a clear and orderly
    way.

    Completely clear and


    orderly presentation

    Mostly clear and orderly Clear in some parts


    in all parts
    but not overall

    2. Use of Argument:
    Reasons are given to
    support the arguments

    Very strong and


    persuasive arguments
    given throughout

    Many good arguments


    given, with only minor
    problems

    Some decent
    Few or no real
    arguments, but some arguments given, or
    significant problems all arguments given
    had significant
    problems

    3. Use of crossexamination and


    rebuttal:
    Identification of
    weakness in Negative
    teams arguments and
    ability to defend itself
    against attack.

    Excellent cross-exam
    and defense against
    Negative teams
    objections

    Good cross-exam and


    rebuttals, with only
    minor slip-ups

    Decent cross-exam
    and/or rebuttals,
    but with some
    significant
    problems

    Unclear and
    disorganized
    throughout

    Poor cross-exam or
    rebuttals, failure to
    point out problems
    in Negative teams
    position or failure to
    defend itself against
    attack.

    4. Presentation
    Style:
    Tone of voice, clarity
    of expression,
    precision of
    arguments all
    contribute to keeping
    audiences attention
    and persuading them
    of the teams case.

    All style features were


    used convincingly

    Most style features


    were used
    convincingly

    Few style features


    were used
    convincingly

    Very few style


    features were used,
    none of them
    convincingly

    Total Score

    ____
    __
    avera
    ge

    ____
    _

    Levels of Performance for the Negative Team: Thomas Hobbes

    Criteria
    1. Organization &
    Clarity:

    Main arguments
    and responses are
    outlined in a clear
    and orderly way.

    2. Use of
    Argument:

    Reasons are given


    against the
    resolution

    3. Use of crossexamination and


    rebuttal:
    Identification of
    weakness in
    Affirmative teams
    arguments and
    ability to defend
    itself against attack.

    Completely clear
    and orderly
    presentation

    Mostly clear and


    orderly in all parts

    Clear in some parts


    but not overall

    Unclear and
    disorganized
    throughout

    Very strong and


    persuasive
    arguments given
    throughout

    Many good
    arguments given,
    with only minor
    problems

    Some decent
    arguments, but
    some significant
    problems

    Few or no real
    arguments given, or
    all arguments given
    had significant
    problems

    Excellent crossexam and defense


    against Affirmative
    teams objections

    Good cross-exam
    and rebuttal, with
    only minor slip-ups

    Decent cross-exam
    and/or rebuttal, but
    with some
    significant problems

    Poor cross-exam or
    rebuttal, failure to
    point out problems
    in Affirmative
    teams position or
    failure to defend
    itself against attack.

    Grade:

    4.Presentation
    Style:
    Tone of voice,
    clarity of
    expression,
    precision of
    arguments all
    contribute to
    keeping audiences
    attention and
    persuading them of
    the teams case.

    All style features


    were used
    convincingly

    Most style features


    were used
    convincingly

    Few style features


    were used
    convincingly

    Very few style


    features were used,
    none of them
    convincingly

    Total Score

    ______
    average

    _____

    You might also like