MiddleSchoolPublicDebateProgram(MSPDP)JudgingRubric2010 middleschooldebate.

com
Score 59 and lower 6064 Description

Argumentation

Refutation

Structure

Presentation

59shouldbereservedforstudentswhoareunsuccessfulasdebatersaswellasotherwiseuncooperative,meanspirited,ordisruptiveduringa debate.Thisisamostunusualcircumstance.Lowerpointsoftenexcludedebatersfromawards.Ifajudgegivesastudentascorepointslower than60,she/heisindicatingthatthedebater,basedonthisoneperformance,shouldbeineligibleforanyindividualorteamtournamentaward.

Clearlybelowaverageforan experienceddebater.Thisscore maybeslightlybelowaveragefor aneworanxiousspeaker.Lower markingsofthissortsimply indicatethatastudenthasyetto masteranyofthecoreelements ofpublicspeakingand argumentation.Alowerscore doesnotindicateafailureonthe studentspart.Itsimplyreveals skilllevelbasedonasingle debate. Thisisabelowaverage performanceforanexperienced debaterbutmaybeamore commonaveragescorefor beginningdebaters.Ingeneral, thespeakerismodestly successfulinonemajor performanceelement(pubic speaking,organization, argumentation,refutation, interactiveelementssuchasPOIs andheckling,etc.)butis ineffectiveorunsuccessfulin othermajorelements. Thisisanearaverage performanceforanexperienced debaterandanaverageorslightly aboveaverageperformancefora newdebater.Thespeakeris inconsistentsomespeech elementsaredonewelland othersareunsuccessful. DoesnotusetheARE(assertion reasoningevidence)formatfor anargument.Offersassertions withlittleanalysisornegligible reasoning.Thereislittleorno evidencetosupport argumentation.Thespeakerhas likelycopiedargumentsfrom othersourcesorteammatesbut doesnotunderstandtheissues. Thespeakerisunlikelytoamplify theargumentsofpartners. DoesnotgenerallyusetheARE format,althoughtheremaybean exceptionforoneortwo arguments.Littleevidence contemporaryandhistorical examples,statisticalinformation, experttestimonyisusedbythe speaker.Thespeakerislikelyto haveinconsistencies,logicgaps, oroneormorefallaciesinmajor arguments.Littleintegrationof issuesfromteammates. Thisspeakerisunlikelytoreply totheoverwhelminglymajorityof majorpointsfromtheotherside. Thisspeakerislikelytorepeat her/hisownargumentswithout expandingthemorcomparing themtotheargumentsfromthe opposingside.Theresultisthat thereislittleclashinthedebate. Thespeakerislikelytoeither acceptorrejectallPOIs. Disorganized.Doesnothavea narrativestructuretothespeech (introductionbody conclusion).Argumentsarenot clearlydistinguishedfromoneto another.Thespeakerdoesnot replytoopposingissuesinan orderlymanner.Itisdifficultto followthespeech,duetothelack oforganization.Thespeakeris notusingthefullamountof allottedspeakingtime. Thereislittleorganizationtothe fullspeech,althoughoneormore individualpointsmaybe appropriatelyorganized.The speakerdoesnothavean attentiongettingintroductionnor apowerfulconclusion.The speakerisdifficulttofollowfora significantamountoftime.The speakerisnotclearwhenmoving fromonetopointtoanother.May usefullspeakingtime,butdoes noteffectivelyallocatetimetokey issues. The speaker has a basic structure (introduction, body, conclusion) but strays from it during the presentation. The speaker is likely to be able to organize her/his own arguments but loses structure when trying to address opponents points. The speaker gets distracted or slows the pace too much when confronted with POIs/heckles. Thespeakerisdistracted, anxious,andhaltingindelivery. Thereislittleeyecontact excessiveuseofnotesinhibits establishingaconnectionwiththe judge.Thespeakermumblesor hasnumerousvocalpauses umm,youknow,whatever. Thepersondisruptsthe effectivenessofpartners speeches(interruptions, excessivepassingofnotes). Thespeakerlosesclarityfor sustainedperiods.Thereispoor eyecontactandinfrequentuseof gestures.Thespeakerdoesnot soundconfidentorconvincing. Thespeakerrarelyattemptsa POI;thespeakerisdistractedby POIsfromtheopposingteam.The speakerdoesnotworkeffectively withteammatesorparticipatein positiveornegativeheckling.The speakerdoesnotusefull speakingtimeyetneedstoaddto thespeech. Speaksclearlybutthereare noticeablepronunciationand otherverbalerrorsthatare sufficientlydistractingforthe audienceordisruptthenatural flowofthespeech.Thespeaker makesPOIsbuttheyaregenerally obviousquestions,notcarefully consideredoranalyzedones.

6569

Thisspeakerisnotabletoclash withorreplytothemajorityof argumentsfromtheopposing side.Thisdebaterismoreaptto repeatpreviousideasratherthan develop,analyze,orcompare them.Thespeakerdoesnotuse advancedrefutationtechniques, forexample,evaluating opportunitycostsandopponents underlyingassumptions.

7074

Thespeakerclearlyunderstands argumentationbutonly occasionallyusesARE.The speakerisalsolikelytoconfuse reasoningandevidence,offering onlyoneoftheelementsrather thanboth.Thespeakerdoesnot makeeffectiveargumentative POIsorheckles.Significance establishedforonly12issues.

Thespeakerismuchmorelikely todiscussher/hisownarguments thanansweranopponents argumentsinadirectandforceful way,althoughthereissome refutationoflimitedeffectiveness. Thespeakeroffersmoregeneral refutationratherthana combinationofgeneraland specificcounters.

 Score 7579 Description

Thisisanaverageandslightly aboveaverageperformance.The speakeriscompetentanddoes somethingswellbutisjustas likelytomakesignificanterrors. Thisisagoodspeechthe speakeriscapableandconfident, althoughthereare inconsistenciesinstyleand substance.Thespeakerknows her/hisroleandtriesto accomplishit. Thisisasolid,clearlyabove averageperformance.Thisisa consistentlygooddebatespeech. Thespeakerappearstobe comfortablewiththeformat, eagertoparticipate,and confident.Thereare inconsistenciesinthe performancebuttheyarelikely tobeminordistractions. Sufficientlystrongpresentation thatanineffectivereplywillbea seriousriskfortheopponents. Thisisanextraordinarilyfine speechfromaconsistentlystrong debaterdeliveringaclearlywell aboveaveragespeech.Confident andcapablethisspeechisan effectivemodelfornewdebaters tolearnthecraftofpublic speakinganddebating. Nearbrilliant.Thisisan outstandingdebaterdeliveringa highlysuccessfulspeechinALL respects.Thepresentationwould bearousingspeechforageneral audienceandasubstantive presentationforanaudienceof fieldexperts.
Anearflawlessperformance.Itis difficulttoidentifyanyerrorof omissionorcommission.A98100 isflawlessacombinationof WinstonChurchill,BarbaraJordan, andDenzelWashington.Itishighly unlikelythattherewillevenbeone speechofthisrankinginseveral years.

Argumentation
ThespeakerfollowstheARE modelconsistently,although someassertionsdonothave sufficientreasoningand manydonothavestrong evidence.Itismorelikelythatthe speakerrepeatsreasoningas evidence.Thespeaker competentlyidentifiesobvious majorissuesbutdoesnot developnuancedorcomplex issues. Thespeakerisabletomake effectiveargumentsthroughout thespeech.UsingtheARE format,thespeakerconsistently appliesreasoningand,moreoften thannot,alsopresentsevidence tosupportissues.Thedebater appearspreparedtodiscussthe importantissuesofthedebate. Thespeakeruseschallenging argumentativePOIsandheckles, althoughdoesnotdothismore thanonceortwice. Thespeakerisabletoestablish clearpositionsthatdemanda sophisticatedreply.Thespeaker usesAREwithhighlyeffective reasoningandconsistent applicationofdifferentvarieties ofevidence.Explainsand analyzesevidence.Significance establishedforallissues. Notonlyisthespeakerableto makepowerfularguments,but thespeakerisabletodosoon thespot.Theissuesaredetailed andcomplex,withsubstantial evidencetosupportsound reasoning.Evidenceisdetailed andwellanalyzed.
Sophisticatedunderstandingof issuesandopponentstrategies. Developsargumentswithmultiple causesanddiverseconsequences. Createscleverimpromptu arguments.Usesdifferenttypesof evidenceandintroducesand analyzesmoreevidenceasthe debatedevelops.

Refutation
Thespeakerunderstandsher/his ownpositionsbutspendstoo muchtimerepeatingthoseideas ratherthandevelopingor amplifyingthem.Unlikelyto establishthequalitative(matter ofdegree)andquantitative (numberaffected)significanceof issues.Unlikelytocompare opposingviews.Usesdirect refutationwellbutofferslittle advancedrefutation. Thespeakermaintainsher/his ownorteamspositions, supplementingthemwith thoughtfulanalysisandexamples. Thespeakerhasmoredifficulty withtheopposingteams argumentsbutisableto effectivelyreplytosomeofthe majorargumentsoftheother side.Thespeakerprimarilyuses onlydirectrefutation(simple disagreement)butdoesso consistentlyandeffectively. Thisspeakerusesdirect refutationandadvanced refutationtechniques,including opportunitycostevaluationand turn/captureofopposing positions.Outstanding expressionsofsignificanceand impactassessmentwithopposing sidesmajorarguments. Understandshow argumentsinterrelate.The speakerinvestigates inconsistenciesamong opponentsclaims.Identifiesand exploitsopportunitycostsand underlyingandhidden assumptions.
Regularlyintegratesadvanced refutationintoargumentation, usingideasfromopponentsto advancethespeakersownside. UsesPOIsandhecklingas opportunitiesforpowerful refutation.Accountsfororhasan outstandingreplytoevery importantopposingpoint.

Structure
Organizedandgenerally effective.Attemptsanarrative structurebutisnotableto consistentlyadheretoitatoneor twopointsofthespeech.Loses someclarityintegratingopposing arguments.Effectiveuseoftime throughoutthepresentationthe speechisbalancedwithan appropriatemixofthespeakers argumentationandanswersto theopponentsissues. Simple,effectivenarrative structureforownargumentsbut hassomedifficultyintegrating multiplecounterpositionsinto speech.Usesspeakingtime effectivelyusesthefullamount oftimeandappropriately allocatestimetotheimportant issues.Thespeechissufficiently organizedthatitisreasonable thataudiencemembersnot takingnotesareabletofollowthe developmentofissues. Logicalorganization,whichis easytofollowandflow.May haveeitheraneffectiveintroor conclusionbutunlikelytohave both.Abletoorganizeown positionsandopponentsintoa wellintegratedspeech.

Presentation
Speaksinaclear,comprehensible way.Thereisconsistent nonverbalcommunication(eye contactandgestures).The speakingstyleiscompetentbut notsupremelyconfident.Speaks inamonotoneratherthanwitha dramatictone.Attempts12POIs andgivesreasonablebut unspectacularanswerstoPOIs whenholdingthefloor. Speaksinanengagingmanner clearbutonlyoccasionallyhighly entertainingandpowerfully persuasive.Demonstrates confidenceandcredibility.POIs offeredconciselywithclear relevancetothedebate.There areoccasionalverbalpauses (ummm)buttheyarenota distraction.Maybeanineffective orconfusing,unclear communicatorat1or2notable timesduringthespeech. Ananimatedspeakerableto presentaclearandconvincing case.Persuasiveandcredible. StrongPOIsandrepliestoPOIs. Infrequentlydistractedbythe otherteam.Strongpublicspeaker inallbutonerespect.

8084

8589 9094 95 and higher

Strongnarrativestructure. Persuasiveintroductionand conclusion.Speechis sophisticatedandyet,easyto followandunderstand. Seamlesslyintegratesarguments frombothsidesinonecompelling presentation.

Usesaclear,wellorganized (effectivestructureandclear transitions)andefficientnarrative speechstructure.Despiteargument complexity,thespeechcanbe followedbynearlyanylistener. Speakeriscapableofrestoring ordertoevenaconfusingdebate.

Apersuasivepresentationthat effectivelyusesrhetoricaldevices likehumor,effectivepausing,and vocalinflectiontoadddepthto thespeech.Thoroughlyengaged thespeakerattemptsmanyclever POIsandrepliestothem effectively.Effective argumentativeheckling.

Hasexceptionalknowledgeabout thesubject,deliveredinahighly entertainingandinformative manner.Outstandingverbaland nonverbalskills,includingeye contact,volume,pace,clarity,and humor.Speechwouldmakean idealdemonstrationforeven experiencedpeers.