|
|
|
|
|
| few arguments, marginal relevancy, unclear |
more than one clear, relevant argument |
multiple, interesting arguments |
| arguments are not supported with evidence |
evidence for key premise in arguments |
strong evidence for all arguments |
| no counter arguments |
no missed arguments, one clear rebuttal |
devastating rebuttals and/or new arguments to support antithesis |
| poorly organized, hesitations, flat, distracting mannerisms |
crisp delivery, some flair |
outstanding speech; uses humour and other rhetorical devices |
| no set-up or follow-through; some contradictions |
speakers share in partial development of arguments |
focused and seamless presentation, balance of styles |
| Poor definition; unpersuasive and incomprehensible |
Good definition; more "hits" than "misses," generally solid performance |
Good definition; perfect execution, interesting arguments, entertaining and persuasive |
|
TOTAL
Best Debater(s):
|
![[PDF]](../images/icon_pdf.gif){kind=icon}
Download this as a PDF
|