Debate Grading Rubric

	A	B	C	D	E
1	Debate Rubric v0.1
2	Debate Grading Rubric
3		1	2	3	4
4	Spelling/Grammar/Mechanics (15%)	Numerous errors in all aspects of the mechanics of writing. Spelling and grammar errors interfere with readability. No effort was made to proofread. The argument is terribly formatted, making it incredibly difficult to read.	The story shows no evidence of proofreading. Aspects of the argument are difficult to understand, but the majority can be gathered through some effort. The effort to read is distracting and takes the focus away from the content.	There are some minor errors in spelling, grammar, or mechanics, though an effort of proofreading is seen. The overall flow of the argument is detracted by a few small mistakes, but the formatting and structure allow for focus to remain on the content and not the errors.	There are few to no errors in spelling, grammar, or mechanics, and the argument is properly formatted in all aspects. The mechanics and formatting on display enhance the argument without detracting in any way.
5	Creativity (20%)	There is a complete lack of original ideas on display, making it obvious that little to no effort was applied. The character's thoughts are clearly derivative of other analysis of the topic.	The argument's concept is typical and straightforward but it's lacks individual thought. The argument is underdeveloped and may be difficult to follow. The character's thoughts are unoriginal and do not add to the debate in any way.	The argument is interesting and involves several points that are fully thought out, though may rely on overused clichés. The character's thoughts are detailed and contributes to the overall debate. The argument's progression is well thought out and include some unique perspective and analysis.	The argument is developed in an excellent manner that results in a well thought out and engaging analysis. The character's thoughts are new and novel, without relying on clichés in an obvious way. Additionally, the argument's progression includes unique perspective that add to the discussion of the topic.
6	Realism (25%)	The argument lacks any semblance of realism, does not properly make use of established DB/SW canon. The argument includes excessive use of real world facts and circumstances or parts of DB/SW canon their character would not be aware of. Language is inappropriate for the Star Wars universe. The given Presumption may have been adhered to very poorly, or ignored outright.	The writer appears to have included basic facts and circumstances from DB/SW canon, but has made only cursory references to them. The argument includes references to real world facts and circumstances or parts of DB/SW canon their character would not be aware of. Some language is inappropriate for the Star Wars universe. The given Presumption may have been adhered to poorly.	The writer's facts and circumstances are grounded in the reality of SW/DB canon. There are minor questions relating to the characters' knowledge of DB/SW canon but no reference to real world facts and circumstances. The Presumption is directly responded to but may include minor inconsistencies on the character's stance.	The writer's facts and circumstances are grounded in the reality of SW/DB canon, demonstrating exceptional attention to detail. No reference are included to real world facts and circumstance and the only includes aspects of SW/DB canon that the character would be aware of. The Presumption is directly responded to and leaves no question as to the character's stance on the issue.
7	Argument (40%)	Debate elements, including a central claim and supporting proof, are without a clear focus or missing. The writer's central claim is either very difficult to follow or not present. There is seemingly no supporting evidence or the evidence provided is irrelevant to the central claim.	Debate elements, including a central claim and supporting proof, are apparent but inconsistent. The writer's central claim is identifiable but it is difficult to follow. There is supporting information but it only casually related to their central claim.	Debate elements, including a central claim and supporting proof, are present and easily identifiable. The writer's central claim is obvious and supported by the subsequent facts and circumstances. There is sufficient supporting information and it is directly related to their central claim.	Debate elements, including a central claim and supporting proof, are used extremely effectively. The writer's claim is explicitly obvious and stated exceptionally well. The supporting information included perfectly bolsters the central claim.
8
9	From Wikipedia: Articulate gradations of quality. These hierarchical categories should concisely describe the levels of quality (ranging from bad to good) or development (ranging from beginning to mastery). They can be based on the discussion of the good versus not-so-good work samples or immature versus developed samples. Using a conservative number of gradations keeps the scoring rubric user-friendly while allowing for fluctuations that exist within the average range.
10
11	See sample fiction rubric for a general idea.
12	Published by Google Sheets–Report Abuse–Updated automatically every 5 minutes
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100