Skip to main content
iRubric: Presidential Debate - Detailed rubric

iRubric: Presidential Debate - Detailed rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Presidential Debate - Detailed 
See a condensed version here: https://www.rcampus.com/rubricshowc.cfm?code=G24AWW9&sp=true
Rubric Code: H24AWW8
By teachme
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: (General)  
Type: (Other)  
Grade Levels: (none)

Powered by iRubric Presidential Debate
  Excellent

4 pts

Good

3 pts

Fair

2 pts

Poor

1 pts

N/A

Not Applicable

(N/A)

General Knowledge

This criterion assesses the depth and accuracy of the participant's knowledge on the debate topics. Excellent content knowledge demonstrates a well-rounded understanding of the issues, supported by strong evidence and examples. Points are awarded based on how well the arguments reflect expertise and how thoroughly the debater presents their case.
Excellent

Demonstrates in-depth knowledge of the issues, provides well-supported arguments, and offers detailed examples.
Good

Demonstrates good knowledge of the issues, with arguments supported by some relevant facts and examples.
Fair

Shows some knowledge of the issues but lacks depth or sufficient examples to fully support arguments.
Poor

Shows little understanding of the issues, with unsupported or irrelevant arguments and examples.
N/A

Not Applicable
Relevance to Topic

This criterion evaluates how well the debater stays focused on the issues being discussed. A participant who consistently addresses the specific topic at hand, without deviating or going off on tangents, scores higher. Debaters should respond directly to the questions posed and ensure their statements relate closely to the debate’s core issues.
Excellent

Arguments are consistently focused on the debate topic and reflect clear understanding of the issues.
Good

Arguments are mostly focused on the topic, with some minor deviations or unclear relevance at times.
Fair

Some arguments stray from the topic or demonstrate only a basic understanding of the issues.
Poor

Arguments are frequently off-topic or fail to demonstrate understanding of the debate issues.
N/A

Not Applicable
Falsehoods

This measures the accuracy of the participant’s statements during the debate. Any falsehoods, exaggerations, or misleading claims lower the score. A debater should present only factually correct information, and the presence of untruths—whether intentional or not—will negatively impact the evaluation.
Excellent

No falsehoods or misleading statements; all claims are factually accurate and well-supported.
Good

Minor inaccuracies or unintentional misleading statements; generally factually correct.
Fair

Several inaccuracies or misleading statements; some facts are unsupported or misrepresented.
Poor

Many false or misleading statements, with little to no factual support or fact-checking efforts.
N/A

Not Applicable
Fact-Checking

Fact-checking involves verifying the accuracy of both the debater’s own statements and those of their opponent. Points are awarded for correctly identifying errors or inaccuracies in the opponent’s claims, and for referencing reliable sources to support corrections. Effective fact-checking strengthens a participant’s credibility.
Excellent

Offers clear, accurate fact-checks of opponent's claims, citing credible sources where necessary.
Good

Provides some fact-checking of opponent’s claims, with most sources being credible.
Fair

Fact-checking is minimal or unclear; some sources lack credibility or are not cited.
Poor

Little to no fact-checking is provided, or incorrect facts are presented without source verification.
N/A

Not Applicable
Civility & Respect

Assesses how respectful the debater is towards their opponent, moderator and the audience. Maintaining a professional, courteous demeanor, even in disagreement, is crucial for scoring well in this area. Debaters who avoid name-calling, rude comments, and condescending behavior will score higher, while lapses in civility will lower the score. Also evaluates whether the debater follows the rules and respects the moderator, including refraining from interruptions and respecting time limits.
Excellent

Consistently respectful and professional tone, even when challenging opposing views. Follows all rules, respects the moderator’s authority, and does not interrupt or exceed time limits.
Good

Generally respectful, with occasional lapses in tone or minor interruptions. Generally follows the rules and respects the moderator, with only minor lapses or brief interruptions.
Fair

Respectful tone is inconsistent; interruptions or minor incivility occur frequently. Occasionally ignores rules, interrupts, or disregards the moderator’s instructions.
Poor

Often disrespectful, with frequent interruptions, dismissiveness, or inappropriate comments. Frequently interrupts, disregards time limits, and shows lack of respect for the moderator’s authority.
N/A

Not Applicable
Personal Attacks

This criterion focuses on the presence or absence of ad hominem attacks. A personal attack targets the opponent rather than their argument or policy positions. Debaters should focus on critiquing ideas and policies instead of attacking the personal characteristics or behavior of their opponent. The more a debater engages in personal attacks, the lower their score.
Excellent

No personal attacks; debate is focused solely on issues and policies.
Good

Rare minor personal attacks, but primarily issue-focused.
Fair

Several personal attacks detract from issue-focused arguments.
Poor

Frequent personal attacks, with little to no focus on issues or policies.
N/A

Not Applicable
Demeanor

Demeanor refers to the participant’s overall composure, Tone and Escalation Management, and body language during the debate. A debater who appears calm, confident, and poised is seen more favorably. Nervousness, aggression, or distracting body language, such as excessive gesturing or visible frustration, can negatively affect the score.
Excellent

Calm, composed, and confident throughout the debate, using appropriate body language and tone.

Maintains a calm, composed tone throughout; manages escalation in a constructive way, de-escalating when needed.
Good

Generally composed, with occasional moments of tension or nervousness, but mostly appropriate demeanor.

Generally maintains control but may allow some moments of tension to escalate; overall demeanor remains appropriate.
Fair

Shows signs of tension or nervousness, with inconsistent body language or tone.

Allows tone to escalate or become aggressive, with difficulty managing tense moments.
Poor

Frequently tense, nervous, or combative, with inappropriate body language or tone.

Escalates tension frequently, with an aggressive or combative tone that disrupts the debate.
N/A

Not Applicable
Presentation Skills

This criterion evaluates how well the debater communicates with the audience. Effective use of volume, tone, clarity, and eye contact all contribute to a strong presentation. Points are awarded for engaging the audience and conveying ideas clearly. Distracting behaviors or poor vocal projection can lower the score.
Excellent

Excellent clarity, volume, and engagement with the audience; uses body language effectively.
Good

Good clarity and volume, with some engagement with the audience; body language is mostly appropriate.
Fair

Some issues with clarity, volume, or engagement; body language is occasionally distracting.
Poor

Poor clarity or volume, with little to no engagement or distracting body language.
N/A

Not Applicable
Response to Opponent

This criterion assesses how well the debater responds to their opponent's arguments. A strong response directly addresses the points raised by the opponent, offering well-reasoned rebuttals. Debaters who dodge questions or fail to refute key arguments will score lower in this area.
Excellent

Responds directly to opponent’s points with strong, well-reasoned rebuttals.
Good

Responds to most of opponent’s points with reasonable rebuttals, though some points may be weak or unclear.
Fair

Offers partial rebuttals or avoids some of the opponent’s key points.
Poor

Does not adequately respond to opponent’s points or offers weak, irrelevant rebuttals.
N/A

Not Applicable
Time Management

Time management measures how effectively the debater uses their allotted speaking time. Debaters should balance their time to cover all points thoroughly, without rushing through or dragging on unnecessarily. Those who stay within their time limits while delivering comprehensive arguments score higher.
Excellent

Uses time effectively, staying within allotted time for each response while covering all points thoroughly.
Good

Mostly effective use of time, with slight overuse or underuse on some responses.
Fair

Time use is inconsistent, leading to incomplete arguments or rushing through key points.
Poor

Consistently mismanages time, failing to address key points or frequently exceeding time limits.
N/A

Not Applicable
Emotional Appeal vs. Logical Reasoning

Measures how well the debater balances emotional rhetoric with logical, fact-based reasoning. Debates should focus on rational arguments rather than purely emotional appeals.
Excellent

Balances emotional appeals with strong, logical, fact-based reasoning; emotional appeals support, not replace, arguments.
Good

Uses emotional appeals effectively, though some points may rely more on sentiment than logic or facts.
Fair

Relies more on emotional appeals than on logical reasoning, with few facts or support.
Poor

Overwhelms arguments with emotional appeals, lacking logical structure or factual basis.
N/A

Not Applicable
Use of Slogans or Catchphrases

Assesses the debater's reliance on catchphrases or slogans instead of more detailed explanations. Slogans should be used to reinforce points, not as a substitute for substantive arguments.
Excellent

Slogans or catchphrases are used minimally and only to reinforce complex ideas, not as a substitute for arguments.
Good

Uses slogans effectively, but relies on them in place of fully developing certain ideas or points.
Fair

Repeated use of slogans or catchphrases without providing depth or elaboration on issues.
Poor

Overuse of slogans or catchphrases detracts from meaningful discussion of issues.
N/A

Not Applicable
Handling Misinformation/Deflection

Focuses on how well a debater handles misinformation or attempts by the opponent to deflect from the issues. A good debater should correct falsehoods and bring the conversation back to relevant topics.
Excellent

Quickly and effectively corrects misinformation or deflection, redirecting the discussion to the relevant issues.
Good

Corrects some misinformation, though may not address all instances; brings focus back to core issues most of the time.
Fair

Only partially addresses misinformation or deflection, with some critical points unaddressed.
Poor

Fails to address misinformation or deflection, allowing the opponent to dominate the conversation with falsehoods.
N/A

Not Applicable




Subjects:

Types:

Discuss this rubric




Do more with this rubric:
Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.
Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.
Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.


Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
n178