NOTE - This information is yet to be updated for the Eracism 13-1 project. Please come back in February to see revised rubric.

Speaker Point Assessment RubricRecommended to be used with Adjudication Form
Judges Training Meeting LINK

A-R-E: assertion, reasoning, evidence

Four step refutation: Identify the claim that is being answered, state counter claim, support with evidence or justification, and summarize (explain the importance the argument).
21 & below
21-20 should be reserved for people who are unsuccessful as debaters as well as obnoxious, disruptive or mean spirited. Lower points often exclude debaters from awards as a competition progresses.
Below average for an experienced debater but an average performance for a new or nervous speaker
Offers assertions with negligible reasoning or evidence. Has clearly borrowed phrases of arguments from other sources
Likely to repeat own arguments rather than enhance or develop them. Does not engage opponents’ arguments. Does not accept or make Points of Information.
Not organized. Arguments are not clearly distinguished from one another. Does not use full time.
Mumbles; Never raises points of information.
Below average. This speech is modestly successful in a few major elements and unsuccessful in other areas.
Inconsistent argument design - missing reasoning and / or evidence in support of most important issues. Likely to have 1 or more fallacies in main arguments.
Likely to repeat previous ideas as the debate advances. Little argument anticipation; identifies only a few opposing arguments. Likely to use fallacies.
Little macro-organization, although individual arguments may occassionaly be effective. Speech is difficult to follow at times. May fill up time, but not allocate it effectively.
Speech loses clarity for sustained periods; rarely make a point of information, and points are likely to be ineffective or distracting. Does not engage teammates. If accepts Point of Information, does not respond well.
Near average. An inconsistent performance.
Understands A-R-E but missing reasoning and / or evidence in support of some important issues.
More likely to discuss their own arguments than answer opponents’ arguments directly.
Little support of partners’ arguements. Inconsistent organization of general and specific argumentation
Speaks clearly, but errors begin to distract audience and undermine content. Makes Point of Information and replies to Point of Information, but is ineffective. Ignore accents.
Average. A competent speaker and debater
Follows A-R-E model consistently, although some assertions do not have sufficient reasoning and many do not have supporting evidence. Identifies obvious opposing issues; misses nuanced or complex issues.
Understands own positions but likely to repeat ideas rather than amplify them. Uses four step model of refutation but inconsistently. Uses direct refutation for most arguments but offers ineffective or no reply to important issues.
Organized and generally effective. Attempts a narrative structure but is not able to consistently adhere to it. Loses some clarity integrating opposing arguments. Good use of time.
Speaks in a clear, comprehensible way but no or few special elements to persuade an audience. Speech errors doesn’t undermine content. Makes and responds to Point of Information(s) but rarely engages teammates. May be ineffective or exclude to or more obvious presentation elements (volume, tone, etc.) Ignore accents.
Above average. This is a good debate speech, with more style and content than one might expect for the circumstance
Able to make an effective argument and identify key opposing arguments. Uses effective reasoning but infrequently presents evidence verifying claims. The debater is familiar with most issues in the debate.
Can maintain own position and reply to some of the more powerful arguments of opponents. Likely to use only direct refutation (simple disagreement) but does so effectively.
Simple narrative structure for own arguments but has some difficulty integrating effective counter-positions into speech.
Speaks in an engaging manner. Demonstrates some confidence and credibility. Points of Information(s) offered concisely with clear relevance to the round. Occassional verbal pauses (“ummm...”). May be ineffective with one or two obvious presentation elements (volume, tone, etc). Ignore accents.
Quite exceptional. A strong debater delivering an above-average speech. Consistent in delivery and argumentation.
Able to establish a clear position requiring a sophisticated reply. Compares the relative merits of arguments, and has highly effective reasoning and use of evidence.
Able to refute arguments directly as well as by minimizing their importance or explaining why they are actually a benefit for the speaker’s side.
Logical but inconsistent organization. Missing effective introduction or conclusion. Advances and adds to teammates arguments in the round, rather than simply repeating previous arguments.
An animated speaker able to present a clear and coherent position or about the debate, rather than just offering individual arguments, Effective use of and reply to Points of Information(s). Solid presentation skills. Ignore accents.
Near brilliant. A well above average debater giving an exceptional speech.
Constructs correct arguments on-the- spot to respond to new issues in the debate. Constructs detailed arguments with substantial evidence to support sound reasoning.
Understands how arguments interrelate, investigating inconsistencies between opponents’ claims. Identifies opportunity costs and underlying assumptions.
Organised in a way that is logical and easy to understand. Integrates major supporting and opposing arguments into the speech.
A persuasive presentation that effectively uses rhetorical devices like humor, effective pausing and vocal inflection to add depth to the speech. Ignore accents.
A 29 is near flawless performance and a highly unlikely event. A 30 is flawless & perfect
Sophisticated understanding of issues and opponent strategies. Critiques underlying assumptions and / or offers alternative plans of action.
Integrates refutation into argumentation, using responses to the other side to advance their own side.
Uses a stable narrative speech structure, organizing by categories relevant to the debate, restoring order to a confused debate round.
Has exceptional knowledge about the subject. Is very involved in the debate, including Points of Information(s). Outstanding verbal skills including pace, clarity and humor.

Adjudication Form
Debate Flow: 1st Proposition Speaker -> 1st Opposition Speaker -> 2nd Proposition Speaker ->2nd Opposition Speaker -> 3rd Opposition Rebuttal -> 3rd Proposition Rebuttal
Affirmative / Proposition
Negative / Opposition
1st Speaker - Issue: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1st Speaker - Issue: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Topic of Speaker 1)
Topic of Speaker 1)
Topic of Speaker 2)
Topic of Speaker 2)
1st Proposition Speaker - Arguments / Examples

1st Opposition Speaker - Rebuttal / Arguments / Examples:

2nd Proposition Speaker - Rebuttal / Arguments / Examples

2nd Opposition Speaker - Rebuttal / Arguments / Examples

3rd Proposition Rebuttal Speaker - Rebuttal / Summary / Conclusion

3rd Opposition Rebuttal Speaker - Rebuttal / Summary / Conclusion


Decision & Reasons: