| Introductory Paragraph | The introduction is strong and leaves the reader solidly understanding the group’s position. Effective opening with strong thesis statement. | The introduction is recognizable. The group’s position is stated; Lacks effective opener, but contains a thesis statement. | The group’s position is not stated; has effective opener but does not contain a thesis statement. | There is no introduction – the paper just begins. |
| Evidence and Examples | All of the evidence and examples are specific, relevant and explanations are given that show how each piece of evidence supports the group’s position. | Most of the evidence and examples are specific, relevant and explanations are given that show how each piece of evidence supports the group’s position. | At least one of the pieces of evidence and examples is relevant and has an explanation that shows how that piece of evidence supports the group’s position. | Evidence and examples are NOT relevant AND/OR are not explained. |
| Sequencing | Arguments and support are provided in a logical order that makes it easy and interesting to follow the author's train of thought. | Arguments and support are provided in a fairly logical order that makes it reasonably easy to follow the author's train of thought. | A few of the support details or arguments are not in an expected or logical order, distracting the reader and making the essay seem a little confusing. | Many of the support details or arguments are not in an expected or logical order, distracting the reader and making the essay seem very confusing. |
| Closing paragraph | The conclusion is strong and leaves the reader solidly understanding the writer's position. Effective restatement of the position statement begins the closing paragraph. | The conclusion is recognizable. The author's position is restated within the first two sentences of the closing paragraph. | The author's position is restated within the closing paragraph, but not near the beginning. | There is no conclusion - the paper just ends. |
| Category - Debate | Monday4 - Above Standards | 3 - Meets Standards | 2 - Approaching Standards | 1 - Below Standards |
| Understanding of Topic | The team clearly understood the topic in-depth and presented their information forcefully and convincingly. | The team clearly understood the topic in-depth and presented their information with ease. | The team seemed to understand the main points of the topic and presented those with ease. | The team did not show an adequate understanding of the topic |
| Information | All information presented in the debate was clear, accurate and thorough. | Most information presented in the debate was clear, accurate and thorough. | Most information presented in the debate was clear and accurate, but was not usually thorough. | Information had several inaccuracies OR was usually not clear. |
| Use of Facts/Statistics | Every major point was well supported with several relevant facts, statistics and/or examples. | Every major point was adequately supported with relevant facts, statistics and/or examples. | Every major point was supported with facts, statistics and/or examples, but the relevance of some was questionable. | Every point was not supported. |
| Presentation Style | Team consistently used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience. | Team usually used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience. | Team sometimes used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience. | One or more members of the team had a presentation style that did not keep the attention of the audience. |
| Respect for Other Team | All statements, body language, and responses were respectful and were in appropriate language | Statements and responses were respectful and used appropriate language, but once or twice body language was not. | Most statements and responses were respectful and in appropriate language, but there was one sarcastic remark. | Statements, responses and/or body language were consistently not respectful. |