1 IBUS7306 – IN-CLASS DEBATES The class will be divided into groups of three or four. If a student is absent from any scheduled debate without adequate excuse he/she will receive no marks for that debate. Your team for the debate will be different to the team for the taming a wicked problem assessment. The format for the debates and an overview of how to effectively debate will be discussed early during semester in class. The debates will be marked on the criteria and weighting set out on Page 2; for details on learning objectives assessed, weighting and due date please refer to the ECP. 2 IBUS7306 Debate marking rubric. Groups will be marked within the ranges shown for each criterion. Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction Criterion 1 Coverage of the relevant issues and depth of analysis Little or faulty coverage of relevant points. Lacks clarity on important aspects of the team’s side of the question. Adequate understanding demonstrated of important issues relating to question. Some supporting evidence provided of the team’s position. Proficient understanding and detail of important issues. Includes some minor ancillary events/issues and good supporting evidence. Advanced understanding of the question and frequent evidence of originality relating to the question and opposition’s position. Exceptional understanding of key concepts; substantial originality and insight relating to the question and opposition’s position. Extensive critical appraisal of evidence and argument. Criterion 2 Evidence of research Few quality sources applied to the topic. Major sources and inputs missed.
Almost all references are web sites, many superficial. No signs of research into opponent’s arguments. Some quality sources but only few signs of in-depth search for ideas on the topic. Some effective rebuttal arguments. Well researched. Has important relevant sources relating to the key question issues. Rebuttal preparation evident. Detailed sources and evidence of original ideas generated from research on the topic. All sources are credible. Good rebuttal of opponent’s arguments. Extensive evidence of quality and credible sources. Thorough research to demonstrate an ability to present novel arguments, think critically and/or challenge assumptions. Convincing and compelling rebuttal of opponent’s arguments. Criterion 3 Communication Poorly articulated arguments lacking coordination amongst team members. Difficult to understand. Poor audience contact and engagement. Script reading evident. Could better manage available time. Adequate articulation of the points but reading evident. Coordination evident amongst team members. Timing adequately judged. Well-articulated arguments and supporting points. Clearly expressed ideas. Good audience engagement. Meets timing expectations. Strong and sustained engagement of audience with high levels of clarity and smooth presenting. Includes some interesting, novel and/or humorous elements. Meets timing expectations. Sophisticated communication of ideas. Very well-planned and executed series of cumulatively convincing arguments by team members. Interesting, novel and/or humorous elements throughout that genuinely engage audience. Meets timing expectations.