Skip to main content
iRubric: CHMS Argumentative Debate Rubric

iRubric: CHMS Argumentative Debate Rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
CHMS Argumentative Debate Rubric 
CHMS Argumentative Essay Rubric
The attached rubric supports Writing Standard 1 under the Common Core State Standards. This rubric was specifically designed with Community House Middle School in mind.
Rubric Code: C7XXA6
By jeffrey_jacobs
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Humanities  
Type: Writing  
Grade Levels: 6-8

Powered by iRubric CHMS Argumentative Essay Rubric
100 %
  Exemplary

100 pts

Proficient

86 pts

Emerging

73 pts

Not Yet Demonstrated

60 pts

Intro / Thesis
15 %

Background/History
Defining Problem
Thesis Statement
Exemplary

Well-developed introduction engages the audience and creates interest. Contains detailed background information and a clear explanation of the problem. Thesis clearly states a significant and compelling position.
Proficient

Introduction creates interest and contains background information. Thesis clearly states a problem and the speaker's position is evident.
Emerging

Introduction adequately explains the background of the problem, but may lack clarity. thesis staes a problem, but speaker's position may not be evident.
Not Yet Demonstrated

Background details are a random collection of information, are unclear, and may be loosely related to the topic. Thesis / position is vague or not stated.
Argumentative Points
40 %

Body Paragraphs
Refutation
Conclusion
Exemplary

Well-developed argumentative points directly support the writer's thesis / position. Supporting examples are concrete and detailed. Commentary is logical and well-thought-out. Refutation acknowledges opposing viewpoints clearly and skillfully. Conclusion revisits the thesis in a new way and applies the speakers position universally.
Proficient

Most argumentative points are related to the thesis, but one may lack sufficient support or deviates from thesis. Refutation acknowledges opposing viewpoint(s) with some logic and clarity. Conclusion summarizes thesis and key points with some "fresh" commentary present.
Emerging

More than one argumentative point lacks sufficient details and support. Speaker attempts to address one or more opposing arguments, but the speaker may not refute the opposition clearly or adquately. Conclusion mirrors introduction too closely, with little or no new commentary on the speaker thesis / position.
Not Yet Demonstrated

Most argumentative points are poorly developed. Refutation is missing or vague. Commentary is not present. Conclusion does not re-visit the thesis or summarize key argumentative point(s).
Organization
15 %

Structure
Transitions
Exemplary

Logical progression of ideas with a clear structure that enhances the thesis. Transition are smooth and provide coherence between and among ideas.
Proficient

Logical progression of ideas. Transitions are present throughout the debate and provide adequate coherence between and among ideas.
Emerging

Organization is clear. Transitions are present, but may not lend to coherence between and among ideas.
Not Yet Demonstrated

No disceernable organization. Transition are not present.
Style & Conventions
20 %

Syntax
Diction
Spelling, Punctuation, Capitalization
Exemplary

Presentation is smooth, skillful, and coherent. Ideas are strong and expressive. Diction is consistent and words are well-chosen. The tone is highly consistent with speaker's position / thesis and appropriate throughout debate.
Proficient

Presentation is clear. Diction is appropriate. Ideas mostly express and support thesis. Tone is generally consistent with speaker's position / thesis and is appropriate throughout debate.
Emerging

Presentation is clear, but ideas may lack variety or effectiveness. Diction is sometimes inconsistent and/or inappropriate at various points in the debate. Tone may be inconsistent with speaker's position / thesis.
Not Yet Demonstrated

Position is confusing and hard to follow. Ideas do not relate to position. Diction is inappropriate and inconsistent throughout debate. Tone of piece is highly inconsistent with speaker's position / thesis.
Sources
10 %

Use of Sources
Format
Relevance &Reliability
Exemplary

Evidence from sources is smoothly and logically integrated into debate and serves to add credibility & insight into speaker's position / thesis. All examples are highly relevant and reliable.
Proficient

Evidence from source(s) is integrated into the text. Most examples are generally relevant and reliable.
Emerging

Some source material is used and may or may not lend credibility to speaker's position / thesis. Several examples may not be relevant.
Not Yet Demonstrated

Little or no source material is used. Relevance is strongly in question.




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.
n98