Debate Evaluation Forms

Teams

Pro Con
Loan Luke
Jason Josh

Argument

Affirmative Statement It was justifiable for the USA to invade Afghanistan to achieve the officially stated goals of the action.
Negative Statement It was unjustifiable for the USA to invade Afghanistan to achieve the officially stated goals of the action.

Debate Format
Activity Time
Pro side Argument 10
Con side Argument 10
Team Rebuttal Conference 10
Pro Rebuttal 4
Con Rebuttal 4
Con Summation 2
Pro Summation 2

Form
  • Visual (distracting movements, posture, eye contact, audio-visuals, etc.)
  • Auditory (distracting use of voice, speed of delivery, etc.)
  • Creativity in presenting defense.
  • Use of handouts and/or PowerPoint Slides
  • Keeps to time limits.
Clarity
  • Stating ideas clearly.
  • Well organized presentation.
Arguments for Position
  • Connection of premises to conclusion.
  • Likely truth of premises.
Objections to Opponents’ Arguments
  • Care with which the opponents’ arguments are undermined.
  • Vigor in undermining the opponents’ position.
Sources
  • Appropriate use of references (articles, texts, etc.)
  • Number of references

Assessment Team well
done
15
little
deficiency
13
some
deficiency
11
average
deficiency
9
significant
deficiency
7
comment
Form Pro   *       Good work, though some justification is needed for appealing to Just War Theory. 8:30 Time
  Con     *     Somewhat disorganized, Need to perhaps rehearse. Overtime. Use time wisely! Overtime - agian rehearse!
Clarity Pro *         Well organized.
  Con   *       Somewhat disjoint. Slides could bebetter formatted.
Arguments for Position Pro   *      

Pretty well done. However some "proofs" of Just War criteria are simply personal opinion. which is inadequate.

More importently, lacking significant Biblical support, and use of transforming initiatives.

  Con   *       Need to go beyond "personal opionion". Bring in outside support for significnt claims. Type claims to specific Bible verses, provide specific quotes from outside sources justifying claims about intent, options,historical context, etc.
Objections to Opponents' Arguments Pro *         Pretty good work, in time bound. Still minimal use of Biblical foundation for argument.
  Con *         Fine job. Again, avoid personal belief as a foundation, need to find support from beyond your personal beliefs. Try to stay in time bound.
Sources Pro *          
  Con *          
Topic revision: r2 - 2014-03-12 - JimSkon
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright &© by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback