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.