esade

Workload distribution

Course Learning Objectives

The student will be evaluated on the following academic efforts:

1) Participation in class.

2) Participation in the debates that we will organize throughout the course.

3) Elaboration and oral defense of an individual research topic.

4) Elaboration of a reaction paper.

5) Analysis of argumental pieces in class, previously provided via Moodle to students.

Assessment criteria

EVALUATION

Participation, Session preparation & Practice 50%
Final Debate Evaluation May 6th 50%
Students must attend a minimum of 80% of lectures to be able to sit the final examination.

Criteria for Evaluation:

CONTENT FOCUS:
Introduction:
- Are the contentions supported with sufficient well-documented evidence?
- Does the debater show convincing knowledge of the resolution?
- Has the debater highlighted the important issues that have emerged in the debate? Does the debater follow through on these issues?
- Are the definitions and the interpretation of the resolution sound and responsible?
Refutation
o Is the refutation clear-cut in its attack on significant points of disagreement between the two teams?
o Is significant new evidence or argumentation presented in refutation, or is it merely a repetition of ideas presented earlier?
Reasoning
o Is the reasoning sound? Is it quick and agile?
o Are fallacies avoided and detected?
o Is there evidence of original thinking?

STYLE FOCUS:
Organization
o Is there a clear outline of constructive arguments?
o Do the members of the team co-operate to present a unified case?
o Is refutation well organized and easy to follow?
o Does the speech contain an effective, clear introduction and a summary conclusion?
o Is each argument organized in a logical fashion?
Persuasiveness
o Is the debater convincing and effective?
o Does the debater seem sincere?
o Does the debater use persuasive words and emotion to connect to the audience?
Delivery
o Does the debater speak with a clear style?
o Does the debater give the impression of genuineness and sincerity?
o Does the debater adapt, in manner and content, to opponents and the audience situation?
o Does the debater introduce variety and humor effectively?
o Does the debater use good diction and pronounce words correctly?
o Does the debater seem confident in posture and gesture?
o Does the debater maintain eye contact with the audience?

Timetable and sections