英国议会制英语辩论赛校园选拔赛评分表

英国议会制英语辩论赛校园选拔赛评分 Ballot for “FLTRP CUP” English Debating Competition 第十六届“外研社?亚马逊杯”全国英语辩论赛 校园选拔赛评分表 Procedures: 1. Please take detailed notes of the arguments from each speaker. 2. Fill in the Ballot and hand in the Ballot within 10 minutes. 3. Oral Adjudication. Each team should be ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Provide 1-50 speaker points for each speaker. Rank: Rank: Opening Proposition Opening Opposition Leader Proposition Points: Leader Opposition Points: Deputy Leader Proposition Points: Deputy Leader Opposition Points: Total: Total: Rank: Rank: Closing Proposition Closing Opposition Member Proposition Points: Member Opposition Points: Proposition Whip Points: Opposition Whip Points: Total: Total: Please provide reasons for your ranking: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Speaker Point Guidelines Evaluating an oratorical effort is a subjective exercise, based on the interpretations of an individual. Even in the face of that subjectivity, however, some standardization is possible. Adjudicators should look to a speaker’s Matter, Manner and Method when assigning speaker points. Matter relates to the issues addressed in the debate and the material used to substantiate argumentation. Adjudicators should evaluate the quality of the issues identified by the debaters and the strength of the evidence offered to support the debater’s claims. Manner refers to the presentation and delivery of a speaker. Adjudicators should not assess debaters solely on their proficiency in English as a foreign language but should look beyond proficiency to evaluate presentational efforts Method refers to the strategy and tactics of the debaters. Adjudicators should evaluate how the debaters organized their individual speeches and whether they addressed the most relevant issues in the round. Adjudicators should also evaluate cooperation among team members to advance a consistent and coherent strategy. Based on the above criteria, the guidelines below are intended to standardize adjudicators’ approaches to assigning Speaker Points to individual debaters. The guidelines rely on traditional conceptions of letter grades, where 90% performance and above constitutes a grade of “A;” 80% - 89% constitutes a “B,” and so on. Please use these guidelines when assigning Speaker Points. Speaker Qualitative Significance Points An outstanding speaker in almost every way. Exceeds the majority of 45,above expectations. Likely to be in late elimination rounds. A solid speaker. Exceeds expectations in most areas. Likely to be in early 42-43 elimination rounds. An average speaker. Meets minimum expectations but does not exceed 40 expectations. May or may not be in elimination rounds. Below average speaker. Fails to meet most minimum expectations. Not 37-38 likely to advance to elimination rounds A poor speaker. Significant in his or her failure to meet even minimum 35-below expectations. Will not advance to elimination rounds.