ARCHIVE - ES

Debate Ballot
Energy Systems - updated 19.Oct.2004

Class members will serve as judges. Listen carefully, take notes, ask questions if necessary, and score each team, using this ballot..

BE OPEN TO VOTING FOR A POSITION YOU DO NOT FULLY AGREE WITH, when the team supporting that position makes the strongest case.

Resolution:____________________________________________________________________________

Pro Speakers: ____________________________________________________________________

Con Speakers: ______________________________________________________________________

Quantitative evaluations: Score each debator's effectiveness in each category. 1=poor, 2=fair, 3=average, 4=very good, 5=outstanding (high score is better)

1st Pro speaker					2d Pro speaker						1st Con speaker					2d Con speaker
(name)					(name)						(name)					(name)
1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5		1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5
										Analysis
										Reasoning
										Evidence
										Organization
										Delivery
										TOTALS

Please summarize strengths of each speaker, and offer constructive feedback for improvement.

1st Pro speaker

2d Pro speaker

1st Con speaker

2d Con speaker

Qualitative evaluations:

1. Which side presented stronger evidence to back up their position?

2.Which side seemed better organized? How?

3.Which side presented a more persuasive argument? How?

4. Which side did a better job of responding to questions from the judges and audience?

Winning side of the debate:

Additional comments:

Facilitators will collect ballots, read them, summarize class judgment on who won the debate, and post results to WebX, with a brief summary of the evidence and arguments that were most compelling. Facilitators may post as a team or individually, starting the post with "Facilitator summary".

Ballots are drawn from Dolan and the American Forensic Association. We gratefully acknowledge these sources.

Return to Evergreen Home Page

Maintained by E.J. Zita