PRESENTATION TASK
In groups of two, you will debate a contemporary issue relating to the healthcare industry against an opposing group. In preparation for the debate, you will research the debate question from both perspectives: the affirmative and opposing teams—each student will research one argument from the affirmative and opposing perspective. Arguments must be underpinned by sound evidence. On the day, your debate perspective will be chosen by the tutor.
During the debate, you will be required to use the Policy debate structure that has been introduced during the module. Each student will present their arguments within a time frame and be prepared for cross-examination from the opposing team. Each student must contribute 5 minutes overall, and the tutor will chair the debate.
Debate Structure
Debate segment Team Time
Main argument Affirmative Team 4 minutes max
Main argument Opposing Team 4 minutes max
Cross examination Affirmative Team 2 minutes max
Cross examination Opposing Team 2 minutes max
Rebuttal Affirmative Team 2 minutes max
Rebuttal Opposing Team 2 minutes max
Final Statement Affirmative Team 2 minutes max
Final Statement Opposing Team 2 minutes max
Debate Topics
Groups will choose one of the following questions to debate:
1. The same principles of person-centred care should apply to those in the criminal justice system.
2. People should be able to register with a GP without a fixed address.
3. Cervical screening should take place every year.
Assessment Criteria
You will be assessed on your capacity to develop a well-supported argument for or against the selected debate topic. In addition to presenting at least one wellresourced argument during the main argument, you will also be expected to participate in the cross-examination or rebuttal.
Your debate will be assessed against the following learning outcomes.
LO1 – Analyse contemporary issues within the health and/or social care sector.
LO3 – Examine how contemporary issues impact local and/or national policy.
Please consult the rubric in table 1 to find out more about how your marks will be calculated.
A Code of Conduct (CoC) violation can result in you losing marks for the assessed debate.
The CoC states that students must:
• Behave in a respectful and courteous manner towards the chair and other participants
• Avoid interrupting other participants; speak only when allocated to by number / the chair
• Not engage in verbally / physically offensive behaviour (e.g. swearing, shouting, prejudiced / personal comments)
• Avoid reading from a pre-prepared statement; the lecturer may ask you to stop, reduce your marks, or terminate your attempt altogether
• Abide by any other rules present within ARU, London disciplinary regulations not listed above
While you may bring notes along to assist you, you must not read a prepared argument in place of presenting your own live. This assessment is designed to test your ability to participate in structured debates and present a sound researched argument, not whether you can read out loud.
You will be expected to support your argument using at least three reliable sources of evidence. These can be from government or institutional reports, websites, journals, or articles from credible news sources.
References must be submitted to your lecturer prior to the debate assessment.
Table 1
The work will be assessed in an integrative manner
as indicated in the marking rubric, that is consistent with Anglia Ruskin
University generic assessment criteria and marking standards
Criteria /
Grade
0-29%:
Deficient
or no evidence of knowledge, Absent or inadequate evidence of academic/
expressive/ professional skills
30-39%:
Limited
evidence of knowledge.
Little evidence or use of
scholarly conventions.
40-49%: Adequate knowledge, use of
scholarly conventions inconsistent. Basic academic/ expressive/ professional
skills.
50-59%:
Sound
knowledge, use of scholarly conventions inconsistent. Satisfactory academic/
expressive/ professional skills.
60-69%: Good analysis- consistent use of
scholarly conventions. Good Academic/
Expressive/
Professional
skills
70-79%:
Excellent analysishigh
level of intellectual rigour and consistency.
Excellent academic/ expressive/ professional skills
80-89%:
Outstanding
analysisWork pushes the boundaries of the discipline. Outstanding
Academic/ Expressive/
professional skills and creativity
90-100%:
Exceptional
analysis Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline. Exceptional
Academic/ Expressive/
professional skills and creativity
LO1: Knowledge and
Understanding Elucidate
contemporary
issues relating to the
Healthcare
Industry
Deficient or no level of relevancy of key arguments
to given topic.
Inadequate
justification of /
elaboration on key
arguments.
Inadequate range & level of evidence used to support
cross
examination
& rebuttals
Limited level of relevancy of key
arguments to given topic.
Limited justification of / elaboration on key arguments.
Limited range & level of evidence used to support
cross
examination
& rebuttals
Adequate level of relevancy of key
arguments to given topic,
Basic
justification of /
elaboration on key arguments.
Basic range & level of evidence used to support
cross
examination & rebuttals
Sound level of relevancy of key
arguments to given topic.
Satisfactory justification
of /
elaboration on key
arguments.
Satisfactory range of mid-level
evidence used to support
cross
examination & rebuttals
Good level of relevancy of key
arguments to given topic.
Good justification of
/ elaboration on key arguments.
Good range of midto-high-level
evidence used to support cross
examination & rebuttals
Excellent relevancy of key arguments to given topic.
Excellent justification of /
elaboration on key arguments.
Excellent range of
high-level evidence used to support
cross examination &
rebuttals
Outstanding relevancy of key
arguments
to given topic.
Outstanding
justification of /
elaboration
on key arguments.
Outstanding range of
high-level evidence
used to support cross examination & rebuttals
Exceptional
relevancy of key arguments to given topic.
exceptional
justification of /
elaboration
on key arguments.
Outstanding range of high-level evidence
used to support cross examination & rebuttals
40 Marks
0-11
12-15
16-19
20-23
24-27
28-31
32-35
36-40
LO4:
Intellectual, practical, affective and
transferable
skills
Analyse and critique current
themes and best practice in
Healthcare
Management
Contributions wholly
inappropriate
for
the context. Cross
examination &
rebuttals deficient in terms of tone
and delivery.
Inadequate management of
initiation & turntaking.
Little-to-no attempt to interact with other
debaters.
Contributions are limited &
inappropriate. Cross examination &
rebuttals limited in terms
of tone and delivery. Limited
management of initiation & turn-
taking. Prohibitively
dominant in
discussion /
significant difficulty sustaining interaction
Contributions are adequate.
Cross examination &
rebuttals
basic in
terms of tone and delivery. Basic
management of initiation
& turntaking.
May frequently dominate the
discussion
or have
difficulty sustaining
interaction.
Most contributions are
mainly sound & effective. Cross
examination &
rebuttals
adequate
in terms of tone and
delivery.
Satisfactory management of
initiation & turntaking. May
dominate the
discussion or have some
difficulty sustaining interaction
Contributions are generally both appropriate &
effective. Cross examination
&
rebuttals good in terms of tone & delivery. Good
management of initiation & turntaking.
Occasionally dominates the
discussion,
although shows
awareness &
appropriate
strategies to rectify this.
Contributions are
consistently both appropriate &
effective. Cross
examination and
rebuttals excellent in terms of tone &
delivery. Excellent management of initiation &
turntaking. Rarely
dominates the discussion /
demonstrates awareness &
appropriate
strategies to rectify where
appropriate
Contributions are universally
appropriate &
effective. Cross
examination and
rebuttals outstanding in
terms of tone &
delivery. Outstanding management of initiation &
turn-
taking. Proportionality of
contributions is outstanding
Contributions are universally
appropriate &
effective. Cross
examination and
rebuttals in terms of tone
& delivery.
Exceptional management of initiation &
turntaking.
Proportionality of contributions is
exceptional
40 Marks
0-11
12-15
16-19
20-23
24-27
28-31
32-35
36-40
Debate delivery/ Academic skills Presentation in terms of
structure, language and Harvard
referencing.
You can lose some or all marks for
an assessed debate by committing a Code of Conduct
(CoC) violation.
Use of formal, academic
language
appropriate to the debating arena / debate theme is
deficient. No use of
persuasive tone and academic
caution. Deficient use of rhetorical
structures such as definition,
metaphor /
analogy etc.
Deficient use of language to
develop logical arguments via
deployment
of
linking
words &
repetition of key
terminology
Use of formal, academic language appropriate to the debating
arena / debate theme is
limited. Limited use
of persuasive tone and
academic
caution.
Limited
use of rhetorical
structures such as
definition,
metaphor /
analogy etc.
Limited use of language to
develop logical arguments
via
deployment of
linking
words &
repetition of key
terminology
Use of formal, academic
language
appropriate to the debating arena / debate theme is
adequate. Basic
use of
persuasive
tone and academic caution. Adequate use of rhetorical
structures such as definition,
metaphor /
analogy
etc. Basic
use of language to
develop logical arguments
via
deployment of
linking words &
repetition of key
terminology
Use of formal, academic language appropriate to the debating
arena / debate theme is
sound. Satisfactory use of persuasive
tone, balanced with academic caution
where
appropriate.
Sound use of rhetorical structures such as definition,
metaphor / analogy
etc. Satisfactory use of
language to
develop logical arguments
via
deployment of
linking words &
repetition of key
terminology
Use of formal, academic language appropriate to the debating
arena / debate theme is
good. Good
use of
persuasive tone, balanced
with
academic
caution
where appropriate.
Good use of rhetorical
structures
such as definition, metaphor
/
analogy
etc. Good
use of
language to
develop logical arguments
via
deployment of
linking words &
repetition of key
terminology
Use of formal, academic language appropriate to the debating
arena / debate theme is
excellent. Excellent use of persuasive
tone, balanced with academic caution
where
appropriate.
Excellent use of rhetorical structures such as definition,
metaphor / analogy etc. Excellent use of
language to develop logical arguments via deployment of
linking words &
repetition of key terminology
Use of formal, academic
language appropriate to the debating arena / debate theme is outstanding.
Outstanding use of persuasive tone, balanced with
academic caution
where appropriate.
Outstanding use of rhetorical structures such as definition,
metaphor /
analogy
etc. Outstanding use of language to
develop logical arguments via
deployment of
linking words &
repetition of key
terminology
Use of formal, academic
language appropriate to the debating arena / debate theme is exceptional.
Exceptional use of persuasive tone, balanced with
academic caution
where
appropriate.
Exceptional use of
rhetorical structures such as definition,
metaphor /
analogy
etc. Exceptional use of language to
develop logical arguments via
deployment of
linking words &
repetition of key
terminology
20 Marks
0-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-20
