Few literary questions generate as much classroom energy as whether a character deserves blame. In Martin Suter's Lila, Lila, students can debate whether David Kern is guilty of fraud, merely foolish, or even a victim of circumstance. This kind of question suits an argumentative essay, since there is no single correct answer and success depends on the quality of reasoning. Designing a rubric for it means rewarding argument skills rather than a particular verdict.

The first task is to define terms, since guilt can mean legal, moral, or personal responsibility. Students who skip this step often argue past each other or contradict themselves. Ask them to state what standard of guilt they are applying, such as whether intent matters or whether harm to others is required. A rubric category on definition of terms encourages precision and elevates the quality of the debate.

Next, emphasize the structure of a good argument. A strong essay states a claim, supports it with reasons backed by evidence, anticipates the strongest objection, and responds to it. Many students skip the objection because they fear it will weaken their position, but acknowledging it demonstrates confidence and intellectual honesty. The rubric should treat the counterargument as a core component and not as an optional extra.

Building the Scoring Categories

Divide the rubric into categories that reflect the stages of an argument. These typically include the claim, the reasoning and evidence, the counterargument and rebuttal, and the writing quality. Each category should have descriptors at several levels, written in observable terms. For instance, a top-level counterargument descriptor might state that the essay presents the strongest opposing view fairly and responds with evidence rather than dismissal.

• Claim: states a clear position on David's guilt and defines the standard being applied
• Reasons: offers at least two distinct reasons that support the claim logically
• Evidence: cites specific moments from the novel to prove each reason
• Counterargument: presents the strongest opposing view fairly and responds to it
• Style: maintains a controlled, persuasive tone and avoids emotional overstatement

Avoiding Teacher Bias on the Verdict

It is easy to be swayed by essays that reach a conclusion you agree with, even when the reasoning is thin. Combat this by scoring each category separately and, if possible, grading the essays with names hidden. Review a few essays that take the opposite view from your own to confirm you are applying the rubric evenly. Students quickly sense whether a teacher rewards independent thinking or compliance.

Make your neutrality explicit in the assignment sheet by stating that either position can earn full credit. Provide sample thesis statements on both sides to illustrate what a strong claim looks like. This reassures hesitant students and reduces the temptation to guess what you want to hear. The result is more authentic writing and more interesting reading for you.

Linking Discussion to Writing

A structured class debate before writing can improve the essays considerably. Assign sides, give students time to gather evidence, and have them present arguments and rebuttals. Afterward, ask them to write from the position they actually believe, which may differ from the one they argued. The exercise exposes them to the strongest counterarguments and improves their ability to address them.

Grading volume can be heavy after a spirited debate because enthusiasm leads to long drafts. A consistent rubric, supported by comment banks or AI-assisted feedback tools that align with your categories, keeps the process efficient. Students receive feedback that identifies where their reasoning is strong and where it needs development. Over time, they carry these skills into other argumentative tasks across their courses.