Asking students whether Duddy Kravitz is a villain is one of the most reliable ways to generate energetic writing. The question divides classrooms, since some see a manipulative opportunist and others see a desperate kid trying to prove himself. That enthusiasm is a gift, but it also creates grading challenges. Students with strong opinions sometimes substitute passion for evidence, and teachers must assess the argument rather than the stance.

Begin by teaching what a persuasive literary argument requires. It needs a clear claim, relevant evidence from the text, explanation of how the evidence supports the claim, and engagement with at least one opposing view. Students who simply insist that Duddy is evil because he lies often fail to meet these standards, even when they feel certain. Showing a sample essay that earns full credit while arguing a stance students dislike helps separate argument quality from opinion.

Rubrics for this kind of essay should be explicit about the role of counterargument. A student who defends Duddy should still address the harm he causes, while a student who condemns him should acknowledge his circumstances. Rewarding this balance pushes students toward intellectual honesty and produces more convincing essays than one-sided rants, regardless of which side they choose.

Common weaknesses in debate-style essays

A typical weakness is overgeneralization, where a student uses one incident to define Duddy's whole character. Another is the appeal to personal values without textual grounding, such as arguing that lying is wrong without showing how the novel presents it. Feedback should redirect students to the text and to Richler's craft, reminding them that the essay is about literature, not just personal morality.

• Claim clearly answers whether Duddy is a villain and defines the term
• Evidence comes from several parts of the novel, not one scene
• Counterargument is addressed and answered rather than ignored
• Reasoning explains how evidence leads to the conclusion
• Tone is persuasive without becoming personal or dismissive

Encouraging nuance

The strongest essays resist the binary entirely. They might argue that Duddy is a flawed protagonist whose actions are villainous even if his character is not, or that Richler deliberately withholds a simple verdict. Teachers should reward such nuance, since it reflects the novel's actual complexity, but also insist that the student still commits to a clear position about what the author is doing.

To prompt nuance, ask questions in your feedback. If a student labels Duddy a villain, ask what the narration invites readers to feel about him in the final chapters and whether that fits the label. Questions like these encourage reconsideration without forcing a conclusion, and they model the kind of thinking you want students to carry into future writing.

Keeping grading objective

Because students often write with feeling, graders can be swayed by persuasive style or by agreement with the stance. Counter this by scoring against specific rubric criteria one at a time. Reading only for evidence quality on one pass, and only for counterargument on another, reduces the tendency to give a general impression score that reflects personal reaction.

Blind grading can help as well, hiding names so that your impressions of students do not influence scores. Tools that evaluate essays against a rubric offer another layer of consistency, since they apply the same criteria to every paper without being swayed by rhetoric. Combined with your own review, this produces fairer outcomes.

Closing the loop with discussion

After returning essays, hold a structured discussion in which students respond to the strongest arguments on each side. Sharing anonymized excerpts that illustrate good counterargument or insightful use of evidence reinforces the rubric and shows that quality, not agreement, earns recognition. Students often find this validating, even when their own position was in the minority.

Follow up with a brief reflection in which students describe whether the essay or discussion changed their mind. This metacognitive step reinforces that argument is a way of exploring ideas, not winning. It also gives you a sense of how students are growing as thinkers, which is ultimately more important than any single grade.