This document outlines a grading rubric for discussion board posts in an English course. It evaluates posts based on content, structure, and APA formatting. Content is worth 70% of the grade and evaluates the depth and development of ideas, consideration of other perspectives, and scope of discussion. Structure is worth 30% and evaluates organization, grammar/mechanics, and readability. Points are awarded on an advanced, proficient, developing, or not present scale. Requirements include meeting minimum word counts and responding thoughtfully to other students. The rubric provides a detailed breakdown of how posts will be assessed.

1. ENGL 570
Discussion Board Grading Rubric
Criteria
Levels of Achievement
Content 70%
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not Present
Points Earned
Development
26 to 28 points
Major points are stated clearly and are well-supported. Ideas not
only answer prompt but expands it further.
The post includes considerations of previous writers and/or
ideas. Other writers’ views and ideas are specifically mentioned
to provide clarity.
Writer presents critical questions for consideration about the
reading and/or its connections to other contexts.
The thread meets and exceeds the 500-word requirement.
All requirements must be met.
24 to 25 points
Major points are answered but may need additional support or
clarity to establish clear connections. Ideas answer the prompt
but do not expand the discussion further.
Other writers are vaguely mentioned, but they are not addressed
specifically.
Writer presents questions for consideration, but they might need
more refinement for further discussion.
The thread meets the 500-word requirement.
All requirements must be met.
1 to 23 points
Major points may be answered yet lack any support for clarity.
Ideas minimally address parts of the prompt and might miss

2. some areas.
Other writers are not mentioned. The content of the post is
isolated and not contextualized with other readings.
Writer presents questions that are already answered by the text,
do not prompt further inquiry, or do not connect to the reading
itself.
The word count requirement is not met.
At least one requirement must be met.
0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.
Scope
9 to 10 points
The content is specific and manageable, focused on the
prompted questions yet accompanied with in-depth support.
6 to 8 points
The content is specific in some areas but might leave some
areas broader and in need of further support.
1 to 5 points
The content is too broad, often trying to cover the entirety of a
work and not going in-depth with any one topic or theme.
0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.
Reply
16 to 18 points
The reply answers the original post’s questions written by
another student.
The reply reveals an understanding of the original posts’ focus
and context of the question.
One follow-up question provided that builds on original post’s
inquiry.
The reply meets and exceeds the 200-word requirement.
All requirements must be met.
11 to 15 points
The reply answers the original post’s questions written by

3. another student yet it might need some further clarity added.
The reply reveals general knowledge of the original post but
only summarizes those ideas without connecting them to another
question.
One follow-up question provided that builds on original post’s
inquiry, but the question needs further refinement.
The reply meets the 200-word requirement.
All requirements must be met.
1 to 10 points
The reply does not attempt to answer the original post’s
question presented by another student.
The reply minimally connects to the original post’s content.
One follow-up question provided that builds on original post’s
inquiry, but the question is not asking anything new or more
focused.
The minimum word count is not met.
At least one requirement must be met.
0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.
Structure 30%
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not Present
Points Earned
Organization
7 to 8 points
Structure presents clear and coherent ideas.
While not necessarily presenting individual paragraphs, content
has unified parts with clear focus.
Transitional wording/phrasing indicates shifts in focus and
logical connections between ideas.
4 to 6 points

4. Structure reflects the prompted questions but may not blend
together as one post/focus.
Content is generally focused and unified. Some redundancy
present, which hinders the flow of ideas.
Basic transitions present.
1 to 3 points
Structure not clear or present. No clear order of ideas.
Content may address prompt but does not reveal interconnecting
ideas blending together for a single focus.
Limited to no attempts at transitioning.
0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.
Grammar and Mechanics
7 to 8 points
The writing reflects
grammatical,
punctuation, and
spelling standards.
Language is accurate,
appropriate, effective, and reflects graduate level diction.
The tone is appropriate
and highly effective.
4 to 6 points
The writing contains
some grammatical,
punctuation, and / or spelling errors.
Language is unclear,
awkward or
inappropriate in parts.

5. Tone is generally appropriate and moderately effective.
1 to 3 points
The writing contains
many grammatical,
punctuation and/or
spelling errors.
Language use is
largely inaccurate or inappropriate.
The tone is
ineffective and/or inappropriate.
0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.
APA Formatting
7 to 8 points
The writing contains
some grammatical,
punctuation, and / or spelling errors.
Language is unclear,
awkward or
inappropriate in parts.
Tone is generally appropriate and moderately effective.
4 to 6 points
Writing follows most formatting guidelines, but some flaws are
detected.
Parenthetical and bibliographical source citations are
incorrectly formatted or used
1 to 3 points
Writing lacks many elements of correct formatting.
Parenthetical and bibliographical source citations and / or
references are not provided.
0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.

6. Total
/50
Instructor's Comments:
Page 2 of 4
It seems like Plato wrestled with philosophical issues and how
they were intertwined with rhetorical endeavors. He visits this
concept more than once and evidence of his struggle, or perhaps
lack of intent to reconcile the two completely, is represented in
both Gorgias and Phaedrus. In Gorgias there is a category of art
that works on the soul and the body and each true art has a
counterpart. Some counterparts can act as a false alternative to
another, and Plato seems to imply that rhetoric can fall into this
category of counterpart, rhetoric being the counterpart of
dialectic which he preferred (Kennedy, pg. 37). My attention is
drawn to his standards for rhetoric which seem to prioritize
virtuous intent of the speaker, proper structure of logic,
consideration of the audience, and appeal to the soul. It appears
Plato could affirm rhetoric, if used virtuously, as a
philosophical tool for leading the soul to truth through
knowledge which is organized logically, articulated
considerately, and disseminated appropriately rather than a tool
of persuasion. He believed that if rhetoric could be used
righteously there must be a transcendental knowledge unlike the
Sophists who believed only in probable knowledge or what
Plato would call, “appearances of truth” (Bizzell & Herzberg,
2001, p.81).
Plato viewed rhetoric not as a politician but as an educator and
philosopher (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p. 82). Plato believed
that it was not good enough to, “induce belief,” as the Sophists
did (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.81). He wanted a rhetoric
whose discourse was, “analytic, objective, and dialectical”
(Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.81). The Rhetorical
Tradition elucidates the kind of virtue rhetoric must have by

7. Plato’s standards in the section on Phaedrus, “a kind of
persuasion that combats the power of convention and seeks to
rise above it, rather than trying to exploit convention so as to
satisfy base desires” (p.84). The dialectic style emerges for
proper rhetoric where the speaker must base their rhetoric on
truth, which is attained through carefully defining terms,
bringing their ideas together in an, “organic form,” and with
combination of careful thinking and speaking (Bizzell &
Herzberg, 2001, p.85). Because Plato prefers dialectic to
rhetoric, the method for reaching truth cannot be, “a totally
autonomous method,” and in this sense cannot, “itself generate
truth…but is a necessary pathway to truth” (Bizzell & Herzberg,
2001, p.86). Plato’s philosophical view of rhetorical
methodology was not only concerned with transcendental truth
and dialectic but also the relation of speech to the soul and the
nature of the soul. In Phaedrus, Socrates explains the function
of speech as leading souls by persuasion and states that the
rhetorician, “must know the various forms of the soul,” and
classify them (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001,p.162). The student of
rhetoric must be able to make practical application of this
knowledge and have an awareness of the classes speech and how
to connect them to certain audiences (Plato, ca 367 B.C.E.,
p.162). Ultimately Plato could not reconcile the Sophists idea of
persuading others with what appeared to be true, he wanted to
“clear away the worldly debris that obscured the mind” (Bizzell
& Herzberg, 2001, p.81).
I think that his view of rhetoric is more easily reconcilable with
a biblical perspective than that of the Sophist. As mentioned
above, Plato had this idea of clearing away worldly debris
which comes from living a human life with our, “carnality and
temporality” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.81). We must believe
in transcendental truth often by faith which is strengthened by
the connection of what Plato would refer to as, our souls and the
Divine. I think there is a biblical connection to be taken from
his view on artistic counterparts, the idea that human beings
find false alternatives for what is truly meant to work on our

8. souls. Plato acknowledges the potential of humans to make
mistakes because of what we are, but I don’t think he gives
enough credit to what people are able to use scripture to
accomplish and overcome. Sometimes that same human nature
that draws us closer to death, is what gives the scripture its life
and its truth. He thought the nature of the soul should be
understood and that the audience must define the class of
speech in some way, but the bible has no parameters like this.
The bible has been shown to almost every audience from every
walk of life, the word has no limitations on who can receive it.
My question is how with his preference for dialectic, he could
reconcile transcendental truth as not coming from an
autonomous source but also as being innate, coming from
knowledge obtained before our human existence.
References:
BIZZELL, P. & Herzberg, B. (Eds.). (2001). Rhetorical
Tradition: readings from classical times to the present (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: BEDFORD/ST. MARTIN'S.
Kennedy, G. A. (1995). A New History of Classical Rhetoric.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Plato (ca. 365 B.C.E.). Phaedrus. P. Bizzel & B. Herzberg
(Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 162). Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin’s.
Abstract
This aim of this discussion is to provide a denotation for
rhetoric according to Plato, discuss his reconciliation with
Sophistic rhetoric, and consider his views from a Biblical
perspective. Because Plato uses the Sophist’s definition of
rhetoric as the negative denotation of Philosophy, it is essential
to explain Sophists’ rhetoric first. Allowing Plato to have
something to refute, and with which to struggle to redefine also
puts focus on his motives for doing so. While it is clear that the
Sophists’ use of rhetoric was as described as immoral and self-
serving, Plato works to capitalize off of the persuasive value of

9. rhetoric while reasoning that the additional focus on the search
for truth, its connection to morality, and a foundation of
spiritualism better the meaning of rhetoric and allows for a just
use of rhetorical practices. Through the use of Socratic
discussion, Plato’s dialogue, “Gorgias,” allows his teacher,
Socrates, to speak for him. It is through a series of claims made
by Socrates that tempt the reader to equate Plato’s efforts with
Biblical Truths. Plato's use of his type of rhetoric, in this case
leaves the reader with a series of questions regarding his lack of
exact reasoning in his most potent, though emotional claim tied
to the preservation of the soul. It is likely to this reader that
Plato intended to do so, that is to continue his dialogue by
encouraging it to continue and causing it to become a
longstanding discussion of Truth.
Sophistic rhetoric dismisses all truth by stating
indignantly, “What of you?”; Plato’s philosophical rhetoric
searches for Truth while pleading, “Where are you?” Plato
warns his readers that rhetoric serves only to cloud our
judgment, manipulate our moralistic values, defer our focus
away from what is right and just, and ultimately destroy our
souls. It is only through the use of rhetoric that is founded in
transcendental truth and intended to improve the chances of our
salvation that Plato finds value in this systematic use of
language that relies heavily on the art of persuasion. Is his
preferred method of rhetoric Biblical? Was Plato prepared to
discuss and teach Truth comprehensively in the Biblical sense
of the word? It is tempting to believe so, but this writer still has
questions. Though Plato’s redefined and reconciled use of
rhetoric has value in its moralistic and spiritual approach, isn’t
it more founded in fear than in love?
Plato fears the power of rhetoric as used by the Sophists. In
“Gorgias,” we find that smaller arguments lead to his most
passionate, that we must fear for our souls and that rhetoric is
the path to our damnation. Plato defines rhetoric per his

10. understanding of how it was used by the Sophists-as a
systematic manipulation of beliefs used for personal and
political gain, one in which the truth is either absent, or
arbitrary, and always considered irrelevant. He viewed rhetoric
as the negative denotation of Philosophy, the title of which he
wore proudly. Just as the Sophists used rhetoric to suit their
preferences, so did Plato by accepting and utilizing its power to
change minds. To reconcile with this truth, Plato turns
rhetoric’s purpose for use and its relationship to the truth to
what he wanted for himself and for the others-the singular goal
of saving our souls by teaching us how to govern ourselves so
that we could also be better prepared to guide others.
To devalue the Sophist’s manipulation of rhetoric, Plato uses
reason and spirituality to criticize it and refuses to categorize it
as an art-something that is worthy of and can and should be
taught. In Plato’s dialogue, “Gorgias,” he uses a character
representing his teacher/mentor, Socrates, to denote rhetoric as
sycophancy. “I call this sort of thing flattery, whether in
relation to the body or to the soul or to anything else, whenever
anyone ministers pleasure without regard for the better and the
worse...” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p. 122) “and I say that this
sort of thing is a disgrace...because it aims at the pleasant and
ignores the best; and I say it is not an art, but a habitude since it
has no account to give of the real nature of things it applies, and
so cannot tell the cause of any of them. I refuse to give the
name of art to anything that is irrational” (Bizzell & Herzberg,
2001, p. 98). His explanation of the proper use of rhetoric,
however, may not appeal to all and runs the risk of weakening
his argument in the mind of his readers, were it not based on
such high, moral grounds-an valid emotional appeal, ironically.
Plato adamantly prefers philosophy, based on reason and truth
to rhetoric, and later claims it “noble -the endeavor that is, to
make citizens' souls as good as possible...whether it proves
more or less pleasant to one’s hearers” (Bizzell & Herzberg,
2001, p. 123). He is uninterested in whether or not the recipient
is flattered, let alone satisfied as long as reason and the truth

11. include themselves with rhetoric as a result of moralistic
motivations. If God’s Truth defines faith as the opposite of
reason and has no reliance on it, can we explain this part of his
argument as Biblical? Or are we to admit that at times we use
reason to justify our faith?
Does Plato successfully join faith and reason in his adaptation
of rhetoric? For Plato, the concept of reason is attached to
transcendental truth, which he claims is vital for a healthy soul,
and prevents damnation. He uses logic to prove the soul’s value.
Plato argues that the soul is of more considerable significance
than the body in that the body’s sole interest is in its earthly
gratification (a reasonable argument). In the same dialogue,
Socrates states that “Flattery [Sophist rhetoric according to
Plato] is for mere gratification and pleasure and not good for
the soul” (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001,p. 122). the best source of
strength is goodness” [not our ability to manipulate others
through rhetoric and the ignorance of truth]. “Rhetoric leads to
the pursuit of pleasure, which weakens strength. It is only good
when it enables just punishment on self or a loved one. It
maintains the health of the soul, which is the greatest good” (
Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, p.80).
Plato reasons here that the soul runs the body and that rhetoric
is simply a branch of flattery that is destructive to both. The
reference to sacrifice may lead the Christian reader to think of
Jesus at this point. He sacrificed his body for our soul. Did
Plato know of Jesus’ sacrifice when he wrote these dialogues?
Could that have been a Biblical reference when it refers to the
New Testament? If history is correct, it cannot. Is it still a
Biblical perspective if Biblical knowledge of Jesus’ sacrifice
was not available for the writer at the time? Or is it reasonable
for us to connect the two? Is this an example of a
“transcendental truth” that Plato claims we know before we are
born?
Plato’s interest in transcendental truth furthers the temptation to
claim a direct correlation between Plato’s view of rhetoric and
Biblical teachings. Plato informs us that rhetoric can be

12. mastered and used for his described form of a greater good only
when its planted firmly on moral grounds-that is grounds
fertilized by our search for Truth as we knew it before we were
born. According to Plato, “transcendental truth exists and is
accessible to human beings. We can recognize things because
we knew them before our birth when our souls were with the
divine. We have just forgotten them” ( Bizzell & Herzberg,
2001, p.80). Admittedly this argument relies more heavily on
faith than on what we call reason and maybe a more
complicated selling point for nonbelievers as it seems to fall
back on itself. Does Plato mask this truth through his subtle use
of rhetoric? Is the reader too busy keeping score in the verbal
boxing matchings of his portrayed Socratic discussion to notice
that no reasonable direct evidence is provided that proves we
knew more before we were born than we do now? Perhaps some
of us just missed those points in our readings, or maybe it calls
for a modification of the term “reason” or claim as we use them
today?
Plato’s definition of rhetoric and his search for truth and the
preservation of the soul is undeniably attached to the fear of
damnation and a Philosopher’s mission to save our souls. While
this may be considered an admirable feat, is it that much
different than a Sophist’s quest to get what he wants for himself
and others, or to satiate his appetite and alleviate his fear of
losing control of any given situation contextually judicial (but
not limited to those in entirety)? Perhaps we should simplify
Plato’s message and apply his summative advice to live a just
and virtuous life, keep our souls healthy, and remember that all
in power are [or at risk of becoming] corrupt, (Bizzell &
Herzberg p.138) and that includes ourselves and the potential
power that we have over one another. The rest we can leave to
God’s word.
References:
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001c). Gorgias. In P. Bizzell & B.
Herzberg (Eds.), The
rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the

13. present (2nd ed., pp.
42-44). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.