With these scores you will typically have to resubmit the paper, either through ARR or to a more focused workshop.
A rebuttal will likely not change the reviewers’ minds, especially if they are in agreement like they are here.
Do you have any collaborators with more experience? Talk to them about the reviews and how to improve the paper. If not, do you know anyone who could help? It’s very useful to have a sparring partner for these kinds of situations.
I personally never think in terms of scores, but instead focus on the quality of the paper. (You can always try to submit a good paper with lower scores and hope for the best.)
Some questions to ask:
1. Why did the reviewers react this way?
2. Did they misunderstand something? If so, where does the misunderstanding come from?
3. Is there something missing from the paper? (Motivation, relation to other work, explanation of the challenges you overcame and their significance, methodological details, supporting figures or tables, discussion of implications, etc)
4. Is the contribution big enough?
5. And would I be proud to have this paper associated with my name? (Negative reviews sometimes also help protect authors against themselves.)