Augmind StudioTwo rubrics for varsity-level work, both on a 1–5 band scale: a five-dimension speech rubric for prepared and limited-prep events, and a three-dimension drill rubric for scoring isolated argumentation reps. These are the same rubrics that ship inside Augmind Studio’s grading engine. Coaching middle school? The MS pack is here.
What changes at the high school level
The middle-school dimensions (clarity, structure, confidence) reward getting a coherent speech out. At varsity, those are table stakes — the differentiators move up a level: quality of analysis, quality of support, and whether the language itself does persuasive work. The five dimensions below reflect that shift; each still carries equal weight, scored 1–5 and averaged.
The HS speech rubric — five dimensions
Use it for Original Oratory, Informative, Extemp, and any prepared class speech. For interpretation events, see the notes below the tables.
1. Analysis & Content
Is there a real thesis, and does the speech actually think?
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 5 | A clear, significant thesis carried throughout; ideas show genuine analysis and insight, not just assertion. |
| 4 | Clear thesis and solid ideas; analysis is sound if not especially original. |
| 3 | A recognizable thesis but thin, surface-level analysis; some ideas asserted without exploration. |
| 2 | Thesis unclear or ideas underdeveloped; mostly generalities. |
| 1 | No discernible thesis or analysis. |
2. Organization
Does the structure guide the listener, or does the listener do the work?
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 5 | Purposeful structure — a hooking intro, clearly delineated points, and a resonant close; transitions guide the listener effortlessly. |
| 4 | Clear intro / body / conclusion with mostly smooth transitions; one seam shows. |
| 3 | A basic structure the listener can follow, but transitions are abrupt or the shape is loose. |
| 2 | Hard to follow; points blur or the speech wanders. |
| 1 | No structure a listener could reconstruct. |
3. Development & Support
Are claims earned with evidence and examples, or just stated?
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 5 | Every point is developed with specific, credible support — examples, evidence, or (for extemp) cited sources — woven in, not tacked on. |
| 4 | Points are supported, though one piece of evidence is thin or a source is unnamed. |
| 3 | Support is present but uneven; claims often rest on assertion. |
| 2 | Little real support; mostly unbacked claims. |
| 1 | No development or support. |
4. Language & Style
Is the writing itself doing work?
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 5 | Vivid, precise, purposeful language; rhetorical devices land; the writing itself is a strength. |
| 4 | Clear, controlled language with occasional flourish. |
| 3 | Serviceable, plain language; little intentional style. |
| 2 | Wordy, vague, or clumsy phrasing distracts. |
| 1 | Language impedes meaning. |
5. Delivery & Presence
Does the voice compel attention?
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 5 | Commanding vocal delivery — varied pace and emphasis, negligible filler, poised recovery; the voice compels attention. |
| 4 | Confident, controlled delivery; minor filler or a few flat stretches. |
| 3 | Clear and audible but limited vocal variety; noticeable filler or pace issues. |
| 2 | Halting, rushed, or monotone delivery undercuts the speech. |
| 1 | Delivery prevents the speech from landing. |
The drill rubric — for isolated argumentation reps
Full-speech rubrics blur when the assignment is one move: a single refutation, one impact-calculus comparison, one crossfire answer. A five-dimension average buries whether the student executed the move. This three-dimension rubric puts half the weight on pattern execution:
1. Pattern Execution
Did the rep execute the target move — claim/warrant/impact, the weighing axis, the refutation steps?
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 5 | Target pattern executed cleanly and naturally; every key element (claim/warrant/impact, the weighing axis, or the refutation move) is unmistakable and well-integrated. |
| 4 | Pattern executed correctly; all key elements present, one slightly underdeveloped. |
| 3 | Pattern present and mostly correct; one element weak or muddled. |
| 2 | Pattern attempted but a key argumentative element is missing. |
| 1 | No recognizable use of the target pattern. |
2. Clarity
Could a judge flow it live, without backreading?
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 5 | Every claim and warrant lands instantly; zero ambiguity, nothing to backread. |
| 4 | Clear throughout; at most one phrase to untangle. |
| 3 | Mostly clear; a couple of spots need a second listen. |
| 2 | Hard for a judge to track without backread. |
| 1 | Lost the judge. |
3. Delivery (pace, filler, presence)
Does the delivery add persuasive force?
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 5 | Commanding debate presence; clean, varied pace; negligible filler. |
| 4 | Strong presence; composed pace; minimal filler. |
| 3 | Generally composed; occasional filler or rush. |
| 2 | Pace or filler noticeably reduces persuasiveness. |
| 1 | Delivery undermines the argument. |
For full constructives, rebuttals, and practice rounds, use the five-dimension debate rubric — argumentation, clash & responsiveness, evidence & reasoning, delivery, structure & signposting — printed in full in the companion pack; it applies unchanged at varsity level.
Event and format notes
- Public Forum. Weight Development & Support and the debate rubric’s clash dimension; PF judges are often lay judges, so score accessibility inside Delivery — jargon that loses a parent-judge is a real deduction.
- Lincoln-Douglas. Framework work lives in Analysis & Content: does the value–criterion pair actually get applied as a lens in later speeches, or is it decoration?
- Extemp. Development & Support requires named, cited sources; Organization rewards the answer-first structure (question, answer, three reasons).
- Interp events (DI/HI/POI/Duo). Swap Analysis & Content for interpretation choices (cutting, character distinction, arc) and read Delivery & Presence as physical + vocal character work. The 1–5 band logic carries over directly.
Frequently asked questions
Should high school speeches be graded on a 1–5 or 100-point scale?
1–5 anchored bands, same as middle school — the reasoning gets stronger at varsity level, where students will argue about points. A band descriptor is a sentence you can defend with a timestamp; a 87-vs-84 distinction is not. Track growth as a per-dimension trend across weeks.
How is this different from a tournament ballot?
Ballots rank and rate against the room on one day; these rubrics measure one student's take against fixed descriptors so week-over-week practice is comparable. Use the rubric all season, and read tournament ballots as external calibration.
What rubric should I use for PF or LD practice speeches?
For full constructives and rebuttals, use the five-dimension debate rubric (argumentation, clash, evidence, delivery, signposting). For isolated reps — one refutation, one weighing comparison, one crossfire answer — the three-dimension drill rubric above scores the move itself without averaging it away.
Are these rubrics free to use?
Yes — copy, print, and adapt them for your program or classroom. If you republish them, credit Augmind Studio with a link.
Rubric-scored feedback for every rep, drafted for you
Students record; AI drafts scores and written feedback against these exact rubrics with timestamped evidence; your coach reviews and signs. Free 21-day trial.
These rubrics are free to copy, print, and adapt for your program or classroom. If you publish them, credit Augmind Studio with a link to this page.