Extemplary

Practice Ballot

Regular Practice

Full 7-minute round, graded on all 8 rubric categories.

Grading Rubric 100 pts

Regular Practice Rubric

Category	Pts	Criteria
1. Creative Hook & Intro	8	Evaluates the attention grabbing device (AGD): is it a cliché quote/statistic, or a genuinely creative narrative/analogy? Assesses the link: does the hook transition smoothly into the exact question drawn, or is it forced? Checks for a clear, explicit thesis statement and a formal preview of the 3 distinct main points.
2. Structure	10	Structure is similar to the following: 1 AGD, a smooth transition into the question, a clear thesis, a quick preview of 3 main points, 3 body paragraphs, and a so-what conclusion. Is there a clear and smooth transition between every part (clear signposting)? Does it use transition words and not abrupt? Does the speaker cleanly refer back to their AGD multiple times throughout their speech? Does the conclusion's "So What?" explicitly tie back to the AGD with a clear final insight, rather than just summarizing the three points? Is the amount of time spent on each speech section reasonable (14%, 26%, 26%, 26%, 7%)?
3. Strength of Argument & Analysis	16	How convincing is the argument? How good is the analysis supporting the argument? For strength of argument, is it valid (the conclusion actually follows from the premises), well-supported (real backing, not just assertion), and fair (engages honestly with the strongest opposing view and fully adresses counterarguments)? For the analysis, does the speaker explicitly explain why their evidence is important and how it proves the point/claim they are making?
4. Flaws in Reasoning	12	Are there any logical falacies or holes in their reasoning (slippery slope, hasty generalization, false dilemma, post hoc, straw man, appeal to authority without warrant, etc.)? Are there any unproven assumptions, weak causal links (correlation asserted as causation), or rhetorical intensity used in place of actual logical connection? Does the speech have contradictions, where one point conflicts with another, or a later claim goes against an earlier one?
5. Strength of Evidence	16	Are there ~6 total unique sources/pieces of evidence used (the benchmark should be 1–2 sources per point)? Are the publications credible? Is the source knowlegeable in the topic in which the evidence discusses? Does the cited data actually prove the speaker's claim?
6. Clarity	10	Are there any awkward wordings, unnatural, clunky, or convoluted phrasing? Are there any vague pronouns ("it," "this," "that," "they," "these"), especially at the beginning of sentences (ex. 'This is...')? Does the speech say what it needs to efficiently? Does the speech refrain from using verbose language, circling back, over-explaining, or adding unnecessary fluff? Does the speaker clearly signpost (verbally mark the start of the intro, each body point, and the conclusion)? Are there any filler words ("really," "um...," "very," "just," "kind of," "sort of," "I think," "basically," etc.)? Would a judge unfamiliar with the topic understand the speech: every term, acronym, or reference used?
7. Conclusion Strength	8	Does the conclusion accurately restate the 3 main body points? Does the conclusion have a "so-what" conclusion that ends the speech with an extra note? Does the conclusion deliver a satisfying, intentional echo back to the exact creative hook used in the introduction?
8. Speech Quality, Vocal Delivery, and Fluency	20	Did the speaker have proper volume, pace, tone, emphasis, and pauses? Did the speaker refrain from filler words (um, uh, ah, er), quantifiers (basically, literally, actually, seriously), qualifiers (like, you know, I mean, I think), and transitionals (so, well, okay, anyway) without a purpose (such as humor)? Did the pitch of the speech vary depending on the placement of the speech (not monotonous)?
Total	100

Category	Pts	Criteria
1. Creative Hook, Link & Thesis	40	Evaluates the attention grabbing device (AGD): is it a cliché quote/statistic, or a genuinely creative narrative/analogy? Assesses the link: does the hook transition smoothly into the exact question drawn, or is it forced? Checks for a clear, explicit thesis statement and a formal preview of the 3 distinct main points. Judges the overall shape/pacing of the introduction itself.
2. Clarity	30	Are there any awkward wordings, unnatural, clunky, or convoluted phrasing? Are there any vague pronouns ("it," "this," "that," "they," "these")? Does the introduction say what it needs to efficiently? Are there any filler words ("really," "um...," "very," "just," "kind of," "sort of," "I think," "basically," etc.)? Would a judge unfamiliar with the topic understand every term or reference used?
3. Speech Quality, Vocal Delivery, and Fluency	30	Did the speaker have proper volume, pace, tone, emphasis, and pauses? Did the speaker refrain from filler words (um, uh, ah, er), quantifiers, qualifiers, and transitionals without a purpose? Did the pitch vary (not monotonous)?
Total	100

Category	Pts	Criteria
1. Structure	12	Is there a clear topic sentence/claim stated up front, a signposted internal shape (assertion, support, explanation), and a clean sense of closure? Is the point clearly signposted as a distinct point at the very start (e.g. "First," "Turning to")? Is time reasonably split between stating the claim, developing it with evidence, and explaining its significance?
2. Strength of Argument & Analysis	20	How convincing is the argument? How good is the analysis supporting the argument? Is it valid (the conclusion actually follows from the premises), well-supported (real backing, not just assertion), and fair (engages honestly with the strongest opposing view)? Does the speaker explicitly explain why their evidence is important and how it proves the point/claim they are making?
3. Flaws in Reasoning	14	Are there any logical falacies or holes in their reasoning (slippery slope, hasty generalization, false dilemma, post hoc, straw man, appeal to authority without warrant, etc.)? Are there any unproven assumptions, weak causal links (correlation asserted as causation), or rhetorical intensity used in place of actual logical connection?
4. Strength of Evidence	18	Are there ~1-2 unique sources/pieces of evidence used for this point? Are the publications credible? Is the source knowlegeable in the topic in which the evidence discusses? Does the cited data actually prove the speaker's claim?
5. Clarity	12	Are there any awkward wordings, unnatural, clunky, or convoluted phrasing? Are there any vague pronouns ("it," "this," "that," "they," "these")? Does the point say what it needs to efficiently, refraining from verbose language, circling back, over-explaining, or unnecessary fluff? Are there any filler words ("really," "um...," "very," "just," "kind of," "sort of," "I think," "basically," etc.)? Would a judge unfamiliar with the topic understand every term, acronym, or reference used?
6. Speech Quality, Vocal Delivery, and Fluency	24	Did the speaker have proper volume, pace, tone, emphasis, and pauses? Did the speaker refrain from filler words (um, uh, ah, er), quantifiers (basically, literally, actually, seriously), qualifiers (like, you know, I mean, I think), and transitionals (so, well, okay, anyway) without a purpose (such as humor)? Did the pitch of the speech vary depending on the placement of the speech (not monotonous)?
Total	100

Category	Pts	Criteria
1. Introduction Content — Question, AGD & Contentions	20	Is the question clearly restated? Is the AGD a genuinely creative narrative/analogy, or a generic/clichéd quote or statistic? Are exactly 3 distinct, non-overlapping contentions previewed that plausibly answer the question?
2. Body Development & Quote Analysis	35	Is each contention clearly stated up front in its body section? Does the analysis of each quote actually explain WHY it proves the point, rather than just restating it? Remember this is rough-draft analysis, so judge whether the seed of a real explanation is present, not full polish. If a combined analysis of both quotes is given instead of two separate ones, does it still connect both pieces of evidence to the contention?
3. Strength of Argument & Reasoning	25	How convincing is each contention on its own logical merits? Are there unproven assumptions, weak causal links, or named logical fallacies anywhere in the reasoning sketched out? Do the 3 contentions meaningfully differ from one another, or do any overlap/restate each other?
4. Structural Cohesion & AGD Linkage	10	Does each body section's 1-2 sentence link back to the AGD reference its specific imagery/framing, or is it a generic, forced callback? Do the 3 contentions in the intro match the 3 contentions actually developed in the body sections, in the same order?
5. Conclusion Content	10	Does the conclusion accurately restate all 3 contentions? Does the "so-what" close deliver an actual final insight/stake, rather than just repeating the contentions a second time?
Total	100

Please choose how you'd like to enter your question.

Intro

Question

AGD (Attention-Getting Device)

3 Contentions

Body 1

Contention 1

Card 1

Date

Source

Card 2

Date

Source

Card 1 & Card 2 Analysis

Rough draft notes are fine here, half-formed analysis is expected.

Link to AGD (1-2 sentences)

Body 2

Contention 2

Card 1

Date

Source

Card 2

Date

Source

Card 1 & Card 2 Analysis

Rough draft notes are fine here, half-formed analysis is expected.

Link to AGD (1-2 sentences)

Body 3

Contention 3

Card 1

Date

Source

Card 2

Date

Source

Card 1 & Card 2 Analysis

Rough draft notes are fine here, half-formed analysis is expected.

Link to AGD (1-2 sentences)

Conclusion

Restate 3 Contentions

So What? (1-3 sentences)

Please fill in every field above before submitting your rough draft.

Record

Example Ballot

Question Drawn

Was the U.S. war in Afghanistan in vain?

This is a sample of what a finished ballot looks like, with a full AI judge feedback plus a color-coded transcript (with comments!) you can click through. The speech itself is from the round below.

Unofficial practice tool. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the NSDA