You could also try to identify more of the subtext rather than only argumentation or factual statements. Is it an emotional speech? Is it a factual speech? Is it a speech focusing its attention on the audience, the speaker or the case in point? The classical division in logos, ethos and pathos can get you quite far in analysing some of the underlying statements in a factual manner.

Another way to try and do this is through cluster criticism where you simply count key words and then count clustered words surrounding them. Thus, if war is mentioned many times, you know war is an important word to the speaker. Depending on whether you have ‘illegal war’ or ‘righteous war’ clustered, you have two very different points and appeals to audiences.

And there’s also the opportunity to look at body language, gestures and voice use, but that’s a bit harder unless the subjects are quite clear. Just think of the difference between Trumps performance and almost all other republican nominee candidates in the last US election.