The final round of United States Extemporaneous Speaking has just concluded at the 2011 National Forensic League National Tournament. Extemp Central provides a quick breakdown of the speeches and ranks the round. A video will be posted this afternoon where more detail will be provided on the rounds and why they were ranked as such. This was posted in haste, so I apologize for any grammatical errors.
Speaker 1 (293-William McDonald)
Question: Is it still in the interests of the U.S. to consistently take the side of Israel in disputes within the Middle East?
Answer: Yes
AGD: U.S. Been Involved in Intl Conflicts
Bgd./Sig: (No Source)
I. Israel Bastion of Democracy
Brookings 6/3-U.S. Sentiment that Israel only democratic ally in the region
Brookings 6/5-Uncertain Arab revolutions
II. Check Iran
NYT 3/16-Geopolitically hungry Iran a big threat to the ME region
LAT 5/17-Israel checks because Iran knows a false move would be fighter jets over airspace
III. Consequences of Doing So Not Bad
CSM 2/19-Fear is that if U.S. backs it will anger OPEC
Rand Corp 3/21-Oil embargo wouldn’t be too bad
CX: Kevin Ye goes after the first point, but the speaker beats back that Kevin’s attacks on whether supporting Israel and democracy are mutually exclusive. The speaker handles Kevin’s question about problems inside of Iran nicely by laughing it off.
Summary: Awkward beginning with the basketweaving analogy, the speaker seemed a little nervous, which is understandable at this stage. He becomes more comfortable by the two minute mark. Not a fan of not having a source in the intro. I would’ve liked a better clarification of the problems in the Middle East that Israel is involved with in the intro as well. On delivery, the speaker did a good job looking like they were having fun and had good facial expressions. This speech needed much more discussion of diplomacy in the region and terrorist groups. Some major parts of Middle East politics are ignored like the Gaza Strip, West Bank, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Sources are also really dated for this topic after the first point. The OPEC analysis is a little flawed. A better route would’ve been for the speaker to argue that the 1973 Arab oil embargo hurt OPEC nations much more than the Western world. The biggest analytical flaw is that the U.S. is ignored in the second point and I’m not getting as much impact analysis, outside of point three, about why it is really in America’s best interest to back Israel. I’m not sold on point two and am weakly sold on point three.
————————
Speaker 2 (225-Kelly Wu)
Question: Are the pro-democratic revolutions in the Middle East likely to produce new friends or new foes for the United States in the region?
Answer: Friends
AGD: Average Height
Bgd./Sig: (N/A)
I. Intl Cooperation
Brookings-U.S. not always use cooperation and has used unilateral action
CBO-Spent over $1t and lost thousands of Americans
ECO April-U.S. not committed full troops
II. Re-eval of Goals
6/4-Obama deep pull out in Afghanistan
AJ-Use military less and diplomatic more
III. Better Strategy
CFR-U.S. has bad image in the Middle East
CFR-Cooperation has helped the war effort
CX: William asks a good question concerning American ties with Hosni Mubarak to start CX and the speaker talks around it. Not a lot of damage done in CX on this speech by the questioner and
Summary: Intro sounded really canned since the analogy is really broad. No source is used in the intro and we are not given a lot of background on the Arab Spring. I’m not a fan of not having specific dates for sources. Having access dates for the CBO data would have been nice. Also, the publication for the first source in the second point was not cited. We need more specifics throughout the speech onthe pro-democratic revolutions in the Middle East. We need specific examples of Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, etc. Instead, we get more discussion of Afghanistan and other areas. I appreciate the speaker trying to create a parallel and applying it to the Arab Spring, but it doesn’t seem to be working. The speaker also hardly mentioned “friend” or “foe” during the speech, which is a clear sign that the question was not fully answered. On delivery, the speaker was engaging, energetic, and had really nice time allocation. It just seems like she made the question more broad than intended and did not quite answer it.
————————
Speaker 3 (132-Vijay Singh)
Question: As other nations propose new global currencies, how can the U.S. maintain the dollar’s primacy?
Answer: Three-fold
AGD: Survey About Food Shortages
Bgd./Sig: NYT April-Dollar is declining
I. Limit Debt
NYT May-Debt has reached $14t
WP 6/2-As debt increases, foreign confidence declines
ECO Feb-As debt accumulates, U.S. runs risk of default
Brookings May-U.S. can limit tax deductions
WP-Bush era tax cuts = $2t
Cong. Research Service-$1t raised by 2020
WP May-U.S. needs to limit entitlements
II. Control Inflation
Naked Econ-Inflation reduces demand for the dollar
WSJ May-Inflation hit 3.2%, 2x last year
Heritage Nov-Value of dollar tied to value of oil
NYT 6/4-As econ recovery increases, Fed needs to increase interest rates
III. Invest in Innovation
ECO March-U.S. third in world behind Germany and China in subsidizing innovation; U.S. expected to fall to fifth soon
WP 6/4-U.S. can give tax credits to help with innovation
CX: Nice job by the previous speaker by questioning whether there’s a contradiction between cutting the debt and increasing funding for innovation.
Summary: Another canned intro since the theme is pretty broad, but the speaker delivered it well. We don’t get much analysis about new global currencies in the intro. I would have appreciated having the sources with specific dates. This is part of the Bellarmine model of extemp, with lots of sources. It’s a model that Jacob Baker used to win last year, but I question the efficacy of the model sometimes when you are dealing with a tough topic. I felt like the speaker ran the risk of talking over the head of the audience. Currency markets are very difficult to illustrate and the speaker could have done a better job teaching the audience about the topic. The problem with using lots of sources is that it can also be difficult to have the speaker’s voice and opinion be heard, but the speaker did a better job doing this in points two and three. The speaker went a little quickly in the middle of the speech, but delivered the speech with conviction and power. Overall, an interesting speech on the most difficult question so far, but I feel that the speaker spread themselves too thin. Instead of focusing on three solutions, I would have preferred focusing on one and giving three reasons why it would work. I can see this speaker doing well among some judges, but I think the failure to compare the dollar to other currencies is going to hurt him among others.
————————
Speaker 4 (101-Jared Odessky)
Question: As China continues to rise relative to the U.S., is war inevitable between these increasingly competitive rivals?
Answer: No, not in next 15 yrs
AGD: U.S. Blamed When Things Go Wrong
Bgd./Sig: CSM 5/12-Brazil replaced as trading partner with China
I. Too Economically Interconnected
Tragedy of Great Power Polx-Offensive realism sees warfare for power, but only in best economic interest and that’s not true for U.S. & China
American Enterprise Inst. 5/17-$13t U.S. debt, 53% is held in foreign reserves by China and U.S. could not sustain itself in a war
NYT 4/11-China largest buyer of U.S. consumer goods and China could not sustain itself either
Harvard Kennedy School of Govt-Up to 20 years to wean these ties off
II. China & U.S. Not Prepared for All-Out War
Brookings 5/16-China slow progress toward blue water navy
CSM 5/8-NATO conflict guided U.S. on military support, but NATO pulling back
III. Political Problems Will Prevent War
ECO 6/3-In 2012, China will face leadership transition
POL 6/3-Bitter partisanship shows U.S. can’t get engaged in another conflict (ex. Libya)
CX: Aggressive CX by Vijay with some good questions pertaining to the levels of U.S. and Chinese military spending, with led to a nice back and forth between he and Jared. Jared did a good job holding his ground, but Vijay did a good job looking informed on the topic.
Summary: AGD came off a little awkward and sucked up a lot of time. Good significance statement, though. The first point has great substructure, with some theory and then concrete analysis with relevant examples. The only problem is that it sucks up a lot of time and Jared does not transition to his next point until after four minutes have elapsed (this ended up short changing the third point). A nuclear weapons joke would have been relevant on point two. What Jared does a good job of in this speech is making sure to talk about China AND the U.S. Many speakers would have only talked about one or the other. Overall, there were some minor time allocation issues, but Jared addressed all parts of the question and provided some nice depth to his answer. Best speech of the round so far.
————————
Speaker 5 (232-Peter Vogel)
Question: How will the rise of the Tea Party affect the course of U.S. foreign policy?
Answer: Damage by hurting 3 institutions
AGD: Anna Karenina principle
Bgd./Sig: ATL-U.S. govt. is a joke
I. Intl Community
FA Mar/Apr-Tea Party is conservative alignment and populist strain dating back to Andrew Jackson
Center for Cong. Polx-Tea Party can hurt because of links to the GOP
Nye-To get things done, the U.S. must cooperate
II. Military
Democracy in Dangerous Places-Military should be accurate use of U.S. foreign policy
Brookings 12/14-U.S. less able to afford interventions because of budget crisis
Strategic Journal for Peace-U.S. has more success in multinational military missions; Tea Party does not like working with other countries
III. Culture
Nye-For soft power to be effective, need interactions with other countries
FA-Tea Party could reduce soft power by cutting back on social policies
CX: Predictably, Jared goes after the Tea Party’s power in the current American political system. Peter makes a good defense of his argument by arguing that the Tea Party has a good deal of power in the primaries. Vogel probably won the CX battle, though.
Summary: Interesting AGD, since I like Anna Karenina. Good use of the Foreign Affairs article on the Tea Party from Foreign Affairs. Peter has some nice theory and theoretical backing in the first point, but having some examples would have helped the analysis. This is the same with point two. Also, a problem that exists is that the Tea Party has to win the presidency or control of Congress to enact these policies and that does not look likely right now. Also, there is an argument to be made that the expansion of American culture has engendered some anti-Americanism around the world. I think this is a little behind Jared’s speech for the round just because Jared’s had more real world relevance and did not stay contained in the theoretical realm. Still, this is a nice speech that really stands out in the round and makes a clear and passionate argument. Vogel could win this round, although I have ranked him second, because he asserted himself during his speech and during both CX sessions.
————————
Speaker 6 (120-Kevin Ye)
Question: Does bin Laden’s death signal the end of the era of the war on terrorism and the beginning of a new foreign policy focus?
Answer: Absolutley
AGD: Conversations with U.S. and Oil Countries in the Middle East
Bgd./Sig: FA May/June-Arab revolts open U.S. eyes in the war on terrorism
I. Dimishing Popularity of Jihadism
Zakaria-Jihadism not the answer; 80% feel suicide bombings not good way to perpetuate a message
Deep Construction of Jihadism-Al-Qaeda is dispersed and Islamic movements are deconstructed
AJ-Lack of leadership in terror groups
II. Transition of ME Countries to Democracy
Brookings 6/10-Secular govt and free markets are demand of protests in the region
Brown Univ.-Great opportunity is that U.S. can institute constitutions to decrease volatility in the region
III. Helping Economies Liberalize
On China-China has 1.3b people
CX: Peter does a really good job attacking some of the links of Osama bin Laden to the Arab revolts. Kevin defends by pointing out that bin Laden’s death provides some new opportunities.
Summary: Funny and relevant AGD. I would have liked some more history of the war on terrorism in the background. More fluency errors by Kevin than other speakers in this round and his gestures are a little repetitive (lots of “begging” gestures). Bin Laden needs to be weaved more into each of the points since he is part of the focus of the question. Overall, I’m not sold that the U.S. should shift focus now. It seems that Kevin takes the question as what the U.S. should do rather than whether or not we are actually seeing a shift away from the war on terrorism in the status quo. I don’t think that he’s fully answering the question that he’s given. He’s got some great information on the Arab spring, but he doesn’t do a good job tieing it together with the war on terrorism and the death of Osama bin Laden.
—————————————————–
Final Ranks on My Ballot (Which Doesn’t Count):
1st-Jared Odessky (101)
2nd-Peter Vogel (232)
3rd-Vijay Singh (132)
4th-Kevin Ye (120)
5th-William McDonald (293)
6th-Kelly Wu (225)
[fblike] [twitter]