The United States Extemp final round has wrapped up. Here is Extemp Central’s analysis of the final round. Extemp Central provides a quick breakdown of the speeches and ranks the round. Awards will take place tonight and when the results are made official, we will bring them to you here at Extemp Central.
Random Observation: That Ronald Reagan video was quite ominous. A more fitting ending to it might’ve been the detonation of Tsar Bomba.
Notable Fact: Lisa Miller of Nova High School, who coached last year’s U.S. Extemp national champion Jared Odessky is on the judging panel.
Notable Fact #2: 248 competitors entered U.S. Extemp this year at the NFL National Tournament.
Speaker 1 (292 – William McDonald)
Question: Is fiscal austerity the solution for America’s economic woes?
Answer: No
AGD: Descartes quotation
I. Stimulus Important
Krugman 3/26 – Economic downturn is a shift left in aggregate demand
Brookings 2/2 – 73% of U.S. GDP made of consumer spending
Bloomberg 5/28 – Stimulus analogy
American Enterprise Institution 5/12 – Savings go up when downturn is anticipated
II. Servicing of Debt is Not Terrible
WSJ 5/8 – Short-term interest rates stand at 1.2% and long-term rates are 1.4%
NYT 1/22 – In 2006, U.S. service payment was $239b and in 2011, it was $279b and small gain because of low interest rates
Brookings 3/2 – Critical European problem is their debt in how it’s been handled and not its size
III. Long-Term Govt. Involvement Important for Competitiveness
Heritage Foundation – Infrastructure, education, energy competency and other areas are very important and government must be involved
MSNBC 3/8 – China enhancing spending on state infrastructure
Cato 2/2 – Echoes MSNBC
Time of Speech: 7:05
Summary: Voice is a little shaky at first, possible nerves? The speaker needs to lay out America’s economies woes better than merely assuming that we know them. The speed is a little too quick for what I would like to see in a speech about economics. The speaker should probably use the word “austerity” more to balance out his discussion of stimulus. Judges that are not flowing may not pick up on this point. The other issue is that point one the way that it is tagged seems to encompass the entire speech, since the whole speech values stimulus over austerity. A better tag might include consumer spending. The speaker does a great job beating back cross-examination questions that try to point out that the stimulus plan failed. The speaker lays out an interesting argument, but I feel that in too much of this speech I’m being spoken “at” and dictated to. There’s just not a lot of warmth and friendliness. The speaker also adopts a great strategy for CX, by questioning whether the U.S. should get involved at all.
——————
Speaker 2 (124 – Debnil Sur)
Question: How should the U.S. respond to Russian arms shipments to Syria?
Answer: Three fold
AGD: Roosevelt’s Big Stick Quotation
I. Naval Blockade
FP 6/1 – blockade would hurt arms shipments
CSM 4/30 – must make threat effective, so work with UN Security Council
FP 6/1 – not necessarily true that you have to work with Security Council, but allies within the Arab League (JFK alliance with OAS is historical example)
II. Actively Support Opposition
FP 6/1 – Extension of aid to violent groups is possible and Secretary Clinton is interested
AJ 4/28 – Russian economic interests would be damaged via this aid, especially its energy interests
III. Negotiate with Iran
CSM 4/30 – Primary gap in diplomatic peace is Iran
FP 6/1 – One of the largest reasons for this is Iran’s nuclear activity, but bringing them to the table would impress the Russians
FP 6/1 – Iran important for Syria and the Russians
CSM 6/14 – eventual peace possible with this step
Time of Speech: 6:40
Summary: The speaker’s gesture movements are a little slow and he looks stiff at the beginning of the speech. I’m not a fan of the answer strategy, since I prefer picking one solution and three reasons why it would work. The problem with this strategy is that it is tough to give an overview of any of the three points in less than two minutes and make it convincing. For example, I’d love to hear more about these Syrian opposition groups the speaker discusses in the second point, but there’s not enough time to go in-depth about them! There’s a lot of reliance on Foreign Policy magazine and one article from it in this speech. The speaker is very clear and has great enunciation, but isn’t very enthusiastic about getting their message across and personality is huge on a final round stage at NFL. The speaker maintains their composure during CX, but I would have liked them to use their speech more to defend their arguments.
——————
Speaker 3 (330 – Alex Wasdahl)
Question: Would a Romney victory in November represent victory or failure for the Tea Party movement in America?
Answer: Failure because Romney is not their desirable candidate
AGD: Pop culture songs
I. Romney’s moderate policies
NYT 6/1 – one of the main issues concerning Romney is the healthcare legislation in Massachusetts in 2008 (?!?!?!?!)
Brookings 5/27 – in 2008, Romney wrote two editorials on the auto bailout
Sabato’s Roots and Reform – often GOP candidate will be conservative in primary
II. Broad-based appeal
BG 5/2 – Tea Party wanted male and female support (i.e. Christine O’Donnell), but Romney is losing support among women
III. Loss of desirable candidates by the Tea Party
Atlantic 6/3 – scandals and mistakes engulfed Herman Cain and Rick Perry
NYT 3/31 – Tea Party had to settle for Romney
Time of Speech: N/A (over 7:00)
Summary: The speaker’s facial expressions are guarded by their haircut. I was getting Gilbert Lee flashbacks from 2000 based on the AGD. It would’ve been nice to hear just a little more about Romney in the background of the speech. “Three key areas of analysis” – ugh. The speech is a little top heavy, with the introduction running 1:55. The date of when Romney was governor of Massachusetts is wrong in the first point as well. The speaker doesn’t effectively describe the Tea Party’s ideological stance and how it ties to Romney’s moderation in the first point. That’s always a challenge in these questions where you have to balance two views. The speaker does have some charm and is trying to engage the audience with some jokes and other references, which never hurts on the final stage. The second point also has some weakness because Romney’s numbers are actually rising among female voters, although it is true that he still trails President Obama. The speaker doesn’t get to their third point until 5:30, so there are some time allocation problems that are still present in this speech. The P90X joke about Newt Gingrich was a nice touch near the end. Overall, the analysis isn’t as convincing as other speakers in the round and there are lots of gaps in seeing how a Romney victory would be a loss for the Tea Party. There isn’t enough analysis of what a Romney presidency would look like and that’s crucial because the question presumes he would win and it might be bad for the movement. Nevertheless, the speaker did show some personality and looked to enjoy themselves so that may win over some judges on the panel. Question about hyperinflation came after World War I and not World War II, when it comes to his question to speaker 125. Nonetheless, he was put in a bad spot having to question a speech that had very little wrong with it and he did what he could, especially with the questions about quantitative easing.
——————
Speaker 4 (125 – Madhu Vijay)
Question: Can the Federal Reserve achieve its so-called dual mandate and simultaneously achieve price stability and low unemployment?
Answer: Yes
AGD: Milton Friedman quotation
I. Current Price Stability
NYT 3/28 – Federal Reserve has low interest rates, so lending and borrowing is cheaper
(Source) – projected inflation is 1.2%
Institute for Supply Management (January) – only 17% of managers believe prices rising too much, but over 30% believe they are stable
II. Tools in Its Arsenal
Newsweek 1/3 – easy lending policy with low rates; December 2008 saw $1.6t pumped into economy and $7.7t more pumped in and these decreased unemployment in sectors like construction
Economist 4/15 – Operation Twist, with the Fed buying $400b of bonds and selling short-term bonds would increase demand and decrease cost long-term and make mortgages cheaper
National Association of Realtors Index – increased 4.1% in April compared to last year
III. Benefits of Inflation
Krugman The Return of Depression Economics – High rate of inflation = prices rise over time, so consumer spending will increase
(Source) – Spending increase 2.3%
Newsweek 4/14 – Federal Reserve might raise inflation target to 6% so that consumers will spend more
Time of Speech: 7:09
Summary: This has to be one of the hardest final round questions in U.S. Extemp that I’ve ever seen, so we’ll see how the speaker hands it. The speaker projects confidence out of the gate and has a commanding voice. The speaker is going at the proper pace to educate the audience about economic principles and how the U.S. economy works, which I can appreciate. The first point hits the question, but probably should touch a little on unemployment just to make all three points well rounded in that regard. I’m very impressed by this speaker’s knowledge of monetary economics and the way they lay out the argument. It is very easy to follow and the third point is unlike any that I’ve seen before, where a high inflation rate is actually used as a positive. This is the best speech of the round so far that has both a high degree of content sophistication and welcoming presentation. The speaker also asks great question of 255 on CX.
——————
Speaker 5 (255 – Chase Harrison)
Question: Should we be concerned about 2012 being the most negative campaign in the nation’s history?
Answer: Yes
AGD: Importance of Patriotism in American presidential politics
I. Super PACs have no political liability
WSJ – Super PACs air ads independent of candidates
WP 6/9 – GOP Super PAC linked Obama to Jeremiah Wright
NYT 2/23 – political campaigners can be linked to Super PACs
II. Tea Party has a lack of leadership
A Tea Party Manfiesto
NYT 4/2012 – RNC and DNC have leadership, but Tea Party does not
Politico – Tea Party candidates are vicious in their recent ads
III. GOP debates set a poor tone
NYT 2/21 – environment created by this was one where candidates tried to one-up each other
Time of Speech: 7:01
Summary: The speaker has good energy and the introduction is well structured. However, the speaker runs through their preview statement quickly and doesn’t have a “beat” at the end of their preview before moving to the first point. Having some history in this speech is CRITICAL and it’s missing. We have to have a benchmark to evaluate if this will be the most negative campaign in the country’s history. We’ve had some brutal ones in the past like Jefferson-Adams in 1800, Grover Cleveland’s election in 1884, Bush-Kerry in 2004, etc. I think the “Dick” Armey joke was inappropriate as well and it’s not good as a speaker to laugh at their own jokes, which this speaker does. I can see how the speaker got here because they are very charismatic, but without some good historical comparisons, the question cannot fully be answered. Also, we need to hear more about the dynamics of the 2012 presidential race and we don’t hear a lot about that. We also heard very little of the Democratic side. The speaker should try to use their speech as more of a screen to defend their speech during CX.
——————
Speaker 6 (150 – Richard Clark)
Question: Are Super PACs good or bad for American democracy?
Answer: Bad
AGD: Academy Awards-type intro
I. Not Credible or Responsible
WP 5/6 – Super PAC’s influence rising sees credibility go downward
II. Swaying America’s Focal Point from Policy to Sensationalism
Time 6/2 – Americans are dependent on sensationalism
Source – Americans sentimentalizing campaigns
III. Deepening Incumbent Advantage
WSJ 5/16 – Incumbent has a huge advantage and this will be true in the presidential race and this is especially true if a hard primary has to be fought
WP 5/2 – In last 50 years, there was 20% advantage in campaign fundraising in GOP primary versus incumbent, but now 10:1 ratio in Super PAC
Time of Speech: 7:23
Summary: The speaker has a creative AGD (although I’m not exactly sure of its topicality), but they speed up after getting through it. The first point does a good job pointing out the flaws of Super PACs, but there is bleed with the second point because the speaker goes ahead and discusses sensationalism there instead of exclusively in the second point. This is a good rant against Super PACs, but there need to be more examples in the second point to prove that Americans are being swayed by these Super PACs and their ads. I’m not fully convinced by the speech that advertisements = Americans are ruined. The second point also grows repetitive. The third point has some excellent evidence, but the impact scenario on why a deep incumbent advantage is bad is not really clarified. The tone of the speech is firm, but lacks a lot of vocal variety. Overall, this is a better analysis of Super PACs that was presented from the previous speaker, but it felt a little too light on analysis, especially in the middle and this is something that the fifth sepaker jumps on in CX.
——————
Final Ranks on My Ballot (Which Doesn’t Count):
1-125 (Madhu Vijay)
2-292 (William McDonald)
3-124 (Debnil Sur)
4-150 (Richard Clark)
5-255 (Chase Harrison)
6-330 (Alex Wasdahl)
[fblike] [twitter]