2013 NFL Nationals: International Extemp Final Round Analysis

The International Extemp final round has concluded. 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 at 7:00 EST and when the results are made official, we will bring them to you here at Extemp Central.

Notable Fact: “The World Next Week” is the topic area for this round.

Notable Fact #2: Robert McMahon, editor of cfr.org, is on the judging panel.

Speaker 1 (127-Ashesh Rambachan)

Question: Should the U.S. lead a humanitarian intervention in Syria?
Answer: Yes

I. Moral Obligation

NYT-Violence in Syria has claimed 93k lives and 100k Syrians will die by the end of the month
CSM-3.5m Syrians are seeking refuge across international borders and 1/2 of its population of 20m people are displaced
Intl Relation Security Network-With world’s most powerful military, the U.S. is the only nation that can halt the violence in Syria
CFR-Right to protect was ratified by the UN General Assembly, so U.S. has a legal right to act

II. Regional Impact of Syrian Violence

Natl Interest-In Lebanon, there are over 750k Syrian refugees and before the civil war, Lebanon only had a population of 4m. This pattern was repeated in Iraq and this has seen religious tension because Sunnis are rising
NYT-Conflict in Syria is a primary reason there is a rise in sectarian violence in Iraq
FP-Terrorist organizations associated with al Qaeda are increasing their scope

III. Humanitarian Intervention Would Halt the Violence

Source-Overthrow of Assad might create more violence down the line
Carnegie-Pushback would happen from Iraq and Russia is Assad was removed and the U.S. must be willing to use force against both sides
Atlantic-U.S. can create safe haven for refugees in the northern part of Syria
Center for Strategic & Intl Studies-U.S. should create no drive/fly zone around major population centers

Time: 7:29

Summary: Funny AGD, but it takes up 54 seconds of the introduction. Nice abbreviated overview of the Syrian situation, but it doesn’t include the United states. Very nice parallel between Syria and Bosnia in point one and nice mention of the “right to protect.” Funny Las Vegas joke when transition into point 2. What I like about this speech is how relaxed the speaker is and how they provide specific examples to support their arguments. Nothing comes off as rushed. There is hardly a single broad statement in this speech. American national security interests should’ve been emphasized more in the second point. The speaker uses a fantastic variety of sources, many of which are underutilized in extemp. I’m not sure if point three lives up to its tag line and sort of drifts into answering a “how” question. Still, this is a very solid speech and if you are an underclassmen, I definitely recommend you watch it to see how to deliver an analytically sound speech. The speaker does a good job defending their speech on CX. Very nice question about the risk of war and regime removal and good use of source support in CX.

Speaker 2 (243-Nathan Leys)

Question: Does North Korea’s bellicose rhetoric indicate a renewed threat of conflict on the peninsula?
Answer: Yes because NK’s government is panicking

I. Need Food Aid

Diplomat-5.9 months after last 12 provocations, NK entered negotiations to get things they needed from the U.S. or SK, especially food
Korea Herald-New SK president unwilling to cooperate unless there are nuclear negotiations
Guardian-All of NK’s population is a National Guard

II. Terrified They Are Losing China

CFR-Awkward summit between U.S./CHN discussed NK and CHN sanctioned one of NK’s major banks
Source-In a war, China and U.S. would have to intervene in NK heartland, so NK is trying to tell China that they need to continue to support the Korean regime so

III. Military of NK is Splitting with the Government

NYT-Analysts concluded that NK nuclear test was intended to bolster domestic legitimacy with the army
Korean Herald-Kong Jong-Un replaced army chief of staff with a loyalist, out of fears that the army may disobey him so this shows that he may act aggressively and..
Korean Institute-NK could collapse and produce a refugee crisis

Time: 7:28

Summary: Funny AGD about North Korea standing up for the “little guy.” North Korea is easy to make fun of and the speaker takes advantage of that in the introduction while at the same time covering North Korea’s recent actions. Some of the energy used to start the speech is slumping by the time we reach the end of the first point. It takes four minutes to get to the second point, so time allocation is a growing problem in the speech. Speaker is very relaxed, but they have a tendency to have their upper body shift too far to their left. The analysis provided by the speaker is very, very solid and the speaker provides multiple impacts at the end of their points, which is something that younger extempers should take note of. Very impressive command of contest and very nice use of humor at the beginning of points to retain audience interest.

Speaker 3 (264-Allison McKibban)

Question: Do Iran’s presidential elections matter?
Answer: Yes

I. Rohani More Focused on Economy

CIA Factbook-Unemployment at 26% in Iran and bottom 50% of the economy is unemployed and currency losing value
Wash. Post-Rohani, leader to be, is more focused on well-being of the people, especially on economics
Brookings Institution-Raise standard of life by 20-30%

II. Negotiations with the West

BBC-Iran’s nuclear program is reaching dangerous heights
Source-Must be a centirst leader to prevent escalation
CSM-Alleviate tensions across the Middle East

III. Highlighted Centrist Movement in Iran

Gallup-Rohani won by 55% of the vote, which prevented a runoff
NYT-This impt. because it will lead to the rise of more centrist politics and allow the people to say more

Time: 7:24

Summary: Speaker is very animated at the beginning of the speech, which is good. Nice AGD about Ahmadinejad switching places with Michelle Bachmann. Speaker points out the next Iranian president, but it would’ve been nice to hit on why the question says “matter.” The speaker might want to touch on more reformist candidates being disqualified, which may have been one of the reasons that “matter” is in the question. It seems that the speaker is seeing it as a statement of significance, which can work as well. The speaker doesn’t reach their second point until 4:10, so time allocation is off a little. Speaker’s transitions are a little too long. The major points that the speaker provides are correct, but the speech lacks the analytical depth of the previous two speakers. Still, this speaker is very solid in terms of structure and delivery and performed well in the final round. They do a good job defending their speech in CX and they ask a great questions about UN inaction in their CX of speaker 4.

Speaker 4 (327-Kohi Gill)

Question: Is the UN Security Council’s inability to resolve Syria’s crisis a signal of its growing irrelevance?
Answer: No

I. Dialogue Happening

NYT-SC is the only forum where the powers can discuss the Syrian crisis and it is preventing an overreaction in Syria
FP Institute-As Russia and China have growing economic might, the world has a bigger need to understand their military posture

II. Council is Maintaing Committment to Peace

Heritage-Unlike NATO, chief position of UN is to use military strategizing for security & peace
Brookings-Despite Russia’s statement of missile defense, opposition & regime are reaching a stalemate

III. Council is Responding Cautiously

Heritage-Armed terrorist groups and opposition with al-Qaeda in Syria
CFR-(Didn’t catch)

Time: N/A

Summary: Interesting AGD about Syrian products, but having something about the UN Security Council might be better. Speaker has a very commanding voice and is good to listen to. “Three key reasons” – ugh. Transitions are quite long, taking more than 20 seconds to deliver. The introduction could have a little more background on the Syrian conflict. Having some history of previous Security Council action or inaction would strengthen the analytics of the speech. This is especially true when discussing the veto power that Russia and China possess and how Russia doesn’t favor an armed intervention in Syria at the moment. The speaker needs more specifics about the situation in Syria. Compared to speaker 1, there is not a lot of depth on this subject. Having more analysis about the actors on the Security Council would also strengthen the speech. The pacing of the speech and time allocation is good. The speaker also uses a nice array of sources and has a good closing line of their speech.

Speaker 5 (244-Lily Nellans)

Question: Has South Africa failed to deliver on its post-apartheid promise?
Answer: No

I. Women Not Treated Equally

FT-During apartheid, women protests were treated worse than men
Fletcher Forum-Women in parliament are only puppets of political parties and rape is not taken seriously

II. Foreigners Not Treated Equally

BBC-Post-apartheid South Africa was supposed to be a “Rainbow Nation”
Center for Human Rights-As unemployment has risen, foreigners are a scapegoat

III. Poor Not Treated Equally

CFR-Even though affirmative action measures were created post-apartheid, they failed and it is one of the most unequal places in Africa today
WSJ-The lower 50% of the population have far less worth than the top 50% and live in small slum towns

Time: 7:09

Summary: Different tact on the AGD by going super serious on race, which is a good approach to this question. Good job to point to Nelson Mandela’s condition, although having 1-2 more details about apartheid’s legacy would help. Interesting analysis of women’s role in apartheid, something that is not reported very much. This is more like a serious OO, which is very impressive to do in a limited preparation event, and there are examples to back up the analysis provided. What is most interesting is that the speaker talks about issues other than race, which makes this response very unique and different. Interesting analogy between Birmingham and the situation in South Africa today. This speech really had an affect on me that I’ve rarely experienced in extemp. I feel outraged about what’s happening in South Africa and the examples provided will stay with me for a long time. It’s a more dramatic approach to extemp that is different to a “humor model” that pops up in final rounds. It’ll be interesting to see how judges weigh this against speaker one and speaker two.

Speaker 6 (108-Lyubov Kapko)

Question: Do recent concessions by the Taliban foreshadow the end of the war in Afghanistan?
Answer: No

I. Karzai Isn’t Cooperating

NYT-As soon as office opens in Qatar, Karzai wants to move it to Kabul so that the U.S. cannot control it. He also told the U.S. he does not want their presence
ECO-Karzai is paranoid that any negotiation that isn’t Afghan-led is going to fall apart

II. Taliban is Not Going to Meet Prior Conditions

Source-Taliban must concede that the government is legitimate and that the post-2001 constitutin is legitimate, but they refuse to do this.
CFR-Hamid Karzai has said he is not running in 2014, but Abdul Karzai, his brother, will probably run and he will take orders from Hamid and Hamid will lead Afgahnistan from behind

III. Government is Weak, So the Taliban Has No Incentive to Negotiate

FA-Afghan government is incompetent and its like a magic show
FT-Afghanistan is going to fall back to recession in 2014 and will not reach fiscal sustainability until 2032!

Time: N/A

Summary: Interesting questions to speaker one, but some are too open ended and allow them to pin the first speaker down and it lets them expand on their analysis. Very impressive AGD. Very good statement of significance concerning the negotiations in Afghanistan. Very good examples in the first point and the speaker has a great commanding voice that sounds passionate about the subject. This makes the speech easier to listen to. Point two sort of drifts more to Karzai than staying on the Taliban. It should’ve focused more on tensions between Karzai and the Taliban. This speech is very solid and it’s really tough to disagree with any of it. This round is unbelievably tough to rank and this speech could potentially challenge for the national title. The one thing that hurts it on my ballot is that it lacks a “memorable moment” to leaves an impact on you, unlike the other three speakers at the top of my ballot.

——————

Final Ranks on My Ballot (Which Doesn’t Count):

1-244 (Lily Nellans)
2-243 (Nathan Leys)
3-127 (Ashesh Rambachan)
4-108 (Lyubov Kapko)
5-264 (Allison McKibban)
6-327 (Kohi Gill)

This round was highly anticipated and it delivered on expectations. I found this to be, top to bottom, one of the best national final rounds that I have ever seen (rivaling the 2000 IX final) and it might be the best that I’ve seen. Congratulations to all of the finalists for putting together such a great round.

[fblike] [twitter]