[fblike]
The 2015 National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) United States Extemp final round has concluded. Here is Extemp Central’s brief summary and analysis of this year’s final round. Awards are scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. CST this evening and they will be streamed at this link.
Note #1: Some notable judges for this round include Todd Hering of Eastview High School, coach of the 2004 and 2005 U.S. Extemp national champion; Mario Herrera of Henry W. Grady High School in Georgia, coach of the National Points Race runner-up in 2012; and Montgomery Bell Academy Extemp Round Robin tournament director Adam Johnson.
Note #2: The official number of contestants this year in U.S. Extemp was 244.
Speaker 1 (243-Jay Sirot)
Question: Should the Federal Reserve increase interest rates this week?
Answer: No
I. U.S. Economic Growth Too Slow
II. Halt Housing Growth
III. Threatens Financial Stability
Summary: This is a bit of a dated question as reports surfaced this week that the Federal Reserve would not be raising interest rates. Of course, that is less of an issue as the speaker makes the argument that rates should not be raised. The AGD from the Huffington Post about signs of economic problems is okay, but could be more specifically linked to the Federal Reserve. The speaker does a good job referencing important elements of the economy such as GDP, unemployment, the housing market, and money markets, but better explanation about the internal workings of Federal Reserve decisions and its decisions in the past would be of great use here. Also, the speaker could do more to talk about why the housing market is so important for the U.S. economic recovery. The third point could also be tagged more specifically as its tag of threatening financial stability creates the danger of bleed with the first point. It is curious that the speaker did not discuss inflationary concerns, but their confident and smooth delivery are an asset for them in this round. The speaker defends their speech well in cross-examination well, but could link it back to more specific parts of their analysis.
Time: 6:50ish
Speaker 2 (330-Vishal Narayanaswamy)
Question: What will it take to beat Hillary Clinton?
Answer: Everything a candidate has
I. Bring New Ideas to Politics
II. Highlight Clinton Controversies
III. Demographics and Turnout
Summary: The biggest problem with this speech is time allocation. The speaker takes 1:41 to begin talking about Hillary Clinton and has an AGD about NSDA head Scott Wunn that did not link well to the question. At times, the speaker seemed to want to make too many jokes at the expense of analysis and this caused them start rushing the speech by the second point. For example, by the end of the first point the speaker had already used 4:56 of their allocated time. The speaker does a good job referencing the growing progressive wing of the Democratic party, using Bernie Sanders as an example of how new ideas entering politics could challenge Clinton, but it is curious that the speech as a whole does not talk much about specific Republican candidates, one of whom is guaranteed to face off with Clinton in the 2016 general election. The speech would have been greatly helpd by a more specific thesis as “Everything a candidate has” is somewhat vague. Without the time allocation issues, this could have been a stronger speech, but the long AGD and introduction, which was 2:45 total, caused the speaker to go over time. This has not always beena hindrance to the rankings of past speakers at NSDA Nationals, though.
Time: 7:56
Speaker 3 (291-Marshall Webb)
Question: Can the President’s trade deal be salvaged?
Answer: Absolutely because it has what is needed
I. It is Popular
II. The Foreign Policy is in Place
III. Democrats Could Not Defeat It
Time: 6:43
Summary: Like the first speaker, this question has a bit of a timing issue because the House approved trade promotion authority a few days ago. The speaker references this, though, in their third point, which is good and shows that they have been following the news at the national tournament. The speaker is also wise to make sure to focus their speech on the TPP and not trade promotion authority, which allows them to broaden their analysis. The speaker makes an interesting point from the Economist that Democrats favor free trade more than Republicans, but breaking down the popularity of trade deals among specific interest groups within the Democratic Party would have been more effective. Also, their foreign policy point begins by talking about the importance of Japan’s rice tariff, but we never tie back to that as the point continues. Still, the speaker makes very good points about how the President’s trade deal enjoys popular support and will not be easy to defeat in light of domestic and geopolitical conditions. The speech is well delivered, although some of the transitions are a bit lengthy. The AGD was also very effective in showing how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have had conflicting views of trade in 2008 and 2015.
Speaker 4 (241-Shawn Kant)
Question: Is the GOP too fractured to choose a competitive presidential candidate?
Answer: Yes
I. Rifts on Immigration
II. Divides on Foreign Policy Views
III. Donor Crisis
Time: 7:13
Summary: This is not an easy question to tackle due to the numerous candidates contesting the GOP presidential nomination. The speaker does his best to list them off and gets most of them. The AGD about Donald Trump is timely and applicable, letting the speaker dive immediately into their analysis. The speaker makes good points about divisions within the Republican Party and also touches on the positions on many candidates such as Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. This is a great decision, but where the analytical flaw of the speech comes in is that there needs to be more talk about the “competitive presidential candidate” part of the question. More discussion is needed about how these divides will hurt the Republican Party in a general election, especially against a Democratic candidate such as Hillary Clinton. This analysis is much clearer in cross-examination than during the actual speech. Including some analysis about how Republican divisions will lead to a fractured primary contest, where no candidate gets a majority of delegates in the early going, is also a somewhat necessary part of this speech that is not discussed. Still, the speaker does a good effort to cover what they can with adequate and timely source support. They also do a good job to press the next speaker about premium increases and how they threaten the Affordable Care Act.
Speaker 5 (318-Josh Wartel)
Question: Is the ACA now a crucial part of the American healthcare system?
Answer: Absolutley because it has transformed healthcare
I. Made Healthcare Affordable for the Middle Class
II. Expand Medicaid to the Poor
III. Altered Mental Healthcare Access
Time: 7:19
Summary: An ACA question was expected for this round (in fact this round had two) and the speaker did an excellent job making sure to focus on the “crucial” part of the question, providing statistics for how more Americans are gaining insurance, how healthcare options for the poor are changing at the state level (using the example of Illinois in the second point), and the changing nature of mental healthcare as a result of the ACA. The speaker has a tendency to get a tad preachy during the speed, but the passionate advocacy makes the speech memorable and convincing. The speech also has a very good closing that ties back to the AGD. During CX, the speaker is pressed about premium rate increases, but does a good job deflecting most of it.
Speaker 6 (123-Brian Yu)
Question: Is the Obama administration implementing the ACA in a way that violates the language of the law?
Answer: No
I. Exchanges Meet Legal Criteria
II. Individual Mandate Meets the Constitution
III. The Supreme Court Will Rule in Favor of the Law
Time: 7:07
Summary: This gives us that awkward moment of back-to-back speeches on the same topic, although the character of this question is significantly different than speaker five. The speech centers for the most part on the King v. Burwell case about healthcare subsidies, but there is also a discussion of the individual mandate. A discussion of the business mandate or the granting of waivers under the legislation probably would have been a better third point for this speech as a discussion about King v. Burwell took place in the first point, thereby leaving very little new information to discuss in the third point. We also need a little more proof about how Justice Anthony Kennedy is shifting his attitude about the ACA and will vote in favor of the government’s position in King v. Burwell. The last line of the speech did a great job fitting into the “United States Next Week” topic area, but the conclusion got away from the topic a little too much as the speaker emphasized the need to do something to fix healthcare if the government loses in King. Overall, though, the speaker showed a good command of the language of the ACA and judicial cases concerning it.
——————
Overall, what made a difference in terms of ranking speakers in this round was answering the question and providing focused, specific analysis in doing so. Yu falls a little behind Wartel because of a weak third point, while Webb is behind Yu because I had fewer lingering questions after Yu’s speech than Webb’s. The same criteria explains how Sirot is behind Webb. Kant’s difficulty of extending his analysis to the primaries and a theoretical general election weighed down his speech and time allocation difficulties did in Narayanaswamy’s chances.
Final Ranks on My Ballot (Which Doesn’t Count):
1-318 (Josh Wartel)
2-123 (Brian Yu)
3-291 (Marshall Webb)
4-243 (Jay Sirot)
5-241 (Shawn Kant)
6-330 (Vishal Narayanaswamy)