[fblike]
The 2016 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 8:30 p.m. EST this evening and they will be streamed at this link.
Note: 252 extempers competed in U.S. Extemp at this year’s national tournament.
Speaker 1 (177-Jacob Thompson)
Question: What reforms should be made to American immigration policy?
Answer: Increase in funding to solve three problems
I. Reduce immigrant court times
II. Allow adequate processing of asylum claims
III. Improve immigrant detention center conditions
Logan Scisco Notes: Speaker starts a little nervous, using the wrong words in a few situations (e.g. “prosecuted” rather than “persecuted”) but becomes more relaxed as the speech goes on. Speaker could do a better job clarifying what the existing U.S. immigration policy is. The speaker does a good job focusing on funding issues as a thesis, but the explanation of how funding would help needed to receive more attenton. Lots of attention was given to harms in this speech, but we need more focus on solutions and how funding will fix those harms. Clarifying differences in legal and illegal immigration could have strengthened some of the analysis of this speech as well. Good range of sources, though, as the speaker utilized ten different publications/think tanks in their speech. Speaker successfully defended their speech in cross-examination, showing more passion than they did in the speech. When it came to cross-examining the following speaker, good questions were asked that indicted several of the solutions that were provided for handling tax evasion.
Josh Wartel Notes:
Intro and Question Analysis: Such a broad question. This is a really lousy question.
Needed another pause as he shifted tone. Immigration politically untouchable – Never do anything to change the system. This isn’t true though. Republicans and Democrats have very different goals. We need basic facts like that illegal immigration is illegible
Would be nice to hear pauses before point begin.
Points: I can’t really argue with the first point, but is it really that big of a deal. Huge delays for immigrants. Of course, we should have more judges. We must change the court system – bc they don’t show up. I don’t think this is a real impact. More on children would be good for the first point. I agree with the second point but it hardly seems to answer the wider question of who gets asylum. Third point is that current system had terrible crowding. Inhumane treatment of immigrants seems true. So of course we should open more detention centers. But would opening more beds and stuff would lead to more detention? Particularly because there are for profit immigration holding centers that need to fill beds. Is this really the worst human rights abuse, as the speaker says it is?
My take: Not a lot you can do with that question. The speech dodged the larger moral questions that immigration creates. Instead of a large, broad speech, we get no idea of the motivations or values behind our immigration policy.
Time: 7:08
Speaker 2 (118-Brian Xu)
Question: How should the U.S. government respond to concerns over Americans named in the Panama Papers?
Answer: U.S. should crackdown on tax evasion
I. Increasing financial transparency
II. Close down tax loopholes
III. Empowering law enforcement agencies
Logan Scisco Notes: Good clarification of what the Panama Papers were at the beginning of this speech. The biggest problem in the speech is time allocation, as the speaker does not get into their third point until 5:40. In fact, the speaker seemed to bite off more than they could chew in the second point as they had four source citations there and spent arguably the most time of the speech there.The speaker could also do a better job connecting back to the Panama Papers so that this speech does not become so focused on tax evasion that it misses the specific topic of the question. For example, the end of the second point started to make more of a socioeconomic argument about taxes in the U.S., but this was largely unnecessary to sell the thesis.
Josh Wartel Notes:
Intro and Question Analysis: Not much of an AGD. I need to hear much more about the Americans in the Panama Papers. Is this tax evasion legal or illegal? Also, Emma Watson is not an American, sadly.
Points: Financial transparency sounds nice. How do we increase the financial transparency? Register with the government? But isn’t this abroad. But tax evasion is illegal. Impact?
Loopholes cost $18 billion. Not have to register with the IRS. Major problem, but similar to the first point? Speaker suggests Americans shouldn’t base companies in other countries. But of course they can! Not sure how this is a response to the Panama Papers. Third point asks the FBI can’t investigate. Ukraine is a model? That seems very unlikely to me. 8 tax treaties that are waiting to be passed. Does this have to do with the Panama Papers? This was not helpful in explaining the system. The third point was very short.
Awkward and fast ending.
Conclusion and Cross-ex: Not enough of a focus on whether or not the activities are legal or illegal. Was anything in the Panama Papers by Americans illegal? This speech did not do enough to make tax policy issues clear or link back to the Panama Papers.
Time: 7:31
Speaker 3 (293-Marshall Webb)
Question: What action should the federal government take in response to Mississippi and North Carolina’s LGBT laws?
Answer: Federal government should protect LGBT community
I. Federal government apply private sector pressure
II. Federal government can cut funding
III. Federal government can sue
Logan Scisco Notes: Good AGD devide for using the question by making use of the British travel advisory. Nice historical reference to Stonewall at the end of the introduction as well. I am not a fan of the answer to this question because it is too vague. What kind of action should the federal government take? I would prefer a more specific thesis and three reasons that will work to fix the harm inherent in the question. For example, the speaker could easily use the second point as the thesis and explain three ways it will lead to greater protections for the LGBT community. There was also significant “bleed” between the second and third points as both focus on Justice Department legal action. In fact, much of the rhetoric for those two points matches as well. It appears that the speaker took on more of an emotional appeal for this speech, which is easy to do with this question, but it would have been more powerful with more distinct points and a more focused answer.
Josh Wartel Notes:
Intro: and Question Analysis Good AGD that works. NYT source needs to explain this more quickly. Some awkward pauses. Good stat of 9 milllion Americans. Need to mention these religious liberty parts of the laws. That is central to the federal government’s role. Running way long on time.
Points: On-top was not much of a help. Private sector pressure is the first point. Pearl Jam canceled a concert. Moved away from these states. Can encourage corporations to move. But who is encouraging? The government or Obama? I don’t see how the government has this power. What private sector pressure? This point is not good for me. Second point is cutting funding. US v Dole. Was smart on-top. Violating Civil Rights Act. Will sue them. Conflicts with third point a little. Half a billion federal funding could be lost. What is this funding? Won’t it hurt people. And trigger a further backlash? Who decides to cut? Okay point. Third point is the best. These laws are a violation of the civil rights act. Equal protection and the 14th amendment. Wins in public opinion. A very short point. Completely mismanaged time in the beginning and didn’t want to go over. If you mention how it will affect other states, I would like specific other states it could affect.
My take: Easiest question so far, but first two points didn’t do much for me. Needed to focus much more on concrete actions by specific agencies or actors in the government.
Time: 7:22
Speaker 4 (304-Neil Patel)
Question: If confirmed, how would Merrick Garland change the balance ofpower on the Supreme Court?
Answer: More liberal
I. Uphold liberal precedent
II. Supports workers’ rights
III. Votes tactictly
Logan Scisco Notes: AGD provided a link to Scalia and change on the Supreme Court, but really lacked a punch. Good reference to Supreme Court cases, which is a must on this question, but more references to cases that Garland rules on while on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals would have been nice. The speaker needs to be careful of just “name dropping” cases, though, and now fully explaining what they mean or what their core issues are (e.g. Hobby Lobby). Utilizing more Supreme Court history was also needed in this speech, especially for the second point when the speaker argues that workers’ rights are so significant or how a shift will take place. Contrasting Garland versus other Supreme Court personalities was also needed here, especially for the third point since that is crucial when looking at the balance of power on the Court. The timing of the speech was questionable as well, as the speaker went to the conclusion less than six minutes in. Overall, the speaker had good focus areas, but needed to flesh them out more.
Josh Wartel Notes:
Question and Intro Analysis: Anton Scalia and Broadway show AGD wasn’t very good. Would have preferred a Garland AGD to learn about him. 4-4- split, new appointment Garland could change the court. This speaker didn’t button his jacket right. I feel for him because I did that one year. Stakes are very high. Good sig statement. And question is perfect for a home run.
Points: First is about upholding liberal precedence. Found the on-top useless. Roe v. Wade and Teachers unions mentioned. Would have preferred talking in depth about a issue. Second point is workers rights. Useless, not topical joke. Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell isn’t really a workers rights issue to me. I believe Garland is actually pretty conservative on labor but would need to check this. Is this about social issues? Tag seems a bit off. Not a lot of depth in this analysis. Really short point.Third point is that Garland is tactical. But who doesn’t vote tactically? Would like to set precedent but all justices want that. Vox joke was silly. What cases will this impact?
My take: My timing was off but I thought this speech was short. Would have been much stronger if it focused on three key legal issues that Garland would affect and the impact of these cases on Americans.
Time: 6:10
Speaker 5 ([Code Number Missed]-Micah Cash)
Question: Is single payer healthcare a feasible system for the United States?
Answer: No because too many practical complications
I. Exorbitant costs to the public
II. Lower quality of care
III. Decreased innovation and competition
Logan Scisco Notes: Good use of poll data as part of the significance statement. The tax point that the speaker makes in the first point is valid, but more specifics of how much taxes might rise to pay for a single-payer system would have sold this argument better. The speaker is wise to use Medicare and Medicaid as vehicles for a single-payer system since those are government administered and also good use of the Gallup poll throughout the spech to show how public opinion changes depending on what a single-payer system would look like. The “big boy pants” AGD was an okay device, but something with more punch would have ended the speech on a better note. Speaker does a nice job turning some very interesting questions about their speech in cross-examination.
Josh Wartel Notes:
Question and Intro Analysis: A generic not topical AGD at all. Obamacare under fire – from liberals. They want a single payer system. Expand Medicare to cover everyone. 58% support it. We need a time frame!!!! Anything could be feasible in the long run! This was a really long intro.
Point: First is very high cost. Another poor on-top. Atlantic – Expand medicare. 20% cost sharing and high costs. What do projections say about Medicare? Taxes would go up. Is this true? Employers pay it now, so would the burden just shift away from employers. What about Europe? I’d like more specifics of how much this will cost?
Second says lower quality of care. This strikes me as wrong when compared to Europe’s good outcomes. Claim that Medicare and Medicaid don’t improve health care at all seems wrong. Link is all about polling but I don’t see how this matters because you are making a policy not political argument. Feasibility doesn’t rely on
Third point is health care innovation. Another weak on-top. Need more specifics about these innovations. Technology and innovation lagging in Obamacare. This seems separate then the insurance companies because insurance companies don’t innovate. Strange to suggest government competition won’t help.
My take: A speech that desperately needs comparisons from Europe to ground its analysis.
Time: 7:19
Speaker 6 (301-Katherine Hu)
Question: How will U.S. relations with Cuba change given efforts to re-establish diplomatic relations?
Answer: Change to careful cooperation
I. Moving to economic partnership
II. Shifting to international community
III. Continuing ideological clash
Logan Scisco Notes: Speaker is going a little too fast in terms of pace to start the speech. In fact, getting to the question takes less than a minute. The skepticism inherent in the current U.S.-Cuba relationship could receive more attention as the first point could dwell more on why Cuba is so suspicious of the U.S. economically. The speaker needed to tag the second point better in the introduction as she says “shifting to the international community” but the point carries more of a human rights focus. The focus areas for this speech are good, but with a bilateral question like this the speaker needs to give equal attention to both sides in the points and that did not really come through. For example, more attention was put on the U.S. in the first point and more about Cuba in the second point. A problem with the third point is that it sort of summarizes points one and two (some bleed can be detected here when the speaker ties back to previous arguments) since ideology is why economic and human rights disagreements exist. Also, having a discussion of the history of U.S.-Cuban relations would have made this speech stronger. The delivery of the speech was quite good, though.
Josh Wartel Notes:
Question and Answer Analysis: AGD isn’t terrible. Avoids offensive laughter. Obama visits Cuba is good background. Speaking really fast though. Needs to pause more.
Points: First point is economic partnership. I really hate the Kardashian joke. Cuba needs economic relationship bc of Venezuela. U.S. airlines can now fly to Cuba. Good link to careful cooperation. Would like some macro numbers of the impact. And what will this mean for future economic sectors? Second point is shifting international community. Human rights should be the tag of this point. 7,000 people jailed is a good number to tell us. Political change could be coming. But it isn’t going to change…Then what are you arguing about the U.S. relationship? This point doesn’t explain any change. Third point is ideological clash. Painful Kim and Kanye joke again. How is this different then the second point? Seems to be a similar human rights issue. Power will continue to be held by Castros. I need to hear more about the United States and our relationship to Cuba. How will the U.S. continue to fight against Cuba?
My Take: First point is good, but second and third points don’t talk enough about American efforts to create change. Second and third points were also very similar
Time: 7:00ish
———-
This was a very intellectually stimulating final round. All of the speakers took their role on the stage seriously and did not let jokes overwhelm their analysis. All of them also had fantastic delivery, coming across as very passionate speakers on their specific topics. In several cases using historical parallels may have strengthened some speeches and I am somewhat surprised that no one made any connections to Ronald Reagan considering the Reagan Presidential Foundation is a sponsor of the category. Still, this is one of the better rounds of U.S. Extemp in a while.
Final Ranks on Scisco’s Ballot (Which Doesn’t Count):
1-Micah Cash
2-177 (Jacob Thompson)
3-301 (Katherine Hu)
4-293 (Marshall Webb)
5-118 (Brian Xu)
6-304 (Neil Patel)
Final Ranks on Wartel’s Ballot (Which Doesn’t Count):
1-177 (Jacob Thompson)
2-293 (Marshall Webb)
3-301 (Katherine Hu)
4-304 (Neil Patel)
5-Micah Cash
6-118 (Brian Xu)