The 2021 National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) United States Extemp final round is in the books. 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.
Analysis of this round is provided by Jacqueline Wei, Tanner Jones, and Logan Scisco.
Jacqueline competed for Plano West Senior High School in Plano, Texas, and graduated in 2019. She is the 2018 & 2019 NSDA USX national champion & President’s Bowl winner, the 2019 MBA champion, the 2018 Texas and 2019 UIL State champion, and the 2019 Northwestern Extemporaneous TOC champion. She currently attends Harvard University.
Tanner competed on the national extemp circuit for Edina High School for two years. He was the only extemper to reach both NCFL and NSDA national finals while he was in high school. He has privately coached UKTOC finalists, NCFL finalists, and MBA invites. He now coaches extemp for his alma mater, Edina HS. He is the camp director for Extemp Institute — sign up today! https://www.extempinstitute.com.
Reader’s Note: Since Tanner coaches Ananth Veluvali, his ranks only include five competitors so he does not rank his own student. However, his comments about his own competitor are listed for readers.
Note: 349 students participated in U.S. Extemp at this year’s national tournament.
Speaker #1 (5260 – Timothy Huffman)
Question: Will labor markets require business to pay a $15 minimum wage in the near future?Answer: Yes
1-Executive Support
2-Congressional Support
3-Private Company Support
Jacqueline Wei Comments: Speaking is slightly exaggerated—would prefer a more conversational tone. Personally would like a different AGD–using stories about yourself is generally frowned upon. I’m sure they didn’t intend it, but the AGD and following transitions feel a little bit like self-praise. Link is weak. ROY-ters, not rooters. Background was a bit lacking—would’ve liked background on the current state of labor markets. In general points do not answer the question (the question is asking if the current state of the labor market (economic factors like labor shortages, people exiting the labor force, companies not being able to find workers) will force businesses to pay $15/hr instead of government action. I also would prefer more varied, non-personal transitions—they get a bit repetitive after a while. The beginning of the conclusion is too long, especially if they’re already running out of time. No concluding sentence either.
Tanner Jones Comments:
Strengths
Good voice.
Strong sources.
Props for taking arguably the most difficult question in the round.
Areas for Improvement
Okay, so this is a very hard question.
There’s a very specific impact here: $15 or more/hour wages. There’s a very specific actor (or in this case, a collective actor): labor markets. I think both of these elements get lost at various points in the speech.
The tags of the 1 and the 2 appear to evade the question. However, he does a good job in the impacting explaining how labor markets will react to these political changes. The big problem is that the data only evidences that Biden/Congress will make these changes, the labor market response is only implied. He needs really good data there in the impacts to sell this claim.
Finally, the tag for the 3 just reads as an impact of the 1 and the 2. His warrant in the 3 is that recovery inflation will drive up wages. The speech would be much clearer if he rephrased things:
Thesis: political and economic conditions are putting upward pressure on wages
Wages hikes for USFG employees create upward pressure
Impending legislative action creates upward pressure
The COVID recovery creates upward pressure
I actually think he has good warrants and the impact is sensible, given that the timeframe in the q is rather vague. But the speech gets confusing and the warrants need better data.
Logan Scisco Comments: The speaker has an energetic delivery style and they extend the metaphor of their introduction throughout the speech. I am not a fan of personal intros because I think it is something less inclusive of the audience. There is also a weaker link between the speaker’s switching to different speech events to the topic at hand. The first two points make logical arguments about pressure on the labor market for a $15 minimum wage, but the third point dives right back into state legislation rather than what private companies are trying to do, so that weakens the argument there. The speaker’s delivery gets rushed by the end of the second point, possibly due to time allocation getting crunched due to some long transitions. For example, the speaker is not able to get into the analysis of their third point until about 5:51. In CX, the speaker does a good job using evidence in their speech to fend off attacks. It would be good for their responses to be shorter, though, because it will allow them to answer more questions and keep the questioner on their toes and less time to think of new ones. When asking questions they use sources to launch attacks, which is very debate-like. That is okay, but it is a less conversational style of CX when used too much. Still, it is a good press on the second speaker’s claims, especially what Biden will do about Russian actions with cyberattacks.
Speaker 2 (5116 – William Chien)
Question: Will the U.S. emerge from 2021 stronger diplomatically?
Answer: Yes
1-Biden Providing Renewed Commitment to NATO
2-Biden is Having the U.S. Lead the G7 on Important Issues
3-Biden is Increasing Pressure on Human Rights Abusers
Jacqueline Wei Comments: Okay AGD, delivery is a bit too exaggerated. Oh my god, a pun. Background is okay—would’ve preferred a bit of clarity on what ‘stronger diplomatically’ means. Is worsening relations with Russia/China/etc. considered being “stronger diplomatically?” if now more countries don’t like you? Point 1: Seems like the Atlantic was a little unnecessary, and so the A ran long. B is weak—give an example of how Biden revived that commitment. C is also weak—bit too many buzzwords at the end. Point 2: No A—this point should start with what Trump did, otherwise no way to prove that the US is stronger now. CBS? Focus on either climate or vaccination—otherwise the analysis is too shallow. Good C. Point 3: Good A, but a little long. Need to be more concise. Should only focus on one country—otherwise the analysis is shallow because there’s not enough time to go in depth on both. Why does this make the US stronger diplomatically? C is weak and very short. Clarity in the background of how countering China/Russia/etc. makes the US stronger diplomatically would have made this point stronger.
Tanner Jones Comments:
Strengths
Props for taking a big question with IX implications.
Energetic and engaging voice.
Good sources and use of historical background.
Areas for Improvement
This is a huge question and I think the speech is too small. While it is impossible to address all that constitutes US diplomacy, focusing on just three specific Biden actions is not the most persuasive structure for this speech.
Consider how you could divide up US diplomacy. Perhaps: relationships with allies, position toward adversaries, strength of diplomatic persons and institutions. Perhaps: hard power, economic power, cultural sway. IDK. But this speech has a ton of blind spots (really any answer to this q would, but a more holistic organization would be better).
In other words, I’m not persuaded that these three actions alone constitute a holistically “stronger” diplomacy.
Logan Scisco Comments: The speaker does a great job staying engaged with the audience during the speech, using facial expressions to emphasize what they are talking about. The speech has good time allocation and flows well, avoiding bleed between major points. Where the speaker excelled for me was having effective wrap-ups at the end of their points to tie back to the question. These were more than just one sentence, but relayed why the point mattered. Another place the speaker excelled was showing the contrast in President Trump and President Biden’s approaches to foreign policy, which was a necessary part of this question. Where the speaker could have done a better job is discussing whether Biden could do more to translate his talk into action, especially when it comes to the human rights argument. In terms of structure, the best point of the speech was the G7 one. The speaker did their best job there talking about Biden’s moves to restore American prestige AND used it to discuss America taking the shine off of China. Best points of speeches should go first, weakest should go second. Overall, this handles a tricky topic well, but the layout of it could’ve been improved to give it more of a punch. The speaker did well on both parts of CX.
Speaker 3 (5201 – Ananth Veluvali)
Question: Who will lead Democrats in the House after Nancy Pelosi?
Answer: Hakeem Jeffries
1-Jeffries Will Attract Necessary Democrats
2-Jeffries Has Important Political Skills & Backing
3-Jeffries is an Effective Fundraiser
Jacqueline Wei Comments:
Meh AGD. This is a really difficult question—wonder what the other options were. I usually tried to stay as far away as possible from questions that require comparisons between unspecified pool of actors. Background does a good job cordoning off who the potential candidates are. Point 1: Need more clarity on what “he is able to work with Dems in ways other candidates cannot” means. Is he just more liked? More moderate policy positions? B is weak here. Point 2: I don’t know if I buy that being a “persuasive speaker” is enough to convince further moderate/left blocs to fall in line. Don’t think they dictate their policy positions on who speaks prettier. Weak link. Analysis on Bass seems to make the link out to be policy positions, but what are Jeffries’ policy positions then? What is the difference between point 1 and point 2? Seems like the same point applied to two different blocs. Point 3: Who are these close connections? Why does he have them and Schiff/Bass do not? What makes him better able to utilize these connections? In general the links are very wishy-washy on an already difficult question. Good attempt, falls short.
Tanner Jones Comments:
Well, I’m biased here because I’m one of Ananth’s coaches and he attends my alma mater. But this is my attempt at impartiality.
Strengths
These “who will win” questions are always challenging because the speaker has the burden of comparative analysis. Who are the most likely candidates? Why is this candidate better than the rest?
Props for taking a hard question and, in a round like this where everyone answers the question, that certainly affects my ballot.
He does a great job framing — or establishing the parameters — of the question in the intro. Smart to narrow the field down to three. And he carries the comparative analysis pretty well through the points.
Outstanding expert sources/books.
Pelosi AGD that flows through ontops is a nice touch too. Historically positions Hakeem persuasively.
Areas for Improvement
Could do a lot more on both the framing and comparative analysis to make the speech more persuasive. A better justification for these three candidates would be a good start — why these three? Just because an NYT article says so?
Additionally, the weighing between the 3 possibilities gets lost as the speech progresses. It’s an afterthought in the 2 and hardly in the 3 at all.
I’d also like to hear better framing of how the SoH election actually works and then impacting to that process. In other words, while he proves Jeffries has all this key support, there’s a final step missing at the link level that explains how that support (especially in the 3) translates to ballots actually cast.
Logan Scisco Comments: This is a very difficult question that forces a speaker to pick an individual and THEN play that individual off of other potential candidates. The speaker does an excellent job not getting bogged down with the intro for this type of a question, highlighting Speaker Pelosi’s legacy and THEN discussing potential candidates and what they do (Jeffries, Adam Schiff, and Karen Bass). Some of the play between these different forces gets lost at times in the speech, especially in the first and third points. It is best shown in the second point when the speaker highlights concerns about Schiff and Bass as political operatives. A great piece of evidence for the speaker in the third point was how Jeffries was a pivotal fundraiser. The speech also does a good job talking about some of the political blocks needed to get support in the House, but more analysis was warranted about the various groups. This is a TOUGH speech to give in seven minutes as there are lots of moving speeches. The speaker cannot always cover it all, but they did a good job with what they have. In CX, the speaker asks a nice court question about them striking down police reform. That was well answered by that speaker, but it was a good opening salvo. There is also a nice rebuttal at the end of the CX about whether Biden is trying to pass his own reform or what Mitt Romney and other senators want.
Speaker 4 (5095 – Gabriel Frank-McPheter)
Question: Can President Biden truly deliver on his promise of policy reform int he wake of ongoing police brutality?
Answer: Yes because he can take legislative and executive action
1-Funding Reform
2-Passing Feasible Legislation
3-Fighting with Executive Action
Jacqueline Wei Comments: I understand the outrage at the beginning, but be careful of exaggerating your speaking too much—you can be outraged without verging on yelling. Would prefer slightly more specific tags. Speaking is still slightly exaggerated in the first point. Would’ve liked more of a fleshed-out impact on the first point, like how funding social services reduces police reform. What does “reforming qualified immunity” mean specifically? I don’t think Back the Blue supports reforming qualified immunity, or at least any tangible, meaningful reform. Point 3 and 1 seem to overlap a bit. Focus on one specific policy (otherwise you can’t give in depth analysis on any single one). Is implementing a national standard of engagement actually going to solve anything? Would’ve preferred point 3 to focus on just one thing (like curbing arrests/incarceration for non-violent offenses, like marijuana possession).
Tanner Jones Comments:
Strengths
Engaging and interesting speaker off the bat.
Strong central thesis.
Great job providing smart, specific, and sophisticated (we call these the three Ss at Edina) solvency mechanisms. He deso a great job explaining that Biden has both the power and incentives to do this stuff.
Areas for improvement
While he provides specific mechanisms within Biden’s powers, I would like better framing of the scope of the problem and the question. In other words, what would it mean for Biden to “deliver”? What are the metrics that measure police brutality and what is the evidence that these particular reforms actually reduce incidents?
Tied to the framing question is an impacting issue. It’s clear at the link level that Biden can/will implement these mechanisms (although the will is more questionable), but it’s unclear how/why these mechanisms will actually be effective at reducing police brutality. To me, given the wording of the question, that’s just as important as the probability question of implementation.
Higher quality sources/studies at both the warrant and impact level could improve this speech.
Could also, as always, bring more specificity to the mechanisms. From where specifically, constitutionally, or legally, does Biden derive this power?
Logan Scisco Comments: It is very easy to see why this speaker is in the final round as they have a great, engaging delivery style and have some nice jokes that are politically topical. The AGD about an African American six-year-old put on trial for stealing a tool from a neighbor’s garden reinforces ongoing criminal justice issues, although that may not be the best link into police brutality. Still, it captures attention from the jump. The speaker runs into a few issues with time allocation that later hurt the third point as they do not get out of the intro until about 2:10ish, causing them to eventually cut time later. And the intro could have established the parameters of what Biden wanted to do with police reform better, as that has to be communicated in the first point. It is a good lesson for speakers to always communicate the basics clearly, and one area that needed that clarity was introducing some political actors like Joe Manchin (for example, what state does he represent?), as well as a few other figures or concepts like the broken windows theory of policing. It seemed that the speaker took audience knowledge of some of these things for granted but not all judges follow the news. There is a good explanation of what actions Biden could take in the first two points, as well as the terms of a bipartisan agreement, but I cannot help but wonder why such an agreemen that has still failed to pass if it came up a while ago (and as such does it not show that Biden cannot deliver?). The speaker lays out different types of executive actions in the third point, but as noted previously, time pressure caused it to run shorter than they probably would have liked. The third point also seemed weaker than the two other points, serving as a bit of a “catch all.” It was not as well developed into a unique argument for my taste because the funding part (first point) was centered on Biden taking executive action. In CX, the speaker does a good job answering by going back to the evidence in their speech. They ask good questions in CX, although they walk into an error by asserting the 2008 economic recovery went well, allowing the answering speaker to score points at the end.
Speaker 5 (5164 – Katelyn Cai)
Question: Can the U.S. economy continue its resurgence in 2022?
Answer: No because an ongoing, uneven recovery show that there are structural weaknesses in the U.S. model
1-Increased Inflation
2-Economic Inequalities
3-Small Businesses Lack 21st Century Tools
Jacqueline Wei Comments: This delivery is a bit too exaggerated at the beginning, but it gets better at the end. Personally would avoid picking economy questions in the finals—they tend to be a bit boring. Point 1: The beginning is slightly too technical—no one knows what the velocity of money is. Why does raising rates hurt economic growth? The Fed actually argues inflation is transitory, so not sure if you can cite their actions as quickening inflation. Never explained why high rates depress capital investment. Point 2: Doesn’t inequality exist right now? Question is implying there is economic growth right now. What changes in 2022? Inequality depresses economic growth relative to what it would have been if inequality didn’t exist—but question is asking if economic growth will depress relative to 2021. Point 3: What is digital infrastructure—this is an empty buzzword. This point also suffers from the same problem as the second one—small businesses have never been on the forefront of digital innovation but US economy is experiencing rapid growth now anyways. What changes in 2022? Would’ve been better to argue that growth now is being powered by large businesses, masking economic pain in small ones that becomes apparent in 2022+.
Tanner Jones Comments:
Strengths
Impressive and bold to tackle a big econ question on this stage.
Strong sources, time management, etc. All the extemp fundamentals.
Nice central thesis and clearly tagged and delineated points.
Areas for Improvement
Not convinced that the best warrant for inflation is a public opinion poll. Also not convinced that inflation will get out of control. Isn’t some inflation good right now as people get back to work? And, as she points out, won’t the fed just raise rates if it becomes a problem? The fed has all its tools right now — rates are historically low. And the fed isn’t in the business of raising rates so much that the economy shrinks. I don’t understand the fed analysis — seems to contradict the claim that inflation is a threat.
The 2 seems nonunique. Inequality predates. Absent an explanation of inequality uniquely increasing now, it’s unclear how this undermines the entire recovery.
Vaccines/herd immunity creates a major issue for the 3.
Logan Scisco Comments: The introduction to this speech has great framing, giving a number on current U.S. economic growth, providing a forecast for the end of the year, and then noting the weaknesses that are popping up with jobs or the delta variant of COVID-19. The speaker has a persuasive, passionate delivery but they could play with their volume levels to add more diversity to that part of their arsenal. That aside, they give a powerful and fluent speech. The analysis provided is good on an economic level, highlighting the issues of inflation, economic inequalities, and how small businesses need better infrastructure tools. However, the line-by-line story could have been presented in a more educational way, especially in the first point. The audience quickly jumps in a matter of sentences into an impact story about inflation leading to higher interest rates and then that triggering a cycle of stagflation. I get what the speaker is aiming for, but it would have been better to talk about why interest rates have to rise to combat inflation and the practical effects of that before getting into the stagflation story. This line-by-line on the impact level was better communicated in the second point. But even on the third point I wondered how much money Biden did need to allocate for small businesses to effectively do their job. The speaker argues they need more, but I keep wondering how much more. In CX, the speaker does a fantastic job capitalizing on the question about how the 2008 economic recovery was good and using it to reinforce their second point argument about inequality.
Speaker 6 (5062 – Laurel Holley)
Question: Is the U.S. healthcare system better prepared for the next crisis?
Answer: No because the system is too disjointed
1-Lack of Coordinating with Healthcare Insurers & the Healthcare System
2-Lack of Communication Between the Federal Government and Large Healthcare Corporations
3-Lack of a National Tracking System
Jacqueline Wei Comments: Intro is long—question starts at 1:30 (the background and AGD probably could’ve been more concise). Great conversational delivery. Point 1: Giving the solution undercuts the answer—small urgent care centers is better than nothing pre-COVID. If anything, this proves that improvement is being made. Point 2: State distribution system seems better than nothing. Remember, question is about relative improvement—not if US healthcare system is perfect at the moment. Point 3: Not sure if citing the UK as an example of superb COVID management is a good idea at the moment, but I get where we’re going. I think the B should have been more about the next crisis, not about vaccination tracking—would’ve been more relevant to the question. Great speech, time allocation/answer structure could have been better, and would’ve preferred more focus on what implications these problems have for future crises.
Tanner Jones Comments:
Strengths
Human details are powerful.
Great sources.
Strong voice.
Areas for Improvement
This speech retroactively describes the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic but it really needs to evaluate the status quo and predict the future. At the very least, much more of the speech ought to emphasize that these circumstances will not change.
She does a great job explaining everything that went wrong but needs to prove all these failures will happen again.
To say that we’re not better prepared implicitly contends that we learned nothing or did not improve at all. That’s possible, I suppose. But the warrants should be there, not a year/over a year ago. Like: “the structural forces that exacerbated COVID-19 aren’t going anywhere”.
Per capita is key when you’re comparing cases/deaths between countries.
Logan Scisco Comments: The speaker does a good job delivering the speech, providing a fluent explanation of what can be a complicated subject. The AGD device to discuss a victim of the COVID-19 pandemic is a way to humanize the topic. That vehicle also appears in the first point, but I would have liked to see more of it in other parts of the speech since that would help the speech stand out more. The AGD could have used some more analytical “meat” in terms of statistics or telling a bit of a better story about preparing for the next pandemic. What hurts some of the explanation is time allocation. The speaker spends about 2:16 in the introduction, which eventually shortchanges the third point becuase they are not able to get to it until there are ninety seconds of time left. In the end, I am persuaded by the speaker that there issues with how the U.S. handled the COVID-19 pandemic. However, I think there needs to be more explanation of the NEXT pandemic in the speech and what that pandemic could look like and then HOW these problems could occur. It is always controversial when a speaker gets into hypothetical territory, but with a question of this sort I would have liked the speaker to discuss that because it would have strengthened their analysis. They do a great job in CX defending their speech, especially when discussing how the private sector was able to develop the COVID-19 vaccine. They also did a good job questioning the first speaker about the size of the public sector workforce as a share of the economy.
Jacqueline Wei Rankings (Which Do Not Count):
1-(5062 – Laurel Holley)
2-(5095 – Gabriel Frank-McPheter)
3-(5116 – William Chien)
4-(5201 – Ananth Veluvali)
5-(5164 – Katelyn Cai)
6-(5260 – Timothy Huffman)
Tanner Jones Rankings (Which Do Not Count):
1-(5095 – Gabriel Frank-McPheter)
2-(5260 – Timothy Huffman)
3-(5116 – William Chien)
4-(5062 – Laurel Holley)
5-(5164 – Katelyn Cai)
Logan Scisco Rankings (Which Do Not Count):
1-(5201 – Ananth Veluvali)
2-(5116 – William Chien)
3-(5164 – Katelyn Cai)
4-(5062 – Laurel Holley)
5-(5095 – Gabriel Frank-McPheter)
6-(5260 – Timothy Huffman)