by Logan Scisco
The main reason that extempers dislike domestic social rounds is that they cover sensitive issues that many judges have already made up their mind about. Whereas judges rarely have preconceived notions or feelings about Thailand’s political crisis or Brazil’s ability to hold the 2016 Summer Olympics, they will have attitudes about the American education system, abortion, Title IX, affirmative action, gay rights, and illegal immigration. This is one of the reasons why I argue that United States Extemp is harder than International Extemp because although the most capable extempers usually assemble in the International Extemp pool at NSDA Nationals, they do not have to walk through a minefield of hot button issues that could inhibit their ability to advance in the tournament. This strategy piece will provide some tips for extempers on how to navigate controversial issues in domestic social rounds.
Tip #1: Carefully Evaluate Whether You Should Take a Controversial Question or Not
When coaching, I always advise my extempers to never take a question on abortion. Why? It’s the most divisive political issue in the country and you can rest assured that you have at least a 50% chance of getting a judge that is either pro-choice or pro-life. This is not to say that there are not some “open minded’ judges out there, but it will be very difficult to convince a pro-life judge with a pro-choice advocacy and vice versa.
Other subjects like Title IX or anything dealing with racial tension (e.g. affirmative action, the Donald Sterling issue, etc.) are also worth evaluating because these are issues that tend to break along gender, race, and class lines, even more than political ideology. Since there are a lot of female coaches and judges, giving a speech against Title IX is probably not a good idea. Similarly, if you are in a circuit with a good number of racial minorities, speaking against affirmative action may also not work. Keep in mind, though, that this is not universally true. There are women who opposed Title IX and there are racial minorities that dislike affirmative action programs. Still, when choosing to discuss these subjects, you should keep in mind the demographics of your circuit and how you are going to approach the question.
The point here is not that you should always avoid controversial subject matter. After all, James Hohmann won the 2004 NFL National Tournament in United States Extemp with a speech in favor of gay marriage rights, but “hot button” issues tend to immediately polarize judges. These judges also bring preconceived notions with them into the round, regardless of how much they try to claim that they do not. However, you should be cognizant of whether the risk of taking a “hot button” issue question versus something more tame in the domestic social round like environmental protection, Social Security reform, or Medicaid fraud, is better than going with something that is sure to rile someone up on your judging panel.
Tip #2: If You Have to Take Something Controversial, Make Sure You Give Credence to Both Sides of the Argument
In the 2003 NFL National Tournament in Atlanta, I got an awful draw in the domestic social round: Title IX, Roe v. Wade, and slave reparations. In that round, I went with the slave reparations issue due to the fact that I knew Roe would immediately polarize my judging panel and my files had very little on Title IX. In that round, even though I argued against granting slave reparations, I made sure to outline the arguments that were made by supporters of the issue. I explained how there were campus movements in favor of reparations and how these grew out of the 1960s and 1970s, how the United States government gave reparations to Japanese internment camp survivors, and how reparations could be community-based, not just individual-based (meaning that reparations could be directed at civic improvement or infrastructure development in minority-led cities as opposed to sending all African Americans a check in the mail from the United States government). As I laid out these arguments in each point, I went about refuting them with other evidence about how slave reparations might increase racial tension in the United States, the difficulty of assessing proper historical blame for slavery in the context of American history, and the question of how much the reparations would cost.
While I am sure that not all of my judges agreed with my stance, I wanted to communicate to them that there were arguments against my advocacy that had some merit. Judges, even though they might oppose your view, will at least feel that their views have some merit if you recognize the arguments that are made against a certain issue. When you do this, make sure that you respectfully lay out those views. Do not denigrate or make jokes about the arguments of pro-choice or pro-life advocates or those who favor or do not favor the death penalty. What you want to achieve in these round is balance between both sides and show the audience why you have reached your conclusions based on the evidence provided.
Tip #3: Avoid Polarizing Language
When discussing opposing views in your speech, make sure that you avoid polarizing or inflammatory language. Do not talk call people “left-wingers” or “right-wingers” (or “wingnuts”). Do not call certain positions racist, sexist, or classist. And do not make wild accusations that if a certain public policy position is adopted that it will lead to the collapse of the United States or the foundation of civilization. The reason to avoid all of this is that if you insult the position of your judge, that judge is going to find it very difficult to vote for you in that round because that will feel that they have been insulted. They might also remember you for future tournaments or talk to other judges about how your language was out of line and this might hurt you at other competitions. You may seriously believe that you are on the right side of history with your advocacy and you may feel strongly that those who oppose you are crazy, but you need to keep your emotions in check and deliver an impartial speech. We live in a culture today that is very easily offended and this has poisoned some elements of political discourse (look at some of the recent commencement speakers who withdrew under student protests), so do not make the problem worse by ridiculing the views of others.
Tip #4: Avoid Incorrect Assumptions and Oversimplifying
In domestic social rounds, extempers sometimes make unintentional mistakes, which is sometimes tied to their viewing habits of Fox News or MSNBC as opposed to looking at the evidence in their files. For example, when talking about illegal immigration, some students tend to lump legal and illegal immigrants together when discussing immigration policy and/or completely ignore the impact on legal immigration that an immigration reform package would entail. Also, extempers may also assume that the death penalty is necessary to deter crime and thereby ignore statistical evidence that suggests otherwise (although there is also statistical evidence to suggest that deterrence does result from the practice). Another incorrect assumption happens in gun control rounds, where an extempers will group assault rifles and handguns into the same class of weapons and unintentionally advocate for more firearm restrictions across the board, when they really intend to only advocate for the regulation of one class of firearms. Finally, when talking about affirmative action, extempers like to talk about whites versus racial minorities, but Asian Americans have a history of opposing affirmative action programs, especially at the university level. Therefore, be very, very careful when you talk about policy prescriptions in domestic social rounds and be careful of oversimplifying.
Tip #5: Evaluate How Much Your Advocacy Means to You
If you know that you are on a very liberal circuit (or a conservative one), then you need to evaluate how much your advocacy of your selected issue means to you in the round. For example, if you are a pro-choice advocate and you are speaking in front of a very conservative audience, is it still worth giving the speech and potentially costing yourself a state championship? The same could be said of a conservative student who wishes to speak out against affirmative action proposals in front of a very liberal audience. There is nothing in the rules that says that you have to give a speech on the side of the issue that you personally favor. You could be a conservative in one round, a liberal in another, and a socialist in the final round. There is no penalty for being a flip flopper or a “political chameleon.”
Still, you have to evaluate whether you prefer to win a particular round based on your views and convictions, or whether it is better to take the other side and feed the judges evidence they are more likely to agree with and listen to. I will leave that choice up to you, since every speaker handles this situation differently and I have gone both ways in the past (I probably blew the Barkley Forum in 2004 for giving a speech that was favorable to President George W. Bush based on the ballots that I received from that round), but you should make this consideration before you begin outlining your speech. After all, speech is a very subjective event and it is always worth weighing how your speech will be received by your audience before you deliver it.
Domestic social rounds can be a lot of fun since they are a policy wonk’s dream, but they can be a nightmare if you draw a collection of controversial topics. The intention of this strategy piece was not to scare you away from those topics, but you should always remember the pitfalls of taking these questions and how they could affect your competitive standing.