The United States 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 U.S. Next Week” is the topic area for this round.
Notable Fact #2: 244 contestants were in USX at this year’s national tournament.
Notable Fact #3: Lisa Honeyman of Newton South High School, coach of the 2008 USX national champion, is on the judging panel.
Notable Fact #4: All of the finalists are underclassmen, which is very impressive! Congratulations to all six of these underclassmen for making the final round.
Speaker 1 (255-Adam Stromme)
Question: Is the Federal Reserve timeline to wind down quanitative easing wise?
Answer: No
I. Unduly Strain Weak Jobs Market
BLS-The U.S. is growing in jobs
Economic Policy Institute 6/12-Growth is better than last year
Dale Mortensen-Due to unemployment, 7.7%, growth rates of 6% are needed for the next seven years
II. Reverse Trends of Growth in Housing
CATO 6/16-Treasury bonds have been very consistent, but interest rates on homes have been holding steady until recently, where rate normalized out at 4.4%
Heritage 5/31-Housing is tapped out, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are leveraging at ratios of 52:1 (2x legal limit)
III. Represents Two Swift a Shift in Fiscal Policy for the U.S. to Handle
Huff Post-Fiscal policy restraints growth
NYT 6/16-On 5/28 the stock market hit record holdings of net investment
ECO-CHN investment debacle, a shift in fiscal policy could hurt investors
Time: 7:00
Summary: Speakers does a good job clarifying the current economic situation and pointing out the debate about his question. Nice framing of significance. The speaker has a tendency to use too many gestures, especially in the beginning, which might be due to nerves. He is also speeding through his first point a little. The internal links to quanitative easing in the first point is a little weak, since the connection is only left at the end. I think the speaker is assuming that his judges know too much about economics, but with thirteen judges that may not be a good calculation. The speaker has an impressive command of American economics and has some excellent sources, notably from think tanks. The speaker is very intelligent and confident, but they could do a better job using the term “quanitative easing” and doing a deeper impact analysis. It seems like the speaker might have been helped by focusing on one or two economic areas and diving more in-depth. They just tried to cover too much ground and ended up having some shallow analysis in spots, especially when they tried to bring up China at the end. Speaker goes a solid job in CX. Really nice question about DOMA and Proposition 8 at the end of their CX of speaker 2.
Speaker 2 (212-Christopher Jordan)
Question: Will the Supreme Court same sex marriage decision ignite a new round of U.S culture wars?
Answer: Yes by going politically and spreading
I. Fight in the GOP
ECO 6/3-Last poll before 2012 race found that 55% of voters that were Republican did not support gay marriage
CSM 6/5-Opposite in MD elxn in November. Where Romney supported in a red district, but also gay marriage
II. Fight Between States and Federal Government
NYT 5/20-Plethora of issues = more ways to resolve them and federalism is a big debate
WSJ-States/federal government are big parts of cultural shifts. AL George Wallace oppose Brown v. Board of Education and state opposition to gay marriage might have the same impact
III. Fight Between Generations
Source-60% of voters over the age of 40 oppose gay marriage
Time: 6:56
Summary: The intro context is a little broad on civil rights, being more specific would help, but the point is valid. The background should have mentioned the cases that are coming to the Supreme Court and what a “culture war” actually is (see Pat Buchanan in 1992)! The speaker has fantastic delivery and pacing, but the analysis is really broad. There isn’t a lot of specific context being provided about the gay marriage debate. The legal issues before the Supreme Court, Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act, etc. are not mentioned. Specifics would help the speech from becoming repetitive, which is a problem near the five minute mark. As a style tip, the speaker may want to button their coat as well. Overall, I’m not convinced that a “culture war” is going to happen due to lack of context, but this speaker is very confident and is nice to listen to. The speaker did a good job not yielding ground in CX and fired off a great question to start their CX of speaker 3.
Speaker 3 (204-Joshua Wartel)
Question: How can Congress get past its gridlock and agree on an economic growth plan?
Answer: Listening & trusting the public
I. Public Supports Short-Term Stimulus
Source-70% of the public wants stimulus to solve recession
Biz Week-By spending money in short-term you create jobs & ensure cyclical recovery
II. Public Wants More Long-Term Investments
PEW-More than 75% of Americans want tax code and education reforms and they also want green energy investments
Brookings-Education investments = land of equality
III. Americans Want to Solve Entitlements
Heritage-More than 80% of Americans understand that Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are unstable and need reforms
WSJ-Economic packages require entitlement reforms
Time: N/A
Summary: Nice popularity analogy to start the speech. Nice context by hitting on unemployment and what Congress is doing right now. The speaker could start with more energy, as they start the speech a little flat. The answer is really broad for this question. I see that the speaker is trying to frame an answer based on public opinion, but it sounds weak. Having a specific political plan would better clarify the answer. The speaker should hit more on the “gridlock” part of the question. I’m not convinced in the three points that these things will lead Congress to overcome gridlock. More political analysis is needed. I like that the speaker uses the Pew Research Center and the Brookings Institute as sources as those are two underutilized resources in extemp. The speaker should work on shortening their transitions, as those are taking too much time and shortening the depth they can have in their points. Speaker has pretty good delivery, but needs more depth of analysis. The lack of a strong plan in the speech provides tons of holes that are exploited by speaker 2 in CX and it really hurts their standing on my ballot.
Speaker 4 (151-Carunya Achar)
Question: What will be the impact of the affirmative action ruling by the Supreme Court?
Answer: Three things
I. Increase in Ethnic Diversity by Colleges
Source-When University of California repealed affirmative action in 1997 they had 18% blacks/Hispanics in attendance and 11 years later in 2008, CA had 24%
II. Increase in Socioeconomic Backgrounds at Colleges
Century-Massive amount of students come from a specific socioeconomic group and 70% of students in college are from the top 25%
CNN-(Didn’t catch cite)
III. Minorities that Benefit will Benefit from Disavowal of Affirmative Action
Source-76% of Americans resent affirmative action
NYT-Most colleges that still implement affirmative action, have a minority graduation rate that is 15% less than colleges that don’t use it
Time: 6:58
Summary: Speaker should avoid using their fingers for numbers in their AGD and be careful about having their upper body shift too far to the left or the right. Good clarification of the case title coming before the Supreme Court. Fluency is choppy in the intro, which is likely due to nerves. It would have been better for the speaker to choose one of their points as their answer and three reasons why that is true for their points. This would have allowed greater depth. The speaker isn’t really talking about the specifics of Fisher v. Texas, which significantly weakens their analysis because they are avoiding the question and talking too broadly about affirmative action. The speech would be helped by some legal history of how the Supreme Court has ruled on affirmative action in the future. Speaker has good delivery post-intro, although they do use “I” too much like in OO, but the lack of specific analysis about Fisher hurts it in general. The third point is the strongest point of the speech. Speaker should try to raise their volume a bit because they are not commanding the stage enough. Good points about the politics of immigration reform on cross-examination and some of the issues of making immigrants citizens and whether they would continue to do low paying jobs.
Speaker 5 (320-Chase Harrison)
Question: Is proposed comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress essential for American economic health?
Answer: Yes because it allows us to make shifts in labor market
I. Attracts High Tech Workers
Wash. Post-There are 65k visa available for immigrants in STEM industries, but this is shockingly low
NYT-In November, Congress tried to expand the program by 55k workers and this is in the immigration bill
Center of Progress-$186b in taxes would come from these workers
II. Promotes Education
Brookings-Children of illegal immigrants are doing a fantastic job in American history and 1/3rd of them hold these degrees and their income is $4k higher than their parents
Chicago Tribune-Due to their lack of citizenship status, significant obstacles exist to deprive them of economic opportunities
LAT-Jobs require highly skilled degrees, so pathway to citizenship enables a boon of citizenship
III. Fills Voids in Agriculture Market
NYT-Jobs are filled with illegal immigrants in the agriculture sector and when they are sent back, it creates a problem for the agriculture industry as crops rot
Chicago Tribune-In dairy and meat industries, undocumented workers are relied upon
Time: 7:15
Summary: Very nice AGD and nice job hitting on some of the issues with the bill and it provides a general analysis about the current economic situation. The speaker does a good job providing a thesis in their answer and their first point about high tech workers is very valid. The second point needed to get to its impact a little faster and the speaker enters the third point at 5:11, which is a little late. The speaker isn’t really supporting how immigration reform bolsters food security, which is a bridge too far, but they are running out of time, so they can’t quite do it. The speaker has really good energy, which is important since they are near the end of the round. The speaker’s energy and clarity in their points, although some could have been more refined, put them barely over speaker 1 heading into the last speech.
Speaker 6 (210-Arel Rende)
Question: Is the GOP at risk of splitting over immigration reform?
Answer: Yes
I. Inherent Polarizaton of GOP
Worse Than It Looks-Democratic Party has stayed center-left, but GOP has moved drastically to the far right, which leads to polarization in D.C.
FP-Indiana Senator Richard Lugar was ousted
Brookings-Chris Christie lashes out at the GOP over Hurricane Sandy coverage and the GOP is self-imploding
II. Issue of Border Control
NYT-Border control is what keeps both parties from supporting it
Reuters-Bill out of Senate Judiciary Committee
Heritage-Democrats have a large lead in the Senate, so Rubio will have to scale back border control
III. Increasing Relevance of Latino Voters
PEW-In 2012 election, 80% of Latinos chose President Obama over Mitt Romney and largest polarization of any demographic in American history
BBC-GOP at a crossroads
NPR-76% of Latinos have immigration have it as their #1 issue
Time: 7:15
Summary: Speakers does a good job asking questions of the first speaker and cleverly inserts a recent source to back up their question. Really funny AGD about Herman Cain. The speaker could add a little more context in the background of their speech about GOP division. The speaker should get into the impact scenario about immigration dividing the GOP and provide more specifics about it in the first point. The first point has lots of background, but not an effective tie to how immigration splits the GOP. It’s more asserted than proved. The problem with the speaker’s second point is that there was a recent Senate compromise on border controls. Ultimately, the speaker needs to stay on point about polarization within the GOP. It’s too much of a broad overview of immigration reform, but it needs to really dive into polarization and the analysis is missing on that crucial point. Speaker goes pretty quick and they could cut back on sources because sometimes they are too broad and just seem like they are there to be there.
——————
Final Ranks on My Ballot (Which Doesn’t Count):
1-320 (Chase Harrison)
2-255 (Adam Stromme)
3-210 (Arel Rende)
4-151 (Carunya Achar)
5-212 (Christopher Jordan)
6-204 (Joshua Wartel)
[fblike] [twitter]