[fblike]
With the conclusion of International Extemp, all of the extemporaneous speaking rounds are finished at the 2015 NSDA National Tournament. All that is left is to find out how they ended up and awards can be streamed at this link starting at 6:00 p.m. CST.
Note #1: Notable judges for this round include Robert Kelly of Chesterton Senior High School, coach of the 2002 International Extemp national champion; MBA Extemp Round Robin tournament director Adam Johnson; NSDA Board of Directors Member Pam McComas; and Maria Casa from the Council on Foreign Relations
Note #2: The official number of extempers in International Extemp at this year’s national tournament was 242
Speaker 1 (193-Brian Anderson)
Question: Should the international powers extend the terms of the Iran nuclear deal again if unresolved by the deadline?
Answer: Yes because it is needed to prolong the time it takes for Iran to get a nuclear weapon
I. The Supreme Leader Needs to be Persuaded
II. The NPT Needs to be Maintained by the P5+1
III. The World Has No Other “Or Else” Option
Time: 7:30
Summary: The speaker has a topic that is pretty worn out as national finals have been talking about Iran and nuclear weapons for more than a decade. However, they are able to “spice up” the topic with some playful personal analogies and jokes. Judges may go for that or not and tonight’s rankings will tell the tale. The speaker provides a good history of Iranian leadership in the first point to discuss the need for extending the existing deal, although the speaker could have provided a little more context for the entire nuclear negotiations in the introduction of the speech. Nevertheless, the speaker’s analysis is very focused and each point makes a good case for extending the deal, especially specific discussions of NPT langauage in point two. The only weakness in the third point is that a military option does exist on Iran, albeit from Israel or a combined Sunni Arab force, but the speaker does a good job noting divisions in the P5+1.
Speaker 2 (142-Noah Wexler)
Question: What changes lie in store for Turkey after Erdogan’s electoral setback?
Answer: Gradual democratic liberalization
I. Election Create Multi-Party Rule
II. Increased Pressure on Corruption Officials
III. A Voice for the Kurds
Time: 7:36
Summary: Talking about Turkish politics is never easy and the speaker does a good job establishing the various political factions in Turkey during their introduction. The AGD about Erdogan setting the news straight came off awkwardly and the introduction could have emphasized Erdogan’s drive to reform the Turkish constitution more, but that topic is eventually discussed in the first point. For those who may not be familiar with Turkish politics there parts of the speech that might have come off as confusing, especially in terms of the powers enjoyed by the Turkish presidency and prime minister and the use of abbreviations for parties in the third point. Also, having a larger discussion of Turkish political history would have reinforced the arguments made in the second and third points about corruptiona and Kurdish independence. Still, the speaker has three very clear points of analysis and did a great job defending them in an entertaining cross-examination session about the chances of a political coup.
Speaker 3 (145-Justin Graham)
Question: How can the international community better deal with global health emergencies in light of the MERS outbreak?
Answer: Set up better supranational assistance
I. Better Doctor Diagnosis Programs
II. Better Quarantine Guide
III. Creation of International Recovery Fund
Time: 7:40
Summary: Much of the analysis of this speech centers on South Korea as much of the press attention for the MERS outbreak has been centered there. The speaker had a topical AGD when talking about North Korea saying that they have found a cheap cure and they quantiifed the MERS problem effectively in the introduction. The speech does a good job explaining specific steps that canbe taken to deal with MERS under the umbrella answer of setting up better supranational assistance programs, although a discussion of how such programs could work for other future health crises could be discussed more. For example, the speaker does mention Ebola, but since the question goes beyond MERS, using other possible global health emergencies such as bird flu would have been wise. The speech makes a powerful argument, but some of its effectiveness is dented in cross-examination when the second speaker presses on how effective training programs might be for emerging diseases. Also, the speech goes a little over time, but part of that, as was the case of the second speaker’s speech, was due to some audience applause and interaction.
Speaker 4 (117-Rohan Dhoopar)
Question: Should sanctions against Russia be intensified as a level to ease its pressure on Ukraine?
Answer: No
I. Sanctions Already Taking a Significant Toll on Russian Economy
II. Further Russian Narrative Against the West
III. Ukraine Needs Military Aid
Time: 7:00
Summary: The speaker here takes up a familiar topic, but despite its familiarity it would have been nice to get a little more background on the ongoing Ukrainian fighting and Russia’s role in the introduction. There are not a lot of holes in the analysis here as the speaker provides sufficient evidence to show how Russia’s economy is already hurt by sanctions, how Putin has retained his popularity and justified actions in Ukraine, and how lethal aid provides a better avenue of deterring Russia. However, what hinders the speech in a tightly contested round is that the speaker began having fluency problems in the middle of the second point. We recovered seven fluency breaks, which we can subscribe as due to the speaker speeding up, possibly to work through their sources (each point had at least three) for the rest of the speech.
Speaker 5 (121-Alex Ye)
Question: What is the highest priority for the U.S. in upcoming negotiations with China?
Answer: Easing tensions in the South China Sea
I. Decreasing Chinese militarization
II. Promoting UN Law of the Seas Treaty
III. Ensuring U.S. Security Via Alternative Methods
Time: 7:08
Summary: The speaker uses an AGD about a genie and the complications of fixing Sino-U.S. relations, but one of the problems with the AGD is that it seems too generic and something that could fit any topic. Beyond that, though, the speaker provides sufficient background for ongoing tensins in the Sino-U.S. relationship and what next week’s talks are over. The introduction is a little too lengthy, though, as it runs for two minutes. The speaker uses five sources in their first point, which does the best job of all of his points in arguing that the United States has a significant interest in what takes place in the South China Sea. However, their second point about the UN Law of the Seas Treaty is weak as it does not receive an extended discussion aside from the fact that the U.S. will want to use multilateral institutions to contain Chinese power and that China is violating the existing treaty. Since the U.S. is not a signatory to this accord, though, this becomes a point of contention in cross-examination. What I really liked is how the speaker cited the credentials of various authors, which gave his source citations proper depth, and he did a good job going back to his sources in cross-examination.
Speaker 6 (138-Jack Glaser)
Question: Is an Iran nuclear deal likely to provide greater peace or greater instability to the Middle East?
Answer: More peace because it would prevent the escalation toward war
I. Prevent Escalation Toward Nuclear War
II. Retain Israel’s Predominant Military Force in the Region
III. A Nuclear Deal Would Work
Time: 7:50
Summary: Iran re-emerges for this speech, this time with a more general question of whether the deal is helpful or not for the Middle East. The introduction for the speech covers the proper bases, but it takes too long as it nears the dangerous 2:00 threshold. The first point is the strongest of the speech, but problems begin to emerge in the second point as the speaker needs to better illustrate how Iran’s military capabilities are no match for Israel in a protracted conflict. Also, the claim that Iran would be more willing to attack Israel if it had nuclear weapons is questionable, at least according to the Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD). The speaker would have been well served to re-tag the third point since “A Nuclear Deal Would Work” is quite broad and could really encompass the other two points. The speech going nearly eight minutes is also a tad excessive. Nevertheless, the speaker has a very fluid delivery style and they effectively defend their speech during cross-examination.
——————
This was a very good round, reminiscent of the International Extemp final round in 2013 that was very closely contested. I would not be surprised to see a very split judging pool here as judges preferences for speaking style and argumentation will determine rankings. For my ballot, I gave first place to Anderson for having the round’s most memorable speech and efficient argumentation, while Wexler’s speech finishes second for taking a difficult topic and answering it well (a few moments where more clarity could have existed weigh it down). Wexler’s cross-examintion of Graham’s speech reduced some of its power, which caused it to settle third. Ye’s weaker second point relative to the top three speeches, all of which had a stronger three points throughout, is why he got fourth. Dhoopar’s delivery and speed issues hurt him relative to other speakers even though he still did a good job covering all of the analytical sides of his question and Glaser received sixth due to time allocation and weaker analysis relative to the other five speakers. However, every speaker had something that a judge could easily find likeable or unlikeable, so I am very interested to see how tonight’s rankings pan out.
Final Ranks on My Ballot (Which Doesn’t Count):
1-193 (Brian Anderson)
2-142 (Noah Wexler)
3-145 (Justin Graham)
4-121 (Alex Ye)
5-117 (Rohan Dhoopar)
6-138 (Jack Glaser)