[fblike]
The 2016 National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) International 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: 242 extempers competed in International Extemp at this year’s national tournament.
Speaker 1 (293-Nikhil Ramaswamy)
Question: Should the IMF give Greece another bailout?
Answer: No because it would lead to another lost cause
I. Create Greek overdependency on IMF bailouts
II. Greek would probably misspend the package
III. Other international actors would also call on new bailouts for themselves
Logan Scisco Notes: The AGD could have been more specific to the topic, possibly by more specifically linking My Big Fat Greek Wedding to Greece’s current economic situation. The speaker could weave in a few more specifics about the Greek economy. For example, how much is the Greek economy contracting at the present time? The source citations in the first point also tend to repeat the point tag rather than giving specifics (also a problem in the second point) about how the dependence is created beyond the general argument of a lack of diversification. More specifics about Greece’s pension mess and why throwing money at its tourism industry will not work would have also strengthened the speech. Using a history of failed IMF bailouts would also be useful for this speech. The best point is arguably the third one, where the speaker gives examples of nations that would also seek bailouts – Portugal, Spain, and Italy – if Greece continues to receive assistance. The delivery for the speech was solid, though, and very fluent.
Josh Wartel Notes:
Intro and Question Analysis: Big Fat Greek Wedding AGD seems a bit forced. Good 3% contraction info. IMF is giving Greece $83 billion bailout. Are there conditions? Is it to cover the budget deficit? Are these loans?
Points: First point is overdependence on IMF. Isn’t Greece dependent because IMF austerity policies are forcing contraction? The Brown Political Review is a student-run publication. Not a great source but I work for them. What is in this bailout? I don’t see how this bailout could hurt Greece. Second point is that Greece would misspend. Decent joke on Greece. Greece may have misspent the first bailout but that was a different government. Again, giving Greece money seems like it is guaranteed to prevent economic collapse and a crisis. No way could this hurt Greece. Third point is that other countries will want help. Have these countries seen the conditions the IMF has put on Greece over the last five years??? Are other countries like Spain or Italy asking for a bailout? That would be news to me.
My take: This speech doesn’t explain the bailout, the IMF or Greece’s economic problems very well. I don’t sense the issues brought up in this speech are really the ones weighed in the IMF decision.
Time: 7:00ish
Speaker 2 (229-Marshall Sloane)
Question: Would a partioning of Iraq help to reduce turmoil?
Answer: No because it does not resolve underlying problems
I. ISIS Would Not Go Anywhere
II. Disdain of Saddam Hussein’s rule would continue
III. Economic Issues Would Worsen
Logan Scisco Notes: Vice President Joe Biden would really like this question. Fun AGD about Star Wars but the specific link to the question was quite weak. Speaker is very relaxed on the big stage and that helps the speaker vary their tone, thereby helping them stand out in the round. Going back to Saddam Hussein was a good idea for this speech, although noting that artificiality of Iraq’s borders historically would have been a detail worth bringing up in this speech. Also, I don’t really see how having separate states would not get over this historical animosity since the threat of being governed by an ethnic minority would be eliminated. The speaker should look forward when they are being asked a question in cross-examination. I can’t disagree with a lot of the analysis of this speech, although focusing more on the economics and disagreements on oil would have been nice.
Josh Wartel Notes:
Intro and Question Analysis: A bit of a strange tone to start. And the AGD was not topical enough. Good summary of the broader issues in Iraq. Would like to hear about the president of Iraq. Who would make the decision to partition Iraq? We need to hear about the Kurds! Intro seems quite long but question is reasonable.
Points: First point is it wouldn’t get rid of ISIS. ISIS is trying to gain territory. ISIS rejects borders and military would be weaker. But wouldn’t it give a chance for a Sunni government to win back support form ISIS? Would it not help in the long run? Second point is that Saddam was very bad. But wouldn’t an independent state for Shittes and Sunnis mean that their fighting won’t disrupt the central government? Second is the weakest point. Third point is about economics. Speaker says institutions would be weak, but could it really get worse? Wouldn’t Kurdistan benefit by being in charge of its own oil?
My take: Not a huge fan of speeches that basically just holds the status quo. It means that there are no impacts at all. The points seem plausible, however, I wish this speech took into account how the U.S., Iran and other countries would respond to a partition. This seems essential to understanding the impact.
Time: 7:24
Speaker 3 (232-Vaikunth Balaji)
Question: Is there a realistic path to stability for Ukraine?
Answer: No
I. Deep rooted economic problems
II. Russia’s aggressive military posturing
III. Growing nationalism that is splitting Ukraine politically
Logan Scisco Notes: Speaker makes a quick and good recovery after a misstatement during the first sentence of their speech. The background information could have done more to clarify Ukraine’s existing instability. Having a thesis to go with this answer would have given the speech more cohesion. For example, linking the entire speech to Russian interference or political dysfunction surrounding all three problems would have made the speech’s argument stronger. The speech could have also provided more long-term analysis of why harms in the status quo will not produce a realistic path to stability. Still, the speaker demonstrated a healthy knowledge of Ukraine’s existing problems and all three points were distinct. I worry that this speaker may not do as well on other people’s ballots because it lacked a “big moment” or something that will make it more memorable.
Josh Wartel Notes:
Question and Intro Analysis: Did Putin really say that? A good (but long) AGD. Good to bring up the lives lost. However, I would like hear the Ukrainian President mentioned. Good sig statement. Not quite clear what “stability” means.
Points: First point is deep rooted economic problems. Ukraine’s economy is a mess. The fault seems to be the conflict with Russia. This point conflicts a little bit with the second point because both have a root cause. And this first point really doesn’t give us a way to measure stability. Second point is Russia. Not a huge fan of this joke about Latvia but it got a nice laugh. Point begins with explanation of sanctions, and support for the Russian-backed rebels. But the second point, like the first, is really getting bogged down with the A sub point. Is joining NATO or the EU a path towards fighting back? Third point is growing nationalism. Gridlock in the parliament. Can’t pass legislation. I like the breakdown between the establishment and the right-wing. Is the right-wing a threat to stability? I need an explanation of why they are bad for Ukraine’s future.
My take: A good job in this speech of giving us lots of info. However, we don’t get a lot of links to “stability.” As this answer suggests there isn’t stability, there should all be impacts that suggest collapse.
Time: 7:34
Speaker 4 (239-Charlie Barton)
Question: Will European nations be able to effectively respond to the Syrian refugee crisis?
Answer: No because sources of the crisis will not end in the near future.
I. Fruitless efforts for peace in Syria
II. Blockade of humanitarian aid
III. Deepening internal divides in Europe
Logan Scisco Notes: Effective use of data to create a powerful significance statement before going into the question. The speaker needs to be careful not to walk in transition before they have completed a specific point of their analysis. This leads to a few situations where they are moving but not speaking as they pause between points and it creates an awkward visual. Due to time, the speaker probably bit off more than they could chew in the third point as they do not have enough time to cover all of the significant divides that exist in Europe over the refugee issue. In this case it may have been better for the speaker to focus their thesis on EU-Syrian relations or on the EU’s internal problems. The logic of the speech is sound, though, as the speaker does a good job explaining how the issues they discuss link to a worsening of the Syrian refugee crisis.
Josh Wartel Notes:
Intro and Question Analysis: Not much of an AGD here. And I’m not sure Kissinger is a gold standard for dealing with humanitarian problems. Some pauses would be nice in the background. I think it would be good to hear about Germany or other countries in Europe. Most of all, what would be effective here?
Points: First point is ongoing conflict in the country. Assad continues to kill and so the refugees will continue to increase. This first point is short but seems correct to me. I wish we heard why these refuges have to go to Europe instead of other countries in the Middle East. The second point is humanitarian aid to Syrians. I’m a bit confused here because this point seems very similar to the first point. Both points are just about how bad Syria has become. Again, not much of a question. The third point is the deep divides in Europe. Balkan states don’t want to take refugees. A lot of time is spent in this point just talking about the scope of Eastern European refusal to take refuges. But why? We need much more about the motivations of European countries? And what about the E.U., Turkey, and Western European countries? Speed is also a bit fast.
My take: I think he picked the right answer. But the failure to define “effectively,” explain the motivations of European humanitarian politics and come up with impacts counts against this speech.
Time: 7:23
Speaker 5 (332-Shreetika Singh)
Question: How will the TPP affect global economies?
Answer: Strengthen economies
I. Encouraging more women to enter the workforce
II. Reducing tariffs and lower consumer costs
III. Encourage nations to invest in renewable resources
Logan Scisco Notes: The speaker does a good job defining the TTP in the intro and its supposed benefits. Good data is used for the first point, but a discussion is really needed there for why getting more women into the workforce will strengthen economies of various countries. It seems that this argument was more implied than explicitly made. Since free trade is an issue in dispute at the present time, the speaker could have tried to built up or introduce some anti-free trade arguments and then torn them down. I was sort of surprised that the speaker sold lower wages as a positive, but it does link to their argument of cheaper products that can be bought so I see where it is going. Still, I was surprised that did not become an issue during cross-examination. Is the TPP really here to stay, though, especially considering the fact that the U.S. and other nations may not ratify it? The speech had a good rate of delivery, though.
Josh Wartel Notes:
Intro and Question Analysis: I don’t like this question. Way too broad again. AGD is very old and canned. The U2 album came out years ago? Smooth delivery. This intro needs to talk about the U.S. a bit more which is the largest
Points: First point is women in the workforce. Not a fan of the non-topical on-top about female extempers. Although it is good we have a female extemper in this round. Shinzo Abe wants more women in the workforce. I have no idea what this has to do with the TPP however. No link. Second point reduces tariffs. Very confusing and long on-top. Not sure why China is relevant here. Tarriffs will lower consumer goods and wages. Lowering wages does not seem good. A lot of basic free trade theory here but would like to see some TPP specific projections. Talk about nations like Vietnam and Thailand! Third point is renewable energy. Some good specifics in mentioning Malaysia. But I have no idea, again, what the link is to the TPP. We need to hear specifically how the TPP agreement is boosting renewable energy.
I’m pretty sure the TPP wasn’t actually signed earlier this uear, as the speaker suggests in cross-ex
My take: Very weak links in this speech. The question mentions “global economies” so we need impacts that affect the entire world. The speaker needs more of a tight focus on just the TPP, not just the countries signing the TPP.
Time: 7:28
Speaker 6 (144-Justin Graham)
Question: What should the international community do about the North Korean threat?
Answer: Containing and eliminating it
I. Partnering with China
II. Accelerate Deployment of THAAD Batteries
III. Stepping up propagada within North Korea
Logan Scisco Notes: Speaker does a good job transition from something that is humorous (Kim Jong Il winning a leadership award) to something that is very serious (the nuclear threat posed by North Korea). The speaker also makes good use of sources that are regional and international such as The Asia Times (a source that all extempers need to be cutting if they are not already). Like the second speaker, this speech stands out because of variance of pacing. It does not get overly dramatic, but it does a good job varying its tone so that the audience will pay more attention to “big moments” and this helps its memorability in a close round. The second point is unique for a North Korean speech as it is something I have never heard before and it is arguably the strongest part of the speech. Overall, I had fewer things to pick at with this speech on analysis than some of the others in the round.
Josh Wartel Notes:
Intro and Question Analysis: Good AGD and effective pauses, although I was told this AGD was also used in the NCFL final. Good background of North Korean threat. But we really need to hear more about who the international community is. The U.S., U.N. or everyone?
Points: First point is partnering with China. Good explanation of China and North Korean relationship. U.S. could pressure China to impose sanctions. Although, why will this work now when it hasn’t convinced China in the past? I’ll buy the impact of improving relations with China, but it’s a bit weak. Second point is Thad batteries. Good use of an on-top to explain the technology. The U.S. ignoring the international community sort of conflicts with the intention of the question. Impact here is nuclear war, but it seems that THAD batteries would anger China. Thus, the second point is in danger of undermining the first. (Note: Speaker does alleviate some of this by grouping China along with the international community in the cross-ex).Third point is propaganda within North Korea. Propaganda balloons is a creative idea. I’d like to hear about something like Radio Free Europe as well. I’m not sure this would get North Korea to negotiate. Is there an example of this working with any other countries?
My take: Points aren’t perfect, but they are the strongest of any in the round. The speaker also did an excellent job of pacing his analysis and using pauses to make his analysis cogent.
Time: 7:19
———-
As was the case with the U.S. Extemp final round, this round was very good. Although the questions were simplistic, speakers did a good job going above what would normally be regarded as “common” analysis. Those looking to get into the NSDA final in the future would be wise to look at these speakers in terms of their varied delivery, their use of impacts, and the broad range of sources that they consulted for their analysis.
Final Ranks on Scisco’s Ballot (Which Doesn’t Count):
1-144 (Justin Graham)
2-229 (Marshall Sloane)
3-232 (Vaikunth Balaji)
4-239 (Charlie Barton)
5-332 (Shreetika Singh)
6-293 (Nikhil Ramaswamy)
Final Ranks on Wartel’s Ballot (Which Doesn’t Count):
1-144 (Justin Graham)
2-232 (Vaikunth Balaji)
3-229 (Marshall Sloane)
4-239 (Charlie Barton)
5-332 (Shreetika Singh)
6-293 (Nikhil Ramaswamy)