The 2021 National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) International Extemp final round is done. 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 Logan Scisco and Jacqueline Wei. Analysis from Tanner Jones will come later when he is able to view the final round as he had a technical problem for the first half of it.
Speaker 1 (3784 – Michelle Jin)
Question: Projected to occur in as soon as five years, what will the climate change tipping point look like?
Answer: Greater conflict because of impacts on vulnerable populations
1-Loss of Limited Resources
2-Increased Climate Refugees
3-Increased Violent Conflict
Jacqueline Wei Comments: AGD/link is weird—not sure if rising body temps and rising global temps was the link to go for. Not necessary to use the phrase/explain “tragedy of the commons”—explain the problem of limited resources without confusing people more. The food chain is fine, but a more direct link would be easier to follow (ie. water becomes a limited resource, and people need water). None of these points are super specific to a “tipping point”—they’re just trends that have been occurring over periods of time. Would’ve loved more analysis specifically on what the tipping point would be. I think the question (in addition to asking what the impacts of the tipping point will be) is also asking what exactly the “climate change tipping point” is or what will cause it, and I think this speech could’ve been more nuanced if it had included analysis on what would cause the tipping point. These points are fairly simple, which can be bad if someone else gives a more nuanced and educational speech.
Logan Scisco Comments: The speaker does a good job with facial expressions to emphasize the major points of what they are talking about with climate change. The question is tricky because the speaker has to think of a hypothetical world which does not yet exist and then elaborate on that in the speech. They do an okay job of this, but I would have liked to see them play up hypothetical scenarios more. They discuss what is happening in the status quo but the impact story in comparison seems relatively weak, especially in discussions about what is happening on the African continent in five years (beyond existing issues with Boko Haram) and climate refugees. That does not mean that the speaker does not have good information. They do tell a story about the impact of climate change in Alaska, Africa, and Southeast Asia, but the last two could provide more depth. The speaker does not get fuddled from an aggressive CX press by the sixth speaker. They could use their speech more as a form of defense against it, though.
Speaker 2 (3668 – McKinley Paltzik)
Question: After Angela Merkel steps down, who should lead Germany?
Answer: Annalena Baerbock because she is the change Germany needs
1-New COVID Approach
2-Renewed Climate Focus
3-Better Leader for Combat Far-Right Hate Crimes
Jacqueline Wei Comments: Another comparison question that looks deceptively easy but is actually extremely hard. Speaking is a bit too exaggerated. Who are the other candidates we’re comparing Baerbock to? Who else is in the running? Point 1: What is a “renewed approach”? Why can’t Germany’s representative in the EU parliament get vaccines for Germany right now—why does the Chancellor specifically have to do it? Why isn’t Merkel purchasing more vaccines now, and how is Baerbock going to change that? Lacking a bit on specifics. Point 2: What are concrete policies Baerbock pushes for? Would be better to add some tangible policies (carbon tax? Shutting down coal mines? Tax credits for R&D on green energy?) that she pushes for. Point 3 is fine, just lacking on specific policies Baerbock could push for. Overall, needed more comparisons between Baerbock and other candidates (not enough to say she’s a good leader, need to prove she is the best option) and what specifically her policy platform is.
Logan Scisco Comments: This question is a lot like the Speaker of the House question in U.S. Extemp, so it would be good for extempers to look back at these speeches for how to approach these types of topics. It is nice for the speaker to incorporate at least one German source into their speech too, as local coverage of international events is often missing in the activity generally. There is a weird bind with this question where the speaker has to pick someone to replace Merkel and is then faced with a quandry: compare to Merkel, compare to other possible contenders to take over after Merkel, or do both? The speaker opts to do the first choice, but I cannot help but keep thinking throughout the speech how Baerbock is the best choice in the status quo versus others. The speaker has the right to frame the speech however they want, but I could not shake this thought as I listened. This speaker has a good, fluent delivery. Pausing in a few places for emphasis would convey more impact (a note that I could say for all extempers that I’ve seen so far today in USX up to this point too), but that is easier said than done as well. The speaker stays very poised in CX, confidently answering all questions. It would have been good to point back to more specifics from the speech to defend, but they navigate this part with ease.
Speaker 3 (3657 – Natasha Banga)
Question: What will be the state of the international economy in 2022?
Answer: It will not return to pre-pandemic levels
1-Continual COVID Concerns
2-Risk of Inflation
3-Less Attention to Developing Nations
Jacqueline Wei Comments: “It’s no secret” is a bit of a crutch phrase and used unnecessarily here—watch out for that. Some fluency issues at the end, and speaker seems slightly flustered after stumbling. Small note, I think speakers should step to their right first (judge’s left) so their flow goes left to right (the way we read things) but just personal preference. Why are capital inflows/outflows in UK equity funds a good indicator of economic sentiment? The first point runs really long. Why does a larger supply of cash cause the value of the dollar to go down (need to explain this link intuitively)? 2% inflation rate is not high at all (usually 3%+ is considered a concern). Would have liked a better explanation of why inflation is bad. Point 3 seems to overlap with point 1 – maybe make point 1 explicitly about developed countries. Third point is short, probably because the speech ran long in point 1.
Logan Scisco Comments: The speaker has an interesting AGD analogy about the Olympics, although it had a bit of a weak tie-in with the topic. The speaker also possesses a lot of understanding of economic relationships. Where some of this strength is undermined, though, is in the rate at which they speak. The speech is delivered a bit quickly and this starts a problem of stumbles that plague a lot of the speech and hurts its overall persuasion. The speaker had a very minor error by saying the wrong year on the question in the intro, but I wonder if that error caused doubt and then that caused some fluency errors later. Another flaw structurally is that the speech’s time allocation got knocked off kilter, with the speaker having less than 90 seconds to cover their last point before the grace period kicked in. International extemp topics are difficult and this speaker should be commended for taking it, as well as trying to intertwine examples from the different world regions. What would have made the analysis stronger was to not assume the audience knew as much, though. The discussion of equity funds was interesting, but more teaching was needed there to educate the audience about what those are and why they matter. The same can be said of the inflation discussion. This speaker is an underclassmen, so they have lots of time to improve on this round in the future.
Speaker 4 (3691 – Kay Rollins)
Question: Which world leader will have the greatest impact in 2022 and beyond?
Answer: Xi Jinping because he has molded China into an influential nation
1-Expansion of China’s Cybersecurity Capabilities
2-Expanded the Belt & Road Initiative
3-Renewed Attention to China’s Military Supremacy
Jacqueline Wei Comments: AGD is ever so slightly cringy. Speaking is slightly exaggerated. What does “greatest impact” mean (most people affected? Most influence in the biggest international hotspots?) Point 1: Why is cybersecurity a determinant of “greatest impact” over other areas? More of a comparison between China’s cybersecurity and the rest of the world would be great (esp. US, which definitely hacks China back). Point 2: There’s been a lot of pushback against the BRI from member countries, particularly in SE Asia, where they’ve started declining Chinese investment—would’ve liked a counterargument to that in the point itself. Point 3: Why is the impact to nuclear war—is China threatening to use their nukes (they have an explicit no-first-strike policy in place)? Besides Taiwan/SCS, not sure if China’s military is a big player in any other hotspots (like the Middle East, Africa, and LatAm). The point about Biden having limited terms is good—would’ve liked that somewhere in the speech (i.e. we switch presidents so much that we can’t maintain consistent focus on areas like cyber/investment in developing countries).
Logan Scisco Comments: What helps this speaker stand out in the round are a couple of playful jabs that do not distract from the content and, in some cases, actually enhance it. Such examples are the AGD about U.S. foreign policy follies or the dig at policy debaters and their obsession with nuclear war scenarios. Structurally, the speech has good time allocation and it does not seem like the speaker has to rush to cover what they want. Another thing that helps the speech are that the underviews are memorable. One that stood out to me was at the end of the first point when there was a discussion of Jinping and his surveillance capabilities. The remark was something like “In China, Jinping’s control of his people’s lives will never end.” There is also a good interplay in this speech between what China brings to the table, as well as the United States. My only analytical nitpick was that there seemed to be a missed opportunity to compare China’s Belt & Road initiative to what President Biden proposed at the G7.
Speaker 5 (3684 – Mukta Dharmapurikar)
Question: How likely are we to see an independent Palestinian state?
Answer: Unlikely because Palestinian political movements will be limited
1-Israel Annexation Efforts
2-Lack of International Support
3-Continued Division of Palestinian Governance
Jacqueline Wei Comments: Point 1: I get where we’re coming from, but Bennet’s coalition includes an Arab party—he can’t just annex the entirety of Palestine or his coalition will fall apart and he won’t be PM. Impact sentences are a bit over the top, don’t exaggerate the speaking too much or it comes off as cheesy. Would’ve liked more specifics on the dynamics between Israel/other Arab nations/Palestine and the Abraham Accords—what specifically pushes Arab countries to side with Israel if they’ve been big supporters of Palestine until now? Third point is good.
Logan Scisco Comments: This is one of those “greatest hits” questions that extempers can always expect to see pop up a few times a season and it is only that generations have talked about, whether in the speech and debate community or elsewhere. The speaker targets all of the big issues that affect the current Israel-Palestinian struggle, missing only the controversial Palestinian demand of the “right of return” for those displaced in 1948. The sources are region-specific in places, even though the speaker misses an opportunity to use those biases to drive her analysis home. For covering a controversial and hard topic, this was an impressive job, especially when only allotted seven minutes. The only thing that would have enhanced it were a couple of effective phrasings strategically placed at some point in the analysis (like the underviews) OR relaying more historical examples of past attempts at creating a two-state solution in the Middle East. Other than that, I really enjoyed this speech.
Speaker 6 (3584 – Pranav Pattatathunaduvil)
Question: By the end of the decade, will Mexico have solved its drug problem?
Answer: No
1-Recruitment Will Increase
2-Police Officers are Targeted
3-Shipping & Transportation Strategies
Jacqueline Wei Comments: Link is a bit weak. Careful on the crutch words (“we’ve seen that,” “specifically”). Bit of a pause after the 1st transition would have been nice. Careful not to use too much explicit linkage in the C here (i.e. repeating “the reason why this won’t be solved by the end of the decade” is a little bit too straightforward). A on the second point needs to be more concise—if there’s too much fluff, the speech will lose the judges’ attention/train of thought. Third point also has issues with conciseness and crutch words. Points are okay, but would’ve liked a bit more nuance on domestic dynamics within Mexico (i.e. why are Mexican governments stingy with youth aid, if this is such a big problem?)
Logan Scisco Comments: This speaker has good delivery, staying engaged with the audience and adding a sense of urgency to what he was talking about. The speaker also smiles in places, which is something good to do to show that one is having a good time. The AGD to start the speech is arguably the best in the round and it sounds like something The Economist might create. The introduction was efficient, allowing the speaker to get into content before the two minute mark, and the time allocation for it is good. My big content issue with the speech is the time frame. The question asks about whether the Mexican government can solve this problem by the end of the decade, but in my view the speaker did not spend as much time doing time frame analysis, something that started to get picked apart in the CX portion by the fifth speaker. There were efforts to do some of this, but they felt shallow and needed to go further. In a close round like this one, that made the difference in my overall ranking, but I can easily see other judges liking this speech from a delivery perspective as it was still an informative look at Mexico’s drug war.
Jacqueline Wei’s Rankings (Which Do Not Count):
1-(3691 – Kay Rollins)
2-(3684 – Mukta Dharmapurikar)
3-(3584 – Pranav Pattatathunaduvil)
4-(3668 – McKinley Paltzik)
5-(3784 – Michelle Jin)
6-(3657 – Natasha Banga)
Logan Scisco’s Rankings (Which Do Not Count):
1-(3691 – Kay Rollins)
2-(3684 – Mukta Dharmapurikar)
3-(3584 – Pranav Pattatathunaduvil)
4-(3668 – McKinley Paltzik)
5-(3784 – Michelle Jin)
6-(3657 – Natasha Banga)
Would like to See Tanner’s Analysis too. Tanner, please do take time to watch and add your analysis.