[fblike]
The United States Extemp final round has concluded. Here is Extemp Central’s analysis of this year’s final round. Awards will take place at 6:00 p.m. CST tonight. They will be streamed at this link.
Note: Notables judges for the final round include Lisa Miller of Nova High School, coach of the 2011 NFL USX national champion; 1988 and 1989 NFL USX national champion David Kensinger; MBA tournament director Adam Johnson; and Sharon Volpe of North Allegheny Senior High School, coach of the 2009 NFL IX national champion.
Note #2: 247 competitors squared off in USX at this year’s national tournament.
Speaker 1 (287-Cosmo Albrecht)
Question: What message does the defeat of Eric Cantor in the VA Republican primary send to the GOP nationally?
Answer: Message of caution to the GOP Establishment
I. Tea Party is Alive and Well
WSJ-? {Stream got delayed so I missed this point}
II. GOP Needs to Embrace Libertarian Foreign Policy
Source-Current GOP platform is out of touch
The Hill-Many might be interested in immigration, but Cantor lost because of opponent’s promise to reform the NSA
III. GOP Leadership Needs to be More Accountable to Constituents
The Wire-Cantor was labeled a “Washington insider”
Time: 6:35
Summary: The AGD has nice link to Cantor based on the recent comments of former Montana Brian Schweitzer, but the introduction could provide more context surrounding Cantor’s defeat. My stream during this speech was choppy, so I missed some of the analysis of the first point. The first point was rather short as the speaker moved to the third point by the third minute of the speech. There is a bit of bleed betweens points one and three since the Tea Party are technically constituents of the GOP as they vote in primaries. The speech could have used more of the seven minute time limit, but national finals are nerve racking. The speech would have been strengthened by an analysis of how Cantor’s defeat could impact other races in 2014 and 2016. During CX this becomes a point of contention. This was a sound overview of Cantor, but it needed some wider, more specific impacts on the future of the GOP. It could have defined “GOP establishment” better. Interesting CX questions about how liberals like Obama and his outreach to minorities, but the second speaker does a good job deflecting these questions.
Speaker 2 (320-Josh Wartel)
Question: Can President Obama prevent a Republican takeover of the Senate in November?
Answer: No
I. Obama Permanently Unpopular
POL-Obama will not be popular again due to the economy and healthcare
NYT May-Obama’s popularity ratings have tracked with how well his party does in the midterms.
New Republican 5/23-If Democrats unpopular due to Obama, some of this will rub off on Democratic nominee (e.g. Bush and McCain in 2008)
II. Democrats Have a Demographic Crisis
ECO 5/17-Midterms racial breakdown will resemble 1983 (ex. NC)
POL 1/21-Democratic software to target minorities hopes to be up and running by 2016
III. GOP Has Fundraising Advantage
The Hill 6/2-RNC has outraised DNC by 2:1
Brookings May-Ron Wyden of Oregon pushing for disclosures
Time: 7:26
Summary: Interesting AGD about a criminal asking Obama for help. The analysis about Hillary and 2016 was not necessary in the first point or the third. It would have been better to talk about a specific race(s) that Democrats need a popular Obama to win. The second point does a better job by making a historical parallel and then providing an example state, but a link back to President Obama is needed there. The speaker has a very controlled delivery style, but I feel that the speaker turns this into a “Can Democrats keep the Senate in 2014” question as opposed to a question about President Obama. The first point directly ties to the president, but the other two have weaker connections. If these were improved, the speaker would give a better appearance of answering the question. I would have liked to have seen more examples of critical races in 2014 as well. Speaker does a good job beating back the first speaker’s questions in CX. Excellent question to start CX about a possible contradiction in the third speaker’s analysis. This speech just did not seem to fully answer the question posed and that impacts my ranking of it in this round.
Speaker 3 (110-Joe Russell)
Question: What is the most important lesson to be learned from the Bowe Bergdahl controversy?
Answer: Foreign policy decisions need to be executed flawlessly
I. Flawed Bergdahl Controversy = Congressional Investigations
CFR 6/15-National Defense Authorization Act forces Obama to tell Congress when he wants to release prisoners from Gitmo at least 30 days before hand, but this did not happen with Bergdahl
Brookings 6/2-Ignoring Congress was a bad decision allows a criminal investigation into Obama administration and this is different from Benghazi and a Congressional censure.
II. Bergdahl Controversy Hurting House Democrats
POL 6/14-Democrats are being dragged down by Obama’s unpopularity, especially in states where he isn’t popular in the first place
FP 6/10-Secret swap took place and Obama was under no obligation to release the news immediately.
III. Bergdahl Controversy Shocked Public Opinion
WP 6/7-Obama expected to be greeted as a hero
Source-Obama was not prepared to give responses to Bergdahl desertion accusations, so opponents got to spin the news
Time: 7:41
Summary: Solid overview of Obama’s controversies in the intro and funny joke about Vice President Joe Biden being “impeachment insurance.” Can foreign policy decisions really be executed flawlessly? The first point flows very, very well by providing sufficient background on what the Obama administration should have done and the problems with it. The analysis about Obama waiting to announce the Bergdahl swap is really fascinating and I have never heard anyone make that argument yet. The speaker could have a few more pauses in the speech before transition or giving the point tags. His gestures could also come about the waist at all times. His point tags also change multiple times throughout the speech. I was initially skeptical of the answer to this question, but this speaker sold me on their much of their analysis. Speaker does a good job deflecting a potentially fatal question at the beginning of CX. The speaker went in for the kill on the Toyota to start CX, which plants the seed of doubt in the judge’s minds about some of the fourth speaker’s analysis. He does a good job clarifying specific details the fourth speaker cannot provide such as how long it has taken Toyota to recover from sudden acceleration problems several years ago.
Speaker 4 (234-Jasper Primack)
Question: What will the House’s inquiry into the GM recall achieve?
Answer: Harm U.S. auto industry
I. Put Strong Focus on Other American Automakers
NYT 6/2-GM may have cut corners on quality control due to 2007 recession
The Guardian 6/3-Chrysler has issued internal report that 1.2m vehicles may have faulty ignition switches
II. Reduce Public Population for Another Auto Bailout
Reuters 6/9-GM’s worst year was 2009 and total car sales were 1.4m
NYT 6/16-GM popular models got a benefit from U.S. bailout
III. Incentivize Americans to Purchase More Foreign Cars
Source-Argentina & Brazil inflation = U.S. car manufacturers need to raise prices to remain competitive on U.S. market and this will turn off consumers
Biz Week 6/3-Last year, Toyota, saw 7.4% increase in sales up to 2.4m cars
Time: 7:10
Summary: We finally move away from American politics with this speech. Introduction has good background on GM and the recall problems of the company. The Chrysler example does a good job selling the argument of the first point. Good list of examples of GM models to sell the second point as well. A small analytical flaw in the second point is that the Bush administration got the ball rolling on the auto bailout, so it was not an exclusive Obama policy proposal. Toyota is an interesting example for the third point because they had a product defect that was also investigated by Congress and they have managed to get back on track. The speaker does a good job laying out this speech, avoiding bleed, and providing examples. The big delivery issue is fluency, as the speaker had several noticeable stumbles. The speaker has arguably the best closing line of the round so far about how “Americans deserve better than to be killed by a faulty ignition switch.” Part of the speaker’s analysis is weakened by the Toyota attack of the third speaker. Pretty good job on CX to question the implications of having a quality education constitute a civil right.
Speaker 5 (123-Brian Yu)
Question: Should access to quality education be considered a civil right?
Answer: Yes because education helps to promote equality
I. Offsets Economic Inequality
Brookings-82% of individuals from high-income families go to college, but just 52% of low-income individuals are able to go to college
II. Improves Racial Equality
NYT 2/6-President Obama has spent much of his second term trying to establish universal preschool
Center for Progress-If all minorities get preschool equally, racial achievement gap could be closed by 10-20%
III. Creates Equality in Job Market
Source-4.5% unemployment for college graduates versus 12.4% for non-college graduates
Time: 7:04
Summary: I really like this question. The AGD is funny about politician not telling the truth, but it could have a more specific link to the question. Its broad nature seems to make it applicable to many other USX topics. The speaker uses a thesis in their answer, which I appreciate. This is a speech that begs for some historical analysis dating back to at least Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 to help clarify the civil rights issues surrounding education. The same can be said of Title IX and other measures. The speaker makes a good, statistical case for their answer, but the problem with questions like these, which do not link to a specific policy proposal, is that they often lead to speeches that are too broad. A discussion about school choice or what constitutes a “quality education” could be discussed more. Overall, the speaker did a good job making their case and had solid delivery, but the nature of the question makes this speech somewhat difficult to compare to other speakers that had less vague questions. It will be interesting to see how the final judges evaluate this speech. Speaker does a good job handling the CX questions from the fourth speaker.
Speaker 6 (263-Arel Rende)
Question: Is the Fed’s recently announced plan to trim monthly bond holdings wise?
Answer: No
I. Measures Are Far Too Drastic
Bloomberg 4/6-Yellen should cut $5b a month, not $20b that she has started because it sent a shockwave through the economy
CATO 6/15-Shockwave through economy will halt investment as Dow Jones and S&P 500 are at record highs, but QE easing will harm economic recovery
II. Eventual Global Fallout
Foreign Affairs March/April-Second round of developing countries (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey)
CSM 5/8-Those countries rely on American FDI, which is funneled by QE
III. Low Levels of American Manufacturing and Production
WSJ 6/6-In the last four years, there has been a lot of banking and not manufacturing investment on a scale of 2:1
CSM 5/14-Yellen needs to wait for this shift to happen so the economy has a strong backbone
ECO 5/25-If QE were drastically cut, over 750k Americans would lose their jobs
Time: 7:18
Summary: The speaker does a good job attacking the first speaker’s speech without appearing hostile. Good use of examples of Senate races during the questioning period of CX. Interesting AGD about Ben Bernanke’s QE. Speaker does a great job explaining what QE is. Intro is a little top heavy at 2:03, but considering the need to explain QE, that is more tolerable than if it had been another topic. The speaker could do a better job explaining how the bond market is crucial to economies of developing countries in the second point. They have a good explanation of how trade flows matter for MX, Indonesia, SK, and Turkey, but I need more about how bond cuts negatively impact those trade flows. The speaker has some interesting impact scenarios, but the internal links of how QE cuts off funds in each point could be strengthened. Still, the speaker does an admirable job tackling the toughest question in the round. Speaker does a good job handling the fifth speaker’s questions in CX.
——————
Overall this was a very good round. I should note that my stream got choppy for much of speaker 287’s speech, so I had to go on what I saw based on two points. My ballot focuses more on answering the question posed and doing a good job on both ends of CX.
Final Ranks on My Ballot (Which Doesn’t Count):
1-110 (Joe Russell)
2-263 (Arel Rende)
3-123 (Brian Yu)
4-234 (Jasper Primack)
5-320 (Josh Wartel)
6-287 (Cosmo Albrecht)