Last year in Dallas, Texas, Dylan Slinger of Lakeville South High School in Minnesota and Jared Odessky of Nova High School in Florida were the National Forensic League National Champions in International and United States Extemporaneous Speaking. Both also won their respective final rounds at the tournament. Slinger also capped a unique season by winning the CFL and NFL national extemporaneous speaking titles, becoming just the third extemper to do so. In last season’s National Points Race, Slinger finished second and Odessky finished third. Both of them took the time to talk with Extemp Central about their high school careers and provide some advice for up and coming extempers and those attending this year’s NFL Nationals in Indianapolis, Indiana.
This is part two of a two part interview.
Aside from the final round of last year’s tournament, what do you think was the most important round for you at NFL Nationals?
Odessky: Semifinals was always the scariest round for me. Luckily, NFLs splits quarters and semifinals into two rounds each, taking at least some of the pressure off. While I don’t remember exactly how the numbers worked out, I pulled out of semifinals leading the tournament, and while I didn’t know it at the time, it definitely helped me in my cumulative results. I put my biggest effort of the tournament into making my semis speeches as perfect as they could be, knowing that they were the make-it-or-break-it rounds. I recall that one of my semis rounds was relatively stacked, and I had to give a speech on the Supreme Court to judges not well acclimated to Extemp. I just poured all of my energy into it and gave it my best shot.
Slinger: Semis because it was the round that carried the most significant weight for cumulative scores and because it was the round where everyone was capable of performing in the final round, yet it was the toughest cut with only six people people making it to finals.
What advice do you have for extempers when they have to do cross-examination in semi-finals and finals? Is there a different strategy you have to employ when doing two minute CX as opposed to three minute CX?
Odessky: You only have 120 SECONDS. Don’t beat around the bush. That means 1) shake the other speaker’s hands and whisper to them ‘Congrats’ or ‘Great speech,’ but don’t waste your time by putting on a showy ‘Congratulations, that was an incredible speech, now I’m going to ask you a few questions’ — it’s insincere and pointless because we already know you are there to ask a few questions, 2) don’t cite sources during CX unless it is absolutely necessary — it comes off as pretentious and wastes precious seconds when you could be directly targeting an argument and exposing weak spot’s in the other speaker’s analysis, and 3) leading questions can be really effective at exposing analytical flaws, but keep them succinct and limited in number. Ultimately, don’t feel the need to hit every point and subpoint — find two to three holes in the analysis and hone in on them.
Slinger: CX is a time to relax, engage another speaker who is of a high caliber and reveal to the judge your insight on topics other than the one you spoke on. Many speakers spend their CX trying to make shallow, technical indicts of their opponents specific points rather than discussing the topic from a different, unique and well researched perspective of their own. These two strategies are not mutually exclusive but are definitely different. I believe the best speaker will differentiate themselves by keeping CX from devolving into bickering and finding a middle ground between harsh attacks and vague, pointless questions while becoming the expert on the question rather than the opponent. I think two minute CX forces speakers to be more strategic with the types of questions they ask and the answers they elicit. Questions with long, open ended answers are only going to benefit your opponent, while yes/no questions and more direct questions allow you to limit your opponent’s rambling and remain respectful at the same time.
Are there any particular speakers that have impressed you on the national circuit this year?
Slinger: This year has a strong pool of underclassmen and female extempers, which is a great trend! Ashesh Rambachan, the runner-up in IX last year, still stands out to me as one of the best extempers because he is incredibly consistent and has fluency and depth that is hard to match. Isabelle Taft has also consistently impressed me with her poise and insightful analysis, and her strong season has reflected that. The Des Moines Roosevelt duo has had a great season and they have consistently good content. Nathan has a lot of personality and Lily is an excellent explainer who holds a strong command of the room. Bill McDonald is also a great speaker whose final round appearance last year and success this year make him a strong contender.
What sources do you think are “must have” sources for extempers to have?
Odessky: For basics: The Economist, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Brookings, Al-Jazeera, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy; for added analysis: The Small Wars Journal, Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Columbia Journal of International Affairs, Washington Quarterly, Wilson Quarterly, American Enterprise Institute
Slinger: Current History, Stratfor Intelligence Report, The Washington Quarterly, Center for Strategic International Studies, Foreign Policy, The World Politics Review and the Council on Foreign Relations are a few. I also think that you should be reading articles from news sources that are local to the issue you’re studying. Google Chrome’s auto-translate feature is a great tool to help!
Are there any book recommendations you have for extempers that are underclassmen?
Odessky: I mostly found books useful for economics, which is really hard to grasp with just periodicals: Paul Krugman’s new book End This Depression Now!, The Bottom Billion by Paul Collier, The Price of Civilization and The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs, Globalization and Its Discontents and Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy by Joseph Stiglitz, Too Big to Fall: America’s Failing Infrastructure and the Way Forward by Barry LePatner (great for infrastructure discussions); also, as a History major, I must add that great historical introduction material and just generally important knowledge can be found in Michael Kazin’s American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation and Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.
Slinger: How to Win a Cosmic War, Reza Aslan. The Post-American World and Rise of an Illiberal Democracy, Fareed Zakaria. Hot, Flat and Crowded and Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas Friedman. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, John Mearsheimer. The Clash of Civillizations and Remaking of the World Order, Samuel Huntington. The Dragon’s Gift, Deborah Brautigam
Is there any “general” advice you have for navigating the NFL National Tournament?
Odessky: This is not your average national circuit tournament, where competitors predominantly come from the East Coast, Minnesota, or California. NFLs has representation from pretty much everywhere in the country, in addition to its tendency to bring in a portion of the local community, meaning that judges might not be used to your style, your viewpoints, your sources, etc. The key at NFLs is to have a balance between making a strong argument using your own voice without isolating people who might not be used to your district’s type of speech and debate. Always stay away from inflammatory speech, and in early rounds, don’t speak above your judges’ heads.
Sleep. There will be plenty of time to party during the summer, and also four years to not sleep in college. Enjoy your zzz’s while you can get them throughout the week. NFLs is a marathon, not a race.
Eat—and not just any random food; use this travel time as a chance to experience the local color. I thought I would hate Kansas City, but I loved KC BBQ and the overall culture and want to go back. Dallas, not so much.
Call friends from home between rounds. When you only talk to people at the tournament, including teammates, odds are that you are going to spend a lot of time discussing how rounds went or worrying about rounds coming up. Relieve the stress and reduce the “debate talk” by talking to friends from home that support you but are not going to constantly bother discussing speech and debate. Your parents, on the other hand, might keep prying to figure out how you’re doing. I guess you should probably still call them at some point.
Slinger: Enjoy yourself and keep up the energy in rounds. If you are tired and unenthusiastic, your judge will not be engaged by you or want to give you that higher rank. Nationals is a great time to capitalize on your excitement and integrate that into your speeches. Walking into the room with a smile will go a long ways with gaining likability with the judge and it will make the experience that much better.
Final comments?
Odessky: Best of luck, and really take the chance to enjoy it! This is a unique opportunity—ignore those that are overly competitive, do your best, and forget the rest.
Slinger: Good luck and enjoy the tournament!
[fblike] [twitter]