SpeechGeek

Because there’s no place like FIRST for the holidays!

ENTER CODE “NOPLACELIKE” TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS SPECIAL OFFER.

As one who enjoys hearing from SpeechGeek from time to time, we’re happy to share with you a 51% discount on all orders greater than $20 on Friday, December 18, 2009. In these times of budgetary restrictions, we’re here to help. We also want to say thank you for helping to make 2009 our best year ever.

To view our full newsletter, visit: http://speechgeek.com/newsletter/200912.html.

This week’s topic brief is a sample of the SpeechGeek Extemp HOTtopics service.  Each Tuesday, 25 United States and 25 International topics are delivered via email. These practice questions are a wonderful resource for teams to stay abreast of current events and anticipate the questions they may encounter at the next tournament.  In addition to the weekly question set, HOTtopics provides a brief on a topic area of significance. Each week’s brief provides overview, analysis, potential questions, and articles for further reading.

Budget Deficit Politics

By Logan Scisco

During the “off season” after NFL Nationals, the issue of the budget deficit has come to be a major one in American politics.  It has the potential to shape the outcome of the midterm elections in 2010 and is playing a role in President Barack Obama’s declining popularity ratings.  As extempers get ready for the 2009-2010 season, which starts in less than six weeks with the Wake Forest National Early Bird, they will face questions about an array of economic issues such as unemployment, the effectiveness of the stimulus package, and the level of international trade as well as the controversial issue of healthcare reform.  All of these issues have something to do with the budget of the United States government and by proxy the deficit the U.S. government currently finds itself facing.

Americans in the late 1990s got used to seeing fiscal discipline on Capitol Hill between the executive and legislative branches.  President Bill Clinton worked with Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, a relationship that was often tense through impeachment proceedings and a government shutdown, to craft a budget that was balanced and that ran a surplus totaling $128 billion.  In fact, the major issue of the 2000 election between Vice-President Al Gore and then-Texas Governor George W. Bush was over what to do with this budget surplus, with Gore arguing that it needed to be used to shore up entitlement programs such as Social Security in a “lockbox” and Bush arguing that it needed to be given back to the American people in the form of a tax cut.  After the first presidential debate between the two men in the fall of 2000, Saturday Night Live had a hilarious mock debate over this issue.

After Bush won the election, he was able to get Congress to approve his tax cut package and celebrated the occasion as a victory for small government.  However, thanks to September 11^th and a U.S. recession that began after Bush was elected, the federal government started to see deficits early in the Bush administration.  By the time Bush left office, he and Congress, which was controlled for six years of his administration by Republicans, left the country with nearly a $500 billion deficit.  To put this into perspective, that number represents nearly three percent of America’s gross domestic product (GDP), the total value of goods and services produced within the U.S. in a given year.

Therefore, this topic brief will describe the state of the budget deficit under the Obama administration, how Congress and the Obama administration are trying to cope with it, and the political fallout on the budget deficit issue.

Obama and the Deficit

By the latest estimates, the federal government’s deficit has ballooned under the Obama administration to $1.8 trillion.  Deficits of this size were unthinkable before, but as last week’s edition of The Economist pointed out, the current size of the deficit is related to three factors.  First, tax revenue for the federal government has fallen as the economy has contracted over the last year.  With the economy shrinking, businesses have shut down and wealthy taxpayers do not have as much income to tax and middle class Americans, some of whom have been laid off from work or have had to accept pay cuts, have shrinking incomes to tax as well.  A second factor is the interest of the national debt that the federal government must pay to creditors.  Those who were not a fan of the stimulus package argued that much of it was financed by the Chinese government, which holds over $500 billion of U.S. national debt.  A final factor is the way that Obama and his predecessor have handled the economic crisis.  The infamous Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP), meant to help financial institutions, cost the federal government $700 billion.  Obama’s stimulus package, the so-called Recovery and Reinvestment Act cost the government another $787 billion.  And keep in mind that the size of the current healthcare legislation is said to be $1 trillion.

There is one message from economists concerning the U.S. and its massive deficits:  get used to them.  Based on the three factors outlined above, the current pace of U.S. government spending will only decrease the deficit from $1.8 trillion to $1.2 trillion by 2019, which is considered a big year because that is when entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security will begin to dig a bigger hole in the deficit and make it grow even larger. Normal people only have to care about making a copy of the lost SS card in time. Country cares for the rest.

If you are looking at how much GDP is being swallowed by the deficit, the current amounts are over five percent.  The current Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke prefers to have the deficit at three percent of GDP, arguing that anything higher is simply unsustainable for the government to have and that higher debt burdens will eventually reduce investor confidence in the American economy.

Obama has tried to take the stance that he is committed to bringing these deficits down when an economic recovery takes place, which his economic team argues will start next year.  However, to many Americans Obama is not moving quick enough to solve this deficit problem and his willingness to spend federal money on legislation that they perceive have had little effect on the economy is not helping him politically, especially in states that are hard hit by the economic recession.

Combating the Deficit

Sensing that there is political danger in playing with the deficit, especially since they promised to bring more fiscal accountability to Washington when they won the 2006 midterm elections, Democrats in the House of Representatives passed legislation last month that would reinstate “pay as you go” rules to federal spending.  The “pay as you go” principle, also called “pay go” for short, is that if the federal government tries to spend federal revenue that is non-existent in the form of new programs or tax cuts that there are automatic spending cuts in other parts of the budget or taxes are raised to pay for them.  However, before anyone out there gets any wild ideas about the cuts that take place, consider that programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, Social Security payments, and many parts of the Medicare program are exempt from automatic cuts since those programs are seen as helping the most vulnerable of Americans, notably the poor and the elderly.

While this idea makes sense because it could potentially lead to more fiscal responsibility from legislators, there are problems with “pay as you go” rules in their current form.  First, the “pay as you go” rules can be waived aside by Congressional leaders if they really want to push for tax cuts or a new federal program which weakens their effectiveness.  Second, the current rules make it possible for Republicans and other political forces to reinstitute the Bush tax cuts without having to adhere to the “pay as you go” rules.  Finally and maybe most important, under the July legislation, appropriation bills, which often have lots of “pork” and unnecessary spending, are not subject to the “pay as you go” rules.

It is hardly any wonder that after this legislation was passed, Congressional Republicans argued that it was an attempt by the Democratic leadership to make it appear to the American people that their party was getting tough on the budget deficit when it had no intention to do so.  For “Blue Dog” Democrats, those Democrats elected from conservative districts and who have committed themselves to fiscally conservative principles, the legislation was a symbolic attempt to shore up their fiscal credibility in the eyes of their constituents, which for some is painfully needed in light of healthcare reform and the cap and trade legislation.

Another way of deficit reduction is coming in the form of taxation.  On August 2^nd, on an edition of This Week on ABC, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner refused to say that tax increases were not coming in the future.  While this might not be news if it only dealt with tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, that does not appear to be the case on closer inspection.  Extempers should keep in mind that the latest healthcare legislation does impose a tax on wealthy Americans to make up part of the program, so giving rich Americans a “double whammy” in the form of taxes may not be a great idea, because there is only so much that you can soak the rich, especially to make up for a budget shortfall.  Therefore, any tax increases may have to come on those Americans that are part of the middle class, which Obama defined during the 2008 campaign as those making less than $250,000 a year.  Geithner clarified that these tax increases may only happen when the economy starts to witness a recovery, but any tax increases like these do put Obama in a tricky political position, as he promised no tax increases at all on this group and is probably astute enough to know that Bush 41 lost his re-election campaign to Bill Clinton because he violated his “no new tax pledge” from 1988.  Ironically, Bush’s decision to back off of that pledge was because of America’s budget deficits.

Political Fallout

While Americans are not always given credit for their economic prowess, a significant part of the American electorate is beginning to take notice of the deficit issue.  According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, nearly a quarter of Americans believe that the budget deficit is the most important issue facing the country.  On top of that, nearly forty percent of Americans do not believe that Obama is taking the problem of the deficit seriously, pointing to his programs that he is appearing to want to rush through on healthcare and climate change.

To put this in an even bigger perspective, Obama’s popularity ratings have come down to “normal” levels, as voters are not seeing any relief of their economic problems.  Part of this is because of the Obama team’s decision to sell the stimulus package so as to prevent unemployment from nearing ten percent.  However, economists now expect unemployment to hit that mark by the end of the year and it does not help that unemployment is what economists consider to be a lagging indicator, one that does not necessarily reflect the conditions for the economy.

Although it is unlikely that the Republicans will be able to win nearly forty House seats to wrest control of the body, as a party has only won those numbers on two occasions, 1946 and 1994, the deficit does allow them to repair some of their fiscal credentials that were shattered under Bush.  As the party completely out of power, the Republicans cannot be blamed for much of the current economic mess, whether the Democratic Party likes that or not.  Since they control all of Capitol Hill, all policies bear the Democrats insignia and for some “Blue Dog” members, they are facing immense criticism in their districts over government spending and Obama’s social policies.  RNC Chairman Michael Steele has made the deficit a major part of the Republican platform and young Republican Congressman such as Paul Ryan of Wisconsin are trying to center the party on fiscally conservative principles.

The deficit is also helping Republicans in their fight against healthcare reform.  Although the Obama administration has tried to sell the reforms as deficit neutral, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the healthcare legislation will add $239 billion to the federal deficit over by 2019 and increase significantly in costs after that point.  Faced with these prospects and voter discontent over mortgaging America’s future with deficit spending, the conservative Congressman the Democrats have to rely on to pass healthcare reform may not go along and a failure to pass healthcare reform when the party has a majority on Capitol Hill would be embarrassing.  It may not be Obama’s “Waterloo” if he fails to pass healthcare reform, but it would not endear him to the Democratic base.  The healthcare debate can also recast the Republicans as the party of smaller government and limited intervention, although they still have to reconcile this with their willingness to use big government as an instrument to appease their social conservative allies on topics such as abortion, gun rights, and gay marriage.

Economic problems in general could wreak havoc for the Democratic party in 2009 and 2010.  The 2009 gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey will likely be viewed as early referendums on the Obama administration, and although the Virginia governor’s race is neck and neck, it appears that New Jersey’s Democratic Governor John Corzine is in trouble and could lose.  Couple this with rising unemployment in Michigan (nearing 20%) and Ohio and you have recipe for disaster as far as Democrats are concerned in some battleground states.  Despite this, the Democrats can probably weather some losses in 2010 as far as the House goes because they are primed to win four to five Senate seats based on the latest projections.  Nevertheless, if the economic situation continues to deteriorate and American’s continue to feel anxiety about the state of the economy, their jobs, and the budget deficit it may help the chances of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to win the Republican primary and successfully challenge and defeat Obama in 2012 for the presidency.

Elements of Style for the Modern Extemper was written by Logan Scisco in the summer of 2005 and offers advice for beginning and advanced extempers to improve their extemporaneous speaking and analytical skills. Logan uses this book to teach extemp at WKU’s summer forensics program in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

This is the second and revised edition of the initial version of the book and it is 107 pages. Purchases of the book through SpeechGeek are for digital PDF copies ONLY. The book is federally copyrighted.

Elements of Style for the Modern Extemper discusses the following topics:

Chapter 1: Instant Tips for Success Chapter 2: Introductions Chapter 3: Point Strategy Chapter 4: Conclusions Chapter 5: Delivery Chapter 6: Answering Different Types of Questions Chapter 7: Using Sources Chapter 8: Filing Strategy Chapter 9: Cross-Examination (CX) Strategy Chapter 10: Tournament Strategy Chapter 11: Using Preparation Time Wisely Chapter 12: Off-Season Strategy Chapter 13: Extemporaneous Speaking Drills Chapter 14: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

TESTIMONIALS:

“I can’t think of a better way for a competitive extemper to spend $25 than by buying this book! I found it to be wonderfully helpful. Not only did it provide a thorough review of the basics, but it also exposed me to different techniques that I had never learned. Without a doubt, it expanded my abilities. Moreover, Logan’s style of extemp has a universal appeal that will help you no matter what circuit you are coming from. In short, buy this book, and you will not be disappointed!” –Ian Panchevre (2008 NFL IX Semi-Finalist, St. Marks & Glenbrooks Extemp Champion, and MBA invitee)

“Elements of Style for the Modern Extemper was an invaluable part of my practice for extemp. Elements of Style outlines the basics better than any manual or piece of literature out there. I read the book for the first time during my junior year of high school, and I learned a tremendous amount about the substructure and the intrinsic worth of the speech itself. This book is a must read for anyone, from a beginner to a seasoned extemper. I couldn’t imagine prepping without it.” –Omar Qureshi (2008 NFL IX Runner-Up)

“I was first introduced to this book in 2005 when I attended the WKU Summer Forensic Institute. In fact, I was the guinea pig for the teachings found in the book, and I was one of the first practioners of the extemp strategies Logan discusses. Speaking as a competitor with innumerable rounds of experience at the nation’s most prestigious tournaments and a background that includes teachings from some of the world’s most revered coaches, I readily admit that Elements of Style for the Modern Extemper is an invaluable reference tool. The book’s lessons, if followed accordingly, can either serve as the foundation for an up-and-comer or as a refresher for an already proven champion who has ‘lost his swing.’ Elements of Style for the Modern Extemper is a must-have for extempers everywhere, and I enthusiastically endorse it.” -Hunter Kendrick (2008 NFL IX 4th place, CFL National finalist, 2-time Barkley Forum extemp finalist, and 3rd place MBA)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Logan Scisco competed for Danville High School in Danville, Kentucky and was coached by Mr. Steve Meadows. He was a four-time qualifier to National Forensic League (NFL) Nationals in United States extemporaneous speaking and a four-time qualifier to Catholic Forensic League (CFL) Nationals in extemporaneous speaking. He was the 2003 NFL Final Round National Champion in United States Extemporaneous Speaking, placing third overall and placed fourth at CFL Nationals that same year. He was also a two-time Kentucky State Champion in extemporaneous speaking, was a two-time invitee to the Montgomery Bell Extemp Round Robin (placing sixth in 2004), a Barkley Forum finalist in 2004, broke at nationals six consecutive times (one CFL & NFL final, one NFL USX semi-final, two CFL quarter-finals, and one NFL USX octofinal), was an NFL Academic All-American, and attained the level of Premier Distinction in the NFL.

During his two year college career competing for Western Kentucky University, he was a two-time NFA extemp finalist, placing third in 2005 and 2006. He graduated from WKU in 2008 with a degree in history and social studies with secondary teacher certification.

From 2006-2008, Logan was an associate coach for Danville High School’s forensic program. Starting for the 2008-2009 season, Logan will be the assistant coach for Grant County High School’s forensic program in Dry Ridge, Kentucky.

In the summer, Logan has run the extemp lab at WKU’s Summer Forensic Institute in 2005, 2006, and 2008. One of the students he instructed, David Kumbroch, who would go on to win the 2007 NFL International Extemp National Championship.

To date Logan has coached eleven state finalists (8 in extemp), thirteen national qualifiers (6 CFL and 7 NFL; 10 qualifiers in extemp), a Montgomery Bell Extemp Round Robin finalist, a Barkley Forum extemp finalist, three state champions (two in extemp), five CFL extemp outround participants, four NFL outround participants (including a USX semi-finalist), and a CFL and NFL (IX) finalist in extemporaneous speaking.

Logan also sponsors a $150 scholarship given to the Kentucky State Extemporaneous Speaking Champion every year since 2005.

It is hard to imagine that the 2008-2009 competitive year is nearing its end. From Wake Forest to Albany, New York, the season has provided many twists and turns for extempers all across the country. Next week all eyes will converge on Birmingham, Alabama for the extemp version of “glory’s last shot.” NFL will the time when many seniors give the final extemp speeches of their careers and for many that dream will come to an end well before the final round. However, all achievements of personal glory can be seen as relative. For some, simply making the national tournament is the culmination of a career of hard work, while for others anything less than a national championship will result in disappointment.

This edition of The Ex Files will have a staple of Extemp Central of the last two years. Last year’s International Extemp runner-up Omar Qureshi has written a topic area analysis for International extempers while Colin West (2006 US Extemp National Champion) and myself (2003 US Extemp Final Round National Champion) have collaborated on the topic area analysis for U.S. extempers. This edition also includes a topic brief on North Korea, a national tournament psychology summary by Qureshi, an extensive overview of the NFL National tournament by 2002 International Extemp runner-up Mark Royce, a discussion of extemp styles by Sebastian Pyrek, and then an NFL roundtable discussion with Michael Garson (2005 International Extemp finalist), Royce, and myself.

This is the last edition of The Ex Files for the 2008-2009 competitive year. We are pleased by the amount of support given to us by the extemp community and we hope to provide you with another year of topic briefs, topic area analysis, and strategy articles for the next competitive year. Announcements about additions to staffing for next year’s magazine will be made on the website over the summer and any suggestions for future content can be directed to me at logan.scisco@wku.edu. Thank you for your continued support of the site and this magazine and thank you to all of those who have contributed results and feedback to me this season. On behalf of myself and the staff of The Ex Files, good luck to all the extempers competing at NFL!

–Logan Scisco

NFL Nationals Edition (Volume 1, No. 7)
All links below are to PDF versions of the individual articles.

Complete NFL Nationals Edition (.pdf file)
From the Publisher by Logan Scisco
Extemp Central National Points Race by Logan Scisco
2009 NFL Nationals International Extemp Topic Area Analysis by Omar Quershi
2009 NFL Nationals United States Extemp Topic Area Analysis by Colin West and Logan Scisco
NFL Roundtable Discussion by Michael Garson, Mark Royce, and Logan Scisco
Extemporaneous Speaking at NFL Nationals by Mark Royce
National Tournament Psychology by Omar Quershi
On Developing Style by Sebastian Pyrek
Topic Brief: North Korean Aggression by Logan Scisco

Overview
While we tend to focus on the direct impacts of things–what the leaders did, what the laws mandate, how the battles are being fought, etc.– we can also analyze the messages that are sent along with those actions.  For every mandate a law has, it also sends a message that effects people that may have no tangible relationship with the law.  Thus, when you are in a pinch you can always look at the rhetorical element of the question and add a brilliant extra point.  This brief will teach you how to pull off this particular rhetorical flourish.

Key Terms and Figures

Rhetoric: When we are talking about rhetoric, we aren’t talking about the common usage – blowing hot air or “empty rhetoric” – but rather focusing on the way that communicated messages change the way that people think about the world or how they persuade them to action.  However, the rhetoric is more than words, as policies, actions or simple behaviors may all change the way that people perceive a person or issue.  For example: when analyzing a question about Obama’s fiscal policies, you can examine not only effect the policies will have on voters but also the message voters gain about Obama just by the fact that he proposed the policies – i.e. that he is a class warrior or an official who really cares about the common person.

Framing Theory: Beyond examining the simple message sent by a speech, action, policy, etc.,  you can also evaluate the way that a politician and/or the media frames an issue.  What I mean by frames is how they change the way that an issue is talked about in the media.  The battle over the way an issue is framed can vastly change the way that the public perceives an issue.  For example: a policy that is framed as essential for national security – let’s say wire tapping — is going to have a much more positive evaluation than if that same policy is discussed mainly in terms of civil liberties.  It is the words around the central issue (that frame it) that change this policy.  For further reading look into the works of Robert Entman and Erving Goffman.

Strategies of Apologia: Another strong rhetorical element seen in many questions is how to deal with a scandal.  Bill Benoit argues that apology is “a recurring type of discourse designed to restore face, image, or reputation after alleged or suspected wrong-doing” He argues there are five basic responses to repair image: denial, evade direct responsibility , reduce offensiveness, take corrective action or to just apologize.  Each of these will have a different result on both the public reaction, as they each include different degrees of culpability moving from none (denial) to total (apologize) to also trying to frame how much the public should care – saying I will fix it will change public opinion in very different ways then saying “it wasn’t that big of a deal.”  By understanding how people or organizations engage in image restoration, you can gain a better understanding of their long term goals and how concerned they are about public opinion.  By evaluating these messages you can have an extra point when evaluating a PR crisis.

Perception and Its Relationship to Rhetoric: Often when examining questions, it becomes obvious that a change would be beneficial to the majority of the people, but they oppose it anyway.  The cause of this is that the perceived results differ from reality.  Whenever there is a gap between perception and reality, there is a rhetorical action to be evaluated. Depending on the question you can ether have a point that examines what rhetorical actions created the gap, or you can analyze how the actor in the question can craft a rhetorical solution to close the gap between perception and reality.

Past Versus Future Rhetorical Value: You have rhetorical options in all types of questions. Past impact questions:  when questions are asking about the impact of a policy or election or momentous event, you should usually look at the rhetorical impact.  That is to say look at the messages sent surrounding the question at hand, and if they alone change public opinion or action.  However on how can or what should questions: you can always talk about how reframing an issue or image restoration will help, or what messages will appease the public that needs a behavioral change. Questions that just ask for an evaluation of the current state of things also have a rhetorical element.  In these questions you can focus on how the current frames change public opinion or the major gaps between perception and reality and how they are guiding events.

How to Apply to Different Types of Questions

Politics: When you break it down, political questions always have at the minimum an underlying question of rhetoric and are often entirely rhetorical.  Whenever a question comes down to voter behavior or public opinion, a large part of your speech should focus on what the voters want to hear and what messages will appease them.  After all, electoral behavior is less about what the politicians actually have or will do, and more about what they can convince the public to believe. By evaluating the messages of speeches and platforms, you can gain a much deeper understanding of campaigns.  Further, by understanding how the public perceives a law, policy or the messages sent by a politician supporting, a policy will help you understand the full impact of the policy and the public response.  These strategies apply not only to local politics, but also international and foreign policy.

Economic: While politics are the most overtly rhetorical, rhetoric also plays a strong role in economics.  While you should certainly examine the numbers surrounding questions of economics, issues of investor and consumer confidence are entirely rhetorical – what people believe often counts for more than what is real.  Furthermore, even though many argue economics is a hard science, rhetoric and rhetorical beliefs can often override the true economics.  Belief in scarcity is enough to create a price hike (even is supply is really quite high) and low confidence in manufacturing will slow growth regardless of actual industrial performance. Therefore, understanding the rhetorical element of public understanding of economic events is just as important in evaluating the impact as the numbers

Social: While the political and economic issues that underlie social issues give plenty of ground for rhetorical analysis, these issues also have their own rhetorical parts.  Specifically, since many social issues are decided more on ideology than on economics or impact analysis, what people believe and how to persuade them/reframe the issue is of supreme importance.  By reframing stem cells as a pro life issue conservatives get a new political base.  Conversely, by framing the social security as a social responsibility liberals can gain support.  Thus, it is often more the language used to describe social issues than the issues themselves that matter.  So by evaluating the specific framing of a social issue you can often see who is controlling the issue.

Sample Questions

Why is emigration from Cuba not slowing in the face of increasing political liberties?
You can focus on how Cuba has failed to communicate the change to citizens or why the messages of the government isn’t believed by the people.

How can Argentina reign in rising inflation?
Focus on what messages would increase confidence as well as the actual fiscal policies that would help.

Does the pro Israel lobby have too much say in US policy towards Iran?
Beyond evaluating the actual control of the lobby, you can also examine how they have framed Iran as a threat and as different (both of which promote an antagonistic stance).

Will the Californian decision of gay marriage increase pressure for other states to reform?
Beyond the legal precedent, you can also look at the power of a decision by the largest state and if that puts any pressure on other state to take action.

Should high ranking officials be held accountable for the anti terror tactics they approve?
Beyond examining the legality and morality, there is a rhetorical element as far as what will keep the public and the voters happy.

Overview
Before you can really get going on the season, there are a few fundamental that are always worth noting. Many judges will tell you they can get a sense of where a speaker will place in the round within the first minute of the speech. To that end we are going to focus more on theory and strategy. In that vein we are going to start with analysis on how to write a quality introduction. In extemp, a good introduction is supremely important, without one a good speech is impossible. In a good intro you will set up all of the background for the speech and justify why you speech is the most important in the round. Moreover, the better the introduction the less work you have to do in the body of the speech. Follow this formula and your intros will be golden in no time flat.

The Seven Parts of a Good Intro

Part One, Attention Getting Device (AGD): This is some sort of story, background, anecdote or other device that introduces the topic in question. A few rules on a good AGD. First, it should be something that happened in real life, and could be verified by a little research. Therefore, personal examples or hypothetical scenarios should be avoided at all costs. Second, DO NOT CAN. What this means is that you should not have a small list of AGD’s that you use over and over again. When you repeat AGDs they tend not to fit the specific speech, moreover they are unethical – your speech should be original to the round, not some pre-prepared intro that you have memorized. Canning will lead to judges dropping you and other competitors telling anyone who listens that you are a cheater… so don’t do it EVER. Third, it should be relatively short – 20-30 seconds. You don’t have much time in this speech so don’t waste it with something that isn’t analysis about the question. Fourth, it should be something that engages your audience, make it interesting and/or informative. That being said AGDs don’t necessarily have to be funny. While it does help to bring your audience in with a little humor, it is more important that your words are a good set up for the speech that follows.

Part Two, Link: Once you have razzle-dazzled us with your interesting, but concrete, AGD, it’s time to start moving towards your topic. To do this you need a really good link. The link is a sentence, or two, that explains the parallels and themes between your AGD and the topic. The link is important for two reasons. First, it makes sure that you speech as a flowing and logical feel. If you jump from an AGD to the topic with no connection between them, you will quickly lose your audience. Second, the absence of a link makes it look like you can. If audiences don’t understand how your AGD leads into your topic they are going think that you just use that AGD all the time and are a canning cheater. So make sure to devote time to the link, it makes things smoother and more complete.

Part Three, Background: This may be the most important part of the introduction because this is where you establish everything that we need to know before we can ask or answer the question. That means that any relevant history or background goes here – not in the body of the speech. This is also the first place in the speech that should have at least one source – the one that sets up the basic fact of what’s going on. There are two basic questions that the background needs to address: what facts must be defined to ask the question and what controversy prompted the question. The first is important so that we understand all the basic concepts that interplay in the question; while the second explains why this question is even being asked now – if there wasn’t a contemporary controversy there would be no reason to ask, let alone answer, the question. For example, if you were asked the question “Will the Mediterranean Union bring together western Europe and the Islamic world” you must first establish what facts we need to know. The facts that must be understood are: what is the MU and that there is a divide between western Europe and the Islamic world. Then to establish the controversy you need to explain how some people, think that this may be a bridge between the two groups.

Part Four, Significance/Justification: Now that you have established the facts that have prompted the asking of the question, it’s time to establish why answering is also important. Here you are going to explain why the events in the question directly impact the audience. Because you want to make it have as a much of a direct impact on your judge, the significance is generally discussed in terms of lives lost, impact on the US economy, or impact on US influence/credibility. Basically you are saying that because (controversy established in background) could lead to (impact that effects your audience) we must examine the questions.

Part Five, Read the Question: This means VERBAITIM. Because all of you speech afterwards is designed to answer this question you better get it right.

Part Six, Answer the Question: Always give a short and direct answer to the question. To a “yes or no” question it is “yes” or “no”. To a open ended question, you should give some sort of one to three word phrase that summarizes what unifies your points. After the answer there can be one sentence that clarifies or focuses the analysis. For example: if the question was, “Can McCain win in November?” you can say “Yes, but only if he consolidates the base.” The second part of the answer then focuses the analysis for the rest of the speech.

Part Seven, Preview Your Points: Last–but not least–give us the tags to your points. These should be active, argumentative, statements that highlight how each point is a unique answer to the question.

Time: All of this should happen in no more than 1:30.

SAMPLE INTRODUCTION

Will the US invade Iran?

AGD In the Disney film The Lion King, the lion Scar–tired of mustering playing second fiddle to his brother Mufassa–
uses a wild herd of wildebeest to wrest regional control from his brother.

Link However, Iran has unleashed a herd of wildebeest, of its own, in the form of missiles, to try to gain influence over the Middle East.

Background The Xinhua News of July 11, 2008, explains that this week Iran recently tested a long range nuclear capable missile with the capacity to striking targets in both Iraq and Israel (facts). The increased Iranian threat to US troops, has reawakened concerns that the United States may consider military rather than diplomatic options to respond to Iran’s nuclear program (controversy).

Justification Considering such an invasion would not only place US soldiers lives in jeopardy, but also increase the burden on already overstretched campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is imperative that we ask the question:

Question Will the US invade Iran?

Answer Fortunately, the answer is no. The US will continue to use diplomacy rather than invade.

Preview We can come to this conclusion for three main reasons: first, diplomacy will prevent an Israeli preemptive strike; Second, because the US cannot afford to further stretch its forces; and third, because invasion would harm US credibility.