Extemp Revelations

[GlobalLlama]

This is the idea of Colin West, and I think it is an excellent one.

We all have moments when we suddenly realize something amazing about extemp. If we were to share these moments, perhaps we could become a race of all-powerful uber-extempers! Or maybe we would just get a little better at our favorite activity.

I would ask you do several things before and while posting in this thread.

First, try to make a contribution. Don't waste space here. I would just rather you didn't. This could be a really useful thread if everyone takes it seriously.

Second, explain yourself. Saying "Analysis is important" is worthless if you don't explain what you mean. There is no way we can read your thoughts. Explain each and every term. While some of us know what a sig statement or impact is, some of us don't. For this to work, we will need explanations of the most elementary kind (without condescension of course).

Third, if you can, tell us what brought you to this conclusion.

I'll be editing this post if I think of anything else I should mention. I'll also edit others' posts if I don't feel they are appropriate. I want this to be a compendium of ideas, and, while I'm lenient in other threads about getting off topic, I think it would really undermine the goal of this thread. (don't be afraid to post though, there aren't reprocussions or anything for being edited, it is just a housekeeping thing)

Thanks in advance for your help, and try to keep orderly.

[GlobalLlama]

Sorry for the double post, but I think it is necessary for organization's sake. I'll edit this post to add more of my own revelations as they come and as I become less lazy.

1. What a source is for - this hit after Wake. I cited Reuters, saying that they were the first to report on Rehnquist's death. Of course, I got some negative feedback. It was at this point that I realized a source wasn't just to say you had a source. It is meant to help you explain something. An obscure event could be described by a source, but more often than not, a source should provide some very, very base analysis. For example, in my final round at Nats, I cited the NYT as saying there were misgivings in the UNSC over what actions to take on Iran. Technically, this info isn't explicit, so the source is providing analysis. However, this analysis is extremely simplistic in nature. Therefore, I can utilize it in weaving my own broader analytical conclusions without cheapening my deductions.

2. The importance or source diversity - this struck after Emory. As I have jokingly referenced many times, I am extremely ashamed of the fact I cited CNN in the Emory final round. I had no idea this was frowned upon until long after the round. I was told by many, many people that I was blatantly outsourced in that round. This really pissed me off. Not that they said that, they were right. I was frustrated that I had lost because I wasn't "doing enough work". Anyone who knows me in the least knows that I pride myself on my work ethic. The fact that it was lack of work that cost me really bothered me, because I thought that was the one arena I really stood out in. So I rededicated myself to my research. I delved into the world of think tanks and academic journals, and it was the most rewarding thing I have ever done. I now utilize a massive panel of both, and I feel it has infinitely contributed to my abilities. Don't be afraid to diversify your sources. If you don't use all of the resources at your disposal, start!

3. The meaning of analysis - began to sink in after Wake, but it didn't nail me until Emory. I usually relied on my speaking abilities to carry me. I would have a background point to show a situation, a problem point to show what was going on, and a solution point. Obviously, this wasn't universal, but it was applied pretty liberally. Then, when I started making big outrounds, talking pretty wasn't enough. I did deserve my finals at both Wake and Emory (at least I feel so), because I had brilliant analysis in both of those sems. However, this was pretty much solely by chance. Retrospectively, I am still proud of both of those sems, but I know it was only by luck that I came out of those rounds sounding smart. Finals at both tournaments showed my ignorance on analytical fine points. After Emory, another rededidcation occured, and I became an analytically based speaker.

4. Stay unified - after ToC. Most speakers use "three areas", but I try to make my analysis cascade from one point to the next. This makes transistions logical, impacts more powerful, and the speech topical. I figured this out after my sem round. My question was, "Will cut interest rates in Indonesia yield an economic payoff?" I didn't know much about this, of course. I created three largely unrelated points on the Indonesian economy and why it wouldn't grow. I didn't do terribly there, and I was fourth in the round. However, my main complaint (from a very distinguished panel) was my lack of topicality. I didn't focus on interest rates enough. Of course, I knew this, but I was still struggling with the idea of how to focus a topic. That is when I decided that if you can take all of that same info and link it properly, then you appear more topical, even if you waiver. Looking back, I think I could give that speech again with the exact same sources and have it be much more applicable. It is all in how clear you explain your reasonings to your audience. This was a huge one to me.

5. Answer the **** question - The week before nats. I feel like an idiot for even saying this. However, answering EXACTLY what your question asks is so key. I always knew this, but I never knew how to execute until right before nats. I gave a speech on the topic, "Is China's economy overheating?" I said yes, and I gave a speech on its shrinking production capabilities, its aging populous, its flailing penchant system, and its international overexpansion. All my facts were right, but, as my coach informed me, I still didn't do a good job in explaining the answer to my question. In my mind, overheating is expanding faster than it is possible to provide for the needs of a populous and endangering economic growth in the future. However, I never mentioned that in my speech. I really answered the question "Is China's swift economic growth bad?". It seems like a minute difference, but it isn't. I needed the specifications of what quantified "overheating". I pondered my topic and how I should have addressed it for days. Then, I realized, I needed to consider every single word in the question. If you leave out even one, you can really neglect your questions direction. I rewrote two of my speeches during prep at nats due to one word I felt I had forgotten. For example, in finals, "Is Iran's threat to withdraw from the NPT a meaningful threat?" I started writing my speech about Iranian diplomacy and how the IC needed leverage over Iran. Then I realized, "I'm neglecting my question". The emphasis on the question is over "meaningful", which I hadn't considered very carefully. It was this point I refocused my speech on the NPT, because I thought that was by far the more meaningful aspect of the threat. I was very happy I did.

6. The importance of broad knowledge - I don't honestly know. As an extemper (especially an IXer), it is very easy to simply pass over broad, theoretical articles and essays, because they aren't specific to a topic. However, these are the most useful pieces of evidence you will ever read. I cited the HIR article on the definition of authority more than half a dozen times at nats. If you think about it, authority is an important concept. Effectively defining that can really help you understand a great many things. In the end, I think it is the articles that are hardest to file that are often the most useful. The same goes for general knowledge. Knowing economic theory has benefited me more than words can express. Explaining these theories can be engaging, and it can greatly help to focus your answer and question. Furthermore, learning about the international system with general international relations knowledge has been extremely helpful. Do you know the difference between a nation, a state, and a nation-state? If you don't, you should! It is a great way to add depth to an Israel/Palestine speech (and dozens of others as well). This is a great arena where you can explain a concept to a judge, who will be both appreciative and impressed, and add analytical depth at the same time. Plus, theory books make amazing cites, because they, like theory articles, can be used in so many different arenas.

This is all I care to type in one sitting. I might add more later.

[spanishgoose]

In my opinion, you can do nothing greater as a perfomer in extemp than be completely true to yourself. To be more specific, take advantage of the extremely rare, undervalued, and certainly unusual opportunity presented to you in every round - the ability to speak, as an intelligent teenager, to a group of adults who are there simply to listen to what you have to say. This event is a forum for ideas, and even greater, it is an opportunity to be yourself through a unique platform, and display to those watching exactly who you are.

For example, my "revelation" this year hit me before the season even began this year. However, as cheesy or unrealistic as it may sound, it did not come completely to fruition until the last two rounds of nationals, and I only felt the full impact of what I had done with my art as I stepped down off the final stage in the Hyatt. I decided after camp of last summer, with the help of some peculiar, but certainly spectacular insight from a couple of instructors, that what would set me apart from other extempers was my analysis, among other aspects of my personality.

Some would consider me radically left, others, a moderate, maybe some would dub me a socialist . . . regardless, I find that too few extempers are willing to break the mold of conventional thinking, and they remain monotonous for the sake of pleasing the judge and maximizing winning opportunities. It means little coming from someone in my position, which I think is actually a bit unfortunate (though I can say sincerely that this has been true all of this year): forget winning. As badly as I wanted a national championship this year, the competition was only second to telling judges what I felt they needed to know, what I felt was the truth, and what I felt would make the world better. Deep in the heart of Texas, in round 12, I reminded everbody in the round that oil will bring about the end of the world, that it along with corporate sponsorship and dominance (largely in the resource business) was killing and enslaving people, as well as destroying precious ecosystems. In the final, I denounced the World Bank for subsidizing corporations and intentionally keeping people poor.

I'm not saying this to wow you at all, but simply to point out that I wasn't trying to be popular, rather to be real. I think that the judges saw that and respected it, thus winning me nationals. Maybe it was something else. I'm also not saying this to say you should do the same thing, or if you aren't a radical or different thinker than you have no personality. I am saying, however, that somehow you have to break the mold. Forget for a second the trophies, the scholarship money, or whatever drives you to win a national championship in extemp, and think about who you are in extemp compared to who you are in life otherwise. It seems to me that if those are two different people, than you are depriving yourself of the fun, excitement, and maybe first place trophies that the event offers to you. Each speech is a canvas, and you get to paint exactly what you want. Paint something new each time, I would say.

Maybe that's too long or has already been considered by everybody. Either way, it's said too infrequently, in my opinion. You aren't there for the judges pleasure, you're there for your own.

-spence

[Twh2025]

The typing in caps and the (attempted) use of some sense of grammar means I have something real to say. Instead of restarting the list, Im going to continue numbering where David left off (just in case you couldnt tell that 7 came after 6...ha)

edit: ok spence got to it before i did. still....

7 -- The importance of simplicity. I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point in my extemp career, I came to the assumption that the best extempers were the ones that had the most intricate analysis, the most involved introductions, and the most bombastic vocabulary. In my head, I rationalized to myself that trying to cram as much as possible into a given speech was good, because it showed judges that you knew something about something, and thus were "skilled" and "1" worthy. On paper/forum post, now, I'll admit, that sounds pretty stupid. But it wasnt until the end of junior year/beginning of senior year that it hit me, that the one thing in common between all of the nationally acclaimed extempers wasn't overwhelming, over the top style; it was the ability to bring those larger concepts and intricate themes to a more understandable, casual level. This changed A LOT in terms of my presentation. My taglines started shortening, because I realized that too much roadmap (to preface too much analysis) wasn't too conducive of a positive memorability factor, so judges weren't catching my drift. My flows became more tightly organized, because I could better sum up what I needed to say. This meant my sentences were shorter, and on the whole, my points were shorter. This allowed judges to understand me more, AND I could slow down. The negative here is the apparent contradiction in that sentence though: even in my last speech in HS I was fast, but in comparison to years prior (and in retrospect of my realization), understanding simplicity helped me improve a LOT my senior year. While I never mastered it to my liking, I always knew it was something important for any extemper who wished to do well nationally.

8 -- **** the rest of the competition. Yes, I said **** all the competition. Why, you may ask? Anyone who knows me knows Im pretty harsh on myself and my performance. I'd stumble once, and I'd say I deserved last place. It was just the nature of my personality. However, my biggest problem was that I worried sooo much about the 'other guy' and not so much myself, at times. I'd scurry to know who was in my room and when and where and what ranks they had -- all because, sadly with extemp, you never see competition, so I never knew if I had a fighting chance. It honestly wasn't until nationals, sitting in the prep room in breaks, that I finally realized how energy wasting that was. To stress over another's performance more than your own detracts from how well you could be doing at a given tournament. While that isn't advice you can take with you into an introduction, it is surely something to keep in mind. Im just sad it took me 4 years to understand it.

I wanted to make a #9, the Power of Banana Nut Muffins (see other entry), but I was afraid of being raped and pillaged. Im not sure how that'd work, but its a fear I hold deep. Real deep. Like emo deep. So around the wrists somewhere. Haha,
~Tony

[GlobalLlama]

Woohoo! More contributions.

The following is the work of one Max Engelstein of Stuyvesant High School in NY. He was a finalist at CFL and an Octofinalist at NFL. Max humbly admits that there are others more qualified than he to talk about style and analysis, so he has chosen to focus his contribution on his personal area of expertise: Judging Adaptation. His advice reads as follows . . .

To me adaptation isn't about dumbing yourself down or sacrificing analysis, it's about communication and about not letting stupid stuff prevent you doing well, which leads me to the three rules of adaptation.

1. Make logic clear. This doesn't mean don't use theories or keep analysis simple. It means fill in the gap. Your typical mom doesn't want to connect interest rates to inflation at 10 o'clock on a saturday morning. Furthermore, try to utilize devices that enhance understanding. Analogies, examples, real life situations are all good. You might not be able to say as much this way, but by filling in the logical gaps you actually convey your point to judges with all knowledge levels, and you show that you actually understand the material.

2. Don't let presentation hurt you. There are a lot of tics that extempers can easily correct, but don't. These tics make you less persuasive and will hurt you in the long run. You may have great analysis and fluency, but these tics can keep you from breaking. These tics include gesturing during your first phrase of the speech, swaying, darting eyes, repeating phrases, overactive hands, tilting your head up etc. All of these are things you can fix easily . . . but for some reason most extempers don't. The key? Videotape yourself. You will notice all the odd tics and stop them.

3. Too many extempers present themselves in an unpleasent manner. It comes down to this; despite what you think about yourself, listening to your *** is not the best use of a judges time. If you don't seem concerned with your speech and if you don't seem happy to be speaking, why should the judge want to hear you? Don't be a dick, have a clean appearance, be polite, and look like you are enjoying yourself. For god's sake, don't be so stiff.

Yeah, maybe a lot of this shouldn't matter. Maybe all judges should be trained. But it does matter. Anyways, following these hints doesn't really comprimise your analysis or credibility. All it does is take some time. If this seems self evident, I'm sorry, but thinking about it, this is really all I did to prepare for tournaments like CFLs, Villiger, and Columbia. Even at NFLs you're going to get judges who don't know what they're doing. So yeah, thats my rap, any questions and I'll be glad to answer them. Sorry it's so long, and sorry if its unhelpful.

Max

PS: To prepare for tournaments with "bad" judging practice in front of your family or in front of interp kids. If they will listen to you/understand you you're in. Because your judges are more likely than not parents or interpers.

Max's work was originally posted on the boards at extempprep.org. With his permission, I reposted them here to aid in building this thread. I also took a little liberty with grammar corrections here and there. I couldn't help myself

We're still waiting for more!

[GlobalLlama]

The following is the work of one Michael Garson of Freehold Township in NJ. He was a finalist at TOC and NFL in IX. Garson hit the circuit hard his senior year, and made huge strides. He was a major groundbreaker in the area of humor integration, where he was extremely innovative. Of course, his analysis and style fit right in with his wit. Garson says:


So this is insanely late, but I've got some downtime so I figured I'd impart my personal revelations.
First, my experiences are pretty unique for a national extemper, so take everything w a grain of salt. I didn't make the move to go national until districts my junior year (i didnt qual for nats), then I went to TOCs '05 and got buried.
Lesson 1: Don't beat yourself up early
I got destroyed at TOCs '05, went to UTNIF, semi'd at wake and then next-out at Penn and Yale. Honestly, that killed me. I felt that if I couldn't break at Yale or Penn then I wasted my time at UTNIF. I wallowed in self-pity and never really got out of it.
Lesson 2: Look at what you did, not what you didn't do.
Someone is going to be next out at Wake and another person is next out at Yale. Maybe it's off by one rank, maybe its a tiebreaker. But being next out is an accomplishment, not a setback. To be 25th at Yale is really, really good. It's not something that the community at large will recognize, but it's still a building block. Also, breaking at nat'l tournaments is largely a product of who you are in a room with
Lesson 3: You can't dictate room assignments, so play the hand you're dealt
My 2nd octasfinal round at nats went as follows.... me (finalist at TOCs and nats), Spencer Rockwell (IX national champion), Joe St. George (nats semifinalist, nats finalist in 05, multiple national outrounder), Max Engelstein (CFL finalist), Valerie Johnson (TOC semifinalist), and Sarah Hinkfuss (Emory finalist). Honestly, that room was disproportionately brutal. But it happens. And I think it's a shame that the last three people got knocked out bc of a tough room. All three are solid extempers and may have made it farther if not for room quality. But that's what happens. You control your 7 minutes and nothing else. If you expect "easy" rooms, then quit.
Lesson 4: Outrounds are a crapshoot
At TOCs 06 my goal was to quarter. I did that and was pleasantly surprised (I was the 22 seed out of 24). Then I made it and figured that I might as well do my hardest. Then I semi'd, which was more than I hoped. But again, I might as well give the best speech possible and see what happens. Then I final'd, and I worked hard again.
At nats, my goal was to end my career on a speech I could be pleased of in a round I deserved to be in. So octas come, I work hard, quarters, I work harder, semis I work even harder, then I leave it all on the field for finals. It's kill or be killed. I don't want extemp to become super competitive, but in outrounds, 3 are getting out and 3 are going home.
Lesson 5: Mental toughness is a virtue
I won't say that I'm better than anyone else. I will say that I stayed as sharp as possible for as long as possible. Obviously, everyone wanted to win, but it's about that last gear. If you walk out of a room and you feel exhausted and have nothing left, you're doing soemthing right. Extemp is a backwards category bc the more pumped up you are, the worse the speech is. You have to find a way to channel your mind. Keep focus and stay at the task at hand.
Lesson 6: Know how much gas is in the tank
If you are busting your hump, you're going to run out of gas. Some of these tournaments are absolute marathons. You need pace. It's not that I didn't try at nats prelims, but I held a little something back. Come octas, qtrs, and semis, I gave it all. By finals, I was absolutely gassed. 13 rounds, 5 days, Texas summers, bright lights, and I had nothing. I think the speech was decent, but I had some fluency issues (okay.. a lot of fluency issues). It's impossible to predict where you will drop, but it's a good idea to keep yourself from short-circuiting too early. Expectations can be helpful, if you use them properly.
Lesson 7: Expect the unexpected
People come out of nowhere and dominate. Some people have incredible down years. You can't predict either w much accuracy. What you can do is move on if you misread yourself. Always adapt.
Lesson 8: ALways learn
Sources, peers, coaches, judges, whatever. No one is perfect. Do your thing but always improve. A man far wiser than me once told me to ask "what did i learn today?". And make it legit. Did you learn about what works? What doesn't work? How (in)effective humor can be? Mental prep? Make every tournament worthwhile. Don't attend Yale or Wake or Penn to break. Attend to learn and improve. Then later in the season you can go to break, but remmeber that the category is always evolving, as should you.
Lesson 9: Camps are great
There are financial constraints, but I will say that UTNIF changed my life, and that's not hyperbole. I learned from the best of the best and they made me great.
Lesson 10: Be patient
If you go to a camp, you must be patient. The material takes months to sink in. I didn't get it all hammered out until april. Yes, April. It's about synthesis and knowing what you're capable of. You can't just learn a system. You have to personalize it.
Lesson 11: Make friends
Tournaments can be long and boring. Make some friends in the prep room. I had some great times w friends from UTNIF, JoeStG, David, and Tony Romm and assorted others. Be fun and meet people. It makes the tournaments better.
Lesson 12: Don't be "that guy"
That Guy is the guy that doesn't talk to anyone who can't help him. He is all about himself. He is arrogant and everyone knows it. My most rewarding moment in forensics is at districts when i saw kids from other schools cheering for me. Have people want you to win. Be a "good guy". I had people who had no personal gains in my success. But they backed me up. And vice-versa. It makes for a better experience, trust me.
Lesson 12: Have fun
You need to have some fun. Enjoy it. You are a h.s. punk kid that is telling middle aged adults how to solve global problems in 7 minutes. Think about that. How absolutely messed up is that? Honestly. It's ridiculous. Enjoy that you are given the same respect reserved for foreign leaders and the world's great minds. It's a privledge. Take the category and your analysis seriously, but enjoy it. Smile when appropiate. Crack a joke when appropiate. This category can be bland bland bland. Mix it up. be memorable, but in a good way. take an unorthodox answer. use unique analysis. make a new connection. draw a new conclusion. have fun. If you are doing this to get into college it isnt worth it. the time investment would be better spent on gpa and sats. You do it bc you like it. Enjoy reading Foreign Affairs. Enjoy extemp. This can be the most rewarding thing you'll ever do. It was for me.

Mike's work was also originally posted on the boards at extempprep.org. With his permission, I reposted them here to aid in building this thread.

[justine]

The following is the work of one Michael Garson of Freehold Township in NJ. He was a finalist at TOC and NFL in IX. Garson hit the circuit hard his senior year, and made huge strides. He was a major groundbreaker in the area of humor integration, where he was extremely innovative. Of course, his analysis and style fit right in with his wit. Garson says:


So this is insanely late, but I've got some downtime so I figured I'd impart my personal revelations.
First, my experiences are pretty unique for a national extemper, so take everything w a grain of salt. I didn't make the move to go national until districts my junior year (i didnt qual for nats), then I went to TOCs '05 and got buried.
Lesson 1: Don't beat yourself up early
I got destroyed at TOCs '05, went to UTNIF, semi'd at wake and then next-out at Penn and Yale. Honestly, that killed me. I felt that if I couldn't break at Yale or Penn then I wasted my time at UTNIF. I wallowed in self-pity and never really got out of it.
Lesson 2: Look at what you did, not what you didn't do.
Someone is going to be next out at Wake and another person is next out at Yale. Maybe it's off by one rank, maybe its a tiebreaker. But being next out is an accomplishment, not a setback. To be 25th at Yale is really, really good. It's not something that the community at large will recognize, but it's still a building block. Also, breaking at nat'l tournaments is largely a product of who you are in a room with
Lesson 3: You can't dictate room assignments, so play the hand you're dealt
My 2nd octasfinal round at nats went as follows.... me (finalist at TOCs and nats), Spencer Rockwell (IX national champion), Joe St. George (nats semifinalist, nats finalist in 05, multiple national outrounder), Max Engelstein (CFL finalist), Valerie Johnson (TOC semifinalist), and Sarah Hinkfuss (Emory finalist). Honestly, that room was disproportionately brutal. But it happens. And I think it's a shame that the last three people got knocked out bc of a tough room. All three are solid extempers and may have made it farther if not for room quality. But that's what happens. You control your 7 minutes and nothing else. If you expect "easy" rooms, then quit.
Lesson 4: Outrounds are a crapshoot
At TOCs 06 my goal was to quarter. I did that and was pleasantly surprised (I was the 22 seed out of 24). Then I made it and figured that I might as well do my hardest. Then I semi'd, which was more than I hoped. But again, I might as well give the best speech possible and see what happens. Then I final'd, and I worked hard again.
At nats, my goal was to end my career on a speech I could be pleased of in a round I deserved to be in. So octas come, I work hard, quarters, I work harder, semis I work even harder, then I leave it all on the field for finals. It's kill or be killed. I don't want extemp to become super competitive, but in outrounds, 3 are getting out and 3 are going home.
Lesson 5: Mental toughness is a virtue
I won't say that I'm better than anyone else. I will say that I stayed as sharp as possible for as long as possible. Obviously, everyone wanted to win, but it's about that last gear. If you walk out of a room and you feel exhausted and have nothing left, you're doing soemthing right. Extemp is a backwards category bc the more pumped up you are, the worse the speech is. You have to find a way to channel your mind. Keep focus and stay at the task at hand.
Lesson 6: Know how much gas is in the tank
If you are busting your hump, you're going to run out of gas. Some of these tournaments are absolute marathons. You need pace. It's not that I didn't try at nats prelims, but I held a little something back. Come octas, qtrs, and semis, I gave it all. By finals, I was absolutely gassed. 13 rounds, 5 days, Texas summers, bright lights, and I had nothing. I think the speech was decent, but I had some fluency issues (okay.. a lot of fluency issues). It's impossible to predict where you will drop, but it's a good idea to keep yourself from short-circuiting too early. Expectations can be helpful, if you use them properly.
Lesson 7: Expect the unexpected
People come out of nowhere and dominate. Some people have incredible down years. You can't predict either w much accuracy. What you can do is move on if you misread yourself. Always adapt.
Lesson 8: ALways learn
Sources, peers, coaches, judges, whatever. No one is perfect. Do your thing but always improve. A man far wiser than me once told me to ask "what did i learn today?". And make it legit. Did you learn about what works? What doesn't work? How (in)effective humor can be? Mental prep? Make every tournament worthwhile. Don't attend Yale or Wake or Penn to break. Attend to learn and improve. Then later in the season you can go to break, but remmeber that the category is always evolving, as should you.
Lesson 9: Camps are great
There are financial constraints, but I will say that UTNIF changed my life, and that's not hyperbole. I learned from the best of the best and they made me great.
Lesson 10: Be patient
If you go to a camp, you must be patient. The material takes months to sink in. I didn't get it all hammered out until april. Yes, April. It's about synthesis and knowing what you're capable of. You can't just learn a system. You have to personalize it.
Lesson 11: Make friends
Tournaments can be long and boring. Make some friends in the prep room. I had some great times w friends from UTNIF, JoeStG, David, and Tony Romm and assorted others. Be fun and meet people. It makes the tournaments better.
Lesson 12: Don't be "that guy"
That Guy is the guy that doesn't talk to anyone who can't help him. He is all about himself. He is arrogant and everyone knows it. My most rewarding moment in forensics is at districts when i saw kids from other schools cheering for me. Have people want you to win. Be a "good guy". I had people who had no personal gains in my success. But they backed me up. And vice-versa. It makes for a better experience, trust me.
Lesson 12: Have fun
You need to have some fun. Enjoy it. You are a h.s. punk kid that is telling middle aged adults how to solve global problems in 7 minutes. Think about that. How absolutely messed up is that? Honestly. It's ridiculous. Enjoy that you are given the same respect reserved for foreign leaders and the world's great minds. It's a privledge. Take the category and your analysis seriously, but enjoy it. Smile when appropiate. Crack a joke when appropiate. This category can be bland bland bland. Mix it up. be memorable, but in a good way. take an unorthodox answer. use unique analysis. make a new connection. draw a new conclusion. have fun. If you are doing this to get into college it isnt worth it. the time investment would be better spent on gpa and sats. You do it bc you like it. Enjoy reading Foreign Affairs. Enjoy extemp. This can be the most rewarding thing you'll ever do. It was for me.

Mike's work was also originally posted on the boards at extempprep.org. With his permission, I reposted them here to aid in building this thread.

Can you post this on one of the interp boards too? Even though it was written about extemp 99.9 percent of it applies to interp too. That whole post was very well put and really sums up most of my morals about speech in general.

[happilymocking]

It's probably really stupid that I'm posting a reply to this topic, but I thought that I would point out the painfully obvious.

1. I want to give an "AMEN!" to the "**** the competition" bit. It's so true.

2. Eat! If you're uncomfortable, you can't concentrate. You're more likely to stumble when concentrating on hunger.

[SpatchEZ]

Great info is above, and I agree with it and I'm not going to rehash.

1) Brief is beautiful: My biggest problem when I started was getting bogged down trying to explain something in a detailed fashion. In reality, being able to cut through the fat and offer judges some good meat is great.

For example: Above are some amazing posts about extemp, but they are so long that people are going to get lost or not even both reading them, so brief is beautiful and even essential.

2) Do not be a conduit: This just hit me as I ended my extemp career. The entire time I tried to be a conduit of information, taking news sources and analysis and just making it more pallatable for me to talk about. To every extemper out there, I beg of you not to make this mistake. Extemp is honestly the event of leaders as it blends intelligence and analysis with passion and speaking ability.

Make every speech your own, and let the words that flow out be the ones you choose because of the way you feel confident in speaking. Control the ideas, the thoughts, and even the emotion thats put in. By making the speech your own, you take more pride and more creative authority at it, and you become more than a kid in a suit yapping away.

[3xt3mp3r]

random thoughts.

1) There is no such thing as bad judging.... except when there is.

A lay judge is not, per say, a bad judge. If your speaking requires the judge to have extensive knowledge of the event or the world in order to appreciate it, you're doing something wrong. On the other hand, there's a big difference between a lay judge and a crazy judge. There are judges who will say nonsense like "have more than three points, how bout 10?" or "don't walk when you speak." So there arent bad judges... except for those ones.

2) Knowledge is critical.

Extemp is, first and foremost, about explaining to the judge why you are right. It is an educational event for them because they are learning why *insert answer here*. If you don't know about the issue, you can't teach them. You may be right, but you have no shot of convincing them.

3) Take edgy stances, but have the cites to back them up.

There's nothing wrong with... well, radical stances. But you have to back them up. No judge will punish you for disagreeing with them if you adequately prove your point, but if you don't.... the gloves come off. A counterintuitive or dissenting view requires even more proof than a normal point.