By the Equality in Forensics Contributor Team
This page will teach you everything you need to know about Extemporaneous Speech! Whether you are a varsity competitor in another event or a total forensics novice, by the end of this article, you will have the knowledge you need to get started in the event and on your path to the national championship!
This is a lesson created by Equality In Forensics. You can view all of our lessons, blog posts, and additional resources on our website (and maybe even sign up to join our staff as well)!
Join the Equality in Forensics Discord Server!
You can also join our Discord community of hundreds of Forensics competitors to receive additional help and even one-on-one coaching!
Non School Specific Extemp Slideshow
Feel free to use the above slideshow to teach this information to others!
Extemporaneous Speaking exists at the crossroads of “speech” and “debate”. It is an individual activity, but it is not memorized and requires fast-paced critical thinking about current events. In Extemp, each round, you will receive three questions that can be anything related to current events (ranging from Modi’s government in India to gun control in the US) with a bias for politics and the economy. As soon as you receive the three questions, you will pick one, and then you will have thirty minutes to research, write, practice, and memorize a seven-minute speech that you will perform for a judge who will rank your speech against other competitors in the round.
Thus, Extemp is a perfect activity for students who are good at thinking on their feet, love and know a lot about world politics, and want to improve their ability to speak and convince at the drop of a hat. Additionally, as you will soon read, the structure of Extemp is almost identical to that of a five-paragraph essay, a skill whose mastery is critical both for success in school and the wider world. Before you read about the meat of competing in Extemp, one fundamental distinction to make is NX vs. IX. Often you can enter in just National Extemp (NX) or International Extemp (IX), cutting your topic scope in half. However, many national circuit tournaments only have one combined division, which means that, while you should be aware of the distinction, good extempers know how to compete in both.
Seven minutes to answer a question on any current event can seem very intimidating to many new Extempers; you can do whatever you want with the time, and rules do not really exist concerning how you use it. However, while these statements are true, and concern is warranted, almost every Extemper uses the same structure for their speech, breaking down the time they have to fill into small, manageable increments. Broadly, you should have an introduction of 1:30, three points of 1:30 each, and a 1:00 conclusion.
For a good introduction, there are seven parts that you need to include; first, an AGD of about fifteen seconds. AGD stands for Attention-Getting Device, and it is the hook that draws your judge into your speech. Successful AGD’s are often personal stories, a story of somebody affected by the current event, a quote, or a shocking statistic. If you are using something other than your own experience, often a source is warranted. Your AGD should be very closely related to the topic. The next part of the introduction is a link to transition to the topic from the AGD. The link should be around five seconds and consist of just a transition phrase or two; any longer and the AGD is not connected enough. Next, the meat of your introduction, your background, should tell your judge everything they need to know to understand your speech, such as key players or the history of the conflict at hand, in about thirty seconds. In order to build credibility early on, your background should include one to two sources. Once your background is done, you will need a significance statement of about ten seconds. These often start with the phrase “considering,” sometimes contain a source, and serve the sole purpose of making your judge understand why your question and answer matters. Finally, there are three procedural steps: reading the question off word for word, giving your answer, and stating your tags.
Before you learn about how a main point should be structured, it is critical to know how to structure your answer and points. In almost all situations, you should have an overall answer to the question that is more specific than “yes” or “no” or “in three ways.” Your answer should make a statement that is up for debate and specify your speech. Your three main points should all examine one reason why your main point is correct. They should be independent, so that taking out one will not take out all of them, and all stand alone as a solid argument. Each point should be able to be summed up into a “tag,” or a few words describing the point (ex: We must fix climate change by engaging with Africa. First, (tag) by investing in green energy on the continent. Second, (tag) by subsidizing the African economy. And third, (tag) by including Africa as a partner in major emission summits.) or they are likely not specific enough.
To create a compelling main point, you need to transition into it (talked about later) and then use what is referred to as substructure. After your transition, before you get into any meat of the point, you may need to provide on-top analysis, or background pertaining to that point specifically. On-top analysis should be concise and provide the judge with only what they absolutely need to know. Most of the time, though, it is not needed at all. After whatever on-top analysis you might give, you will present two pairs of evidence and analysis and then end with an impact. There are two main ways to set up this substructure. First, you can use your first evidence and analysis to establish the status quo, your second to present the change, and your impact to use analytics to tell the judge why that change matters to your central thesis. The status quo-change-impact model is the most commonly used substructure and can apply to pretty much any topic. Most current events will revolve around changes (such as in policy or leadership) or lack of changes, so this structure often flows very logically. Second, your first pair can be a theory, your second can be the application of that theory, and your impact can be why that combination matters to your thesis. This structure is often helpful for predicting future actions; the theory can be the goals of a person/organization or how they tend to act, and the application can be how that implies the probability of your prediction. There are other types of substructure that you might learn over time, but they are much rarer and not that helpful. Your conclusion should look like your introduction in reverse. You will transition into it, restate the question, restate your answers, and restate your tags. After that, you should expand on your significance to leave the judge with another reminder of the importance of your topic and conclude by returning to your AGD. Often this return can take the form of a witty tie in between your AGD and the topic, an extension of the story, or a prediction of how (based on your speech) your AGD is likely to extend into the future.
Any time you are moving from one part of your speech to another, you need a transition. For transitions leading into main points, you need two main parts. First, the actual transition. This is often a continuation of your AGD (in a way that relates to the point) or just a boilerplate compare and contrast such as “we also have to consider xyz.” After the transition, you need to provide a preview to properly signpost, saying the point number, question, answer, and tag (ex: The first way that we must engage with Africa to fight climate change is by investing in green energy on the continent). Transitions for your conclusion will use the transition but not the preview. Transitions should be no longer than ten seconds.