Extemporaneous+Speaking+(Extemp)

Extemporaneous speaking is based on current events and deals mainly with political and economic issues, both foreign and domestic. Topics are posed in the form of questions. In a round, each competitor draws 3 questions, chooses one, and then has 30 minutes to prepare a 7 minutes speech performed without notes. A typical speech consists of an introduction and repetition of the question, 3 main points (each with 2 or 3 sub points) to answer the question, and a conclusion. Speakers are expected to support their arguments with sources, which range from daily newspapers to political magazines and journals to reports by think tanks. My final round topic at Emory was “Will aid secured at the Paris Conference save the Lebanese government?” The most important part of every extemp speech is answering the question, but to do so, I first had to explain some terms of the topic. In my introduction, I reminded the audience that the Paris Conference was an international summit to address the post-war situation in Lebanon and that the post-war situation was one of continuing violence, crumbling infrastructure, and weak governmental leadership. Next, I repeated the question and proposed my answer: “No, the Paris Conference aid will not save the Lebanese government, because it doesn’t address the key factors of the crisis.” The three main areas of my speech were 1. decreasing legitimacy of the Lebanese government, 2. Iranian influence, and 3. a lack of international support. First, the Paris Conference did nothing to address the issue of legitimacy of the Lebanese government. After Israel ceased its attacks on Lebanon the previous summer, the Lebanese government had acted on shaky grounds, according to and article from //The Economist.// This article noted that allegations of a flawed vote had started the controversy. Later, opponents of the government claimed that the resignation of Shia members of the executive’s cabinet put the government in violation of a constitutional requirement for representation of all religious/ethnic groups. Whether the government was acting lawfully or not, it had lost its popular mandate to rule. A recent //New York Times// article noted that the terrorist group and pseudo political party Hezbollah was gaining popularity at the expense of the government. Political scandal and the popularity of Hezbollah were seriously weakening the Lebanese government. However, because the Paris Conference did not address the issue of political legitimacy, it would not be able to save the Lebanese government. Second, the Paris Conference did not address the issue of Iran. I cited evidence from a regional paper as well as a Washington-based think tank to illustrate the damage Iran was inflicting on Lebanon. Iran was using, proxies, including the country of Syria and the terrorist group Hezbollah, to destabilize Lebanon. Unfortunately, the Paris Conference provided only money to repair the damage from this asymmetrical warfare, not a solution to the problem. Because the Paris Conference did not implement or even propose a way to end Iranian meddling, it would not be able to save the Lebanese government. Finally, the Paris Conference would fail because it did not have enough international support. An //International Herald Tribune// article noted that Lebanon’s staggering debt, a whopping $41 billion, had prevented it from rebuilding after the war. However, few countries, even those attending the conference, were willing to cancel, in part or in whole, their standing debts with Lebanon. Most countries would not even renegotiate a payment plan. Moreover, several Western countries demanded that the Lebanese government halt Hezbollah’s attacks before they would address the debt question. So the Lebanese wouldn’t get any money until they fixed their problems, but without the money they had no means to fix their problems. The meager aid that the Paris Conference provided has not saved the Lebanese government; it has placed the Lebanese in an impossible situation.

- John Moynihan, Class of 2008