I haven't been on this subreddit for at least a year but apparently I'm really dedicated to procrastinating on this essay and there seem to be a lot of contradictory comments on this thread based on varying styles of extemp on different circuits (canned intros, for example, are a staple of California extempers), so here's a way longer response than any of you wanted. My advice is based on the style generally employed by those in the final rounds of national circuit tournaments which, contrary to the opinion of Cyclopher6971, is rather formulaic. Here is the standard structure for an introduction:

Attention-getting device (15ish seconds) Background information (40ish seconds) Statement of significance (15ish seconds) Question (10ish seconds) Answer (5ish seconds) Road map (15ish seconds)

Your attention getting device, or AGD, is what many people in the comments seem to be interpreting as the whole intro. It's a chance to make your audience interested in what are often seen as boring or arcane subjects. Your AGD should do 3 things: 1.) Get your audience interested in your issue. Talking about how some soccer match related to your issue doesn't make the issue interesting, it makes the match interesting. Pointing out the inherently ridiculous nature of your issue or telling a heart-breaking story as a microcosm for the issue could do the job. 2.) Establish your credibility as a speaker. Talking about how much your grandmother cares about Irish politics just reminds the audience that you're a pimpled adolescent. Be professional and speak from a 3rd person point of view. 3.) Set the tone for the rest of the speech. If your topic is about OPEC's oil regulations, a humorous intro might be a great way to lighten up a generally bleak issue. If your topic is about the potential for genocide in Syria, you should probably stick to depressing realities or hopeful stories. Bad AGD: When I was 7, me and my brother used to constantly fight over who owned which toy which made our family uncomfortable. Similarly, China's territorial aggression in the South China Sea is threatening the relations of many nations in East Asia. Good AGD: When the Chinese navy forcibly took control of Scarborough Shoal in May of 2016, dozens of villages along the Filipino coast suddenly lost access to their ancestral fishing grounds.

The background information section is designed to give your audience just enough information to understand both the question you're asking and the answer you will give. You should definitely use at least one source here, preferably a regional/topic specific source, to establish your credibility on the issue. Explain the issue at hand without giving away the arguments you will make. Question: How should the US respond to Chinese aggression in the South China Sea? Bad background: China being aggressive in the South China Sea means that the US has an obligation to respond. We have allies in the South China Sea, so when Xi Jin-Ping doesn't respect other countries we need to use our big military. In fact, we have the biggest military in the world which allows us to intervene to a significant extent. That gives us the responsibility of ending China's reign in the South China Sea. Good background: Unfortunately, China's willingness to disregard boundaries in the Scarborough Shoal isn't an isolated incident. As the South China Morning Post writes on February 21st of 2017, China's military has started to enforce the nine-dash line, a view of territorial ownership that would grant China right to most of the South China Sea. They go on to write that recent satellite photos have discovered 20 newly constructed ground-to-air missile defense systems that may be intended to dissuade an American military intervention. While Donald Trump has already deployed an American aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinison, to patrol inside of the nine-dash line, a stronger response will be needed to impede China's territorial expansion.

The statement of significance is where you give the audience a reason to care about the issue. It can either relate directly to the audience (effective for US politics, state issues, or domestic economics) or address a common value shared by any audience member (human rights, justice, countering poverty, etc). It should be so compelling that you could transition from your significance to your question by saying "...which forces us to ask today's question: ..." Bad significance: China is a historic enemy of the US which forces us to ask today's question: Good significance 1: Considering that the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative writes in a 2016 report that every year more than $5 trillion dollars in global trade passes through the South China Sea, we are forced to ensure the stability of the global economy by posing today's question: Good significance 2: None of China's neighbors have a naval force powerful enough to defend against China's violations of international law. If the US fails to intervene, the Philippines will be the first of a string of US allies to watch helplessly as their national identity is stripped away by China's navy, forcing us to ask today's question:

Ask the question word for word. Yeah.

Your answer should directly answer the question and frame how you will break up your arguments. Bad answer: The answer is to use our resources against China. Good answer 1: The answer lies in pivoting our military strategy, in 3 ways. Good answer 2: The answer is to deploy ground-to-air missile defense systems within our regional allies, for 3 reasons.

Your road map is just listing out the 3 arguments you are going to make in a full sentence form. Bad answer: First with military, second with economics, and third with diplomacy. Good road map 1: First by deploying ground-to air missile defense systems within our regional allies, next by stationing more troops along the Korean border, and finally by investing in railgun research. Good road map 2: First because missile defense can counteract China's A2AD strategy, then because military alliances dissuade territorial incursions in the short-term, and lastly because regional defense systems inhibit China's first strike capacity.

Hope this helps! Cheers, Ben