 Colonel Jessup, did you order the code read? You don't have to answer that question. I'll answer the question. You want answers? I think I'm entitled. You want answers. I want the truth. You can't handle the truth. In Aaron Sorkin's A Few Good Men, the main protagonist, played by Tom Cruise, cross-examines the story's main antagonist, played by Jack Nicholson. In this famous scene, we see how cross-examination can be absolutely critical to understanding something and proving a point. There's often a difference between making an argument and understanding it. In debate, it's not uncommon to have opponents who have been fed arguments by their coaches and teammates. As a result, it is a highly effective strategy to probe their understanding. Most forms of debate include some sort of question and answer period. There are some various naming variations, but whether it's called flex or crossfire, the process of asking questions of your opponents can be very important. Today we are going to dive into the art of cross-examination. We'll start by looking at its uses, then discussing some considerations when asking questions, before finally covering a few tips to help you when it's your turn to answer the questions. But we cannot control those outcomes of this sort of debate. So let it be to the very first thing I wrote down in prep. I can finally answer the question we have yet. The ladies' jail of death destroys individual autonomy forever. While cross-examination is the most unstructured period of the debate, it gives the debater the ability to accomplish some key tasks. Let's briefly explore three useful ways to use cross-examination. First, to clarify arguments. Debates can be complicated at times, disorganized, and even fast. As a result, cross-examination is a useful opportunity to clarify the arguments of your opponents. This can be as simple as having your opponent restate a point. Keep in mind, understanding the arguments that your opponents make is key information when it comes time to refute them. When on the affirmative, it is critical to understand any turns, theory violations, and counterplan texts, or link arguments your opponent made. Missing those, and in turn, failing to refute them, can spell disaster for your success in the round. Clarification can also be useful in forcing your opponent to commit to a stance. Sometimes, debaters are deliberately vague on a certain point so that they can see how an argument evolves before taking a stance. Clarification can involve pinning down an opponent's position on important issues such as the status of a counterplan, plan and enforcement, or what exactly the inherent barriers to solvency are in the status quo. Next, cross-examination can be used to expose errors. It's not unheard of for a debate to be won or lost in cross-examination. During the constructive speeches of the round, you wanna make sure that you pay close attention to the arguments of your opponent to ensure that they are logically consistent. If you can identify flaws in your opponent's reasoning, you can then use cross-examination to point this out. One of the most common mistakes that debaters make is misunderstanding empirical evidence. This is particularly true at the link level of the debate. Consider a debate where the affirmative is arguing that the United States should ban single-use plastics to stop the flow of pollution into our oceans. However, as the negative team, you know that the majority of single-use plastic that ends up in the ocean comes from river dumping in China. You might ask the affirmative, what evidence do you have that U.S. plastic waste is the main contributor of ocean plastic? Their inability to formally answer the question will help you make a stronger refutation arguments later in the round. Be warned that your opponent may avoid admitting to their errors, no matter how clearly you have exposed them. Remember that the purpose of cross-examination is to convince the judge not your opponent. Once you've exposed an error, you can move on to the next question, even if your opponent is not admitting to their own mistakes. Continually repeating the question or getting angry is a waste of time and goodwill. Make your point and move on. Cross-examination is also a great place to set up arguments. During these periods of question and answer, cross-examination becomes a useful tool to set up the arguments that you plan to make in the next speech. Having at least a general idea of the arguments that will come next will allow you to use cross-examination to make them hit harder. For example, asking about how the plan is enforced could get you a clear link to your disadvantage or asking questions about what a counter-plan does could help you set up attacks against its solvency. Be warned that when you set up your solvency arguments, you may need to use a bit of misdirection to accomplish your goals. If the other team figures out the trap you are trying to set, then they will make attempts to derail your efforts. Cross-examination gives you a mechanism to encourage your opponent to interpret their own arguments in a way that will make your point seem better. In his 2008 policy debate manual, Dr. Joe Bellin of Georgia State University highlighted the following innovative strategy, the pit of doom. Here, your goal is to push your opponent closer and closer to an answer that you think will devastate their position in the debate. To quote Dr. Bellin, how do you talk someone into walking closer to the edge of the pit? By acting reasonable and pretending there is no pit there, of course. Let's look at how this might play out in a round where the affirmative is advocating a plan to offer financial incentives to get people to vote in presidential elections. As the negative, your goal here is to get the affirmative to admit that their plan won't work. The pit of doom strategy is to coax them gently towards the pit. Let's take a look at how this might play out. Just to clarify, your plan will pay people to vote, right? Yep, our evidence, which comes from a study published in the Journal of Politics in 2013, actually shows us that this will increase voter turnout by 50%. Wow, I'd vote if they pay me, but there's still a lot of people who don't vote after the plan, right? Well, maybe. I mean, my uncle doesn't vote because he thinks that the government is controlled by a bunch of lizard people. You can't get him to vote, can you? Probably not. And the people who refuse to vote as a protest, you can't buy them off, right? Yeah, but that's not many people. Sure. What about the people who have to work all day and have families to take care of? They don't vote because they're too busy. Will you get them to vote? Actually, yes. Our authors say that paying them $20 to vote will get them interested. Oh, sweet. So you've got evidence that $20 is enough to get people to quit their jobs. Wait, what? Oh, you know that if I skip out on my job at Hobby Lobby, they're gonna fire me. So you've got evidence that $20 is enough to get me to quit my job? No, that's silly. You would just go after you got up for it. Okay, so now I get it. You've got evidence that $20 is enough for me to pay the babysitter to watch my kids, make them dinner, while I spend three hours waiting in line to vote. Can you cite that evidence? By the end of this dialogue, you've managed to maneuver the affirmative closer to the edge of the pit. You've managed to get them to admit that their plan won't work for people with fringe beliefs, people who have political apathy, people who have full-time jobs, and people who have dependence they care take for. That's a lot of people, and their absence would greatly negate the ass solvency in this example. Now that we've covered some of the basic ways that you can use cross-examination, let's cover a few performative considerations. While cross-examination is useful, it's easy to come across as rude or hostile when acting direct questions to someone who is naturally defensive about their answers. There are a few things you can do to appear polished, poised, and credible when doing cross-examination. First, be polite. While difficult, this is even more important when debating a rude or pushy opponent. If your opponent attempts to filibuster you, try interrupting them politely by saying, I'm sorry, but I need to ask another question now. Shouting over them or making snide comments won't help you. If anything, you're likely to annoy your judge and may even lose you some speaker points. Second, control the floor. Remember, this is your cross-examination period. Don't ask broad, general question that lets your opponent wax poetic. Be specific and keep things going. Make sure that you have a solid idea of the answer you're looking for. You're not really in control if you don't know how you want a question to be answered. Third, make sure you are actually asking questions. Too many debaters attempt to use cross-examination as many constructive speeches. You have a dedicated time for that. Reserve this period for asking and answering of questions. Last, focus on the weakest arguments presented by your opponent. If you dedicate the bulk of your cross-examination to talking about the strongest arguments they made, you make their point seem stronger. Focus on their soft spots and it will make them appear vulnerable. Now that you have an idea of how to stylistically approach cross-examination, let's wrap up with a discussion of how to approach answering cross-ex questions. First, keep in mind that you want to try to answer requests for information as clearly and honestly as you can. Trying to be extra vague or even purposely misleading your opponent will hurt your credibility with a judge. It's best to be a stable, open, and honest sorts of information in the round. Second, don't come across as rude. It's fine to be assertive and round, but no one likes a jerk. If your opponent is being rude during their questioning, respond by being extra polite and reasonable. This is a good way to draw the judge's attention to how inappropriate the other person is being. In practice, this will increase your speaker points and decrease those of your opponent. Next, if you're not sure of an answer, it's fine to just admit that. You're more likely to lose the debate if you make something up, so don't do it. Saying something like, that's an interesting point, but I didn't come across an answer during my research. Works pretty well. Next, try to avoid hypotheticals if you can. It's pretty common for debaters to ask, what happens if questions? The best technique here is to avoid engaging. If they try asking, what happens if we prove that your plan doesn't work? Just smile and say, you won't. Another issue that pops up is when debaters ask opponents to respond to an argument that they have not made yet, like a disadvantage. If they go for this strategy, you can say something like, if you decide to go for that argument, we will make sure to answer it. Last, make sure to refer back to your evidence or pre-round research. If an opponent is tacking an argument that you cited research to support, bring up that research in your answer. This will help you appear credible and can be a good way to turn the attack back on them. Today we covered the basic theories of cross-examination. We looked at the reasons you would want to use cross-examination, some performative tips, and some techniques that you can use when answering. Cross-examination and debate may be a little different from that in a court of law, but if you really want the truth, you better ask the right questions. Thanks for watching. This video series is written and produced by me, Ryan Guy, with the help of a wide variety of scholarly research and open educational research. I wanted to give credit to Dr. Joe Bellin, whose work was featured in my cross-examination example. Palsy Debate Manual is still one of the best debate guides I've come across. For more information about it and the other references and materials used, see the description page on YouTube. This video is published under a Creative Commons license. Please feel free to share, use, and remix its content.