Cross Examination.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
By Mark Veeder-SCFI How to properly construct an AC and NC -Getting the most out of cross-ex -How to structure a rebuttal.
Advertisements

LD: Lincoln-Douglas Debate History:  Illinois senatorial debates between Abraham Lincoln & Stephen Douglas  Became high school competitive.
POLICY DEBATE An Introduction by Rich Edwards Baylor University.
The Structure of a Debate Constructive Speeches 1AC: 8 Minutes Cross-Examined by 2NC: 3 Minutes 1NC: 8 Minutes Cross-Examined by 1AC: 3 Minutes 2AC: 8.
Cross Examination.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS CROSS EXAMINATION. Your manner of questioning and answering affects your credibility or ethos. Communicate through your demeanor that.
Policy Debate at a Glance Also called Cross Examination, Cross-X, or CX debate. Plan debate. Evidential debate. One topic per all year. Approx. 1 ½ hour.
How to Debate Disadvantages. Selecting disadvantages to run  Be strategic in selecting them—a few things to remember—  Don’t run multiple disadvantages.
Crossfire CODEY HAWKINS UNIVERSITY OF WEST GEORGIA 2015 GEORGIA DEBATE INSTITUTES.
SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS. Summary Basics  2 minute speech, after the rebuttals.  It’s a time to clear up for the judge what she should really be paying.
ReviewJeopardy Public Forum Research Logic Q $100 Q $200 Q $300 Q $400 Q $500 Q $100 Q $200 Q $300 Q $400 Q $500 Potpourri Argument Final Jeopardy.
ORDER AND PURPOSE OF THE SPEECHES
Week 1. Q. From where did LD debate come? Q. Where policy debate involves federal policy, what does LD involve? Q. LD involves which civilization?
Lincoln - Douglas Debate. History… Abraham Lincoln Vs Stephen Douglas Topic: – Slavery Douglas: Citizens should decide for themselves Honest Abe: Slavery.
LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE. Table of Contents  What is it  LD Debate Structure  Terms to Know  Constructive Arguments  Affirmative  Negative  Cross.
How to Flow And why you should do it – always, all the time, in every round.
Business Ethics Chapter # 3 Ethical Principles, Quick Tests, and Decision-Making Guidelines  The best kind of relationship in the world is the one in.
 4 th stock issue  Significance means that the issue addressed by the Affirmative team is a major force affecting a large group.  The penalty for not.
 If you can convince the judge that passing your affirmative plan is a good idea, you will win the debate. Essentially, you need to prove that the affirmative.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Resolutions: The resolution is a statement with which one contestant must agree (affirm) and the other contestant must disagree.
Basic Structure of a Round. a) Before the Round Pre-flowed arguments.
This next section will teach you the core set of ideas that are behind every debate decision… From Junior High Novice to College Varsity, the same concepts.
BASICS OF BEING AFFIRMATIVE
Affirmative vs. negative
KRITIKS Melissa Witt.
Ethics and Values for Professionals Chapter 2: Ethical Relativism
The Structure of a Debate
Introduction to the Negative
The Important Elements
Argumentative Writing You need your performance assessment books!
WELCOME TO DEBATE! Negative Basics.
Writing Analytically Chapter 1 Sections 1-3 How to think of good ideas
Lincoln Douglas.
Developed by Jenny Alme, The Harker School
Ethical Dilemmas in Leadership
Writing for History Class
How to Write an Argument
Argumentative Writing
Argumentative Writing
Debate Prep!.
ORDER AND PURPOSE OF THE SPEECHES
Advanced Summary SPEECHES
Chapter 18: Supporting Your Views
CX- 3 minutes Example of CX in Pufo.
Criminal Trial Components
Points of information.
Debate.
Speaker Responsibilities
Beginning Strategies Novice Debate Henrichsen
Let’s talk cross-ex!.
1973 Survey Americans are more afraid of speaking in front of groups than of dying.
Claim and Counterclaim
Argumentative Writing
What’s Constitutional?
Introduction to Debate
ORDER AND PURPOSE OF POLICY SPEECHES
What is Mock Trial? Steps in what we do…...
Welcome to Debate! Cross-examination
Public Forum Debate.
Informative, Persuasive, and Impromptu Speaking all rolled into one!
CX Purpose and Strategies
Topicality Casey Parsons.
Bell Ringer Question Consider this quote: “Games are as important for adults as they are for young people.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
POLICY DEBATE An Introduction by Rich Edwards Baylor University.
Flowing & Cross-Examination
CX Purpose and Strategies
CX Purpose and Strategies
Bloom's Taxonomy Talking Round Corners Creating Evaluating Analysing
Getting To Know Debate:
DEBATE Justification.
Presentation transcript:

Cross Examination

The Importance of Cross-Examination Establishes credibility--The dialogue and head to head dynamic create an unique opportunity for the judge to form an opinion about you as a debater and for you to win their trust. Establishes clarity Establishes cracks Lighten your partner’s load (1AR) and creates prep time. You are not Matlock

Body Language Stand poised next to your opponent Ask question to opponent and then turn and face judge for an answer Don’t bury your head in your notes Don’t stand quietly taking more notes Don’t walk behind your opponent and start talking to their partner Don’t play with pens, timers, etc Body Language

Prepare ahead of time Identify what you are going to win the debate on—what are your major args that prove the plan is a good or bad idea? What evidence or arguments of your opponents help prove any of these positions? What questions best lead them to reveal this to the judge? Answer these questions before the round and you will have good cx

Kinds of questions Don’t ask— Do ask— Statements. Open ended, general questions Compound or qualified questions About dropped arguments Rude questions Do ask— Leading questions Questions that limit Questions to clarify Questions that conceal Questions that repeat Questions that impose extra burdens Questions you know the answer to

Categories of questions Evidence questions Credibility including author’s quals, date, source, length, etc Consistency including how it fits with other ev in the 1AC or DA Assumptions including whether the non underlined parts point out weaknesses or problems or other root causes or forms of solvency

Value Questions What is the nature of your value? How should your value be viewed? Through a Utilitarian or deontological framework? Does your value lead to other benefits? Why should be we use your value when other countries or cultures have an entirely different set of values?

Fishing Daisy: What does your evidence from Hays Watson in 1998 say? John: It says that the Death Penalty works very well and that there is very little evidence of innocent people being executed in the US….

Directing Daisy: So your Hays Watson evidence that claims that the death penalty isn’t unjust is from 1998, correct? John: Yes! Daisy: Which means it is impossible that it includes all of the studies done after 1998 that revealed the huge number of innocents that have been executed, correct? John: Um….Yes.

Fishing John: So…what does your first advantage say? Nate: It says that increasing our health assistance to Africa will help solve a number of diseases including malaria and AIDs and that only our plan will save the lives of millions of innocent children….

Directing John: Would you please read to the judge the non underlined part of your second solvency card? Nate: It says that “serious infrastructure changes must be made before the AIDs epidemic can be addressed.” John: and your plan doesn’t provide any funding for infrastructural improvements like improved hospitals or communcation systems, does it? Nate: Well, no.

Fishing Eddie: What is Utilitarianism? Hays: Well, it is my criterion and it is the most effective way to determine morality because it allows us to view the greatest good for the greatest number of people and really is the most fair system of evaluating the morality of an action.

Directing Eddie: Utilitarianism is your criterion, correct? Hays: Yes. Eddie: And you support Jeremy Bentham’s explanation of utilitarianism? Hays: Um…what? Eddie: Well you quote Bentham describing utilitarianism, right? Hays: Oh, Yes. Eddie: How do you reconcile Bentham’s use of ethical egoism with your own value of Justice? I mean, if Bentham says each individual should only assess what is most favorable for them personally, how does that achieve Justice for the whole society if everyone does what they want to do? Hays: Um……

Maintaining Control Choose questions carefully Politely cut off your opponent Repeat the same question or ask another question Never answer a question they ask you Remind them that it is your cross-ex Back off and let the judge take care of it Remember that the judge remembers being crossed themselves

Answering Questions Direct and reasonable Be willing to admit ignorance Qualify answers first Take advantage of open ended questions Ask for clarification Point out irrelevant questions

Use what you get from cross ex in your speech!