CX Purpose and Strategies The way you ask the things you do…. Email me any questions, and/ or bring them up in the next session.

Why CX is important "Most Cross- examinations are more suicidal than homicidal. There are two reasons for this: a mistaken conception as to the function of cross-examination, and faulty technique.“ Purposes of CX: It is the only time you stand toe-to-toe with your opponent – you want to project “perceptual dominance” . Look better prepared and smarter than your opponent. Get clarifications for you and the judge Foreshadow arguments you will make in your next speech…

Before the Round Negate your case. If you tear your own case apart you will not be surprised by any attacks your opponent makes. Prepare answers to the arguments against your case. Repair any real case killers you find. Also prepare questions against anticipated arguments you will hear on both sides. This is the function of the AT (answers to ) files .

Have a strategy or focus in your CX It is useful to have a clear goals for your CX. For example, you realize that their value and value criterion don’t work together. Your questions will expose this problem. The trick is to do this without giving him/her a chance to do a repair job during CX. It could be turning their best offense and setting that up with a “what if…” question. It could be forcing them to admit that their position leads to serious unintended consequences Would you agree that democratic states must respect the will of their citizens? Doesn’t that mean if the majority wishes to limit immigration it should be allowed to do so?

Standing side by side Yes or No…. As much as possible, ask Y or N questions. Controlling your time- Don’t answer their questions in your CX. Remind them politely that is it your question time.

Standing side by side 2 The 3 C’s – Commit, Confront, Criticize. Example: “Your second contention tells us that CD undermines the rule of law and thus endangers social order.” (Get them to commit to their specific position) “But I gave you 4 examples of the historical use of CD in my case when this didn’t happen. Can you read me from your case examples of when it did? “(Confront his position, demonstrate a weakness or inconsistency- make them respond from their case.) “So, you didn’t provide any examples?” (criticize, BUT don’t give them a chance to make up stuff or muddle the concession you have just won.) “Let’s move on..” ( In many cases, especially in the case of beginners, they go silent. Let the silence linger awhile, then move on) DON’T keep beating them up after you have made your point.

Standing Side by Side 3 You are speaking to the judge; you are not trying to persuade your opponent. eye contact and body language should be directed at the judge, not your opponent. BUT steal a glance at opponent's body language.. This can tell you what makes them squirm – go after the points that produce this behavior. CX is a continuation of your discussion with the judge. Your goals in CX show your knowledge of the topic and articulate your arguments while engaging your opponents’ arguments. A useful phrase to know “Please read me from case where you prove….” This stops them for making stuff up on the fly.

Demeanor Counts! Act confident, keep your cool always. On the other hand, push his/her buttons if you can…- if the go off emotionally, they lose. Delicate balance – aggression and civility Be aggressive but don’t overdo it. Making them cry – the special case of novices Carry them , be courteous to a fault. Women and Men - optics and cultural baggage .

Clarification Look smart asking for the points you missed in your opponent's case Ask specific questions- What does your first contention prove? What is the main idea (thesis) of Contention 1? What is the link between your V and VC? Why is your study on juvenile repeat offenders better than mine?

Concessions and Traps Ask about their position (case thesis) Ask questions in baby steps – get agreements to obvious points first. (garden path) Ask questions that reasonable people would have a hard time disagreeing with Question too far… - DON’T – stop when you get what you want – don’t give them a chance to explain. Large audience tactics Re-word your opponent's argument – reduce it to absurdity- say what they said in a damaging way. Turn it – “When I show that Y is the case, won’t that mean that Y causes X and not the other way around? Challenge evidence! – Claim-Warrant-Impact Be sure they have warrants they can explain for their claims and their impacts.

When You have Nothing Go down the flow Ask about each major element – make them repeat it in their own words Ask why X is true, make them tell you in their own words ask why again and maybe even a third time if appropriate. Ask them about specific pieces of evidence Use dumb responses in your next speech Ask for examples. Apply their position logic to a hard case and expose its potential for harm

Set Up Questions Burdens Ask for commitments to standards weighing. Since our value criterions both end up being providing the greatest benefits for society, shouldn’t the winner of the round by the one who demonstrates they provide more social benefits? Assign burdens based on Trap questions Burden – what do I- your opponent- need to do to win the round? If I prove X, don’t that mean that the cause and effect are reversed? Look for contradictions in the case Go after empirical studies [ I have a PPP on this for later] Concessions – even on small things look good in next speech.

Responding Read your words from case Keep answers short Listen to how it was asked NO – rudeness, bullying

The wife beating question.. Is of the form: “Have you stop beating your wife?” This is a question that is based on evidence that has not been presented. If you say NO – then you are revealed to be an active wife beater. If you cay YES – then you are revealed to be a former wife beater. You lose either way. Responding to “wife beating questions” Example: When everybody gets to decide what laws they will obey doesn’t that violate justice more than a single unjust outcome? He or she can only ask this question if they have offered evidence that CD has lead to total breakdowns in the rule of law. Your answer : Since you provided no instances where this has happened, I don’t see how it is relevant. The burden is on you to prove this is a problem When you do we can revisit your question. This makes you look smart,and keeps them form side tracking the story you are telling in the round