Cross-Examination: The Art of Asking and Answering Questions

Hays Watson – Head Debate Coach at the University of Georgia

PreviewExplaining cross-examination

(CX) and its purpose in debates Tips/tricks for asking good CX

questionsTips/tricks for answering good CX

questionsPractice, Practice, Practice

What is Cross-Examination?

What Is Cross-Examination? 3 minute question-and-answer

periodAfter each constructive speech

(1ac, 1nc, 2ac, 2nc)Follows a specific sequence: The 2nc questions the 1acThe 1ac questions the 1ncThe 1nc questions the 2acThe 2ac questions the 1nc

What Is Its Relevance to Debate?It distinguishes some forms of

debate from others (public forum, parliamentary debate)

Helps identify and clarify key issues

Serves as a means to undermine/refute your opponents arguments

Opportunity for “style” pointsIt’s what distinguishes good

debaters from bad, great debaters from good

Why We’re Cross-Ex Debate!

Is Justin Bieber doing policy debate? Is he good at cross-ex?

Asking and Answering QuestionsCross-examination involves both

asking and answering questionsThis is DIFFERENT from the courtroom

– lawyers ask, witnesses answerEVERY speaker gets to ask AND

answer questionsThey’re EQUALLY important – style

points from asking great questions can be undermined by poor answers to CX questions

Asking Questions – Tips and TricksWork hard to be an expert!

Asking Questions – Tips and TricksThink Strategically

Asking Questions – Tips and TricksAsk questions about evidenceSladick 12 (Kelli, Contributor @ Tenth Amendment Center, "Battlefield USA: The Drones are Coming," http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/12/battlefield-usa-the-drones-are-coming)In a US leaked document, “Airforce Instruction 14-104”, on domestic surveillance is permitted on US citizens. It defines domestic surveillance as, “any imagery collected by satellite (national or commercial) and airborne platforms that cover the land areas of the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the US, to a 12 nautical mile seaward limit of these land areas.” In the leaked document, legal uses include: natural disasters, force protection, counter-terrorism, security vulnerabilities, environmental studies, navigation, and exercises. In the 14-104 document, it acknowledges that drones may be used to spy on US citizens: “This instruction applies to all Air Force active duty, Air Force Reserve Command, and Air National Guard (when performing a federal function) intelligence units, staff organizations, and non-intelligence organizations that perform intelligence-related activities (e.g., Eagle Vision units) that could collect, analyze, process, retain, or disseminate information on US persons and it also applies to those who exercise command over these units and organizations.”

Asking Questions – Tips and TricksMinimize open-ended questions – questions that begin with who, what, when, why

--Syntax is key: verb + subject + rest of question

Question Word vs. Verb/SubjectWhere are you from? vs. Are you

from Alabama? Georgia?

Asking Questions – Tips and TricksPOLITELY interrupt --if they violate the yes/no answer expectation--if they’re intentionally being wordy/evasive--if you need to move on to another question--keep an eye on the judge – many will give you visual cues that you should interrupt

Asking Questions – Tips and TricksDon’t be afraid to move on!

Answering Questions Like a ProWork hard to be an expert! There’s a common theme emerging…

Answering Questions Like a ProExploit open-ended questions!

Answering Questions Like a ProDon’t be afraid to have them repeat the question…but don’t do this all the time…

Answering Questions Like a ProYou have a partner for a reason – don’t be afraid to use them!

Answering Questions Like a ProYou don’t know every answer – it’s ok to admit that every now and then

Cross-Ex Practice Makes Cross-Ex (Almost) PerfectMore practice = better cross-ex Foreign languages, musical instruments,

sports, etc. all serve as strong empirical proof

You can practice cross-ex – partner, coach, sibling, friend, your “boo,” classmate

Side benefit of debating more – more debates means more CX practice!

Anecdotal evidence of effort/improvement

I Ask Kids CX QuestionsRead and prepare to answer questions

about this 1ac card: US human rights cred solves global WMD conflictBurke-White 4 (William W., Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and Ph.D. at Cambridge, “Human Rights and National Security: The Strategic Correlation”, The Harvard Human Rights Journal, Spring, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249, Lexis)This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the promotion of human rights should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the chief threats to U.S. national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war may directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the post-Cold War period  [*250]  indicates that states that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression. To the degree that improvements in various states' human rights records decrease the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance U.S. and global security. Since 1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a telling indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression. A central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression. 2 If the correlation discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through the promotion of human rights. A strategic linkage between national security and human rights would result in a number of important policy modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current government to prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human rights protections. Fifth, it addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues.

Kids Ask Me CX QuestionsRead and prepare to ask me questions about this

card: US surveillance causes other nations to restrict Internet AND delegitimizes the efforts of local civil society groups globallyKehl 14 (Danielle Kehl et al, July 2014. Policy Analyst at New America’s Open Technology Institute (OTI); Kevin Bankston is the Policy Director at OTI; Robyn Greene is a Policy Counsel at OTI; and Robert Morgus is a Research Associate at OTI. “Surveillance Costs: The NSA’s Impact on the Economy, Internet Freedom & Cybersecurity,” http://oti.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Surveilance_Costs_Final.pdf)The effects of the NSA disclosures on the Internet Freedom agenda go beyond the realm of Internet governance. The loss of the United States as a model on Internet Freedom issues has made it harder for local civil society groups around the world—including the groups that the State Department’s Internet Freedom programs typically support 203 —to advocate for Internet Freedom within their own governments. 204 The Committee to Protect Journalists, for example, reports that in Pakistan, “where freedom of expression is largely perceived as a Western notion, the Snowden revelations have had a damaging effect. The deeply polarized narrative has become starker as the corridors of power push back on attempts to curb government surveillance.” 205 For some of these groups, in fact, even the appearance of collaboration with or support from the U.S. government can diminish credibility, making it harder for them to achieve local goals that align with U.S. foreign policy interests. 206 The gap in trust is particularly significant for individuals and organizations that receive funding from the U.S. government for free expression activities or circumvention tools. Technology supported by or exported from the United States is, in some cases, inherently suspect due to the revelations about the NSA’s surveillance dragnet and the agency’s attempts to covertly influence product development. Moreover, revelations of what the NSA has been doing in the past decade are eroding the moral high ground that the United States has often relied upon when putting public pressure on authoritarian countries like China, Russia, and Iran to change their behavior. In 2014, Reporters Without Borders added the United States to its “Enemies of the Internet” list for the first time, explicitly linking the inclusion to NSA surveillance. “The main player in [the United States’] vast surveillance operation is the highly secretive National Security Agency (NSA) which, in the light of Snowden’s revelations, has come to symbolize the abuses by the world’s intelligence agencies,” noted the 2014 report. 207 The damaged perception of the United States 208 as a leader on Internet Freedom and its diminished ability to legitimately criticize other countries for censorship and surveillance opens the door for foreign leaders to justify—and even expand— their own efforts. 209 For example, the Egyptian government recently announced plans to monitor social media for potential terrorist activity, prompting backlash from a number of advocates for free expression and privacy. 210 When a spokesman for the Egyptian Interior Ministry, Abdel Fatah Uthman, appeared on television to explain the policy, one justification that he offered in response to privacy concerns was that “the US listens in to phone calls, and supervises anyone who could threaten its national security.” 211 This type of rhetoric makes it difficult for the U.S. to effectively criticize such a policy. Similarly, India’s comparatively mild response to allegations of NSA surveillance have been seen by some critics “as a reflection of India’s own aspirations in the world of surveillance,” a further indication that U.S. spying may now make it easier for foreign governments to quietly defend their own behavior. 212 It is even more difficult for the United States to credibly indict Chinese hackers for breaking into U.S. government and commercial targets without fear of retribution in light of the NSA revelations. 213 These challenges reflect an overall decline in U.S. soft power on free expression issues.