Cross-Examination: The Art of
Asking and Answering Questions
Hays Watson – Head Debate Coach at the University of Georgia
Preview
Explaining cross-examination (CX) and its
purpose in debates
 Tips/tricks for asking good CX questions
 Tips/tricks for answering good CX
questions
 Practice, Practice, Practice

What is Cross-Examination?
What Is Cross-Examination?
3 minute question-and-answer period
 After each constructive speech (1ac, 1nc,
2ac, 2nc)
 Follows a specific sequence:
The 2nc questions the 1ac
The 1ac questions the 1nc
The 1nc questions the 2ac
The 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” points
 It’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 Questions
Cross-examination involves both asking
and answering questions
 This is DIFFERENT from the courtroom
– lawyers ask, witnesses answer
 EVERY speaker gets to ask AND answer
questions
 They’re EQUALLY important – style
points from asking great questions can be
undermined by poor answers to CX
questions

Asking Questions – Tips and Tricks
 Work
hard to be an expert!
Asking Questions – Tips and Tricks
 Think
Strategically
Asking Questions – Tips and Tricks
 Ask
questions about evidence
Sladick 12 (Kelli, Contributor @ Tenth Amendment Center, "Battlefield USA: The Drones are
Coming," http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/12/battlefield-usa-the-drones-arecoming)
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 Tricks
 Minimize
open-ended questions –
questions that begin with who, what,
when, why
--Syntax is key: verb + subject + rest of
question
Question Word vs.Verb/Subject

Where are you from? vs. Are you from
Alabama? Georgia?
Asking Questions – Tips and Tricks
POLITELY 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 Tricks
 Don’t
be afraid to move on!
Answering Questions Like a Pro
 Work
hard to be an expert!
There’s a common theme emerging…
Answering Questions Like a Pro
 Exploit
open-ended questions!
Answering Questions Like a Pro
 Don’t
be afraid to have them repeat
the question…but don’t do this all
the time…
Answering Questions Like a Pro
 You
have a partner for a reason –
don’t be afraid to use them!
Answering Questions Like a Pro
 You
don’t know every answer – it’s
ok to admit that every now and then
Cross-Ex Practice Makes Cross-Ex
(Almost) Perfect
More 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 Questions

Read and prepare to answer questions
about this 1ac card:
US human rights cred solves global WMD conflict
Burke-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 postCold 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 Questions

Read 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
globally
Kehl 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.