international debate education association
Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate
I.
Introduction
Like other forms of debate, Cross-Examination (C-X or Policy) Debate focuses on the core
elements of controversial issue. Cross-Examination Debate develops important skills, such as
critical thinking, listening, argument construction, research, note-taking and advocacy skills.
Cross-Examination Debate is distinct from other formats, with the exception of Parliamentary
Debate, in its use of a two-person team. Cross-Examination Debate also places emphasis on
questioning or cross-examination between constructive speeches. While specific practices vary,
Cross-Examination Debate typically rewards intensive use of evidence, and is more focused on
content than on delivery.
II.
Rules of Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate
This section highlights the important rules that govern the Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate
format. Because these rules focus on the goals and procedures of debate, they do not include all
that might be considered, from a strategic perspective, principles of effective debate.
A.
Resolutions and Preparation
The topic for Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate is typically called a "resolution" or
"proposition." Different types of propositions may be used in a Cross-Examination
(Policy) Debate, but policy propositions tend to be the most common. Different leagues,
organizations or individual tournaments may use a particular resolution for a particular
debate.
So that clash might occur in a debate, debaters should engage in research on both sides of
the topic. Research is primarily the job of debaters. Teachers and coaches may conduct
research in order to improve their job performance and to facilitate the learning of their
students, but should limit the amount of research they conduct for debaters.
B.
Interpretation of the Resolution
Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate involves two teams, each consisting of two people.
One team takes the affirmative position and is responsible for defending and supporting
the resolution. The other team takes the negative and is responsible for refuting the
affirmative, which may be done in a variety of strategic ways.
The affirmative team is responsible for the initial interpretation of the resolution, and for
presenting a case that defends and supports the resolution. The negative team may
challenge this interpretation if they believe the affirmative team's interpretation is
unreasonable.
1
1.
Arguing a Case for the Resolution
The objective of the affirmative team is to construct and present a case that
defends and supports the resolution. An adequate case (one that meets a certain
burden of proof) depends on what type of proposition is debated. Individual
topics and tournaments determine what burden is required.
2.
Arguing Against the Resolution
The objective of the negative team is to refute the affirmative case, which, by
extension, is an argument against the resolution. Depending on the topic and the
type of proposition, the negative may have a variety of possible strategies
available when refuting the affirmative case.
C.
Rules During the Debate
1.
In-Round Research is Prohibited
Topic research must be completed prior to the beginning of a debate. Once the
debate begins, the participants may not conduct research via electronic or any
other means. No outside person(s) may conduct research during the debate and
provide it directly or indirectly to the debaters. Debaters, however, are allowed
to use a dictionary to determine the meaning of English words.
2.
Citations are Mandatory
Debaters may cite or refer to any public information. When doing so, they
should be prepared to provide complete source documentation to the opposing
team and to the judge, upon request. A team's documentation of cited material
must be complete enough so that the opposing team and the judge can locate the
information of their own. Ordinarily, such documentation would include the
name of an author (if any), the name and date of a publication, the URL of a
Web site (if the information was retrieved electronically), and a page number (if
available).
III.
Format and Roles in Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate
In Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate, both sides of the resolution have an equal amount of time
to present their arguments. The format is composed of twelve parts, each of which has a defined
purpose and set of rules. Eight of these sections consist of "speeches" -- uninterrupted
presentations by a designated speaker. The remaining four sections consist of "cross-examination"
-- a series of questions and answers involving one speaker from each side.
A.
The format of a Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate is as follows:
Section
Time
Speaker
First Affirmative Constructive
First Negative Cross-Examination
First Negative Constructive
First Affirmative Cross-Examination
Second Affirmative Constructive
Second Negative Cross-Examination
Second Negative Constructive
Second Affirmative Cross-Examination
First Negative Rebuttal
First Affirmative Rebuttal
8 minutes
3 minutes
8 minutes
3 minutes
8 minutes
3 minutes
8 minutes
3 minutes
5 minutes
5 minutes
Affirmative 1
Affirmative 1 answers/Negative 2 asks
Negative 1
Affirmative 1asks/Negative 1 answers
Affirmative 2
Affirmative 2 answers/Negative 1 asks
Negative 2
Negative 2 answers/Affirmative 2 asks
Negative 1
Affirmative 1
2
Second Negative Rebuttal
Second Affirmative Rebuttal
5 minutes
5 minutes
Negative 2
Affirmative 2
While the order and proportional length of speech time are consistent between different
organizations practicing policy debate, there is variation in exact time limits for
constructive speeches, cross-examination, and rebuttal. Each debate also includes
preparation time, typically eight minutes for each team, which is determined by an
individual tournament. This time is not scheduled in any particular place in the sequence
of sections, and is instead taken at the discretion of each team, in whatever amounts the
team desires.
B.
Role of the Speakers
The Cross-Examination (Policy) format embraces debate as a team activity. In the CrossExamination format, each debate team is composed of two individuals who stay together
through every round of competition. Each team alternatively debates the negative and
affirmative positions in alternating rounds.
Although Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate is a team activity, the only debater allowed
to speak during a given moment in the debate is the one assigned by the format to do so
(see above). Team members may not assist their teammates by offering suggestions or
by answering questions on their behalf. During the cross-examination period, it is
generally expected that only the examiner may ask questions, and only the speaker may
answer them. Typically, no spoken communication is allowed between either the
examiner or the speaker and their teammates. Some tournaments may have different
policies regarding the method by which cross-examination may be conducted.
C.
Role of the Judge
The judge will determine a winning team based on the arguments presented during the
debate. If the judge believes the affirmative team has proven its case, it wins the debate.
If the negative team undermines the affirmative team's arguments for the resolution, the
negative team wins the debate.
After the final rebuttal, the judge will deliberate and reach a decision regarding the
winner and the points to be assigned to each speaker. The judge will then complete the
debate ballot.
In some competitions, tournament administrators will decide that judges may disclose
their decisions and offer debaters oral critiques. If this is the case, the judge may
announce the outcome of the debate and provide constructive feedback to the debaters
following the competition of the debate ballot. Under no circumstances can the judge
change the decision or points based on any discussion with the teams involved.
In all cases, a judge should consult with tournament administrators to make sure that
disclosing decisions and offering oral critiques are permitted for that competition.
IV.
Judging Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate
For universal protocols on judging any speech or debate event see Judges Accreditation Process
and Standards. Please note that the guidelines listed below are not strict rules (by reference to
which, for example, debaters may be penalized for failing to comply), but rather suggestions as to
what considerations a judge might want to bear in mind while formulating their decision.
The Cross-Examination (Policy) format does not lend itself to a particular checklist of elements or
points that must be made in order to prevail, even if a resolution seems clearly to present a
3
question of policy. Any given debate on the same resolution might turn on different arguments
presented by the debaters within the debate round. Nonetheless, some general, common-sense
principles may guide a judge's evaluation of the cases debaters use to affirm or negate the
resolution.
The judge must take seriously his or her responsibility to evaluate the overall claim of the
debaters. The judge must consider whether the debaters' arguments lead logically to the
conclusion that the resolution calls on them to defend, and whether those arguments are
sufficiently supported with examples, evidence, or analysis. Every debate is unique, and should
be evaluated accordingly.
10/27/2005
4