How to Correctly Utilize Cross-Ex in LD Debate

Cross-ex is one of my favorite parts of debate and it’s unfortunate to me that cross-ex is underutilized in so many LD rounds. Debaters spend too little time asking the strategic questions that they should be asking; instead, they’ll ask clarification questions on arguments that they probably didn’t need their opponents to clarify. If debaters improve their cross-ex strategy by asking on-point questions that weaken their opponent’s arguments from the start, they’ll improve their perceptual dominance and speaker points.

Whenever debaters pursue a line of questioning, their questions should do two things—first, they should start by explicitly referencing an argument their opponent made, and second, they should follow-up with a question that sets up an argument they could make in a later speech. Questions of this sort include:

“You claimed that your [so-and-so] evidence says [argument], but how is that consistent with the un-underlined portion of the card which says [something else]?”

“Your [so-and-so] evidence says that adolescents are too susceptible to peer pressure, but why is this at all relevant for medical decisions?”

“Your strat skew standard says that if I didn’t specify a type of medical decision, I could shift to a new advocacy in the 1AR. How could I possibly do that when I’ve committed in the AC to defending the resolution as a general principle?”

These questions are significantly more strategic and perceptually dominant than questions like:
“What does this card say?”
“Can you explain the function of this argument?”
“How do I turn the case?”

Those are questions that you should already have an answer to in your own mind if you’ve already thought about your opponent’s arguments—whether you saw them on the NDCA wiki or have thought/discussed with a coach about a similar position. You should only ask clarification questions if you’re genuinely confused about an argument. If you’re asking clarification questions because you are unsure what more insightful questions you could ask, you should do cross-ex drills with a friend or coach to improve on that. If you’re asking clarification questions because you want to start prepping while your opponent goes on a tangent about their case, you’re not using the three minutes you’re allotted to the best of your abilities.

Some may believe that cross-ex is not a time for forwarding arguments. Let me clarify my view by saying that I don’t think that people should “forward arguments” as in asking questions like, “You’ve said that adolescents are competent enough to make medical choices, but how is that true when they’re more susceptible to peer pressure?” That question gets the easy response of, “I don’t see why that’s relevant or true.” Rather, you could forward an argument by asking questions that challenge the internal logic of your opponent’s evidence. Example: “Your evidence says that adolescents are competent enough to make medical decisions, but this card’s about 16 and 17 year olds. Why should we trust 13, 14, or 15 year olds to make autonomous medical choices?” In using CX to press your opponent on the chain of logic justifying their conclusions, you give yourself additional firepower in addition to the cards that you’re reading. Your speech could run like:

They say adolescents are competent:

1. [Card that says adolescents are too susceptible to peer pressure/impulsiveness]

2. Their evidence is specific to 16 and 17 year olds, not adolescents in general—that was cross-ex.

3. [Card that says adolescents need parental guidance because parents know better and are helpful on intense medical matters]

As you’ll see above, that sample block outline has “that was cross-ex” tagged right after an analytic. You want your cross-ex questions to be so interactive with your opponent’s logic that you could turn them into analytics to make on case. You want to indicate that the argument you’re making was initially stated in cross-ex so that the judge is explicitly reminded of the moment you were perceptually dominant.

You can also use cross-ex to bolster the efficiency of your 1AR responses to neg arguments. For example, if you spent 30 seconds of cross-ex explaining a really nuanced aff framework argument, you don’t need to spend anything close to 30 seconds explaining it in the 4 minute 1AR. So, you could give a tagline summary of the complex framework argument and say “that was explained in cross-ex” following it. Not only will you be more efficient, but the judge won’t think you aren’t explaining your arguments enough because you explained them in cross-ex.

It’s sometimes said that many judges don’t pay attention to cross-ex. If that’s true, it’s likely because judges find three minutes of clarification questions to be inherently boring. I postulate that if cross-ex is utilized correctly, this will no longer be the case. If you start off cross-ex with a bang, positioning yourself as asking the smart questions, judges will not only pay attention—they’ll also reward you with higher speaker points.