Preemption Flowing Cross Applying Values/Criteria Weighing Mechanisms Cross-Examination Evidence Tests Grouping Definition Standard
Cross-Examination
- Purpose For C-X: The c-x period can
achieve several strategic goals:
- Checking Evidence: A debater should ask to examine any evidence used during the speech that appears to fail an acceptable standard test (see test for evidence). This card(s) should be quickly scrutinized during the preparation time after the c-x period.
- Clarifying Issues: The most important purpose of c-x is to ask questions that clarify an opponent's position. A debater cannot defeat a case that he does not understand. Ask specific questions intended to clarify vague or broad arguments that can be interpreted several different ways. Attempt not to simply ask an opponent to repeat an argument or to outline his case - learn how to listen effectively and take good notes.
- Challenging Credibility: Many debaters do not fully understand their own case. A debater should ask pointed on-case questions for which they already know the answers. Opponents should be asked to answer in their own words and not to look back in their brief for an answer. If they cannot answer questions quickly and easily, they lose credibility and the judge is less likely to accept their arguments.
- Establish Standards and Criteria: Sometimes a debater can encourage an opponent to agree to specific standards or criteria that can be used later to disassemble their case. Ask questions that an opponent will agree with and unkowingly contradicts his position.
- Asking & Answering Questions:
There is a certain skill involved in asking and answering c-x questions. The following
list outlines the do's and don't in asking and answering questions:
- Do ask questions that require quick, simple responses. Preferably, yes/no.
- Do answer questions with long, extended answers - use the time as supplemental speech time.
- Do answer yes/no questions by explaining first and providing the yes/no last.
- Do ask an opponent to stop when they have answered the question, be persistent.
- Do not ask to see evidence that has not been presented - Do ask them to provide it in their next speech.
- Do ask an opponent to answer all questions; Do Not allow them to look up answers.
- Do answer all questions, Do Not look up answers, Do Not avoid questions.
- C-X Questions Are Not Issues: Technically, the judge does not flow the question and answer period. Although a debater or his opponent makes a good, potentially dangerous point in c-x, that point is not an issue until it is brought up during a normal speech. (Do not respond to it until they bring it up in a construction or rebuttal.)
Evidence Tests
- One on One Won't Work: If the affirmative gives a piece of evidence that says A is true and the negative gives a piece of evidence that says A is false, frequently the affirmative will simply provide another piece of evidence, the negative will do the same, and the cycle goes on and on. In such cases, the judge usually listens to neither side and the issue becomes irrelevant. Time and effort have been wasted.
- Evidence Standards: In order to
help correct this problem, debaters may weigh the quality of evidence used on both sides.
Similar to criteria, evidence tests demonstrate that one card is superior to another.
- Relevance: Is the evidence supportive or related to the argument? The evidence that the debater uses is not pertinent - it does not prove the tagline. (This problem is not infrequent. In a rush to find counter-evidence, many debaters just grab something and don't realize that it is irrelevant until they read it.)
- Qualifications of Source: Is the source of the evidence competent? Does the author have the educational background and experience to make the statement with authority? (Which paper is more trustworthy, The New York Times or The Inquirer?)
- Date of Evidence: If an opponent is offering a pragmatic viewpoint - Is the evidence recent? Have conditions changed such that the conclusion is no longer valid? (If all else is equal, the most current source will carry more weight.)
- Qualified Conclusions: Is the author's conclusion too qualified to be useful? What are the actual risk factors? 90% or 2%? (Watch for words like "may, "could," "possibly," or other qualifiers.)
- Secondary Source: How many different sources does an opponent use? Reliable evidence will have two or three sources and several different authorities.
- Biased Sources: Is the source biased? How objective is the information? What is the source's purpose for printing the information? (Obviously, the editors of a book like China: The Red Menace is biased and will only select information that supports their viewpoints.)
- Controversial Sources: Are other experts in agreement with the source? Is the evidence well accepted among the source's peer group?
- Constructing an Evidence Argument:
Like all other issues, an evidence issue should have a tagline, supporting evidence (if
needed), and an explanation in order to be effective.
- Affirmative violates evidence standards; his claims are primarily based upon one opinion.
- The affirmative used Douglas Baker for 5 of 7 evidence cards. He should be able to find a variety of different sources and opinions to prove the reliability of their information.
- If the Affirmative does not correct this difficulty, his position lacks credibility and he should lose the round.
Grouping
- Debate Issues: Because of the limited amount of time available in the rebuttals, it is impossible to cover every issue brought up in an active round. Inexperience forces many debaters to either (1) drop one or more issues or (2) barely mention them leaving issues alive, strong, and dangerous. Either situation will give a strategic advantage to the opponent.
- Grouping: Grouping is a strategy that takes two or more issues and groups (combines) them into a single rebuttal argument. An experienced debater will be able to reduce the number of issues and thereby increase the quantity and quality of the response.
- Method:
- First, debaters must first resist the tendency to "go one on one" with evidence.
- Second, debaters must understand the arguments presented in the round. For example, if the Negative attacks representativeness, presents an alternate definition, gives a standard, and explains their argument; the Affirmative must understand which part of the argument is dangerous - the definition, the standard, or the explanation. An affirmative need not refute the entire argument, only the part that does the damage.
- Third, debaters must understand how arguments are linked - how one argument is related or depends upon another. For example, if the affirmative claims a multitude of merits but fails to link the merits to their value, then the negative debater need not address the merits, just the link to the value.
- Fourth, debaters should recognize arguments based upon a faulty understanding of a debater's position. For example, if all negative counterwarrants are linked to the affirmative position through a misrepresentation, the affirmative need only address the misgiving not the individual counterwarrants.
- Finally, the debater may then group opposing arguments into (1) stock issues, (2) links, or (3) misrepresentations. Understanding how arguments are composed, presented, and disassembled will enable a debater to make short work of many issues raised within a round allowing them more time to concentrate on issues that are more difficult to eliminate.
- Grouping That's Not Grouping: Some debaters think they are grouping issues when they are only organizing. For example, a debater may group all value merits under a single heading of value objections but then address each merit individually. This type of grouping fails to save time or energy.
- Dangers in Grouping: Not all arguments can be grouped; some individual issues are too dangerous or are not linked to other issues. Inappropriately grouping issues can result in inadequately addressed issues that can result in loss of the round.
Definition Standard
Topicality (presenting a case that does not represent the proposition) is a significant issue in policy debate. The problem of distorting the proposition is less likely in value debate, but debaters must be prepared to raise the issue under representativeness.
Protecting Reasonable Limits:
To prevent the Affirmative from twisting, bending, stretching, changing, or ignoring words, syntax, or context, a number of standards are used to identify flaws in the Affirmative approach. These standards must be verbalized in the initial attack and should be used in all explanations. Violation of any single standard is justification for a Negative win.
- Field Context: Terms are best interpreted and defined by experts within the "real life" discipline. When debaters ignore the meaning of the expert field and create new meanings, the Affirmative loses the grounds for claiming they are reasonable. Terms are best defined by the field where they are regularly studied. (Instead of standard or legal dictionaries, the definition of key terms can be found in topic related literature, i.e. legislation, executive policies, etc.)
- Legal Definitions: Courts rule on words that are common to legislation everyday and as a result they gain meaning from judicial context. When debaters ignore judicial context and create new meanings, the Affirmative loses ground for claiming they are reasonable. Terms are best defined by the way they will be interpreted in the law. (Other resolutional terms [should, significantly, change, towards] should be defined by or consistent with legal definitions found within an acceptable legal dictionary and/or precedent law books such as Words and Phrases.)
- Grammatical Context: Definitions of terms must be consistent with their grammatical use in the resolutional sentence. When a debater ignores particular parts of speech or syntax, the Affirmative loses the grounds for claiming they are reasonable. The grammatical context of a word or phrase cannot be ignored. (The parts of speech or order of words cannot be changed. To change a verb [regulate - to control] into a noun [regulation - a rule or law] would change the entire meaning of the resolution.)
- Each Word Has Meaning: The presumption is that the resolution is a well-written sentence and that each word is there for a reason. When a debater ignores the existence of a term or renders two terms redundant, the Affirmative loses the ground for claiming they are reasonable. Interpretations must preserve a discreet meaning or function for each term. (Debaters rarely define each term in the resolution and sometimes wish that one or more words were absent. If a debater conveniently overlooks a term or seems to make two terms mean the same thing [redundancy] then kill them with this standard.)
Strategies Review
- Define the following terms: preemption - cross applying values/criteria - weighing mechanisms - grouping
- What is the purpose of using a preempting argument in the first construction?
- Why should a debater be careful not to deliver fully developed preemptive arguments in a construction?
- What are two problems that can result if a debater places too many preemptive arguments in the construction?
- When cross applying a value or criteria, the argument will generally follow the line of A is true, but B is also and B better ?
- Define the term tunnel vision.
- When cross applying a value or criteria, the debater must be careful to offer the judge two ?
- When should the initial cross applying argument take place?
- What is the purpose of a weighing mechanism?
- During the first portion of the debate, a debater's objectives should be (1) and (2) .
- During the final phase of the debate, the debater utilizes the result of the first two objectives to do what?
- What must a debater recognize in order to be fully capable of utilizing a weighing mechanism?
- The cross-examination period can be used to achieve what four strategic goals?
- List five guidelines for asking and answering questions during c-x.
- List five different tests used as standards to evaluate evidence cards.
- What are three methods used to group arguments?
- What is the purpose for grouping arguments?
- What is a danger in grouping arguments?
- List and define four definition standards.