CROSS EXAMINATION
What is Cross Ex?
Every speech in a round of congress is followed by a period of cross-examination, where debaters may ask the current speaker questions. This page will teach you how to ask the best questions, and how to respond to them.
After every speech, the presiding officer will recognize representatives to ask the speaker a question, or a sequence of questions. You and your competitors will try to ask questions that expose a flaw in the speaker's logic. Knowing how to ask and answer these questions is essential to appear competent, knowledgeable, and engaged in a round of congressional debate.
In congressional debate, there are two types of questioning or cross examination.
Types of Cross Ex
Indirect Questioning
A questioner is selected on the basis of precedence and recency
The selected questionnaire will present one question, without prefacing or introducing new evidence
The previous questionnaire must be seated and the next questionnaire in order of precedence and recency will be selected to repeat the process until the total time for the questioning block has elapsed
Indirect questioning is most commonly used at novice or regional level tournaments
Direct Questioning
A questioner is selected on the basis of precedence and recency,
The questioner and the speaker will ask and answer each other’s questions with the ability to interrupt or refute each other for a duration of thirty seconds
The previous questioner must be seated and the next questioner in order of precedence and recency will be selected to repeat the process until the total amount of questioning “blocks” for the specified speaker have been used
Direct questioning is most commonly used at statewide and national tournaments of a varsity level.
For quick access, check out ISD's slideshow on Cross Ex used during the 2024 EIF Congress Summer Camp!
Indirect Questioning Example
“Hi Representative. If the carbon tax is passed, how will low income Americans be affected?”
[End of questioning block]
Direct Questioning Example
“Hi Representative. A carbo tax would decrease profit for companies right?”
[Their answer]
"To make up for that loss in profit, could that cost be transferred onto customers?"
[Answers and questions back and forth until the 30 seconds is over]
Cross Examination Terminology
Precedence:
The amount of questions which a senator/representative has asked in the current session. The competitor with the least questions asked will be given priority if there are multiple who wish to question one speaker.
Questioning
One of the terms generally used when discussing the block which directly follows a speech given in either the affirmation or negation.
Permission to respond
A motion used in indirect questioning when a questionnaire feels that the debate would benefit from a reply to the response that has already been given by the speaker. Should ⅔ of those in the chamber as well as the presiding officer be in agreement, the questioner who originally raised the motion will be allowed to suspend rules and temporarily adopt a direct-questioning style.
Cross-examination
The block which directly follows a speech given in either the affirmation or negation.
Recency
The order in which senators/representatives have asked questions in the current session. Should multiple competitors with the same precedence wish to ask a question simultaneously, the competitor who asked their question furthest into the past will be selected to ask the question.
Interrogation, probing, interview
Unprofessional terms that should not be used to refer to the cross examination/questioning period in a Congress session under decorum.
Motion to extend questioning
A motion which may be raised by a competitor in the session who wishes for the current speaker to be questioned for a duration longer than originally allowed by the rules. Should more than ⅔ of those in the chamber as well as the presiding officer be in agreement, the questioning session will be extended for the specified amount of time indicated by the competitor who originally raised the motion.
Success in Cross Ex
Direct CX as the Questioner
Be precise: 30 seconds flies by quite quickly. Do not run the risk of wasting time going back and forth about details about what was said by who.
Be focused on the current speaker: while you may have missed an opportunity to question an earlier speaker previously, staying focused on the topics of the speech given by the current speaker will guarantee the chamber the most effective information gained and will increase the chances of your question both being adequately answered as well as viewed positively by judges who appreciate attentiveness.
It’s ok to disagree with your own side. While all speakers on one side of a debate are ultimately arguing for the same action of passing or failing a piece of legislation, their rationale for doing so will differ greatly. If a speaker on your side of the debate previously made a faulty argument or one that was/could be taken apart by the opposition, name drop that competitor respectfully and make an attempt to clear up any misconceptions that were mentioned in the speech.
Take note of the speaker’s responses: the arguments, evidence, and counter arguments that are given during a cross-examination can often be the most intense and heavily dissectable pieces of information in a Congress round, and can be implemented into your own speech later in the session or into a later question, if appropriate.
Ask the speaker for something which you have, but they do not: this “something” can be a positive impact for the constituents of the legislation, or more often, a piece of evidence which supports one side of the argument and leaves the other scrambling for counterclaims. If there is a specific and relevant statistic, piece of information, stakeholder, or impact for which you, as the questioner, have acquired reliable proof but the speaker has not yet mentioned it in their speech or other questioning blocks, questioning is the time to demonstrate your widespread considerations and knowledge on the subject while giving your competitor an argument to which they could not respond with empirical proof.
Direct CX as the Speaker
Concede when necessary: While it is generally frowned upon to concede to a cross-examiner’s counterargument, if the cross-examiner mentions an argument or fact that is inevitably true and directly asks for you to evaluate the truthfulness of their statement, it would not be beneficial for the speaker to make attempts to avoid having to actually address the question itself. Instead, answer their question directly with one word - yes, no, true, or false. Then, utilize the remainder of the block to explain why the issue that was mentioned actually exists on a more nuanced level than the questioner originally allowed for you to acknowledge, and why those nuances support your side’s argument in the overall debate.
Presentational skills: While the way in which you present yourself will not matter as much as the competency, understanding, or lack thereof that you demonstrate during the actual answer to the question, exuding an aura of confidence and deep knowledge regarding the topic of discussion can never hurt. Once the presiding officer indicates the next cross examiner, begin walking towards their area in the classroom, and make eye contact with them. Nod while they are presenting their question, to demonstrate understanding, respect, and attentiveness. Speak confidently, and even if you are unsure about your response, present your response as if it is truly impactful to the round and can completely address any concerns that are mentioned by the cross-examiner.
Avoid overcomplicated terminology. In an attempt to appear sophisticated to judges and to intimidate the cross-examiner, some speakers make attempts to integrate complex words into their responses, when in reality, a much simpler synonym could communicate the argument just as effectively - if not moreso. In addition, questioning time, whether in direct or indirect questioning, is limited and simpler words can allow for more content to be transmitted and therefore more competency and understanding to be demonstrated to both judges and fellow competitors alike. For judges who are less experienced, unnecessary overcomplication of simple concepts are incomprehensible and not viewed well, and for experienced judges, using terminology which is more complicated or perhaps convoluted than is required can demonstrate that the competitor feels the need to compensate for abilities which they lack in other areas of argumentation.
Introducing new references: in direct questioning, you will be compelled to strengthen or defend your argument or the argument of another speaker on your side of the debate. Likewise, there are other times in which you must directly counter the argument of your opponent or disprove an argument that was made on the opposing side of the debate. When referring to an argument or evidence introduced by another speaker in round, you are not exempt from the expectation to refer to them as “Senator/Representative (last name).” When introducing new evidence, be sure to remain conscious of time constraints and read only the parts or quotations that are most directly relevant to the corroboration of the argument being debated. Do not forget to cite the evidence with the last name or source of the author as well as the year of publication.
Watch an example here! (Start at 14:09)
Note how the questioner stays persistent with her question. She uses a technique of leading the speaker with an easy question first before diving into her real, more difficult question. This makes the speaker have to admit to the flaws in her side.
Watch an example here! (Start at 8:30)
Note how the speaker remains calm and collected while also answering the question confidently. He doesn't have to use any jargon or difficult phrasing to sound like he knows what he is talking about!
Indirect CX as the Questioner
Do not preface: Prefacing is known as when the questioner introduces new information, context, or evidence that was not directly mentioned in the most recent speech, followed by their question which usually relates to the new information which they just presented. Prefacing is often prohibited in indirect questioning, and the questioner will be asked to take a seat if the presiding officer detects prefacing. In addition, questions which require prefacing are often too contextual and deep to be properly answered in a format which requires a strict time constraint and prohibits responses.
Keep questions brief: It is frowned upon to take up a significant portion of the questioning block by presenting a long, eloquent question which is more suited for direct questioning. While long questions may carry more weight than their more simple counterparts, they run the risk of being mistaken for prefacing as well as the speaker not being able to remember and properly respond to each portion of the question without asking the questioner to repeat certain parts of their question - which is prohibited in indirect questioning.
Do not respond: Needless to say, the purpose of indirect questioning is that the speaker can respond to a questioner to the best of their ability, and the cross-examiner is not allowed to respond, no matter how meaningful it may be to the debate. Responding to the speaker will result in the presiding officer immediately reminding you of the rules and asking you to sit down, and judges observing that you are not conscious nor obedient of the rules.
Avoid excessively short questions: Questions such as these are inconvenient to the presiding officer and in the vast majority of cases, are simply a waste of time as they are not able to adequately mention and address fallacies or advances in the speaker’s argument. Questions such as “do you support environmental protection” or “does this bill aid environmental protection” are good examples of excessively short and concise questions that do not serve to bring relevant information to the table regarding the legislation or argument at hand.
Want more help?
Watch this video by Debating for America's Youth. It goes into the ins and outs of CX featuring some important tips to get even better at asking and answering questions.
Want more help?
Watch this video by Ascend Speech and Debate taught by NSDA Champion Hunter Brown . This will go more in depth into the differences between the types of questioning blocks and how to ask good questions.
Avoid soft questions: As in direct questioning, excessively soft questions which a speaker uses solely for the purpose of strengthening their own argument or another argument that was previously brought up on their side are looked down upon by fellow competitors and judges alike due to their time-wasting nature and failure to test the strength, validity, or defensibility of the speaker’s argument. Additionally, questions which are asked to a speaker should pertain to an argument, fallacy, or impact which was mentioned in their speech - while on the contrary, most soft questions aim to defend or refute an argument that another speaker mentioned earlier in the round. With a variety of unique arguments being mentioned, refuted, and defended within a round, these types of questions simply lack relevance and appear selfish.
Avoid questions that were answered in the speech itself : This type of question demonstrates to judges and competitors that you failed to pay attention to the speech itself and are not wasting the chamber’s time on redundant arguments and answers. This type of question is only effective if it is exploring a new impact or territory which was briefly touched on, but not properly acknowledged in the speech itself and then the questioner can expand on the aforementioned new information. However, indirect questioning does not allow for such responses, and thus questions such as these can serve no meaningful purpose.
Raise new impacts: While indirect questioning does not allow for back and forth discussion between the cross-examiner and the speaker, a speaker who is forced to concede to a previously unacknowledged impact of one of their arguments or proposed solutions most likely will not have a chance to defend their argument or proposed solution against the new impact which could hurt the strength of their argument. Therefore, when a questioner asks the speaker to expand on the impacts on the stakeholders of a particular argument which was mentioned in their speech, the questioner can be credited for having opened new territory for potential refutation, defense, or impacts within the debate or legislation.
Indirect Cross-Ex as the Speaker
Defend your argument: Because the questioner is not permitted to respond to you or further dissect your answer, whatever you say in defense of your argument when doubt is raised against it is final. If an argument in your speech or on your side of the debate is questioned, tell the opposition why their doubts are null and void, and why your argument still stands in spite of their concerns - even if their concerns are taken at their highest ground.
If appropriate, say “yes, but” or “no, but.” : While it may be confusing to other competitors and judges if you automatically make attempts to deflect statements which may threaten the strength of your argument, first acknowledging the truthfulness or validity of the cross-examiner’s concern and then later expanding on it and being able to turn their concern into a corroboration for your own argument is a crucial skill which is viewed highly.
Do not ask the cross-examiner to repeat or rephrase their question: Any sort of back and forth is strictly prohibited in indirect questioning, unless a suspension of the rules is agreed upon by at least ⅔ of the chamber. Asking the questioner to rephrase or repeat the question in case it is incomprehensible is simply a waste of time that accomplishes nothing effective for the debate nor either of the competitors involved. Instead, state “I’m sorry I’m afraid I can’t quite understand the question” and wait for the presiding officer to call on the next questioner. If you can partially understand the question, answer the part that you may and state “I’m not quite sure if I’m understanding you correctly, senator, but…..”
Presentational skills: Since indirect questioning blocks tend to move faster, the direct-questioning technique of walking around the classroom to address a cross-examiner in the area of the classroom in which they are standing is inconvenient and could result in a questioning block ending before you are able to reach the desired area in the classroom. Rather, simply stand near the middle of the classroom, and turn your head or slightly shift your standing position to make direct eye contact and interaction with each questionnaire as they are called.
Do not pose a question as a part of your response: While it may be logical to respond to a question by calling out a fallacy in the cross-examiner’s line of reasoning or an argument which was raised on the opposing side of the debate, indirect questioning does not allow for the speaker or questioner to respond to each other and inserting an embedded question as a part of your response to a question could leave a hole in the debate, give room for a future speaker to refute you or answer the question you could not, or for the judges to see that you do not understand the rules and nature of indirect questioning.
For quick access, check out this slideshow on Cross Examination issues and things to avoid.
For more information on the harms of exploiting trauma and issues in debate, read this blog article by 2023 Yale Finals PO, Owen Casey.
Types of Questions to Avoid
The softball question. Usually asked from a person who gave a speech on the same side as the current speaker in order to reinforce an argument in their speech, or an argument on their side of the debate. This type of question does not require analysis or involve debating, refutation, or clash, and can take time away from those who have prepared questions which may further the debate or bring new perspectives, arguments, or points of refutation. Not only are these types of questions redundant, ineffective, and selfish, they are often frowned upon by judges.
The personal question. Because of the incredible networking provided by forensics as well as the proximity of competitors, especially those who share a local circuit, competitors may find it challenging to participate in competition while blocking out every personal detail, memory, or relationship from the past with other competitors. A question asked in a session of Congress should always pertain to the debate and topic itself, and should never make personal attacks, statements, or assumptions on another competitor.
The "spread" question. If you read your question too hastily, the speaker, other competitors, and the judges cannot understand what is happening on either side of the debate. The consequences of this in direct questioning are less severe, and only require the questioner to waste precious time from their questioning block to restate the question. However, in indirect questioning, the questioner is not allowed to restate the question and the lost question will count against their precedence, recency, and give a poor impression of their public speaking skills.
The intimidation question. In a debate, competitors are making constant attempts to prove others wrong while proving themselves correct, however questions that are asked with disrespectful language or an excessively condescending tone are not conducive to the debate, do not give good impressions to other competitors and judges, and is a violation of competition and NSDA Honor Society decorum. This type of question includes attributing overly negative or inhumane character traits with a competitor(s) who may disagree on a moral viewpoint.
The repetition question. Asking a speaker to restate an argument, impact, or line which has already been explicitly and doubtlessly expressed during the speech itself wastes time for the chamber as well as deprives other competitors of time that could be used to question and advance the debate. In the most likely scenario that this type of question cannot be granted a proper follow-up by time and questioning constraints in the chamber, asking a speaker to directly reiterate their words is unconducive in all forms of questioning, especially in direct. A questioner who asks this type of question also gives the judges an impression that they were not paying attention or making interpretations during the speech itself.
Incorporating questions and answers into future speeches
Just because you have not yet given a speech on a piece of legislation at any given point in time doesn’t mean that you should refrain from questioning other speakers or paying attention to the questions that are being asked to speakers on both sides of the debate! In fact, this poses a fantastic opportunity for you to add content - either refutation, corroboration, or defense - into your own speech and demonstrate your ability to be adaptable in round. Here are some tips on how to keep track of questions, answers, and potential points that are worth mentioning in your own speech.
Write down questions that a speaker failed to properly answer or account for.
Having the ability to type or write fast is useful in this case. Jot down the name of the speaker, the name of the questioner, and the portion of the question that was not properly addressed. Later, edit your own speech to incorporate an answer to the question - and make sure to respectfully name the speaker who you are referencing, and the questioner who posed the initial question for the reference and clarity of judges and other competitors in round.
This technique can be used for speakers on your own side or speakers on the opposing side of the debate. In the former case, it is often utilized as a mechanism to distinguish yourself in the eyes of the judges, especially at higher level tournaments when each competitor can pose strong arguments of their own. In the latter case, it is used as a mechanism to further advocate for your own side in the debate or to demonstrate the invalidity of an argument on the opposing side. In both cases, this technique is utilized as a means of demonstrating one’s own competency over another speaker(s) in round. It is worth noting that respect and boundaries should still remain between competitors in and out of round.
When addressing a question that was posed to a speaker on your own side:
“While senator/representative X failed to account for ___ in their cross examination block with senator/representative Y, I’ll be the one to provide you with that answer which ultimately favors the affirmation/negation.”
“When senator/representative Y posed a valid fallacy in senator/representative X’s logic, though senator/representative X was unable to properly defend the ___ in favor of the affirmation/negation, I’ll provide evidence which deems senator/representative Y’s concern null and void.”
When addressing question that was posed to a speaker on the opposing side;
“When senator/representative Y questioned the practicality or fallacy or senator/representative X’s argument, senator/representative X was unable to fully account for why this senator/representative Y’s concern was not detrimental to the affirmation/negation’s ideal logic.”
“Whilst senator/representative X previously attempted to turn senator/representative Is argument in favor of the affirmation/negation, I’ll demonstrate why the deeper nuances of that argument fundamentally turn in favor of the opposing side”
Take detailed notes on the round and the questions asked and answered to keep track on what happens. This is called flowing. Here is an example of a round flowed above.
Expanding on a previous line of questioning
When a speaker fails to or due to time constraints, is not able to fully address a question, you have the opportunity to further question them on their line of reasoning or defense of their own argument. This technique is especially useful in the following cases:
The speaker previously appeared to be avoiding the question due to apparent lack of a competent and defensible argument.
You have a piece of evidence or argument which may further the argument or fallacy that was mentioned by the previous questioner, which may force the speaker to defend their argument further or concede.
When continuing on a line of questioning, ensure that you are not redundantly asking questions that have already been asked. Make sure the question that you are posing contains new information which may further the debate or has not been mentioned by a previous cross-examiner.
Ensure that you make clear the line of questioning on which you are building upon, and the reason why i feel that line of questioning merits further discussion:
“To build on that line of questioning” (when you are expanding on a question posed by the speaker immediately preceding)
“Adding onto senator/representative X’s point….”
“When you mentioned in response to senator/representative X’s question, could you explain….”
Tracking amount of questions
During the round, a presiding officer should recognize speakers and give them the opportunity to ask questions in order of randomness. Once an order of precedence has been established, the presiding officer should give the opportunity to ask questions based on first precedence, and when two questionnaires have the same precedence in round, recency is used.
Speeches and questionnaires should be accounted for in precedence and recency separately. In other words, giving a speech should not count against the precedence of a competitor when they are hoping to ask questions, and asking questions should not count against the precedence of a competitor when they wish to give a speech.
If you believe that you should have been given a block of questioning before another competitor on the basis of precedence or recency, interrupt the questioning block before it commences. Raise a “point of order” to the presiding officer, and state that you believe that there has been an error made in tracking of precedence and recency. The presiding officer will either confirm or deny the belief, and award the questioning block to the competitor who has the most favorable precedence or recency.
Due to time constraints in congressional rounds and a desire to give the utmost undivided attention and respect to each speaker at the front of the room, it is frowned upon to question the presiding officer’s tracking of precedence or recency (for speeches or questioning) if there is no reason to believe that an error or injustice has been committed.
How do I know what type of questioning to use?
Email communication to coaches and school directors, potentially with additional links or an email for questions, concerns, and clarifications
General statement: many tournaments simply state - via tournament webpage or email communication - that their rounds abide by the most updated version of NSDA rules which involves direct questioning blocks of 30 seconds each: 4 blocks following the first speech on the affirmation, the first speech on the negation, and then 2 blocks for each speaker thereafter.
If none of the aforementioned communications are provided, it’s a good idea to abide by the word of the parliamentarian in session. Take the parliamentarian’s word ahead of any other judge, competitor, or presiding officer.
Generally, a tournament or a league of tournaments will provide a rulebook or a clarification of rules and policies via one of the following:
Link on the tournament page on Speechwire or Tabroom
Adaptability to various types of questioning:
While speech content and composition can often be anticipated and “prepped” due to a competitor’s awareness of their own precedence/recency in round, the topic of the legislative debate, or the side which is taken in the debate, questioning is less predictable for a variety of factors:
A speaker is not aware of which competitor, on which side of the debate, will be engaging in cross-examination directly with them.
A cross-examiner may introduce new evidence (prefacing) or impacts which the speaker is not informed on to a deeper level.
