Author: Matt Liu, University of Wyoming Director of Debate Cross-x is one of my parts of debate, so I have a lot to say about it. This cross-x skills post is broken up into three posts. The first post provided an overview of the purpose of cross-x and types of questions. The second post broke down my most important big picture tips for cross-x. This final post is about more specific do’s and don’ts.. This post bats clean-up in our cross-x series, with a couple of important observations about frequent mistakes in CX that can be easily fixed. Here are 8 more tips for upping your CX game: 1. Don’t do the “Control F” test
“Where does this evidence say X?” “Can you read a line from your evidence that says Y?” These questions bog you down and they don’t do much for you. You actually lose time asking this question, because it’s quicker to make the argument in a speech where your opponent can’t obfuscate in response. “Your evidence doesn’t say X” also isn’t a complex, hard, or nuanced argument, and if you read our second post on cross-x you now we think cross-x should be used for dealing with the hard and important questions in the debate. Last, you’ve got little recourse if your opponent lies, bends the truth, or worst of all, makes an argument that’s better than the card. If they lie about what the card says, now you’re stuck in a shouting match over the ev instead of making arguments. “They said / she said” doesn’t help you persuade the judge of anything, it’s just painful to watch. It’s going to drastically slow down your pace. On the other hand, if they make an arg that’s better than the ev, all you’ve got is “your card doesn’t say that,” but judges like smart analytics more than bad cards, and you just gave them an opportunity to better explain their arguments. 2. Communicate with your partner; integrate their arguments When your partner asks good questions, integrate those arguments into your speech. There’s nothing worse than a devastating CX of the 1AC followed by the 1N ignoring all those great arguments about the case when they get there. This can be hard. For example, you might be furiously prepping your 2AC, but you need to have to have one ear open to hear arguments that your partner makes during CX of the 1NC, so you can integrate all the smart things they say. This advice is most important during the CX of the 2NC. The CX of the 2NC is a love-letter to the 1AR. It’s a fireside chat with your 1A. The 2A is the captain of the aff ship, they get to zoom out in the middle of the debate, think about how arguments interact, figure out what the most important issues are, and then use the CX of the 2NC put a spotlight on those issues. But that spotlight is also a Bat Signal for directing the 1AR. When the 2A CXs the 2NC and says (implicitly) “I think this is the most important issue in the debate and you’re losing it”, they’re coaching you, the 1A, on arguments to make during the 1AR. Don’t ignore that coaching! Don’t make them repeat it during prep time. Keep one ear open during CX so you can integrate those arguments into your speech. 3. Don’t interrupt your partner “Is tag team allowed?” is one of the most popular pre-round questions for judges on the local HS circuit I came from, just after “are you okay with speed.” My advice to you: stop asking the question. If the other team asks it, no matter what the judge’s answer, don’t do it. Do you have a very good question you think should be asked? Tell it to your partner before cross-x. Interruptions destroy your partner’s rhythm and signal a lack of confidence in your partner that undermines your credibility. It’s also gross, nobody wants to vote for the team with a rude debater who thinks their partner can’t handle their own speeches (especially in the sadly far more common dude speaking over someone who’s not a dude situation). Most importantly, you have something you’re supposed to be doing. Maybe it’s prepping the 2AC or the 2NC, but if your partner is doing the CX, you have another task in front of you. Intervening in their CX means you’re going to do a worse job at your task, or suck up more prep time later. The urge to interrupt is strong. I have a theory on that I call the hotseat effect. If you’re not in the hotseat, if the pressure isn’t on you, you think you can give a (marginally) better answer to a question. And maybe you can- marginally! That’s why I’ve got three rules for interrupting your partner (we’re going to go on a little tangent that isn’t just about CX here). Rules number one is you do not do it unless you are going to lose because of what they said or didn’t say (ex: dropping condo). If the issue doesn’t cross that line, don’t intervene. And, for goodness sakes, flow. Don’t be that person that says “extend X” and your partner responds “I did earlier.” Rule number two is plan your intervention. You shouldn’t intervene until you’ve written every word of what you want to say. That will help you with word economy- maximizing the efficiency of your intervention. It will also prevent the worst type of intervention: telling your partner to answer an arg without telling them how. “You dropped the fracturing link turn” isn’t helpful: if your partner did drop it, they almost certainly won’t have an answer off the top of their head. You need to be prepared to tell them what to say. Last point on planning the intervention: find a natural point in your partner’s speech to intervene, don’t interrupt them in the middle of a sentence. Third, never intervene in the bottom thirty seconds of a speech. Chances are, there’s not enough time to fix whatever you think is important. But you will definitely tradeoff with something your partner thinks is important, during the most high-pressure time of their speech, and cause them to end on a sour note leaving a bad taste in the judge’s mouth. 4. Verbal slip-ups are not concessions At least once a tournament I watch a debate where one debater believes that a misunderstanding from cross-x is a vital concession that they can ride to the 2N/AR. I’m talking about a scenario where a debater too intent on saying what they want to say and not listening misinterprets an opponent’s answer and hears what they want to hear instead of a nuanced or hedged response that was given. Another scenario is when the CXer is talking about one thing and the CXee is talking about another: you might hear the words you want to hear, but I (the judge) am not convinced they had the meaning you wanted. CX is binding, and traps are important, but if you’re not listening carefully to your opponent you might not be getting the W from CX you think you are. 5. Avoid the following phrases: “If you make that argument we’ll answer it.” They literally just made the argument, please answer it. Saying this is admitting you don’t know the answer. “That evidence is on fire” (etc). Not a warrant; not an argument. “This is my cross-x.” If you have to say it, it’s not anymore. 6. Don’t CX after the timer goes off Speech times are non-negotiable. You don’t get to use prep to add a minute of arguments to a constructive or a rebuttal, and you don’t get to use prep to add a minute of arguments to cross-x. It is a speech. Do you want to ask a clarifying question during prep time? Sure. But the judge is no dummy- if you’re trying to make an argument, stop. Don’t try be sneaky, we see through you, and we’re annoyed. Speech time is speech time; prep time is prep time. Cross-x is no different. If someone is doing this to you, weigh your options. You can choose to not look up, say “cross-x is over”, and keep working on what you were prepping. That’s your prerogative, and is often the best choice. However, there are a few scenarios where this might not be the best option. The first is if you believe your judge might find a “procedural complaint” cowardly, like you’re avoiding the issues. The second is if you think more CX time benefits you. If they’re the ones that opened the door, and you’re confident you can crush them in CX Round 2, go for it. The last is if they don’t take no for an answer. If they keep arguing throughout prep time, many judges will shut that down, but if your judge doesn’t you can’t just let them have that time. Just don’t find yourself in the situation where you’ve forfeited the ethos advantage. I.E., they stay in their CX position, but you’ve awkwardly gone back to your prep position, and it’s not clear whether you’re committed to keep answering questions or not. Be firm in your choice, whatever it is. 7. Setting up the K in the CX of the 1AC In my opinion, most critiques couple best with alt causes and solvency arguments on the case. For example, if the aff has a biodiversity scenario, pointing out all of the other things collapsing BioD (ocean dead zones, plastics, toxic dumping, habitat reduction, deforestation, climate change, etc etc etc) can really help you: it sets up a devastating try or die argument for the alt. “The plan is a silver bullet solution to one facet of the environmental crisis, but there’s hundreds of ways humanity is destroying the environment not just [aff’s internal link here]. That means it’s try or die for the alt- only changing the system as a whole has a chance to remedy the problems the aff ignores.” Of course, those CX questions should be coupled with ev on case to prove your args. 8. Don’t draw attention to dropped arguments This is partly about avoiding the temptation of easy wins in cross-x (which aren’t as useful as CX’ing nuanced and more important parts of the debate), but cross-x’ing dropped arguments is almost always a recipe for a terrible backfire. If an argument really is dropped, you can’t lose on it. There is no potential gain from a cross-x question about it, but, you’re opening the door for new answers. “You can’t say that, it’s new” sacrifices the moral high ground when you’re the one that brought it up. We want to hear from you! Disagree with something we said? Have a question? Feel free to jump in in the comments, we'll be sure to respond! Do you have a topic you’d like us to address in a future post? Email us at [email protected] Go Pokes!
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
MissionWyoming Debate Roundup is dedicated to providing quality debate content to Wyoming and Rocky Mountain area high school debaters. We’re a resource for Wyoming debaters by Wyoming debate coaches. Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|