|
"More Cross- examinations are more suicidal than homicidal There
are two reasons for this: a mistaken conception as to the function of
cross-examination, and faulty technique." 1
Cross-examination is a powerful yet dreadfully underutilized persuasive
tool. All components of the two hour debate affect the impressions of
the judge. Therefore, simply staging for three minutes while your partner
prepares his or her next speech represents a lost persuasive opportunity
at best. At its worst, the judge begins to lose interest in the process,
thereby reducing your ability to convince him or her. Competitive debaters
are extremely conscious of wasted time when speaking. Coaches drill them
for word economy. Debaters themselves perform physical exercises designed
to improve their rate of speech so that not a moment of persuasive opportunity
is lost. Yet, at the end of a powerful speech many of these same debaters
are willing to simply waste three minutes which could be used effectively.
The roots of this problem are two. First, debaters fail to recognize the
persuasive impact which a good cross-examination can generate. A new perspective
on the importance of the process is needed. Second, coaches and debaters
alike, lack an effective method for training and instruction in cross-examination
skills. A systemic approach to cross-examination instruction is essential.
Even though a skillful cross-examiner employs years of experience when
practicing his or her craft, it is possible to develop an instructional
system designed to rapidly improve less experienced debaters. After all,
speed and word economy drills are simply codified experience in a teachable
form.
Therefore, this article begins with a new perspective on the persuasive
impact of cross-examination. An initial attempt to develop a new instructional
system for cross-examination follows. The system is designed to help debaters
with or without coaches, and many of the tips must first be internalized
by the debater who wishes to improve his or her cross-examination skills.
A
NEW PERSPECTRVE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
Personal Clarification
It is essential that
the questioning team fully understand both their opponents arguments and
the implications of those arguments. Otherwise, your subsequent speeches
will become patently unpersuasive as the judge and your opponents quickly
realize that you do not understand the position you are attacking. This
does not mean, however, that cross-examination should be used examining
evidence silently. The large questions of clarification must be asked
aloud. This is the most efficient way for both partners to receive clarification.
More importantly, though, because an oral cross-examination is a dialogue,
the information obtained is much more specific than that obtained through
the monologue of reading a card silently to yourself. Specific misconceptions
are identified and addressed most efficiently through the oral dialogue
of cross-examination.
Judge Clarification
The judge is often
the last person in the room to know what is going on. This is in no way
intended as an insult to the judges. Rather it is a recognition of the
fact that when two teams devote extensive research time preparing to respond
to each other's arguments strategically, even the best educated judge
begins the round behind. To further complicate the judging task, cleverly
conceived strategies (designed to "trick" the well prepared
opponents) are certain to mislead and confuse the judge as well. Arguments
which seem irrelevant when first presented frequently become the principle
issues upon which the round is decided. The judge is left alone in the
back of the room holding two cards with no idea why the debaters believe
one claim should be preferred to the other.
The best way to prevent this unfortunately frequent occurrence lies in
the proper utilization of cross-examination. A well executed cross-examination
can highlight important elements of your strategy for the judge, without
unduly tipping your hand to your opponents. Proper isolation of issues
initiates the judge by familiarizing him or her with the criteria you
want used when determining the better of the two arguments in conflict.
Cross-examination should be viewed as an excellent opportunity to induce
the judge to evaluate the debate according to those meta-criteria which
favor your argumentative strategy.
Argument Building
This argument building
function of cross-examination is composed of two parts. The first is redirection
of the debate. The goal in redirection is to force your opponent to address
your strongest arguments directly. Often, a good speaker appears to be
answering your strong arguments during the speech. However, under the
intense spotlight of a redirection cross-examination, the complete lack
of intelligent argumentation will inevitably emerge.
The second component of argument building is the exposure of weak arguments
in the opponent's position. With the arguments still fresh in the mind
of the judge, artfully requiring your opponents to slowly and clearly
explain their weakest arguments is often all that is required to render
them completely unpersuasive. Together, redirection and exposure deliver
more persuasive force than reading an additional five cards in your speech.
Impression Formation
It really does matter
what the judge thinks of you. This is an important point which debaters
almost universally deny. In our effort to remain die hard rationalists,
debaters often forget that persuasion is affected by the character of
the speaker. Aristotle divided arguments into three types - logos (formal
logical appeals), pathos (emotional appeals), and ethos (appeals based
upon the speaker's character). These divisions are not as distinct as
you might imagine. They overlap significantly. A speaker's credibility
is inextricably tied to these three types of appeals. In spite of the
best efforts to base a decision solely "on the arguments," no
judge can completely separate his or her evaluation of the speaker's logical
appeals from his or her impression of the speaker's character.
Recognition of this fact provides further motivation to accept this new
perspective on cross-examination. Knowing that all of your arguments are
evaluated at least partly based upon your character should generate a
strong desire to learn ways to improve your persuasive advantage in the
one part of the debate which best reveals your character. Most debaters
are decent human beings with a great deal of respect for those with whom
they interact. However, many cross-examination styles currently in vogue
portray the interactants as self-serving, egomaniacs with little regard
(let alone respect) for each other. Consciously or unconsciously, these
behaviors influence the manner in which your arguments are evaluated.
TEACHING
THE ART OF CROSS-EXAMINATION
The instructional
regime outlined here focuses upon three distinct aspects of the well prepared
cross-examiner. These are mental preparation, physical preparation, and
stylistic preparation. Each of the three preparations includes specific
steps for its achievement. I must stress again that this system is intended
only as a starting point from which a more complex and thorough system
will eventually emerge.
Mental Preparation
Achieving Calm.
If you are nervous during cross-examination, you are unlikely to achieve
much. It is important to relax. While the other two aspects of your mental
preparation (confidence and concentration) will go a long way toward relaxing
you, nothing will completely replace your personal desire to relax. UItimately,
only you know when you are becoming too tense, and you must actively prevent
that. However, your partner and coach can help.
During practice rounds you should devise a signal which you and your partner
will both remember. In the heat of cross-examination, a tense debater
is unlikely to benefit from an open admonition to "chill out!"
Instead, that debater is likely to feel belittled and become even more
tense. Therefore, the signal should be one that only the two debaters
recognize. That way, if you are becoming too uptight, your partner can
calmly and subtly tell you so without embarrassment.
Achieving Confidence. In many ways, cross-examination
is a battle of wills. If you are a young debater with little experience,
you are unlikely to elicit much cooperation from a senior debater who
has won five tournaments. The reason for this is that the older and more
experienced debater is simply much more confident. While it is beneficial
to present yourself confidently, this section presents strategies for
overcoming the confidence gap. If you have cross-examination strategies
designed for each possible situation, you will always appear confident
while executing them.
In the case of a confidence mismatch, you can employ one of two cross-examination
strategies to hide the gap. The journalistic style is quite effective.
This strategy plays on the overconfidence of the more experienced debater.
The goal of this approach is to ask for information with each question.
When using the journalistic style, the less experienced debater appears
to be calmly interviewing the other. The impression created by this approach
is that the questioner is not stupid, just less familiar with the arguments
that the other debater has made. By calmly asking straightforward, interview
style questions, the cross-examiner will encourage the more experienced
debater to reveal much more about the argument. In other words, this strategy
places the debater answering the questions on a pedestal and encourages
him or her to "show off." The ego inflation generated by this
approach will frequently tempt the answerer to explain the arguments in
such great detail that the flaws become obvious as well.
A second strategy is somewhat less effective, but in certain situations
it will yield exceptional results. This is the strategy of the endless
"WHY?" This strategy also plays on the overconfidence of a more
experienced debater by constantly challenging his or her reasoning. This
is a more aggressive approach than the journalistic style, but one which
is as effective at eliciting overexplanation from the opponent. An overconfident
debater faced with a series of questions, which he or she believes are
stupid ones, will strive to reveal the simplicity of the question by answering
in excessive detail. Overexplanation of this type damages the image of
overconfident debaters by making them appear condescending. At the same
time, the excessive information usually helps expose the weaknesses in
their arguments. If this happens, the intelligent, though less experienced
debater has already won the cross-examination contest.
Maintaining Concentration. A single minded cross-examiner is the most
difficult to defeat. There are no concentration drills. The only way to
learn to concentrate is to learn to shut out all distractions and remain
focused on your objective. Good physical preparation (of the type discussed
below) provides you with the objective, but maintaining focus on that
objective is up to you. Nevertheless, it is included in this instructional
system because many debaters will follow all of the other training tips
and still have trouble maximizing cross-examination. For those, a heightened
awareness of concentration deficiency is in order.
Physical Preparation
Researching
Cross-examination Questions. Physical preparation for a devastating
cross-examination begins at home. When researching the opponents arguments
(affirmative or negative), you should make notes of arguments you do not
understand, qualifying statements by the authors, and arguments which
lack support. Then, when constructing the final blocks against the other
team's arguments, combine this list of questions with other questions
designed to set up your strategy. Armed with these cross-examination "blocks,"
even the most timid debater will appear confident. In addition, pre-round
question construction gives you the opportunity to devise those loaded
questions previous authors have constantly advised.
A line of questioning which appears to set up one argument can be used
to elicit responses which establish the basis for an entirely different
argument. Working with your partner before a tournament, you will be able
to predict responses to specific questions. This will enable you to lead
your opponents to the "pit of doom." An example best illustrates
this concept. In this example, the affirmative plan gives environmental
aid to East Central Europe. The cross-examination path to the "pit
of doom" unfolds as follows:
Q: Must the governments
of Eastern Europe use this aid solely for environmental cleanup?
A: Yes.
Q: Wouldn't they be tempted to divert the funds to improve their economy
and neglect the environment?
A: No. Our solvency evidence says that if they have the money, they
will use it on environmental programs only.
The affirmative has
fallen into the pit. In order to prove their plan is topical, and that
it solves their pollution advantage, the affirmative team was forced to
claim that no money would be diverted to the economy. Now the negative
can argue a disadvantage which claims that environmental programs cause
economic collapse in the region and the affirmative is unable to claim
to turn the disadvantage through the diversion of aid. The "pit of
doom" strategy is one excellent example of a cross-examination approach
which requires careful pre-round preparation.
During the Speech Preparation. Extensive pre-round preparation
is not the end of the job. Rather, it is only the prerequisite to effective
in-round preparation. During your opponent's speech, it is essential that
you continue to prepare for your cross-examination. In order to do this,
you must develop a system of symbols which you can rapidly use while flowing.
You need to mark at least three important items. First, you should mark
any card or argument which you did not understand fully. This includes
those arguments which you believe to be the foundations for tricks by
your opponents. You will likely want to address these questions first
in your cross-examination. A simple question mark is a good symbol to
use.
Second, you should mark those arguments or cards which play a role in
your pre-round questions. In other words, if the disadvantage lacks an
internal link, and you intend to expose that fact, it is smart to mark
the evidence which the negative claims to prove that link. Then during
your cross-examination you can ask the negative debater to re-read that
evidence. If you are prepared to question the quality of the 1ink beforehand,
forcing your opponents to re-read it is the best way to set up those questions.
Finally, you need to mark arguments or cards which bolster your positions.
If you are the second negative and you hear evidence in the first affirmative
constructive which supports the link to your disadvantage, it is usually
to your advantage to mark that evidence. During the subsequent cross-examination,
you can challenge the quality of that evidence in an effort to entice
the first affirmative to overclaim its quality. The first affirmative
will be in the unenviable position of either weakening the 1AC advantage
or strengthening the link to the disadvantage.
Post-Speech Preparation. This section may seem a little odd at
first, but if you give it a try, it will greatly improve your cross-examination
skills. In almost every situation, the non-questioning member of the team
needs to examine some of the cards read by the previous speaker. This
is fine and should continue. However, It is best to use preparation time
immediately following the speech to ask for the evidence, rather than
wasting cross-examination time. There are several advantages to this approach.
First, your opponents are more likely to find the evidence quickly. This
is primarily because they are undistracted by questions. However, they
are also likely to feel guilty if they stall during your preparation time.
At any rate, most of the delay involved in the evidence exchange process
is eliminated by using this strategy.
Second, the cross-examination remains focused. With the evidence trading
out of the way, you can ask your questions rapidly and not lose control
of the cross-examination period. This establishes an intelligent, well-organized,
and confident persona. It also enables you to cover more ground. All the
pre-round and during the speech preparation you do is worthless if you
do not have time to use it in the debate. The strategy of post-speech
preparation time enables you to carve out a full and effective three minute
period of intense questioning.
Finally, the preparing partner is unhurt by this strategy. By getting
the evidence sooner, the three minutes of cross-examination is used for
uninterrupted preparation. In the unlikely event that a second affirmative
or second negative is able to prepare in less than three minutes, the
previously used time is not wasted. Rather, the efficient preparer is
able to immediately begin speaking at the end of the cross-examination.
This continues the aggressive attack begun in the cross-examination. It
also keeps the opposing team off balance by preventing the previous speaker
from flowing his or her speech.
Stylistic Preparation
Personal Demeanor.
This is a difficult subject on which to give advice. However, the best
cross-examination styles belong to those who remain calm, exhibit confidence,
and stay in control of the situation. This style requires a great deal
of mental preparation. You need to realize that questions and answers
are not personal attacks. The best cross-examiner is one who remains detached
from any personal stake in the questions and answers. It is not a personal
affront when the answerer refuses to admit that your disadvantage outweighs
his or her case. It is nothing more than an attempt to minimize the damage
your questions may cause. The best way to view this process is as a discussion
between friends. Maintaining that attitude generates a dialogue which
presents the arguments of both teams to the judge for comparison. If you
select your questions wisely, you will present a series of comparisons
which favor your point of view. That is the most effective way to use
cross-examination. Pursuing your opponent with a club, insisting on a
yes or no answer, only makes you look bad.
Know When To Say When. You should never ask too many questions.
The natural stopping point is obvious if you arrive at the type of mutual
comparison just described. Beyond that point, extra questions generate
two bad effects. Either you appear to be badgering your opponent, thereby
damaging your image, or you allow your opponent to remember an answer
which was previously forgotten. In either case, the effectiveness of the
cross-examination is lost. The best practice for this is to have partners
cross-examine each other. If a third observer (preferably a coach) can
be included, the natural stopping point can be noted. This way the debaters
begin to get the "feel" for the proper resolution of a line
of questions.
CONCLUSION
Cross-examination
is an art. Nevertheless, debaters can be taught to improve this all important
skill. Improvement in cross-examination skills requires, first, an appreciation
of the persuasive impact of the process. Second, the necessary skills
must be taught and practiced. Yet, to become a truly great cross-examiner,
there is no substitute for a thorough understanding of the issues and
arguments in the debate. Extensive research into affirmative plans and
disadvantages you are likely to encounter, will improve your cross-examination
skills faster than any drill I could devise.
I recommend extensive pre-tournament preparation and practice. However,
the best practice comes in an actual debate when you confidently embark
on your persuasive mission. Do not sacrifice that opportunity to a silent
examination of evidence. Realize the goldmine of persuasion which cross-examination
provides and use it to the fullest.
Notes
1 Francis L. Wellman,
The Art of Cross-Examination, Fourth Edition (New York: Dorset
Press, 1936), p.204.
2 The author
barrows this term from Zac Grant whose article entitled "Cross Examination"
represents the last time the topic was addressed in this forum. See Zac
Grant, "Cross Examination," in Arms Sales: The Politics of
Destruction, ed. Allan D. Louden and Roger E. Solt (Winston-Salem,
NC: Debater's Research Guide, 1982), p. 25-28.
3 See Grant,
p. 26 and Ronald Emery Lee and Karen King Lee, Arguing Persuasively
(New York: Longman, 1989), p. 218-219.
4 The author
again recognizes Zac Grant for the terminology used here.
Suggested Readings
Church, Russell and
Charles Wilbanks. Values and Policies in Controversy. Scottsdale.
AZ; Gorsuch Scarisbrick, 1986, pp. 217-23 1. -
Henderson,
Bill. "A system of Teaching Cross-Examination Techniques." Communication
Education, 27 (March 1978), 112-118.
Lee, Ronald
Emery and Karen King Lee. Arguing Persuasively. New York: Longman,
1989. pp. 212-222.
Sheckels, Theodore
F. Debating: Applied Rhetorical Theory. New York: Longman, 1984,
pp. 232-248.
Ziegemueller,
George. "Cross Examination Re-examined." Argument in Transition.
Proceedings of the Third Summer Conference on Argumentation, edited
by David Zarefsky, Malcolm Sillars, and Jack Rhodes, Annandale, VA: Speech
Communication Association, 1983, pp. 893-903. |