What do you do once you have nailed down the opponent’s argument, and you want to make it look bad in cross-examination?
Obviously, asking your opponent if their argument is wrong (given certain facts you’ve established) is a disastrous plan.
But is there a way to get your opponent to admit to their argument being lame?
Yes, sort of.
Cunning rephrasing
While you can’t get your opponent to directly admit they’re wrong, you can make them admit to something that makes them look wrong.
That’s the key.
Cross-Examination is about subtle power. The less expected, the better.
What you have to do is summarize their argument in an unflattering way, then ask if that’s what they are saying. The key is making it bad enough so that it’s noticeable to the judge, while accurate enough that your opponent can’t dispute it.
Example:
You: You read some evidence saying Iran won’t touch the strait of hormuz. What was the source of that evidence?
Opponent: Jonathan Bloke the Second, a reporter for New York Times.
You: A reporter, alright, what was Jonathan’s reasoning behind why they won’t touch the strait of hormuz? Did he provide a reason or did he just assert that?
Opponent: This specific quote doesn’t say why, but it’s because it would be dangerous for Iran.
You: So basically your evidence for the point that Iran won’t close the strait of hormuz is a reporter saying it won’t happen?
Opponent: Yeah, but it’s just logical
Because you had them answer the questions leading up to your last question, they have no choice but to admit it’s true.
Almost no one will go down without a fight, though. So he says “but it’s just logical” to defend his credibility.
Your partner can bring up the line of questioning in his next speech and just tell the judge, “Once [name] realized that his evidence is meaningless, he resorted to saying it is ‘just logical’. Keep in mind that in his speech he emphasized his evidence as an important point. Also keep in mind we read our own evidence on the issue from a guy whose living is to study the Middle East.”
If you don’t bring it back up in your speech it’s practically useless.
But what if your opponent doesn’t even say “yes”? Here are a couple of examples.
You: So basically your evidence for the point that Iran won’t close the strait of hormuz is a reporter saying it won’t happen?
Opponent: No, it’s just logical that Iran wouldn’t do something so dangerous.
You: Did your evidence say that, or did you come up with it?
Don’t let them weasel out! If they try to slither away from your question by denying it and giving an irrelevant statement to hide it, catch them and force them to confront it directly.
Another example of confrontation: if their response to that question was “That is the reason Jonathan Bloke the Second wrote that evidence”, then ask them where in the evidence it cites that as the reason. Whoops.
A less slithery example:
You: So basically your evidence for the point that Iran won’t close the strait of hormuz is a reporter saying it won’t happen?
Opponent: Well, it’s just logical that Iran wouldn’t do something so dangerous.
You: Returning to my original question, did the reporter cite that reason or is it something you came up with?
In this case, your opponent tried to get away from the question by simply using the famed “well”, and saying something irrelevant.
Because he didn’t actually answer your question, you can just say “returning to my original question” and rephrase it slightly to match the situation.
Here’s one last example to help you wrap your head around this tip.
1 You: Your position is that the Qatari government supports terrorism because in 2011 [some random government official] contributed to Hamas?
Opponent: Well that’s not the only instance of the government supporting terrorism, it happene–
2 You: But the only evidence you’ve read specific to the government was the 2011 example, right?
Opponent: I read three examples of supporting terrorism
3 You: Returning to my original question, you’ve only read one specific to the government, right?
Opponent: Yes but the government is not the only one contributing.
4 You: Your case is to sanction the Qatari government for supporting terrorism, correct?
Opponent: Yes
5 You: Are you sanctioning individuals?
Opponent: No, just the government.
6 You: So you want to sanction the government based on one example from 4 years ago?
Opponent: No, there are multiple examples
7 You: Multiple examples that you haven’t read, correct?
Opponent: Yes but I’ll read more.
8 You: I sure hope so, thank you. Looks like we’re out of time.
I provide this example because it took a long time to get to the bottom of the issue, and in this instance you didn’t really get that much out of your opponent.
Cross-Examinations are hard in practice, opponents don’t roll over and die for you.
But in this example, you didn’t back off. You ferociously stopped any escape routes your opponent tried to craft.
Question 1 is a subtle example of the main point of this post.
Question 2 stopped him from referencing other evidence that he hasn’t read.
Question 3 stopped him from referencing irrelevant evidence he’s read.
Question 4 and 5 are a set up for the argument that individual donations don’t matter if they’re not part of the government, since the affirmative case is punishing the government, not individuals.
Question 6 is an overt example of this post.
Question 7 reminds him he can’t get away with referencing non-existent evidence.
Your ending statement (8) does a quick jab which makes it clear that he needs to read that evidence in his next speech. If you don’t feel like saying something that strong, you can just ask, “Yes, could you please read that evidence in your next speech?”
Side note: Never say you’re out of questions if your time ran out, say the time ran out. The first communicates that you were done anyway, the second communicates that you had more to ask.
For more posts about Cross-Examination, click here!
To get reminded of new tips, subscribe to my email list below.
Leave a Reply