All credit goes to Simon Sefzik for coming up with this Cross-Examination tip.
The question bluff is a way of getting the other team to impact your arguments for you.
Here’s an example:
Situation: Affirmative mandate unintentionally alienates, say, Iran. It’s in an effort to get Iran to stop their nuclear program, and their plan is meant to be diplomatic about it. But something in their mandate undermines this. You’re negative.
You: “Your plan is to [x], right?”
You: “Why don’t we just increase our sanctions on Iran, or punish them?”
Opponent: [long rant about how bad that would be]
Once again, the situation is that the Affirmative team doesn’t know their mandate actually inadvertently hurts/punishes Iran.
The way you asked the question makes it seem like you want to present a counterplan. Even if they don’t think that, they will just see it as a way to bash on the negative team.
This will cause the Affirmative team to go on a rant that you will reveal to the judges undermines their own case.
In your next speech, you’ll just provide the link for the DA (show how their plan does punish Iran), impact a bit, then remind the judge that the Affirmative team agreed it would be awful.
Here’s the basic principle:
Any time there is an impact the Affirmative team will gladly back up, find a clever way to bring that impact up in CX before you link it to their plan.
This happens most frequently when you find a way to turn an argument. If you can turn a harm or advantage against the Affirmative team, just get them to talk about the impact/problem in Cross-Examination, then watch the fireworks as you show the judge why the Affirmative team is doing the very thing they denounced in Cross-Examination.
For more tips like these, sign up for my email list below (I’ll notify you about new posts!)