Cross-examination · Beginner · About 4 min
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
24 volunteer workplaces, covering offices, retail and distribution, joined a six-month comparison.
For this practice round, the affirmative defends replacing the normal 40-hour model with a 32-hour standard at unchanged weekly pay; it does not claim every shift must be identical. The negative challenges whether the benefits justify the costs of that replacement.
Cross-examination is your time to question the other side. It is free form: you can ask about their terms, their evidence, their assumptions. The key thing to understand is that in cross-ex you are setting up your arguments, not making them. You use the answers later.
Decide what you need before you decide what to ask. A short, closed question pins down one point. An open question gets them explaining, which can show you their reasoning but also gives them room to sell their case. Pick the kind of question that gets you what you need.
Establish which cost the affirmative is willing to defend.
Does your proposal keep weekly pay unchanged?
Try a possible answer. See how your next question changes.
Yes. Workers keep the same weekly pay.
The commitment makes the measured staffing cost relevant. Secure it before moving to the comparison.
Their proposal includes unchanged pay, so their case must account for the measured payroll increase.
Some workplaces could reduce pay.
The answer opens a different challenge: whether the extra time comes at the expense of income.
The time benefit has to be compared with the income workers would give up.
We have not specified the pay arrangement.
Clarify the actual commitment before building an attack on it. Do not invent their policy for them.
The case needs a clear pay commitment before its benefits and costs can be compared.
Ask yourself what answer would let you make your argument in rebuttal.
Ask about a claim, a term or an assumption their case really depends on.
Keep going while the answers help you. Stop when they stop helping.
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
24 volunteer workplaces, covering offices, retail and distribution, joined a six-month comparison.
For this practice round, the affirmative defends replacing the normal 40-hour model with a 32-hour standard at unchanged weekly pay; it does not claim every shift must be identical. The negative challenges whether the benefits justify the costs of that replacement.
I want to show that maintaining coverage carries a cost, even when output holds.
Start with the argument you want to make. The questions follow from it.
Your proposal keeps weekly pay unchanged, correct?
One narrow question, one commitment. You aren’t inviting their whole defense.
Correct. We defend unchanged weekly pay.
They confirmed the fact. They did not agree the cost is too high, so that is your job in rebuttal.
Their unchanged-pay proposal must account for the 8% payroll increase. Maintained output does not make that cost disappear.
The answer pays off in your speech: now explain why the cost matters.
Know what you will do with the answer before you ask.
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
24 volunteer workplaces, covering offices, retail and distribution, joined a six-month comparison.
For this practice round, the affirmative defends replacing the normal 40-hour model with a 32-hour standard at unchanged weekly pay; it does not claim every shift must be identical. The negative challenges whether the benefits justify the costs of that replacement.
Ask one question that establishes whether the affirmative’s transition argument accounts for all 60 displaced workers.
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
a two-year review of 30 employers records 300 retained workers receiving 4% higher inflation-adjusted pay and working 37 rather than 40 hours per week after AI adoption.
The affirmative argues that productive tools can improve pay and time for many workers. The negative argues that concentrated losses and barriers to new work can outweigh those gains.
You can type or use your keyboard’s microphone to dictate. Your text stays editable. Practice is optional.
Loading your progress…
Of the 60 workers…? I would use the answer to argue…
Use the timer for a spoken attempt if it helps. Practice without recording, then note what you would improve.
Speaking is self-reviewed. No microphone or recording is required.
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
Ask one question that establishes whether the affirmative’s transition argument accounts for all 60 displaced workers.
a two-year review of 30 employers records 300 retained workers receiving 4% higher inflation-adjusted pay and working 37 rather than 40 hours per week after AI adoption.
The affirmative argues that productive tools can improve pay and time for many workers. The negative argues that concentrated losses and barriers to new work can outweigh those gains.
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
Of the 60 displaced workers, are you claiming that all of them could access the new technical roles? I would use their answer to test whether new roles actually answer the displacement argument.
The question is about the people who lost their jobs.
The answer may confirm or narrow the claim about transitions.
This is the argument the answer sets up.
The question targets the connection between new opportunities and the people who lost their roles. It leaves room for a qualified answer rather than pretending all new jobs are interchangeable.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Loading your progress…
