Cross-examination · Advanced · About 6 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.
A question sequence gets you from where the debate is to an admission you can use. Start with the argument you want to make in your next speech, then work backward to the answers you need to make it. Prepare a branch for each likely answer.
Know where you are going without trying to trap them into something false. A strong answer can close a line, and a good admission finishes it. Either way, you decide where to spend the time left.
Prepare a rebuttal about the cost of maintaining coverage.
Does your proposal include unchanged weekly pay?
Try a possible answer. See how your next question changes.
Yes, and we accept the payroll increase in the packet.
Do not spend the clock proving a cost they have already accepted. Test the comparison.
They accept the cost; the dispute is whether the time benefit justifies it.
No. Pay could fall in some workplaces.
The answer changes your attack from employer cost to the worker’s tradeoff.
Their model needs to compare extra time with the income surrendered.
Maintained output means the payroll increase is irrelevant.
Establish the distinction, then stop once it is clear. Do not demand that they announce defeat.
Output and payroll are different measures; maintaining one does not erase the other.
Write the sentence you want to say in your rebuttal.
Plan for admissions, qualified answers and strong defenses.
Stop once you have it. More questions give them a chance to fix it.
Plan two questions testing whether the affirmative rejects all ability assessment or the current process. Add a branch for a careful answer and a stopping point.
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
a hiring audit compares 100 lower-income and 100 higher-income applicants.
The affirmative argues that calling the existing process meritocratic legitimizes an advantage not explained by demonstrated ability. The negative argues that useful ability assessment and the improvement after reform are reasons to repair the practice rather than reject it. Neither side may treat this single practice audit as a description of all societies.
You can type or use your keyboard’s microphone to dictate. Your text stays editable. Practice is optional.
Loading your progress…
Target: … First question: … If they distinguish the two: … I stop when…
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 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 will argue that maintained output does not erase the added payroll cost.
Know the sentence you want to say in rebuttal. Don’t fish for a dramatic concession.
Your proposal includes unchanged weekly pay?
First, lock in the exact proposal you are attacking.
And the retail and distribution sites needed 8% more payroll to maintain coverage?
If they agree, the cost is on the record and you can use it.
If they accept both, use the distinction in rebuttal. If they dispute the figure, inspect the source. If they defend its value, press that comparison only if time allows.
Each possible answer calls for a different next move, so plan where to stop.
Plan where you are going and adjust how you get there.
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.
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
Plan two questions testing whether the affirmative rejects all ability assessment or the current process. Add a branch for a careful answer and a stopping point.
a hiring audit compares 100 lower-income and 100 higher-income applicants.
The affirmative argues that calling the existing process meritocratic legitimizes an advantage not explained by demonstrated ability. The negative argues that useful ability assessment and the improvement after reform are reasons to repair the practice rather than reject it. Neither side may treat this single practice audit as a description of all societies.
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
Target: establish whether my evidence about useful assessment actually conflicts with their case. First: are you rejecting ability assessment itself, or the claim that the current process already rewards merit? If they reject the current claim, ask what their replacement preserves. If they also preserve work-sample assessment, I should not call that evidence a turn against them; I need to compare their replacement with my reform. I stop once their alternative is clear.
A negative argument needs a real disagreement.
If both sides support assessment, the planned turn disappears. Adapt.
Stop asking. Use the answer in your speech.
The plan avoids attacking a rejection of ability assessment that the affirmative may never defend. The answer can change the negative strategy from a turn to a comparison of alternatives.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Loading your progress…
