Cross-examination · Beginner · About 4 min
Ask one clear question
Ask for an answer you can use
Negative · Cross-examinationRead the fictional case: The four-day workweek
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Fictional round packet: 24 volunteer workplaces, covering offices, retail and distribution, joined a six-month comparison. Half were assigned by lottery to 32 hours at unchanged weekly pay; half kept 40 hours. Both groups maintained an output index of 100. Absence averaged three days per worker in the shorter-week group and five in the comparison group; these counts were not adjusted for scheduled days. Customer coverage was maintained, but payroll in the shorter-week retail and distribution sites was 8% higher; office payroll was unchanged. Healthcare and other continuous-service industries were not included. 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 gives you time to question the other side. Choose what you want to establish before choosing the words. A useful question can secure a commitment, expose a weak link or prepare your next argument.
A short closed question can keep the issue narrow. An open question can uncover reasoning you need to hear, but also gives the other side room to develop its case. Choose the form for the job.
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.
Choose the next argument
Decide what an answer would let you say in rebuttal.
Secure one commitment
Ask about a claim, definition or assumption they actually rely on.
Follow the answer
Continue only while the exchange helps that argument.
Make the cost argument possible
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Fictional round packet: 24 volunteer workplaces, covering offices, retail and distribution, joined a six-month comparison. Half were assigned by lottery to 32 hours at unchanged weekly pay; half kept 40 hours. Both groups maintained an output index of 100. Absence averaged three days per worker in the shorter-week group and five in the comparison group; these counts were not adjusted for scheduled days. Customer coverage was maintained, but payroll in the shorter-week retail and distribution sites was 8% higher; office payroll was unchanged. Healthcare and other continuous-service industries were not included. 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.
- Negative · Target
I want to show that maintaining coverage carries a cost, even when output holds.
The aim determines the sequence.
- Negative · Question
Your proposal keeps weekly pay unchanged, correct?
This asks for a limited commitment, not their whole defense.
- Affirmative · Answer
Correct. We defend unchanged weekly pay.
The answer does not concede that the cost is too high.
- Negative · Use in rebuttal
Their unchanged-pay proposal must account for the 8% payroll increase. Maintained output does not make that cost disappear.
Now explain why the cost matters to your comparison.
Begin with what the answer would let you do next.
Test the reasoning
Read the fictional practice case
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Fictional round packet: 24 volunteer workplaces, covering offices, retail and distribution, joined a six-month comparison. Half were assigned by lottery to 32 hours at unchanged weekly pay; half kept 40 hours. Both groups maintained an output index of 100. Absence averaged three days per worker in the shorter-week group and five in the comparison group; these counts were not adjusted for scheduled days. Customer coverage was maintained, but payroll in the shorter-week retail and distribution sites was 8% higher; office payroll was unchanged. Healthcare and other continuous-service industries were not included. 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.
Your turn
Negative · Cross-examinationAsk one question that establishes whether the affirmative’s transition argument accounts for all 60 displaced workers.
Read the fictional case: AI and the future of work
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
Fictional round packet: 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. Sixty entry-level roles were removed and 40 technical roles added. Of the 60 displaced workers, 18 entered the new roles, 24 found work elsewhere at 8% lower pay, and 18 were still unemployed six months later. The other 22 new roles went to different applicants. The review does not isolate AI from every other change or forecast the whole economy. 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…
Help me get started
Of the 60 workers…? I would use the answer to argue…
Try it aloud
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.
Review and continue
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
Read the practice task and fictional case
Ask one question that establishes whether the affirmative’s transition argument accounts for all 60 displaced workers.
Fictional round packet: 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. Sixty entry-level roles were removed and 40 technical roles added. Of the 60 displaced workers, 18 entered the new roles, 24 found work elsewhere at 8% lower pay, and 18 were still unemployed six months later. The other 22 new roles went to different applicants. The review does not isolate AI from every other change or forecast the whole economy. 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.
Your response
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
One model response
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 concerns the people affected by the loss.
The answer may confirm or narrow the claim about transitions.
This is the argument the question is preparing.
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.
Review the performance
- RefutationMy question serves an identifiable next argument.
- ClarityI ask for one clear commitment.
- ArgumentsI anticipate how a qualified answer changes my next move.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Asking a broad question without a plan for the answer.
- Treating a qualified answer as agreement with your whole case.
Loading your progress…