Cross-examination · Beginner · About 5 min
Follow up on an answer
Listen to the answer, then adjust
Negative · Cross-examinationRead the case: AI and the future of work
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.
- 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 planned questions only work if the answers go the way you expected. Listen. A qualified answer might give you a smaller point you can use. A strong answer might kill the line you planned. Either way, your next question has to deal with what they actually said.
A follow-up can clarify, press, change direction or end the line. Once you have what you need, stop. One question too many gives them the chance to take it back.
Test whether new roles answer the displacement problem.
Did the displaced workers enter the new technical roles?
Try a possible answer. See how your next question changes.
Eighteen of the 60 entered those roles.
Keep the gain, then examine the people it does not cover.
New roles helped 18 displaced workers; they do not by themselves answer the other 42 outcomes.
Not all did. Our case compares those losses with pay and time gains for 300 retained workers.
They are making a comparison, not claiming universal retraining. Change your line to that comparison.
Their defense now depends on the weight of retained-worker gains against concentrated displacement losses.
Longer-term job creation could absorb more displaced workers.
The six-month record does not settle a longer-term prediction. Ask for its mechanism and support.
Their forecast needs a timescale and support beyond the existing six-month transitions.
Lock in what they said
Note exactly what they admitted and what they denied.
Read what changed
Did the answer help your attack, shrink it or kill it?
Press or move on
Spend the time you have left on what still helps your next speech.
Stop attacking a claim they did not make
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.
- 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.
- Negative · Question
Did all displaced workers move into the new roles?
The negative tests whether the affirmative claims every displaced worker lands a new role.
- Affirmative · Answer
No. Eighteen did. Our case is that broader gains outweigh the losses, not that everyone found a new role.
The affirmative concedes that and moves to the overall balance. The target has changed.
- Negative · Weak continuation
But you admit not everyone found a new role?
You already have this answer. Asking again just gives them airtime.
- Negative · Useful continuation
What makes three fewer weekly hours for retained workers outweigh six months without work for 18 others?
This goes after the comparison they are actually defending.
Question the case they are actually defending, not the one you prepared for.
Test the reasoning
Read the practice case
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.
- 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 turn
Negative · Cross-examinationChoose your next question. Explain why it is better than asking whether costs exist again.
Read the case: The four-day workweek
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Practice round: the affirmative says, “We accept the 8% payroll increase in retail and distribution.
- We argue that maintained output, lower absence and eight hours of time justify that cost.”
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
You accept… Why should…? This matters because…
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 A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Read the practice task and case
Choose your next question. Explain why it is better than asking whether costs exist again.
Practice round: the affirmative says, “We accept the 8% payroll increase in retail and distribution.
- We argue that maintained output, lower absence and eight hours of time justify that cost.”
Your response
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
One model response
You accept the payroll increase. Why should the time and absence benefits justify that cost in workplaces with tight margins? The existence of the cost is settled; I now need to test the comparison that makes it acceptable in their case.
No need to secure the same commitment twice.
The remaining dispute concerns what follows from the cost.
The explanation shows why repeating the first question wastes an opportunity.
The response follows the concession into the contested value judgment. It does not confuse acknowledging a cost with conceding that the negative should win.
Review the performance
- RefutationI used the actual answer.
- ArgumentsI changed the target when the case changed.
- ClarityMy follow-up advances the next argument.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Sticking to your script after they already answered it.
- Losing a good admission by asking one question too many.
Loading your progress…