Cross-examination · Beginner · About 5 min
Follow up on an answer
Change the line when the answer changes
Negative · Cross-examinationRead 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.
Listen for the answer that matters to your strategy. A qualification may give you a narrower concession; a strong answer may defeat the line you planned. Neither should be ignored.
Follow-ups can clarify, press, redirect or end a line. Once you have useful material, another question can give the opponent a chance to repair it. Decide what you still need.
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.
Keep the commitment
Note what they actually accepted or denied.
Read the change
Ask whether their answer strengthens, narrows or defeats your planned attack.
Press or move on
Spend the remaining time 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
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.
- Negative · Question
Did all displaced workers move into the new roles?
This tests a possible transition claim.
- Affirmative · Answer
No. Eighteen did. Our case is that broader gains outweigh the losses, not that everyone found a new role.
The affirmative has changed the target to an overall comparison.
- Negative · Weak continuation
But you admit not everyone found a new role?
The answer already established that. Repetition adds little.
- Negative · Useful continuation
What makes three fewer weekly hours for retained workers outweigh six months without work for 18 others?
This presses the actual comparison the affirmative is defending.
A useful follow-up responds to the case now in front of you.
Test the reasoning
Read the fictional practice case
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.
Your turn
Negative · Cross-examinationChoose your next question. Explain why it is better than asking whether costs exist again.
Read 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 exchange: 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 fictional case
Choose your next question. Explain why it is better than asking whether costs exist again.
Fictional exchange: 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
- Continuing a prepared line after the opponent has answered it.
- Giving up a useful concession by asking one question too many.
Loading your progress…