Cross-examination · Advanced · About 6 min
Plan a question sequence
Plan toward a useful commitment
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.
A question sequence is a plan for reaching material you can use. Start from the argument you intend to make, then work backward to the commitments it needs. Prepare branches for answers that change that argument.
Keep your purpose in mind without forcing the opponent into a false answer. A strong answer can close a line. A useful concession can finish it. Both require a decision about where to spend the remaining clock.
Explore an example before trying
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.
Set the destination
Write the sentence you want to support in rebuttal.
Build the branches
Anticipate commitments, qualifications and strong defenses.
Choose the stopping point
Know when you have enough, and when further questions would reopen the point.
Your response
Negative · Cross-examinationPlan 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.
Read the fictional case: Meritocracy as practiced
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
Fictional round packet: a hiring audit compares 100 lower-income and 100 higher-income applicants. Their anonymous work-sample scores were similar, but CV review shortlisted 30 lower-income and 60 higher-income applicants. Among those hired, work-sample scores tracked six-month job performance more closely than CV rank. In a later cohort, free preparation and an anonymous first stage reduced the shortlist-rate gap from 30 to 10 percentage points; other changes were not controlled. 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 invented 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…
Help me get started
Target: … First question: … If they distinguish the two: … I stop when…
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.
From a commitment to a comparison
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 · Destination
I will argue that maintained output does not erase the added payroll cost.
This is a specific argument rather than a hope for a dramatic concession.
- Negative · First commitment
Your proposal includes unchanged weekly pay?
Establish the model you are attacking.
- Negative · Second commitment
And the retail and distribution sites needed 8% more payroll to maintain coverage?
If they accept this, the cost is on the record.
- Negative · Stopping decision
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.
Different answers require different uses of the clock.
Plan the destination and adapt the route.
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.
Review and continue
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
Read the practice task and fictional case
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.
Fictional round packet: a hiring audit compares 100 lower-income and 100 higher-income applicants. Their anonymous work-sample scores were similar, but CV review shortlisted 30 lower-income and 60 higher-income applicants. Among those hired, work-sample scores tracked six-month job performance more closely than CV rank. In a later cohort, free preparation and an anonymous first stage reduced the shortlist-rate gap from 30 to 10 percentage points; other changes were not controlled. 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 invented audit as a description of all societies.
Your response
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
One model response
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.
Shared support for assessment may remove the intended reversal.
The next step is to use the commitment in argument.
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.
Review the performance
- ArgumentsMy sequence has a specific destination.
- RefutationA strong answer changes my plan.
- OrganizationI identify a useful stopping point.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Assuming every branch proves the same conclusion.
- Exposing the conclusion so early that the opponent can avoid the commitments you need.
Loading your progress…