Cross-examination · Advanced · About 5 min
Use cross-ex answers in your rebuttal
Carry the answer into your next argument
Negative · RebuttalRead 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.
An answer in cross-ex does not explain its own significance. Connect the commitment to a claim, show what it changes and develop the reason the judge should care.
You can use a concession to weaken a link, support an independent argument or sharpen a comparison. Keep its actual scope: a fact, an inference and a concession of the resolution are different things.
Explore an example before trying
Follow one argument across the exchange
This offers a transition argument.
The answer limits how much that transition argument establishes.
The response connects the concession to access and severity.
A capable reply distinguishes the damaged argument from the whole case.
Recall the commitment
Quote or paraphrase the answer accurately.
Explain its effect
Show which part of the case is weaker or which argument is stronger.
Compare the consequences
Explain why that change deserves weight in the round.
Your response
Negative · RebuttalUse the answer in a short rebuttal. Explain its significance and anticipate the strongest reply.
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 accepts that payroll rose 8% in retail and distribution while output was maintained. It still defends the time and absence benefits in the developed packet.
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
They accepted… This weakens… They may reply… My comparison is…
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.
A fact becomes a refutation
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.
- Affirmative · Original defense
The new technical roles help answer the job-loss concern.
This offers a transition argument.
- Affirmative · Cross-ex answer
Eighteen of the 60 displaced workers entered the new roles.
The answer limits how much that transition argument establishes.
- Negative rebuttal
Their own answer limits the transition benefit to 18 of 60. Twenty-four took lower-paid work and 18 remained unemployed at six months. Counting 40 new roles does not answer those outcomes.
The response connects the concession to access and severity.
- Affirmative reply
That weakens the transition point, but not our separate evidence of pay and time gains for 300 retained workers. The remaining dispute is which effects carry greater weight.
A capable reply distinguishes the damaged argument from the whole case.
Use the answer to develop an argument, then anticipate the reply.
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.
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
Use the answer in a short rebuttal. Explain its significance and anticipate the strongest reply.
Fictional exchange: the affirmative accepts that payroll rose 8% in retail and distribution while output was maintained. It still defends the time and absence benefits in the developed packet.
Your response
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
One model response
They accepted that maintaining coverage required more payroll in retail and distribution. That weakens any claim that stable output makes replacement costless. They can still defend the extra time and lower absence, so our comparison must show why the recurring cost and risk to tight-margin workplaces deserve greater weight than those benefits.
This is the limited commitment obtained.
The answer defeats this inference, not every possible affirmative case.
The speech still has to justify its preferred balance.
The rebuttal turns the answer into a targeted refutation while preserving the independent benefit the affirmative can still defend. It makes room for an actual comparison rather than announcing automatic victory.
Review the performance
- RefutationI preserve the scope of the answer.
- ArgumentsI explain the argument it affects.
- PersuasionI meet the strongest surviving reply.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Inflating a limited answer into a complete concession.
- Forgetting to use cross-ex material in the next speech.
Loading your progress…