To: Igor Urbancik <3iurbanc@gjh.sanet.sk>
Copies to: Debate listserv
Subject: Re: Questions about cross-examination Hello Igor, These are good questions and I hope that they initiate a useful
discussion. I'll give my thoughts on them, but there may be different
perspectives that are worth considering. On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, Igor Urbancik wrote: 1) When it happens that the debater that is being cross examined starts
asking the questions and acts like he is the one cross examining, is this
considered to be wrong, immoral, unfair, etc. from him? How should the
debater that should be cross examining react? How should the judges
react and maybe assess the situation? Ah, a common problem. First, my opinion is that the judge should stay
out of it (they are after all a judge and not a referee). Debate is
designed to teach the skills of assertiveness, so I feel that the
debaters need to work this power-play out for themselves. Debaters seem to take two approaches in reacting to the person who
decides to switch roles and start "asking" instead of "answering" during
Cross-X. The first approach (I'll call it the 'defensive' approach) is to
indignantly say "this is my cross-ex!" or "Let me ask the questions!"
This risks sounding pushy or petty and it may turn the Cross-exam period
into a more hostile exchange. The second approach (I'll call it the 'offensive' approach) is to not
recognize the question, and to carry on with your own questioning. After
they ask a question, pause briefly to call attention to the
inappropriateness of their question, then simply ask your next question.
In this way, the cross-examination is immediately back on track without
diversion into the issue of who can and who cannot ask questions. My preference is for the offensive approach -- it is your
cross-examination, and the best way to keep it so is to keep asking
questions. 2) Recently I heard a judge say that during the cross examination the
judges should not take notes. Is this true? Should the judge not take
into account the cross examination at all? Or should he just judge the
performance of the individual debaters, not the whole team, and then
include this in the overall assessment of the debater at the end? I think what that judge may have meant is that cross examination is not
flowed like the other speeches are. In other words, we do not start a
new column after the first affirmative, and label it "cross
examination." While it isn't flowed, I think that most judges agree that
cross examination should play a role. For my part I will do two things
during cross examination: 1.) I will listen for clarification,
distinctions, explanations that the debaters draw during cross
examination -- I expect to have a better understanding of the arguments
after cross examination; and 2.) I will take notes on any important
admissions that are made in the speech -- e.g., if a debater who is
defending "quality of life" as a goal admits that the right to simply be
alive is more basic and more important than the quality of life, then I
would write that down. An admission in cross-examination should be
binding, and should play a role in building arguments for future
speeches. In taking notes I will usually write a brief note in the same
column used for the speech that has just been given, but use a different
color of ink. 3) Is it really neccessary to look at the judge for the whole time of the
cross examination? I had an experience, in which the person being cross
examined fainted and the person cross examining didn't notice it, since
he wasn't looking at him, and therefore he wasn't able to catch him as he
was falling down. Great example! Now that must have been powerful cross-examination. I know this example is far-fetched but nevertheless I
think that it may illustrate the point I'm trying to make, that there
should be some eye contact. What do you think? I have strong feelings on this one. Many coaches say that you should
only look at the judge during cross-x but I disagree. I think that cross
examination is for the judge and that the main focus should be on the
judge. But that it is natural for you to look briefly at an opponent
when asking a question - then to look back to the judge while your
opponent is answering so that you can observe the judge's reaction to
that answer. Cross examination is a conversation being held for the
benefit of the judge, but it is still a conversation so I think it is
good to look at each other as long as the main focus is still on the
judge. In other words, debaters don't entirely face each other, but they don't
entirely face the judge either. They stand at an angle so that they can
include each in their focus. 4) It sometimes happens that some debaters are really UNCOOPERATIVE
during cross examination. How should the person cross examining and the
judge react to this, in my opinion, unfair practise? Should points be
taken off of the individual assessment? Yes. My opinion of an advocate is definitely reduced if that advocate is
refusing to give a clear and honest answer (or refusing to ask a clear
and honest question) and that results in less points from me as a judge. But how should debaters handle the uncooperative opponent? Much could
be written on this (and my message is already long!) so I'll just say
this: don't lower yourself to your opponent's level. If they are being
rude, you should not become rude in response. Maintain a polite
demeanor, ask the question again, don't be afraid to "excuse me" in a
nice way to cut off the person being cross-examined, but maintain the
"high ground." You may never get an aswer to your questions, but you can
make eye contact with the judge and communicate to your judge the message
that you are reasonable, focused, and cooperative while your opponent is
not. In the long run, that message may be more instrumental to your
victory than an answer to your question would have been. Opponents who
are uncooperative in cross examination are just helping you look good,
and helping you to win. It is my pleasure answering these questions, Igor. This is what this
listserve is for, and I'll bet that there are many more of you out there
with more questions. Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm, Asst. Prof., Director of Debate
Towson State University, Towson MD, USA, 21204-7097, 410-830-2888
Broda@Midget.Towson.Edu
Back to Archive