Judges: The Role of Cross-Examination

Posted by Danny

October 10, 2007

One aspect that significantly differs from NPDA to NFA-LD debate is cross-examination. Following the first two constructive speeches there is a 3 minute period where the debaters can ask each other questions. Interestingly, I can find no reference to cross-examination in the official NFA-LD rules.

The National Forensics Journal has many articles on judging NFA-LD debate:

however, I can find no direct references on what judges should do during cross examination. A few questions that come to my mind are:
1) Should judges listen and/or flow the cross examination period?
2) Can judges vote on cross examination questions alone?
3) Are debaters bound by their responses to cross examination questions?
4) Does the general rule of conversational and pleasant delivery apply to cross examation?
5) Can debaters waive their time? Can they use it as extra prep and not actually ask questions?

I will try to address the first two now and perhaps the others later. I would really appreciate feedback (click comments below) on other people’s viewpoints. As a starting point, I do not think that NFA-LD debate should just carry over the norms of CEDA/NDT/High School debate with respect to cross examination. I think given the unique set of rules and norms within NFA-LD, the role of cross examination should be developed consistent with NFA-LD even if that departs from the accepted framework of cross examination in other policy debate formats.

Should Judges Listen to Cross Examination? Should they flow the questions and responses?

Judges view their job during cross examination very differently: 1) some judges actively listen and write down notes; 2) others ignore the debaters and just keep time; 3) in some policy rounds I’ve seen the judge leaves the room; most are somewhere inbetween 1 and 3.

I believe that as judges we should be modeling the expected behavior of debaters in NFA-LD. If the round should be pleasant and cordial I believe Judges should try their best to adhere to that goal as well. Thus, I believe that the judges should pay attention to cross examination just as they would a speech. I do not think the judges need to write down every question and response, but following along with your flow on the line of questions would signify that the question/responses are helping you to understand the debate as well.

This ensures as well that the competitors know you are listening to the cross-examination period and ensuring that if a debater is especially rude you will note that on the ballot/take it into consideration for speaker points.

Can Judges vote on questions and responses made only in cross examination?

This question seems a bit easier for me to answer. I do not believe a question and or response made solely during cross examination should be used as a reason to vote if the argument was not brought up in the successive speech. As discussed earlier, I see cross examination as an opportunity to clarify and setup arguments. As such, a debater making a particularly powerful question / argument in cross examination who then abandons that position for the rest of the debate is making, in my view, a decision not to go for that position. As such, the opposing debater should rightfully assume no need to respond.

Let me give an example:
Imagine that following the 1AC the negative debater asks a line of questions attacking the topicality of the affirmative case. They are well on their way to establishing that the case the debater presented falls outside the scope of the resolution. As a judge, you see the argument and are understanding the position as framed by the questions. The negative debater may even be arguing something you thought of while listening to the 1AC.

However, if the negative debater decides not to run the topicality position as a judge I would not consider it a position in the debate to use in voting. It does not seem fair for the affirmative debater to have to respond to the line of questions in the 2AC from cross examination if that issue was not brought up in the 1NC. Thus, I believe as judges there is a clear bright line: only positions introduced in the actual body of the debater’s speeches should be included in the decision.

I would recommend to include a line or two on the ballot letting the debater know that the position they were exploring during cross examination was promising but would not vote for the debater because of that position.

Share on Facebook

Instructional, Judging

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.