[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
an inappropriate response.
If the question is obviously relevant and germane, answer it
with the same skills you would use to question another. If the
question is open-ended, such as Please explain your case, then
the fault is in the question, and you may feel free to summarize
your entire case from introduction onward. However, do not try
to dodge a question in anticipation of how it will be used. Answer
simply and directly and from your own ground. ( We defend our
analysis of that evidence because the conditions examined in that
study are the same now as they were ¤fteen years ago. ) We will
now take a look at the types of questions that are asked in cross-
examination.
Types of Questions
The four primary types of questions you will want to use are di-
rect, open, probe, and leading.
Direct
Direct questions refer to a speci¤c piece of information and usu-
ally require a short answer. Such questions as What was the
source for your de¤nition of energy? and Do you support man-
datory penalties for violations of your plan? are examples of di-
rect questions.
Open
Open questions allow the respondent to amplify ideas and prob-
ably should be limited to explanations of implications of the case
Cross-Examination 81
rather than repetitions of ideas already presented. Saying Tell us
why you favor mandatory execution of violators is better than
Explain your plan s philosophy. The respondent can then am-
plify and perhaps even reveal information that will help you de-
velop a response later.
Probe
Probe questions are similar to open ones in that they require a
longer answer than direct questions but are more limited than
open questions. They are often directed at a speci¤c line of rea-
soning that the opponents have used. For example, you can ask
an opponent, Why does the af¤rmative depend exclusively on
federal government sources to support the need for federal inter-
vention? Such a question might reveal weakness in the research
base of the opposition or lead to the development of a nega-
tive counterattack on bias in evidence. Trying to delve beneath
the surface of what was presented to why it is included in the
case may reveal signi¤cant ideas for refutation during subsequent
speeches.
Leading
Leading questions are the stereotype from courtroom drama, in
which the attorney sets up a series of questions that eventually
lead the witness to break down and admit guilt or do something
equally dramatic. The debater can likewise set up a series of ques-
tions, especially if some sort of logical relationship is the ultimate
goal of the series. For example, the examiner might try something
along the lines of the following example:
Example: Leading Questions
examiner: On contention II.B, what was your supporting
evidence?
respondent: We cited a study calling for federal interven-
tion.
examiner: Was the study done by the federal government?
respondent: No, it was done by Zwigler Research.
examiner: Did the federal government commission and
pay Zwigler to do the study?
82 Cross-Examination
respondent: Well, yes, they did have a federal contract.
examiner: What was the date?
respondent: October 1992.
examiner: Was there a presidential election that year?
respondent: Yes, I believe so.
examiner: Could money in®uence the results of a study?
respondent: I m not sure what you re getting at.
examiner: Suppose you were hired to mow somebody s
lawn. Would you do it the way they wanted?
respondent: I guess so.
examiner: Is it possible such bias might creep into a study
report as well?
respondent: I suppose it s possible.
examiner: Was President Bush running for re-election that
year?
respondent: I m not sure.
examiner: Well, he was, and if we later introduce evidence
showing he strongly favored federal intervention in this area
as a theme in his campaign, are you still willing to stand by
an argument whose only support is a ¤fteen-year-old study,
done at the request and support of the federal government,
which concludes exactly what the incumbent wanted it to
conclude and which was issued just in time for the Novem-
ber election?
respondent: Well (pause), you d have to show me where
there s a problem.
examiner: Would a reasonable person at least have cause
to wonder?
respondent: Well (pause), I m not so sure. (pause) We
thought it was pretty good.
examiner: Thank you; let s now turn to contention III. Can
you restate your title of this contention for me?
As you can see, the examiner set up a series of questions de-
signed to reveal a weakness in the opposition s case. While the re-
spondent never admitted this weakness, most people in the au-
dience would be impressed by the damaged credibility of the
Cross-Examination 83
evidence and of the team that used it. They would be ready for
subsequent refutation (not during the cross-examination but in a
following speech) that attempted to discredit the argument and the
issue it supported on the basis of evidence that might be outdated
and biased. If this issue were a major one for the opponents, then
it would be worth the time spent to reveal this weakness and set
up later refutation. The sequence above would have to be a major
objective of the examiner, for it takes about one and one-half
minutes to complete. The time would be worth it for a major idea
but not for a minor evidence challenge. Notice how the examiner
used a combination of direct, open, and probe questions to set up
a series. Effective cross-examination will have more than a series
of single questions but will also be able to build on the answers.
The examiner can prepare in advance a variety of strategies
based on the alternative responses that might come. For example,
a well-prepared examiner will think, What will I do if the oppo-
nent answers this way? What if they say this? What follow-up
questions can I predict no matter which way the response goes?
Such advance analysis will keep the examiner in charge of the fo-
cus and direction of the cross-examination time.
The respondent can also prepare, in advance, possible an-
swers. The best way is to work with your team members, ask each
other the toughest questions you can about your own case, and
practice giving responses that leave you on your own territory. As
in refutation, the best preparation is a solid case that you have
developed carefully, supported well, and know fully. In practice
sessions with other team members, you can develop potential
questions and listen to those developed by others. The use of
videotape can be of tremendous bene¤t, enabling you to see your-
self in both positions of asking and answering questions.
Remember, both examiner and respondent want to build their
credibility by paying attention to the four factors mentioned
above. They both want to clarify issues and ideas so that the basis
for the debate will be focused. In addition, the examiner wants to
probe the opponent s case and reasoning for weaknesses, while
the respondent desires to defend issues, arguments, evidence, and
reasoning.
84 Cross-Examination
Applications
It is possible to apply skills learned in the cross-examination pro-
cess to nondebate settings as well. You can transfer skills in answer-
ing questions to your classrooms, where teachers often ask direct,
open-ended, or probing questions about class-related work. Did
you read last night s assignment? What did you think about it?
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]