Video library

Speaking & Delivery'23

CEDA Lecture Series - Cross Examination - Matt Liu

Jan 25, 20230.5k

Comments

Loading comments…

Speeches

Auto-scroll12,798 words

Part 1

two one okay well wait don't start don't not lie okay okay all right we are now um all right hello everyone thank you for coming to well wait don't start ah donut okay thank you for coming to rc2 lecture series uh you just experienced Jackie's uh inability to understand technology for a second uh so I have Matt Lew the director of forensics at the University of Wyoming with us today uh to talk about cross-examination uh so without further Ado I'll kick it over to Matt all right thanks for joining everybody uh I hope this will end up being pretty helpful for you uh and if you think the lecture is good and you want to get more into it I have my written lecture on crossx on Wyoming debates website so you can always go there for a backup I like to be pretty organized when I lecture so this lecture is divided up into three sections types of questions that you can ask in crosstex big meta tips about how to do cross-x well and focused narrow tips about how to get particular parts of crossx right so if you like to take organized notes uh then we're starting what is the the first section which is going

to be a little bit of an introduction uh and mostly the types of questions that there are in crossx now the title of this lecture is that crossx is speech time cross-x is speech time and I think that this captures a lot of the gist of what I'm going to try and point toward uh in this lecture which is that you should not think of cross-examination as something that's fundamentally different from a constructive or a rebuttal because just like every other speech it's something that you need to practice and prepare for it's something that you need to have questions written down for it's something that most judges will flow and it's an opportunity for you to persuade the judge so younger Debaters will often fall into the Trap of treating crosstex like bonus prep time or or just buying time for your partner to have extra time to prep their speech and I think that is a mistake that if you don't treat cross-x like one of the best opportunities to persuade the judge in a debate then you're going to fall significantly far behind your opponent it is also a critically important time to form Impressions

because it's it is the point of the debate that blocks are least useful so if you want to demonstrate that you are smarter than your opponent's blocks and this can be something that's terribly important for small schools where your opponents might have you know nine coaches or tons of Debaters just churning out block after block for them cross access the moment where you're going to be able to demonstrate your intellect can tear apart their blocks and I've never been a person who thought that that rep is a thing that matters in debate I know that um it's difficult to avoid sometimes thinking that uh you lost because your opponent had a you know better rep than you I've I've largely thought that's not really a thing that determines many debate rounds because I think that cred is a thing and the difference is that credibility is something that's determined in the round not before it this idea of rep is like if you're already good judges will vote for you I think that's largely both it assumes I Know Who You Are but credibility all of the little things we do to signal that we know what a debate should

look like that we've prepared for this intensely that's all determined to end round and does create a reputation like signal to the judge but it's one that you have complete control over and I think crossx is one of the most important places to establish that so I think there are three types of cross-sex questions and the first is information seeking before we can talk about how to do cross-x well we got to know what each type of question is trying to do information seeking questions are trying to figure out what your opponent has said or what their argument is and I think that you should avoid these as much as possible so let's start with the assumption that you don't understand your opponent's arguments that you literally just have no idea what it says maybe it's a literature base that you're not familiar with the critique or even a particular area of policy that that you just don't know what it is it's it's totally novel to you I understand the impulse to try and use crossx to figure it out and in a way you should but not by asking them what the argument is and the reason is your opponent

does not have your best interest in mind they are not trying to help you they are trying to win the debate your question to them of what does this say is a springboard to give the judge an advanced understanding of the position while you're still looking for a basic one instead of asking I think that you should start to make attacks against the position start to try and poke holes in it and I understand that if you don't know what the argument is your arguments as to why it's wrong well initially not be perfect but by forcing your opponent to explain why your questions are off they will actually have to do the basic explanation rather than the advanced explanation they have they are then forced to give you what you actually want which is the basic rundown of the position so they can correct why your question's wrong and as a side benefit to whatever degree that your attack is effective you've started to punch holes in your opponent's argument and that's that's obviously way more useful to you than just giving them a chance to explain which kind of like scores you zero points because they get all the time

to talk about their argument but to whatever extent you are able to effectively punch holes in it seeking understanding through attack benefits you in addition to giving them the necessary talk time a second type of information seeking question is is less about like what does this say and more about what did you read and so with younger Debaters or distressingly even older Debaters as we get worse and worse at Flowing I hear questions like did you read the Joe and 14 evidence or what's the last piece of evidence you read or where did you mark that to the folks that are asking these questions I have one piece of advice low and trust your flow because when you ask did you read this card I have started my timer and I will usually even on a zoom debate I will demonstrate this by holding the timer up because you have asked a question now I will agree it's not a question that has a lot of utility doesn't help you win the debate but you've asked a question you are using cross-examination so some timers got to be running maybe it's your prep time but it's probably going to be that cross next time which means

your speech time is depleting your time to make arguments is depleting so flow and trust your flow and if Jackie would like to bring me back to talk about flowing I will happily do that because that is of course a basic prereq skill to get all the rest of this right but you've got to flow and you've got to trust your flow the same thing is true of theory check questions way too often judges hear questions like what were the reasons to reject the team which permutations did you make etc etc flow and trust your flow there's only one Theory check question that you should ask because there's no other way to get the answer and that is under what conditions can you kick the counter plan that should be the very first question you ask in the cross section of everyone in C so you never forget to ask and you should get it out of the way immediately so you can move on to the bulk of what your cross X should be that's the first type of question information seeking the second type of question is the Trap aka the Reversed Pit of Doom in a trap question you're trying to motivate the speaker to give the answer

you want by misleading them into thinking it's the answer you don't want in other words it's reverse psychology and once you've been a debate for just a little while there's there's an element of human nature that becomes very apparent which is that Debaters are hardwired to disagree with their opponents it is it is just automatic that you are your opponent asks you a question in cross-x you're going to say they're wrong or you're going to be distrustful of them uh and so you you've probably heard the line uh the one AC doesn't take a stance on that in Cross sex and sometimes this is asked in response to reasonable things uh but I honestly think that especially with young Debaters we're we're so distrustful uh and hardwired to disagree that we'll say things like that to totally ridiculous questions like if your opponent asks hey is the sky blue uh I would not be entirely surprised if a young debater responded the one I see does not take a stance on the color of the sky now you can of course avoid ridiculous hedging like this by just knowing your arguments inside and outside because if you know your

stuff you won't be scared to defend it you'll be confident to defend the claims that you have made but we can take advantage of these psychological impulses and I'm going to give the example of when you're planning on stealing someone's impact let's say you're going to straight turn a D.A and so again I I could do a lecture on how to straight turn things and what's offensive defense but I'm going to assume for the most part that folks are going to get the idea that if I say you want a straight turn a disadvantage that you're gonna you're taking the impact for yourself so if a disadvantage is read with a climate change impact then your goal in link turning this

Part 2

D A would be to say that the affirmative solves climate change better than the negative disadvantage story does either because mechanism of the plan solves it or your link turning the D A either way although the negative introduced the climate change impact to the D.A you're going to take that and make it yours in cross-examination you can bolster this strategy by tricking the negative into talking about how great their impact is so again with a reverse cut of Doom or a trap you want your opponent to believe you're asking the opposite question that you are so you wouldn't say hey I like your climate change impact I'm going to steal it it's great right you would do the opposite you would go on the attack so you would ask a question like didn't the ipcc just say it's going to be a hundred years before we see anything close to existential impacts to climate change your opponents can say no that's entirely wrong the latest data says it's going to be less than 20 years before runaway warming and positive feedback loops make desertification and a hot house Earth an impossible place for humans to live

best time frame right by attacking the time frame of the impact your opponent just gave you great time frame you can do this for magnitude you can do this for probability you can do this for turns the case argument so maybe there are evidence hints at how climate change causes War you can get them to expand on that and now your stolen climate change impact turns War impacts and one of the most effective strategies here is to make sure that there's there's no possible alt causes so you can say things like if you're maybe you're linked turning a politics da I'll throw back uh to the green New Deal or infrastructure DA's you could ask a question like can this infrastructure bill is like One-Shot infrastructure spending bill is that really sufficient to solve climate change which is a global problem that other countries contribute to and there's many sources of emissions and then they will explain a big solvency argument for their internal link and they will explain why the internal link is sufficient patient to solve climate change and what that provides is insulation against D.A turns to stolen

impact later on like if later on they try to say well our other impact turns climate change you can be like nope in cross-section you said the infrastructure bill was sufficient by itself to solve climate change that means no other political situation that you talk about on your other arguments can earn climate change because infrastructure always solves which was a strategic concession we made from crossx okay perhaps they're great you make your opponent do your work for you and and there's no ARG more true in a debate than an argument that was initially Advanced by your opponent traps are great but they are difficult to set they require lots of planning I think they probably require cooperative strategy pre-round working with your partner or your coaches or your teammates to plan traps because you have to have a good working knowledge of human psychology how your opponent is going to treat a question so they're probably not going to dominate your crosshics they're awesome they're cool they're fun but they're not going to be the vast majority of your crossx and that brings us to the third

type of question argumentative questions these are questions that just directly refute the thing your opponent says your opponent has a hedge advantage and you're going to ask questions that are like you don't solve hedge because of x y z you're going to poke holes in the affirmative case argumentative questions and this brings us to part two of the lecture five big tips The Meta strategies for doing a great crossx first argue don't ask argue don't ask I went through the types of questions so we could get to the winning kind argumentative questions these should make up the vast majority of your cross-examination they're high utility because they get air time for your arguments it lets you make your args hang in the judge's mind and it previews the things that you're going to say in the next speech which can save you time later and let me let me clarify what I mean by this I don't mean the clunky expression when you say something like that was in Cross sex or we pwned them on this in crossx I don't think those lines sound good and I don't think there's a large group of Judges that appreciate

that I'm talking about an implicit effect that's automatic because if you have a great cross X on an issue that was complicated but decisively breaks in your favor after the cross-examination then on that issue you've cleared up confusion for the judge you have put them on your side so it's not that in the next speech you have to say I already explained this in crossx is that you taught the judge the thing you wanted them to know they know it now I think that to understand this you have to get that judges aren't machines that we don't know everything and that we're imperfect and that so much more of debate than you think it is is about teaching and persuasion not entering arguments into the record debate is not just you know handing a judge a card Doc and letting them read it it is teaching the judge a complex argument that you've hopefully worked on and prepared in between a tournament and if you use crossx to foreshadow those arguments to explain them to take challenging moments and unpack them for the judge your webinar your your next speech it becomes so much easier you've done the hard part

you taught the judge the thing so this last point on this it also makes crossx really easy to prepare I will often have Debaters that give for example a phenomenal one and R but they have no idea how to cross-x the 2ac but the easy way to fix this is that they are the same speech if your cross X of the 2ac is just three minutes of tearing apart the 2ac to the ARG that you're going to go for in the 1 and r you have all the arguments if you're going to give a brilliant one an R you already know the arguments you want to make you already know why every 2ac answer is wrong and so making this crossx strategic is just about lining it up with the great one and R you are already going to give because it's your job to preview those arguments some of this can of course include reading the UN underlined size 4 portions of your opponent's evidence or noticing that the article title goes the wrong way and opening up the article and pointing out that there's tons of all causes the author concludes in the other direction but these questions should be argumentative and that means not open-ended uh I know we've

got folks from college and high school here so I'm going to give a college topic example and then I'm going to give a high school policy example so the Polish topic involves endowing non-human entities with legal status uh and uh that is commonly met with a DA called spillover that says that if you give a mouse a cookie then another non-human entity uh will also get a cookie or in this case legal status in the American court system and so a common answer to the spillover D.A is to argue that there's already some form of legal personhood or legal status for non-human entities now and so someone could ask the question why doesn't the status quo trigger your spillover da and to be clear this is the bad question because it's open-ended you don't Advance an argument you're just you're just asking and your opponent can say whatever they want to say they can start to talk about how there's a firewall between human and non-human ability to have legal standing in courts you can say whatever they want to say but let's rephrase this question it's not open in any open-ended anymore it's argumentative

and so your new question is given that legal status has been given to tons of non-human entities like local ordinances that established rights for the temecock borough which is a ecosystem in Pennsylvania or waterways in Florida that Saudi Arabia gave Sophia an artificial intelligence rights that Wyoming the state where I'm from has endowed a blockchain or decentralized organizations uh with legal standing aren't all of these reasons why your D.A is terminally non-unique the difference between those two questions is that in the latter version the affirmative is advancing arguments about why the D.A is wrong they are arguing they are not asking and I like to conceive of crossx like a tally chart just you know line line afmag are we getting tallies in the columns and if you ask why doesn't the status quo trigger the D.A zero zero tallies there's zero arguments now quality of question an answer and warrants certainly matters but you you can't get on the board without even one argument one warrant that helps you win the debate so the first question zero tallies the second question I think four

I think I made four args like two ordinances though so maybe it was really three uh either way you're on the poor and your opponent has to try and keep up and refute each of those examples and suddenly it's a lot more work for your opponent too so it's gonna do a high school topic example two so we've got a cooperation with NATO this is gonna lead to a bunch of debates about Russia and so someone might want to ask the question is Russia isn't

Part 3

Russia a revisionist aren't they a revisionist power open-ended no argument let's rephrase it seems obvious to me that Russia's revisionists they invaded Georgia they invaded the Ukraine and you're probably going to say that it was caused by NATO expansion but that doesn't explain the brutality within which they have waged these war wars bombing maternity Wards nor does it explain the specific military strategies like the development of tactical nuclear weapons or the subs and the Baltic Sea that can only be used for expansive offensive purposes obviously second version of the question is a lot more tallies get you on the board it has more warrants for why Russia is revisionist now you don't need to understand either of these topics or what revisionism is or what legal status in the U.S court implies to get the basic idea that the more warrants your question has the more arguments your question makes the more tallies you put on the board and again quality matters are not only going for quantity here that's not what I mean by the tally chart it's supposed to get the basic idea that you have

to make an argument to get on the board the last benefit to this is that it it constrains your opponent's answer just like politicians every debater wants to use a question as a springboard to talk about what they want to talk about if you ask me a question about the solvency of my affirmative what I want to do in crossx is preview my 2ac we solve block we solve for three reasons one two three that's what I want to do and if you're just like how does the app solve this I get to go well we solve for three reasons one two three but if you have a very specific question about a particular alt cause I could read that block and when I say read that block it's like I'm being a little bit metaphorical here I could make the arguments I want to make but I think they're going to be a lot less responsive and I'm not really going to answer the question so I'm probably constrained in these scenarios where you've asked a specific question to respond to what you've said instead of using my stump speech that I want to give so argumentative questions in addition to helping you more and the side benefit of hurting

your opponent or hurting their ability to make the arguments they want okay we're still in section two five big tips we are now moving from big tip one our you don't ask to big tip two don't beat a dead horse don't be a dead horse this tip is about pacing because I generally find that after I teach Debaters argue don't ask they'll do it but they're just gonna argue that first question and they are going to get stuck there and that is all they're going to talk about but don't beat a dead horse be more willing to move on to make more arguments and the reason why you want to do this is because crosstex is not about your opponents it is about the judge so you might get stuck on a question either because your opponent has failed to give you an answer you think makes any sense or they just refuse to agree with you here's the thing though they that's their job it's literally their job to refuse to agree with you you can't convince your opponents of anything because they don't want to admit weakness they will Almost Never just be like yeah you're right about that question in fact this da is so bad

I think that Jackie should just like tear up her flow there's no chance that we will go for this disadvantage you have utterly humiliated and embarrassed me and I now forth that's not going to happen they're going to continue to argue with you so you need to reframe that the point of cross-x is to persuade the judge and the question you should ask is how long does it take the judge to understand the argument you're making with a question and ask it again this is where your mindset should be how long does it take the judge to understand the argument that you're making with a question and the answer is that we usually understand it especially if you're doing your job right before you've finished asking the question I honestly don't think this is that terribly surprising like just imagine some of my examples from before I was like isn't Russia revisionist they invaded Ukraine and Georgia and then I talked for like 30 more seconds you got the ARG I was making what I said Georgia and Ukraine right Russia invaded countries that's pretty much all I'm saying there and so Russia equals aggressive they

want to take land restore the USSR your judges are going to get that really quick again before you've finished asking the question and knowing that you need to understand that everything after the judge understands the point of the question is diminishing marginal utility it's diminishing marginal returns once the judge understands the argument you're trying to make your question can no longer help you win the debate it's not a bad thing the question did its job you made an argument the judge understood it that's what's supposed to happen but if you ask the same question again a second time it provides no new information for the judge it does not help you win the debate in any way because the judge already understood the information garnered from the first time you asked the question and honestly it can easily hurt you to ask a question a second time so let's say you ask your question your opponent gives an answer that you think is bad and instead of pocketing the win and moving on your response is to double down and explain to them why their answer is bad you don't advance in the debate because

the judge doesn't get any new information but what if your opponent does what if your opponent uses that extra 10 seconds to figure out a good answer to your question you had a w your opponent slobbed the question but because you doubled down on that you gave them the time to turn their L into a win and now you're the one that's taking a loss on that crossx question because you gave your opponent time to figure out how to save themselves your goal should be to ask nine unique argumentative questions in a cross X nine unique argumentative questions and let me be clear I am all about setting this goal much more than I am about completing it if you don't ask nine questions I'm not going to say like your cross-ex strategy failed like you did cross-x wrong because if you set a goal to ask nine questions and more importantly had nine questions prepared to ask you will drive yourself to keep the pace up because you'll have nine args you want to make and you won't let yourself get tied down to any one particular argument and I want you to think about the other speeches right my thesis crosses a speech

constructives and rebuttals how many arguments per minute do you think you make it a constructive or a bottle put yourself into an R to AR mode 60 seconds it's a lot of time I think you make a lot of arguments in 60 seconds and I'll even give you uh that cross X is really like every second is like half a second so a minute is 30 seconds because you're theoretically splitting it with your opponent but if you make 10 arguments in a minute in a rebuttal which uh it's like you know I think you probably make more than 10 arguments in a minute or a bundle then we would expect you to make at least five arguments in a minute and cross X but most of the cross-exes that I see really only contain one argument per minute and that can be improved upon your pace can be advanced I have a little bit more of pacing stuff to talk about because we need to answer the question what happens when your opponent has a smart answer Matt you said pacing matters should you just ignore it and move on I guess there's no because you don't want to hand your opponent a win on any particular cross-sex question so if your opponent

has a smart well-developed response to your question it does change things a little bit and the formula that I want to give you for dealing with this is I'm going to call either no and or transition to win and I'll unpack both of those you don't want to look like you're losing on an issue in crossx but you don't want to Circle back to be saying the same things and the difference is whether you're responding to their argument at the next level if you're making a new argument to respond to that like think about framework debates we use this phrase like third and fourth level debates all the time your Arc is the first level their response is the second level if what you're going to say is just to repeat yourself to a good answer to your question you did not get to what framework says we should be at which is the third level response because this is where you want to be but then you want to stop it you don't want to give your opponent a chance for a fourth level response and so that's where we're going to get no and and I'm I'm ripping this off of like the Improv idea of yes and where in an improv

in like an improv comedy situation you're supposed to respond to like any given situation by agreeing and then moving on we are in the opposite situation here no and you provide a third level response that is a direct answer to the question that to the response that they have given and then you move on you transition to win you you pocket a w and then move on so you want to give a very concise answer here that slides into your next question so quickly that your opponent can't keep the debate dwelling on this issue you get to keep the pace off Pace up but you don't end on a loss now the trick here and what I've come to realize after giving this lecture uh many

Part 4

times is that you need to have a well warranted response so it it sounds when I say no and I don't mean literally say no and you have to have a reason an argument a warrant a good argument because if you're just like I disagree with that that's silly you're being absurd and then you move on well it's an ad hoc and that hominin attack you haven't made an argument you've just stated that you disagree what you need to do is is listen to what they've said so you have the ability to process it refute it and then move on to your next question and this back and forth can get into some complicated issues of Debaters either letting their opponents talk for too long or interrupting each other too much and let me be clear my thesis here is more questions is good for you but that is not an excuse to constantly interrupt or talk over your opponents in Cross sex not only does that not sound good probably not great for your speaker points the message you're sending is that your arguments can't hold up to the scrutiny of an actual response by your opponents because if you're unwilling to let your opponent respond to your questions

in cross-secs like why should I think they're good questions if you can't trust that they can stand up to giving your opponent more than two and a half seconds to respond to them then I probably think you're just not asking good questions because you won't even let your opponent talk about them so we don't want to interrupt too much and we don't want to let our opponent talk forever right you have to have a balanced amount of minutes in the cross-examination ideally I mean you kind of do want more of the minutes because whoever's talking more is going to have the opportunity to make more arguments and this might sound complicated and it might sound like I'm about to say it's more art than science which is probably not very helpful but it's not it's not actually that complicated because here's the deal you get one real chance to answer a question if you fail your opponent does not owe you a second chance they can move on but you have to give your opponent the real chance to answer the question including the real amount of time that would be necessary if they are flabbergasted and saying nonsense

and not responding to the question I think you should move on they had their one real chance they don't get to just say a bunch of filler words to think of time to answer the question and then go it's all about who the judge is going to be sympathetic to if you interrupt after a second and a half you do not have my sympathy that's a bad place for you to be in if your opponent fails to answer the question I'm not sympathetic to them you can move on third have a written list of questions have a written list of questions opening of the lecture crossx is a speech prep for it like a speech I otherwise you're going to end up with way too many needed Twix moments where you're shuffling sheets of flow paper or scrolling through a dock and there's going to be lots of Oz and um's as you think about maybe you had an idea of the questions you wanted to ask but you got distracted by how annoying your opponent's answer was and now you've forgotten everything have a written list of questions in detail you wouldn't write only the vagus of things on your flow to prepare for an argument and a rebuttal and similarly you

should be more detailed in the way you write your questions down in crossx including thinking about the second third and fourth level like there are a lot of times when I ask a question and I have a pretty good idea of what my opponent's answer is going to be and so I'll usually draw like kind of one of these like down into the right uh where I can put if they say this thing here's how I would respond to that so I I literally have my second level of cross-x prepared and written down if I'm pretty confident that that's the direction that the cross-examination is going to go and so I think the logical question here is that I'm just telling you to do a whole bunch of stuff and how on Earth are you supposed to have time to do any of this how on Earth are you supposed to have time to write nine questions in detail and have some of them have a second level of explanation the answer is that you only have two jobs when you have a cross X coming up two jobs one flow and two prepare for your Crossings if you have a prospects it's your next speech you don't have a constructive or rebuttal as your next speech

you have a cross-examination for your next speech so focus on the immediate task which is that cross-x which requires only two things flowing and getting ready for that cross-examination there will occasionally be exceptions where your partner asks you for help and a pinch but when trying to avoid that because we're going to say stay task focused on the thing that matters for us which is our cross-examination and maybe you're thinking some of you are definitely thinking that sounds nice in theory Matt but I have a real speech coming up after this and I'm going to prep that in Wing cross-section I would disagree with you vigorously about what a real speech is but more important if you are prepping cross-x you are prepping the speech that you have after that the crossx of the 2ac needs to tear apart the two AC to the position that you're going to take in the 1 and R if you're prepping the crosstalk to the two AC right you are already prepping the one and R and you are prepping the hardest parts because you are are prepping the parts that are going to be more challenging to talk about and unpack

fourth prioritize you shouldn't just ask crosex questions in the order that you thought of them or the order that you wrote them down you need a mission a plan priorities and that involves a willingness to radically reorganize your questions so you know when I was debating and I was you know generating cross-sex questions I'd always number them so like the question I thought was most important on my sheet of paper that was solely about cross-x questions I would write down one next to the question that I thought was most important but I came up with that question two minutes into a much longer speech and if that's true I might come up with better questions later on so you need to be willing to scratch out that number one and make it a number two because something else is the new number one and so on and so forth so that you're always prioritizing what the most important question in this crossx is if you're I'm going to stick to this analysis of the cross section of the 2ac if you're cross-exing the 2ac to a politics da you want to figure out what their best answer is what's the 2ar going to be like

the two acetyl politics da is gonna have some some obvious losers some like args that aren't winners or that you feel pretty confident on don't cross exploits crossx the hard arguments cross-x the arguments that you are afraid of that are good because that's where you need the most work that's what you should prioritize you want to focus on what's going to be around at the end of the debate like think about this I know I've got high school aldiers high school policy folks and college folks all in the same Zoom room right now uh plus who knows uh who watching the live stream so everybody has a different final speech but I'm like a college policy debate your final rebuttal is six minutes you had so much speaking time before that so much speaking time before that but at the end of the day everything's got to fit into that final rebuttal and so so many things are going to fall away if you cross-x something that's not in the final rebuttal that might be a sign that you didn't use your time as effectively as possible it's not always the case because if you push your opponents off an argue they wanted

to go for that's still definitely a win but you want to think about what do you want at the end of the debate and what does your opponent want at the end of the debate because if you are cross-exing those things then you are making your crosex matter because if you cross-ex an argument that's so bad there's no way your opponent could go for it if you cross-section argument that you know you could beat in milliseconds on the line by line of your 1ar or your partners when they are in this case like why why waste valuable cross X time winning something you are always going to win anyway crossx should be a game changer it should tackle the hard issues so you can in places where you're behind Mount a comeback or in places where you can offer an explanation to the judge that will cut through your opponent's arguments like butter and situate you substantially farther ahead in the debate then do that avoid easy wins because they don't get you as much as cross-sexing the hard stuff I'm gonna do a little bit of speech by speech so let's talk about the 1ac I'm going to be a little policy focused right

now the cross section of the one I see should be the only time you cross-x the case debate obviously you're going to cross-seize the case but the really important thing here is don't do it again in every other speech you're going to have an opportunity to cross-sec something that you only get one shot at you only get one shot at cross-exing the 2ac to Any Given position if the 2N goes for t or a counter plan debates that can sometimes be complex

Part 5

and have a lot of moving parts you only get one shot to crossx the development of those moving parts so going back to crossx earlier stuff in the debate they're using the cross section the 2ac to talk about the solvency of the affirmative you already had a three-minute chance to do that so don't re-crossex the case the one possible exception is a one-off kataming where the case debate can sometimes be as or even more important than the k possible exception what you should be doing in the crosstakes of the 1ac I think focusing on solvency and internal links impacts can be easy they can be a fallback strategy I'm sure that most advanced Debaters could cross-x econ decline equals war in their sleep but you're going to get a bigger bang for your buck thinking about solvency and internal links because I know that to Outsiders impacts seem ridiculous right like like the often localized debate perspective or layperson debate expected is like why do you all talk about nuclear war so much impacts can seem ridiculous but honestly when we comparatively think about like what's more ridiculous an internal link

or an impact the impact is like the world would be bad if the economy collapsed okay the world would be pretty bad if we allowed climate change to go unmitigated again I yes that one I feel pretty good about this Russia going to war with the United States bad thing also check yes now let's talk about internal links we adopt narrow policy changes that are that are you know maybe 15 words often these like ridiculously vague statements that the affirmative claims to mean definitively means one thing and we're like okay we do that boom the economy is golden and okay so affirmative Fred some cards that you know the plan boosts the economy but it's like we'll never have to worry about it again like this one law and the economy is like fine for all time there will never be a another threat to the economy ever again or your you know very particular solution to climate change uh that you know isn't even oriented around the environment initially is going to solve emissions sufficiently in every part of the globe and in every sector of the economy sufficiently to prevent the positive feedback loops

that you say were like minutes away from seeing permafrost melt and doom the Earth Color Me skeptical I am a lot more apt to think about the sillier parts of the affirmative and disads are the idea that these either tiny technical changes or the status quo is going to fix these big problems I think that's where your focus should be crosstalk to the 1nc should focus on the off-case positions that you think are most likely to be the 2nr and I love a laser focus I love when people bet big and so what I mean by that is let's say you're debating a team that loves to read just a bunch of arguments and maybe to you that's four maybe to some other people it's it's nine so let's call it an off case uh let's let's say it's a one and see but there's seven off-case arguments one approach to this would be to say I'm going to ask one question on Egypt that way no matter what the 2nr goes for I've covered my bases and I've tried to punch at least one hole in it but here's the thing I don't think your opponents are equally likely to go for each of those positions I bet some of them are bad and some of them

are less bad uh and I bet your opponent has empirical and ideological proclivities to go for some arguments over others so for example you're looking at the wiki and you're debating uh some school that's gone for politics in 17 of 19 to an RS you should spend all three minutes on the politics da let's say your opponents everyone in C is diverse but every two and R is the k i call these teams faux Flex teams you should spend all three minutes on the critique let's say that the 1C is pretty bland but they have one hyper-specific argument to your case that you've never seen before and is like very well developed so it's like multiple cards specific to your affirmative maybe this team's your rival and it's like quite clear that this strategy was written to beat you all three minutes on that argument what I'm saying here is that there are either in round Clues or Intel and scouting that can tell you what your opponent is more likely to go for and rather than spreading your questions around I think you should make a bet I think you should take a risk and say I think they want to go for this I am going to

spend all three minutes tearing it apart and either I'm right and I deter their best argument from being in the 2nr when I'm right and they still go for it but I've substantially weakened the position when or I was wrong and I picked the wrong position but as you get better at picking up on these Clues it's very not that hard to pick up on you will be right far more often than you are wrong Classics are too easy um I like this one so I have already sort of hinted at what I'm going to say here many times easy rule of thumb the cross section the 2ac should add three minutes to the one and R the one in R is one of the most amazing speeches in debate you get nearly infinite prep time you get to drop the hammer on the affirmative with them having a lopsided amount of less prep time compared to the 2nc it's protected from crossx one of ours amazing to effectively use it even better add three minutes to it by cross-examining the answers to the position that you're going to take in the one and R if you're going to go for a process counter plan with an internal net benefit in the 1 and R use all three minutes

of the crossx and the two AC to dismantle with again a laser like focus in order but an order of priori cross-section the two NC you should be sorry I just saw a tech change and I wasn't sure if anything was going on but if Jackie doesn't say anything I'll assume we're good the process of the 2nc should dismantle what you think is most likely to be in the 2nr and so this can go a couple of different ways if the 2N takes e a counter plan in case then you want to think what's more likely to be than to an art t or the counter play because we're never going to re-cross X the case that's the job of the cross section of the 1ac um the focus should be on what you think they can win on and so maybe you split your time between T and the counter plan really sort of depends on what's in the speech but your goal should be to feel out what is this 2N want to go for the best two ends are going to put their best offense in the one and R and that's going to be difficult because they're going to obstruct you I like to go for just only case in the 2nc which forced a defensive cross X by my opponent we still

do the best you can but good to ENC can still have a lot of diverse pressure and create openings for you to tear apart the answers to the thing that 2N cares apart about the most and and also kind of luckily a lot of two ends are overwhelmingly narcissistic and put the thing they want to take in the 2nc that is great for you because that means you get three minutes to take shots at the thing that they want to go for the most so take advantage and dismantle that argument it creates huge opportunities for you to turn things around and you should have some willingness to make arguments that are either on the borderline of being new or honestly even kind of past it because the argument that an art that a 1ar argument should be rejected for being new loses a lot of ethos when you have cross-examined that argument and the cross-section of the two and see I'm not saying it just like automatically you can't uh say those args are new and should be deleted off the flow uh but it is much harder to have the moral High Ground if you got eviscerated on it and cross-x because it makes it look like a procedural

complaint instead or wine instead of you being right on the substance all right we are on our last big tip crossx is a crystal ball to predict your opponent's plans crossx is a crystal ball to predict what your opponent wants to do let's assume your opponent is good at crossings that means they're being argumentative they're focused on the parts of the debate that are most important and those two things together are your opponent showing you their cards showing you their hands saying this is what I want to focus on at the end of the debate if they're doing Classics right if they're doing everything I've just said they are highlighting the issues they want to win the debate on now that's not a reason to not do those things you should still do those things it definitely is the like best return on investment strategy for you to win in a process but you should also be aware that when your opponents are doing this you can learn from it you can see the arguments that they want to go for and you should get ready for that right away for example if you take an L in Cross X you get embarrassed on some

question it's fine it happens it's not the end of the world you get the opportunity to fix it later but you're not going to unless you immediately start to think about how to fix it and and this was not something I realized while I was debating it was something I realized while I was coaching that if you take an L in Cross X you have to fix it immediately I always will use the word procrastinated I was like you know there are other tasks I've

Part 6

got to focus on this is probably going to come up again but I'll deal with it when I'm prepping my 1ar right because that's where I'm gonna have to actually make this argument next but that doesn't work because if you got posed on an argument in Cross X and you're just like I'll have to come back to this later when they make that argument I'll stick with my speech examples in the block and you're trying to prep it in the 1ar you're just in the same situation where you're on the spot again and you haven't worked out how you're going to deal with this problem so cross-x can be useful for predicting what your opponents are going to do in a lot of ways and you should listen to what their arguments are because they're showing you their hand and you should use that to inform where you're spending prep time and where you're spending mental energy and if you take a big L in Cross X it's not game over I promise you you can you can come back from it later but you don't fix a perceptual loss by going through the motions you fix the fact that you're perceived to be losing on an issue with a bombastic

good response and I don't want to I don't mean use the phrase I know I sounded like I was losing on this before because when you say that you sound like you're losing but if you can up your rhetorical game and make a high quality argument at the moment you're addressing something that you were losing before you can change the tide you can change the perception of who's ahead and you can literally make the judge think oh they came up with an answer and it's good and that checks the Box you need to check okay we are now moving on to the third part of the lecture now in focused tips nine smaller tips those are all pretty big I talked for a while on each point these are going to be a little bit quicker first don't do the control F test what I mean by that is questions like where does your evidence say this can you read a line from your evidence that says that these are bad questions they're they're not particularly argumentative and they they are a think for your time and there's no almost no possible scenario where they put you ahead because here are the possible outcomes your opponent points to the

line you take an L your opponent lies and says a line is there and it's not and now you're in a they said they said and there's no winner especially the judge who is definitely losing at life when they have to listen to this they bend the truth or worst of all they make an argument that's better than the card because when you ask can you read a line from your evidence that says this thing and your opponent ignores that and responds by making just a brilliant argument or even just a smart argument you are left with the ethos of but what about the card judge and here's the thing we just don't care we like smart arguments don't get me wrong evidence is good and qualified evidence is even better but I will take a smart analytical argument over a Reliance on evidence every day and that sentiment is the closest thing to uniform among every type of judge in the debate Community whether it's a parent judge a k judge policy judge a blank slate judge smart analytic over Reliance on evidence is pretty much the only thing that we could probably all agree on and so when you're trapped in saying but your EV doesn't

say that you're taking a hard l second communicate with your partner and integrate their arguments nothing is worse than a devastating crossx of a 1ac followed by a 1nc that makes none of those Origins during the cross section of the 1ac the 1n should be listening I like to call this one ear open where you are working at assembling the 1nc or I don't know even prepping the 1nr overview for a DA you're likely to take but you have one ear open so that when your partner gets a win in Cross X you can integrate that into your 1nc now ideally I mean writing it on your flow and not into a speech document because I like arguments to live on the flow but again flowing lecture a different question integrate your opponent's arguments into speeches seconds part of this in addition to integrating their arguments you should listen because crossx is often an opportunity for you to be prepping I'm going to use the cross x to the 2nc as an example of this the crossx of the 2nc is a love letter to the 1A it's like a it's a fireside chat between the 2A and the 1A we've all heard the boat metaphor right the 2a's the captain

of the F shift the two ends the captain of the neg ship so when because they they get to zoom in especially the 2A in the middle of the debate there's so much time between the two AC and the 2ar that when they do the crossx of the 2nc they don't have to be hyper focused they can think about how arguments interact where the most important issues are and they can use crossx to put a spotlight on those issues and that Spotlight is to the judge but it is also to the 1ar it is a bat signal for the 1ar to know what the most important argument in the debate is because the cross-section the 2ac should be about the most critical arguments if you're CR if you're debating a counter plan and your strategy is to go for permutation to the counter plan or a intrinsic perm these like complex theoretical debates that can be pretty hard to piece together effectively the 2A gets to coach the 1A on the args they want the 1A to make during this cross X because they are literally making those arguments already to the judge so as the 1A one ear open listening to these things so that when your partner gets back from this

cross-x they don't have to be like okay here's the way we're going to win this argument because you've already heard them explain it three don't interrupt your partner for the younger Debaters here you might be asking or getting asked the question is tag team allowed uh you know virtually yes like there are certainly some judges who are going to say no in like local circuits and play judges but like yes it's allowed that does not mean it is a good idea just because you can interrupt your partner doesn't mean you should interrupt your partner because those interruptions whether during cross-sex or any other speech destroy your partner's Rhythm and they signal a lack of confidence in your partner that undermines your credibility remember I don't believe in rap I believe in credibility and one good way to destroy yours is to signal to the judge that you don't have the confidence in your partner for them to handle a basic cross-sex question nobody wants to vote for the team that has a rude debater that thinks their partner can't handle their own speeches and this is especially true uh when it's a

CIS dude speaking over anyone who's not a CIS dude but there is a strategic reason in addition to an ethos reason to avoid interrupting your partner which is you have something else you're supposed to be doing there's always a task that you have and if you're in the cross X your task is your cross-x remember I talked about sort of order of speeches and I was like if your next speech is a cross-x then like that is your next speech well the corollary is also true if that crossx is not your speech then you're the one who's giving the next constructive or rebuttal and you need to be focused on that that's your job that's the thing that you're supposed to be doing so real quick this is this is this Interruption thing can be really important uh so I'm gonna do my rules for Interruption uh unless Jackie intervenes to tell me that I have a hard time limit of an hour in which case I will quickly wrap up but otherwise I've probably got you're good to go nice 15 more minutes of content Max so we're still on don't interrupt but we're zooming out for a second and we're not going to talk about cross-x specifically I'm

going to get into the rules for interrupting your partner and largely this is going to be centered around etherea called the hot seat effect which is that if you're not in the hot seat if you're not in the cross X the constructive or the rebuttal you might think that you can give a marginally better answer to a question or an argument because you don't have the pressure on here's the thing the hot seat effect is troublesome because it's true when the pressure's not on you and you don't have to think about how to answer everything that's happening you can give a marginally better answer but the key word is marginally and the costs to marginally improving an answer disrupting your partner's Rhythm destroying your credibility in ethos vastly outweigh the benefits so we have rules three of them one do not interrupt your partner unless you are going to lose because of something that is either said or not said if the 2N or the one in R is about to drop conditionality by all means feel free to interrupt you're going to lose the debate if you drop conditionality if you're interrupting because you think that

you can tweak the answer you're a partner your partner gave make it a little bit better please remain seated and focus on the thing that you are supposed to be doing because the benefits are not worth it rule number two plan your intervention if it is worth intervening it is worth writing down virtually every word of what you're going to say I like this for a couple of reasons one is that if you're not willing to write down what you're going to say we have not reached the threshold for what a worthwhile intervention is and two it creates an efficient intervention because interrupting your partner can be like a terrible moment if you're like hey you dropped X please answer it a couple of things are going to happen one is your partner's gonna be like I did answer that sure because you weren't flowing two is your partner's gonna be like oh no what do I say because if you intervene

Part 7

to tell someone to answer something like I don't know like Ponder for a moment why they didn't maybe they don't have an answer to that maybe they didn't flow it was like not great flowing lecture uh but on the spot are they supposed to come up with the answer you can't intervene to tell someone to answer something you need to intervene to tell them how to answer something and that should be planned it should be efficient it should be at a natural point where your partner is moving between things you're not you're not interrupting them in the middle of a sentence last third rule of interventions not in the bottom 30 seconds of a speech there is no intervention virtually asterisk condo that is worth happening in the bottom 30 seconds of a speech because you're definitely going to trade off with something your partner thinks is important during the most high pressure time of their speech and you're going to end on a sour note that leaves a bad taste in the judge's mouth and at a subconscious level is going to program the judge to think that you are the worst team and it is those little subconscious factors

in a close debate can add up and be really important fourth of nine Focus tips verbal slip ups are not consensual verbal slip-offs ironic are not concessions at least once a tournament I will see a debate where two folks in Cross X aren't understanding each other usually it's because one person is just too intense on saying the thing they want to say and they're not really listening to their opponent so they misinterpret their response but it could just be because you're kind of talking past each other you don't understand the concepts that are being utilized by your opponent and so it just doesn't quite click and as a result of this you might be hearing what you want to hear and think that there's a concession but if I as the judge kind of see what's happening and see how the miscommunication is happening then I might not think you're getting the concession that you think you are crossx is binding and traps are good and important but if you're not listening carefully to what your opponent is saying you might not be getting the W you think you are it's like concessions from crossx great but you

have to actually be understanding what your opponent is saying okay don't cross X after the timer goes off speech times are non-negotiable this would be entirely non-controversial if I was like you don't get to add a minute to your constructive I was like you can't make the two AC eight minutes if you're a college debater or nine minutes or if you're a high school debater uh and you can't make the 1ar five minutes if you're a high school LD debater speech times are non-negotiable and title of lecture process is a speech there are a lot of Judges that is just absolutely not going to fly in front of and I encourage you to stay very far away from doing that what if someone does it to you you need to have a plan for what your response is going to be if so if the timer goes off and somebody's like no I'm going to use prep time to ask questions again ridiculous you don't get to use prep time to extend a 2ar or two AC you shouldn't get to it use prep time to extend the crossx of the 2ac if you're arguing you're using speech time and there are limits to speech time however if someone is doing this to

you it may not be the right choice to make that procedural objection like maybe it is like I suppose if you have me in the back of the room be confident that if you say cross X is over I not only agree with you my pen will not move I flow crossx but when the speech time stops I will do my best to not listen to the arguments that are being made if you you can ask information seeking questions like if you you know this is maybe a more appropriate time if you have to ask where a card was read you don't want to burn crosstakes time on it but it's fine to use prep time for that I won't actively try and drown those things out but if you're trying to argue I'll drown those out but I'm not always going to be your judge I'm probably never going to be most of your judges so you need to know if that strategy is not going to work what you should do if you think your judge is going to find a strategy of just being like cross sex is over to be a procedural complaint or even cowardly like you're avoiding the issues then it might not be your best strategy to stick to a you know like a rules-based defense and

you should maybe continue to engage in the crossx this requires knowing your judge the second calculation you can make here is are you winning what if your opponent wants to take prep time to ask you questions but you've just been crushing this crosstakes and you're like you feel great you're on fire you're having like the greatest speech of your life like I don't know like maybe just keep going like if you're winning why not these are calculations that you should make but what you should do is make a firm decision so it looks like you've not forfeited the ethos advantage stick to your choice be firm in it Whatever It Is I'm going to shrink down to two more things second to last don't draw attention to dropped arguments now I've sort of covered this already because I said avoid easy wins but I'm going to be a lot more careful here if an argument is dropped you can't lose it there's zero potential gain from a cross-x question about a dropped argument but there is total potential for loss because you open the door for new answers like what is the point of asking about something if you're not giving your

opponent an opportunity to respond to it like your question is like this argument was dropped is your expectation that your opponent is just gonna be like yeah because that's probably not going to happen they are probably going to say here's why I think that's bad and what do you like with what of two things you can say you can't say that it's new but again what was your expectation here you're the one that asked about it you open the door the moral High Ground is gone or you can start to argue about it which again you've gone from a hundred percent winning to ever shrinking as they come up with better arguments I want to tell a little story here to drive home the point uh one example of this is counter plan Tech laws it is a very bad idea to cross-x a counter plan text being written incorrectly because the two end can fix it and yes you can have a debate about whether or not two NC cataplans are legitimate or illegitimate they're legitimate probably especially like tiny ones that fix little issues like these that you might be pointing out so when you cross-x about this you can take a hundred

percent win on an entire off case position because they wrote their counter plan text wrong and turn it into a bagel a zero because the two end just fixes it at the top of the two and c and in fact a smart 1n can say if it's true that the Counterpoint text was written incorrectly then it will be changed it will be changed to incorporate exactly what you're talking about and it'll be the first words out of the two ends mouth during the 2nc if you have any questions about it you can ask about it now which means it's functionally being introduced right now because you can use this cross X to ask about the new text that's very hard to respond to I promise you and here's the story years and years ago I was coaching at Liberty University uh where I coached a team of Lincoln Garrett and Austin Woodruff I've been working with them for a couple of years and so they kind of knew this stuff right I'd given probably a very similar version of this lecture and so they knew don't cross X about counter plan text flaws and so the counter plan in this debate against a very good team from Wake Forest University

has the wrong country in it it's a foreign policy topic Liberty reads an app about Syria wake had just debated a team that reads an app about Egypt literal wrong country kind of hard for a counter play to solve where it is about a literal different country so prospects the one in C not brought up smooth great excellent crossing the two AC says Syria is key on the line by line in the two AC on a counter plan looks like nothing so it's not going to draw attention but the 1A can easily stand up and say go to 2ac number two Syria is key they wrote their counter plan text wrong and you could obviate basically the entire 2nc 2 and C gone Zapped done you only have to debate the one and r that's like huge that would be big that would have been a major upset because that wake team was ranked very highly however in the 2nc crossings UNC is over and so the Liberty debaters I get where they're coming from they think there's no more opportunities to fix this the window has closed because there are no more Constructors left so why not cross X about this dropped argument now it's easy and I'll get a good

win on it don't cross-ex easy things because when this cross X happens the 2N immediately responds we are going to change the counterplane text at the top of the 1 and R it'll be the very first words that the top of the one on R says and you can ask any questions you want to now you're going to say that one in our counter plans are illegitimate but the only warrant you will have for that is that you can't cross x a 1 and R but there are two minutes and 46 seconds left of this crossx and you may use as many of those seconds as you want to ask me questions about the new counter plan text proof entire argument God last rejects the premise of the question a

Part 8

lot of this lecture is about how to ask questions some of it was about how to answer that my biggest tip for how to answer them is reject the premise of the question your opponents are gonna start many questions with something that they assert or presume or imply to be true and if you deal with the tail end of the question only you are debating on their turns think about the first half of the question reject the premise of the question all right that's all I've got that was awesome Matt thank you so much uh thank you everyone who tuned in uh live and anyone who watches this later uh I hope you learned a lot what I wanted to give opportunity now in case is are there anyone is there anyone who's here in the zoom or on the live Channel who has a quick question wait like five seconds to see if we have any takers all right uh well thank you everyone for coming thank you Matt for talking about cross-examination uh I will be hitting you up for the flowing lecture uh so um come to our next uh Ceta series lecture coming soon uh we've got a ton of things on the list that I hope will be helpful and informative


Impromptu Prep in World Schools Debate: Strategies, Roles, and Time Management Speaking & DeliveryJett Smith This video covers the fundamentals and advanced techniques for Impromptu Motions in World Schools Debate. The video covers: What Impromptu Debates Are The Rules of Impromptu Motions Preparing for Impromptu Motions Mastering the 1 Hour of Impromptu Prep What to do During Impromptu Debates Strategies and Drills for Impromptu Motions Final Tips & Suggestions Link to the slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xBxbpQODMLeTw0acmXc0_kVI7zWVWF9Dqp20JokkvP8/edit?usp=sharing Check out my other videos on world schools debate: Framing and Analyzing Motions in World Schools Debate Part 1 : https://youtu.be/APkTbhRmb88 Framing and Analyzing Motions in World Schools Debate Part 2: https://youtu.be/4iUmlWNYOek The 1st Speaker in World Schools: The Recipe for Success https://youtu.be/T-Yz0aSwrkw The 2nd Speaker in World Schools: The Guidelines for Greatness https://youtu.be/mMgJksiReok The 3rd Speaker in World Schools: Crafting Convincing Crystallization https://youtu.be/F6Y0RviJqJM The Reply Speaker in World Schools: Writing the Rationale for Victory https://youtu.be/xq-871tGcfE Points of Information in World Schools Debate: https://youtu.be/zAd4UE5ALZM	Jun 27, 2026	0.1k
Part 2 - Framing & Interpreting Motions in World Schools Debate Speaking & DeliveryJett Smith This video will teach you the advanced techniques of framing, interpreting, and analyzing motions in World Schools Debate. Topics covered include: "This House Would" Motions "This House, as [Actor], Would" Motions "This House Believes" Motions "This House Supports" Motions "This House Regrets" Motions "This House Prefers" Motions Final Thoughts Here are the slides for this video presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1E8vBFPTm8Lg6okkuD_d068wgcNL6nIimoJXIYic6Wbw/edit?usp=sharing Check out my videos on how to do each of the speeches in world schools debate: Framing and Analyzing Motions in World Schools Debate: https://youtu.be/APkTbhRmb88 The 1st Speaker in World Schools: The Recipe for Success https://youtu.be/T-Yz0aSwrkw The 2nd Speaker in World Schools: The Guidelines for Greatness https://youtu.be/mMgJksiReok The 3rd Speaker in World Schools: Crafting Convincing Crystallization https://youtu.be/F6Y0RviJqJM The Reply Speaker in World Schools: Writing the Rationale for Victory https://youtu.be/xq-871tGcfE Points of Information in World Schools Debate: https://youtu.be/zAd4UE5ALZM	May 27, 2026	0.4k


Impromptu Prep in World Schools Debate: Strategies, Roles, and Time Management Speaking & DeliveryJett Smith This video covers the fundamentals and advanced techniques for Impromptu Motions in World Schools Debate. The video covers: What Impromptu Debates Are The Rules of Impromptu Motions Preparing for Impromptu Motions Mastering the 1 Hour of Impromptu Prep What to do During Impromptu Debates Strategies and Drills for Impromptu Motions Final Tips & Suggestions Link to the slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xBxbpQODMLeTw0acmXc0_kVI7zWVWF9Dqp20JokkvP8/edit?usp=sharing Check out my other videos on world schools debate: Framing and Analyzing Motions in World Schools Debate Part 1 : https://youtu.be/APkTbhRmb88 Framing and Analyzing Motions in World Schools Debate Part 2: https://youtu.be/4iUmlWNYOek The 1st Speaker in World Schools: The Recipe for Success https://youtu.be/T-Yz0aSwrkw The 2nd Speaker in World Schools: The Guidelines for Greatness https://youtu.be/mMgJksiReok The 3rd Speaker in World Schools: Crafting Convincing Crystallization https://youtu.be/F6Y0RviJqJM The Reply Speaker in World Schools: Writing the Rationale for Victory https://youtu.be/xq-871tGcfE Points of Information in World Schools Debate: https://youtu.be/zAd4UE5ALZM	Jun 27, 2026	0.1k
Part 2 - Framing & Interpreting Motions in World Schools Debate Speaking & DeliveryJett Smith This video will teach you the advanced techniques of framing, interpreting, and analyzing motions in World Schools Debate. Topics covered include: "This House Would" Motions "This House, as [Actor], Would" Motions "This House Believes" Motions "This House Supports" Motions "This House Regrets" Motions "This House Prefers" Motions Final Thoughts Here are the slides for this video presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1E8vBFPTm8Lg6okkuD_d068wgcNL6nIimoJXIYic6Wbw/edit?usp=sharing Check out my videos on how to do each of the speeches in world schools debate: Framing and Analyzing Motions in World Schools Debate: https://youtu.be/APkTbhRmb88 The 1st Speaker in World Schools: The Recipe for Success https://youtu.be/T-Yz0aSwrkw The 2nd Speaker in World Schools: The Guidelines for Greatness https://youtu.be/mMgJksiReok The 3rd Speaker in World Schools: Crafting Convincing Crystallization https://youtu.be/F6Y0RviJqJM The Reply Speaker in World Schools: Writing the Rationale for Victory https://youtu.be/xq-871tGcfE Points of Information in World Schools Debate: https://youtu.be/zAd4UE5ALZM	May 27, 2026	0.4k

All Videos

College Policy

HS Policy Teams

HS Public Forum

HS Debate 1v1

Lectures

Watch History

Greatest of All-Time

My Favorites

WSD

ACC

Speech

CEDA Lecture Series - Cross Examination - Matt Liu

Comments

Related videos

All Videos

College Policy

HS Policy Teams

HS Public Forum

HS Debate 1v1

Lectures

Watch History

Greatest of All-Time

My Favorites

WSD

ACC

Speech

CEDA Lecture Series - Cross Examination - Matt Liu

Comments

Related videos