Catching Equivocation in Cross-Examination
Cross-examination is the ideal moment to catch an opponent shifting the meaning of a key term between speeches. You will be able to construct a question that pins down a term's meaning to prevent equivocation.
Pinning Down Definitions Early
As soon as you suspect a key term might carry two different meanings across an opponent's case (like 'rational' meaning 'capable of any reasoning' in one contention and 'capable of complex moral reasoning' in another), ask them directly which definition they intend, and ask them to commit to using it consistently for the rest of the round.
Calling Out a Shift When It Happens
If an opponent later uses the term differently than they defined it in cross-examination, point this out explicitly and calmly in your next speech: 'In cross-examination, my opponent defined rationality as X; but their contention two argument only works if rationality means Y — these are not the same thing, and the argument fails once we notice the shift.'
The Affirmative's case uses the word 'natural' in two contentions about environmental ethics.
Q: 'In your first contention, does natural mean occurring without human intervention, or does it mean beneficial and good?' The Affirmative answers 'without human intervention.' Later, in rebuttal, the Negative notes: 'My opponent defined natural as without human intervention in cross-ex, but their second contention assumes natural things are automatically good — those are two different claims, and equating them is an equivocation that breaks their argument.'
1. What is the best cross-examination strategy when a term might carry two different meanings across a case?
2. True or False?
"Once a term's definition is pinned down in cross-examination, later noticing a shift in its use can be pointed out as equivocation in a following speech."
Answer all 2 to check.
Pin down key term definitions early in cross-examination, then call out any later shift as equivocation with direct reference to their own answer.