Exposing Hidden Premises
Cross-examination is the best tool for forcing an opponent to state a premise they left unspoken in their constructive. You will be able to write a question that surfaces a specific hidden premise.
The Technique
Identify the gap between an opponent's stated premise and their conclusion, then ask a direct question that forces them to fill that gap out loud — once stated, the premise becomes a fixed target you can attack in your next speech. Phrase the question narrowly enough that a vague answer is obviously evasive to the judge.
Using the Exposed Premise Later
Simply exposing a premise accomplishes little on its own; you must return to it explicitly in your next speech, quoting the opponent's own cross-examination answer back to them before attacking it — 'In cross-examination, my opponent admitted X; but X is false because...' This ties the attack directly to something the judge just heard the opponent say.
The Affirmative argued: 'AI can't be conscious because it's just following code.'
Q: 'Is it your position that nothing which follows deterministic physical rules could ever be conscious?' If the Affirmative says yes, the Negative has exposed the hidden premise and can respond in rebuttal: 'My opponent admitted in cross-ex that nothing following deterministic rules can be conscious — but human neurons also follow deterministic physical and chemical rules, so by their own logic, human consciousness would be impossible too.'
1. What should you do immediately after exposing a hidden premise in cross-examination?
2. True or False?
"A cross-examination question aimed at exposing a hidden premise should be phrased broadly and vaguely so the opponent has room to answer however they like."
Answer all 2 to check.
Ask narrow questions that force a hidden premise into the open, then quote the opponent's own answer back at them in your next speech.