Questions to Ask in a Debate
For student and club debaters who have to question the other side, in cross-examination, crossfire or points of information, in a class debate or a tournament round. The questions run in the order a good questioning period does: clarifying questions about definitions and what is being defended, then evidence, the assumptions underneath, consequences and cost, and consistency, which ends with the closing trap, with a last group for a moderator or audience member putting questions to both teams. Each has a note on what a strong or a shaky answer sounds like and what to do with it.
Want questions from the whole vault instead? Try the random question generator.
The questions
Each question, and why to ask it
Clarifying
How are you defining the key term in this debate, in one sentence?
Why ask it
Ask it early and write the sentence down word for word. A definition that has shifted by their last speech is something you can read back to the judge, and one too narrow to cover the obvious cases is an argument for your side on its own.
Can you give one example that falls inside your definition and one that falls just outside it?
Why ask it
The outside example shows where their line really is. If they cannot think of one, the definition covers everything, and you can hand them a case they would never want to defend and ask whether it counts.
What exactly are you asking the judge to vote for?
Why ask it
Listen for one sentence with someone doing something in it. A mood, such as 'a fairer system,' leaves the judge nothing specific to weigh against your side, and your next speech should say so in those words.
What standard should the judge use to decide who has won?
Why ask it
Debaters call this the framework question, and it matters most when the topic is about values. A named measure, such as the fewest people harmed, invites you to show that your side does better by their own yardstick. No measure at all leaves room for yours, and you can point out later that it went unchallenged.
Which of your arguments matters most to your case?
Why ask it
Their answer tells you where to spend your rebuttal time. A debater who says they all matter equally has not weighed them, which leaves you free to do the weighing in your own speech.
Does your case apply everywhere, or only to some places and people?
Why ask it
A narrowed case has to be backed by evidence from inside the narrow area, so check where their examples come from. A universal one lets you choose the hardest place it would have to work and hold the debate there.
Who would carry out your plan, and what gives them the power to do it?
Why ask it
For policy topics only, so skip it in a debate about values. A named body can be tested for money and reach, while 'society' or 'the government' in general usually means enforcement has not been thought about.
Are you defending the way things are now, or a different change from ours?
Why ask it
The side arguing against a change often slides between 'things are fine' and 'there is a better fix.' Make them choose early, because each needs its own defense and they rarely have time for both.
What was your answer to our first argument? I did not hear one.
Why ask it
Ask this only when you honestly are not sure whether they answered it. When you know they skipped the argument, the question hands them a second chance to respond, and you gain more by telling the judge in your next speech that it went unanswered.
Can you restate your second point in one sentence so that I answer the right argument?
Why ask it
A fair question when you missed something, and far cheaper than rebutting an argument they never made. Limit yourself to one, since every clarification spends time you need for the questions that do damage.
Evidence
Where does that figure come from, and what year is it from?
Why ask it
A prepared speaker gives a source and a date without looking down. When neither comes, there is no need to call the number false: tell the judge it arrived without a source and let that sit beside your sourced one.
Who wrote that source, and what is their expertise on this question?
Why ask it
Listen for a person or organization and the field they work in. A campaign group, or an expert speaking outside their own field, does not sink the evidence, but it gives you grounds to ask the judge to weigh it lightly.
What did that study actually measure, and who was in it?
Why ask it
The gap you are hunting is between the sample and the claim, such as a survey at one school standing in for a whole country. Ask only when you suspect a gap, because a strong answer here makes their evidence sound better than it did.
Does your evidence show that one causes the other, or only that the two rise together?
Why ask it
What satisfies a judge is a comparison group or an explanation of the mechanism. Two lines moving in the same direction is neither, and your next speech can offer a third thing that could be driving both.
Is that a single case, or do you have figures for how often it happens?
Why ask it
One vivid story can carry a whole speech. Get it on record that it is a single case, then supply a counterexample when it is your turn, so the judge is left with one story on each side and no figures from them.
Can you read out the exact sentence from the source that says that?
Why ask it
Paraphrase drifts, and 'may contribute to' in the source often becomes 'causes' in the speech. Some formats let you ask to see the evidence itself, so check the rules of yours before the round.
Does the author of that source reach the same conclusion you do?
Why ask it
Writers are often more cautious than the debaters quoting them, and some argue the opposite of the side citing their data. It is risky unless you have read the source, so keep it for evidence you recognize.
What evidence cuts against your claim, and how do you answer it?
Why ask it
A well-prepared team names the counter-evidence and deals with it, which tells you this is not the place to attack. A flat 'there is none' on a contested topic can be broken with one example, so have one ready before you ask.
Assumptions
What has to be true for your main argument to work?
Why ask it
You are asking them to list their own premises. Most debaters offer the safest one, so note which they left out, often a guess about how people will behave, and aim your rebuttal there.
What are the steps between your proposal and the result you promise?
Why ask it
Count the steps on your fingers as they go. Each link needs a reason of its own, and the weakest is usually the one that begins 'and then people will.'
Why would people respond the way your case needs them to?
Why ask it
The answer to hope you do not get is a comparable case where people did exactly that. 'Because it is the right thing to do' is the worrying one for them, since it assumes the behavior the plan was supposed to produce.
What happens under your plan to someone who simply ignores it?
Why ask it
No penalty means the benefits depend on goodwill, and a heavy penalty is a new harm you can put on the scale. Either way you leave with an argument, which makes this one of the safer questions to ask without knowing the answer.
Is your proposal the only way to solve this problem, or one of several?
Why ask it
An admission that there are other ways lets you argue that one of them does the job at lower cost. 'Ours is the only way' is the bolder answer and the more fragile, because a single working alternative breaks it.
If nothing changed, would the problem get worse, stay the same or ease on its own?
Why ask it
A problem that is already shrinking leaves their proposal with less to take credit for. They will probably say it is getting worse, so the real question is the follow-up: how do they know?
Does everyone in the group you are speaking for want the same thing?
Why ask it
Cases about 'students,' 'workers' or 'parents' treat a crowd as one person. Have a part of that group in mind whose interests run the other way, and bring them up as soon as the answer is yes.
Is your case built on the principle or on the practical result?
Why ask it
Many cases run both, and the two pull apart under pressure. A team that picks principle can be tested with an outcome nobody would welcome. One that picks results has turned the debate into a contest of evidence, and the principle can be set aside.
Consequences
Which group pays the price if we do what you propose?
Why ask it
Most changes cost somebody. A debater who names the loser and argues that the trade is worth it is on firm ground, while 'nobody' is the answer to hope for, because you get to introduce that group to the room.
What would this cost, and what gets cut or taxed to cover it?
Why ask it
Nobody expects a budget in a class debate, but a team should know whether the bill is small or enormous. If they say it pays for itself, ask how long that takes and who carries it until then.
What is the worst realistic outcome of your proposal?
Why ask it
It asks them to do your research for you. A named risk earns one follow-up, how likely is it, and 'there is none' lets you describe a risk yourself later and remind the judge they had not considered it.
How long before anyone sees the benefit you are promising?
Why ask it
Costs tend to arrive at once and benefits later. A long wait lets you argue that the harm is certain and the gain is a forecast, which matters when the judge weighs the two.
If your plan turns out to be a mistake, can it be undone?
Why ask it
Harm that cannot be reversed is easy to argue deserves more weight than harm that can. A confident 'yes, it can be undone' deserves a second question about what undoing it would cost and who is left worse off in the meantime.
What do people do instead once your rule is in place?
Why ask it
Rules move behavior somewhere, and it is not always where the proposer hoped. If they have not thought about the substitute, name the likeliest one and ask whether it is better or worse than what was banned.
Can you name a place that already does this, and what changed there afterward?
Why ask it
Safest when you already know the example, or are fairly sure they have none. Should they produce one, the next question is what makes that place different from the one this debate is about.
How would we know a year later that your side had been right?
Why ask it
A named measure lets you argue that it would not move. No measure at all means their benefit cannot be checked, and that is worth one plain sentence in your summary.
If your benefit and our harm both happen, why should yours count for more?
Why ask it
Weighing often decides a close round, and this catches a team that has prepared only its own side of the scale. A real answer gives a reason, such as more people, a longer effect or something that cannot be put right. When none comes, make the comparison in your own speech and note that theirs was missing.
Consistency
Would you apply that principle in a case where it helps my side?
Why ask it
Have the case ready before you ask. A yes is a concession you can bank, and a no obliges them to explain the difference, which usually sounds thinner than the principle did.
If we accept your reasoning here, what else would it justify?
Why ask it
You are looking for the limit of their argument. A strong team has a clear stopping rule, and a team without one has to accept your uncomfortable example or invent an exception on the spot.
Would you accept any exception to your rule?
Why ask it
For cases built on 'always' and 'never.' An exception, once granted, raises the obvious follow-up of why the situation in this debate is not another one. A flat refusal means they must now defend the rule in the hardest case you can think of, so have that case ready.
When two things your side values pull against each other, which one wins?
Why ask it
Name the pair when you ask, such as free choice and safety, if their speeches leaned on both. Whichever they rank second can no longer be used against you at full strength, and a refusal to rank them is worth quoting to the judge.
Your first speaker said one thing and your second said another. Which is your side's position?
Why ask it
Use it only when you wrote both statements down, and quote each with the speaker's name. Whichever they keep, the other argument is gone, so get the choice and move on without debating it.
Has your position changed since your opening speech?
Why ask it
A case under pressure often gets quietly smaller. They will say no, and that is when you read out their original wording and ask which version the judge should mark.
Can you answer yes or no first, and then explain?
Why ask it
This is for the opponent who makes a speech out of every answer. Ask politely, and if they dodge twice move on, because the judge has seen it. Never demand it for a question that honestly has two parts, which looks like bullying.
Do we agree on the goal here, and disagree only about how to reach it?
Why ask it
A shared goal is the easiest first yes to collect, and a common first step toward a trap. Take the agreement, do not say why you wanted it, and move to another subject before you return to it.
You agreed with me a minute ago, and I wrote it down. Can I read it back and check that you still stand by it?
Why ask it
Read it in their words, not your summary of them, or they will dispute the wording instead of answering. A second yes, given calmly in front of the judge, is very hard to take back in their next speech.
You have agreed to both of those points. So how can your conclusion still be right?
Why ask it
This is the closing trap, and it only works after two separate, clear agreements. The cautious choice is to stop one question earlier and draw the conclusion in your own speech, where the other side cannot answer, so ask it only when you can see no way out for them.
Moderator and audience
What is the strongest argument the other side made today, and what is your answer to it?
Why ask it
A moderator's question, put to each team in turn. Notice whether they state the argument in a form the other team would sign, because a watered-down version tells the audience which point they would prefer not to face.
Where do the two sides agree?
Why ask it
Useful halfway through, when the audience has lost track of what is in dispute. Once both teams name the same ground, the moderator can set it aside and say out loud what the real disagreement is.
If the audience takes away only one disagreement between you, which should it be?
Why ask it
Each team will choose the clash it thinks it is winning. When they choose different ones, the audience learns where each side feels strongest, and a good follow-up is to make each answer on the other's ground.
What evidence, if it existed, would defeat your case?
Why ask it
A fair one from the audience even when the debaters were assigned their sides, because it asks about the case and not about what they personally believe. An answer that names a kind of evidence shows the case is a claim about the world, and 'nothing could' tells the room it is being held as an article of faith.
What changes for an ordinary person the day after your side wins?
Why ask it
It pulls an abstract debate down to something the audience can picture. Give both teams the same time limit, and be wary of an answer that goes straight back to principles.
The other team asked you a direct question earlier. Would you like to answer it now?
Why ask it
The moderator's follow-up when a question was dodged. Repeat the original in the same words, with no comment of your own, and if you use it on one team look for a chance to use it on the other.
Can you explain that term for those of us who do not follow this subject?
Why ask it
Any audience member can ask this without embarrassment, and others in the room will be glad of it. Debaters who understand their material can do it in a sentence, and those who learned the word from a brief tend to repeat it more slowly.
What is the weakest part of your own case?
Why ask it
Debaters learn to offer a small, safe weakness here. The follow-up makes it worth asking: turn to the other team and ask whether that is really the weakest part.
What should someone who is still undecided weigh most heavily?
Why ask it
A good last question before a vote. Each side has to say what matters most and why, which is the comparison undecided listeners were waiting for and speeches often leave out.
Asking questions in a debate without making a speech
Practical guidance for the conversation itself
Before the questioning starts
Write the line first, then the question
Decide what you want to say in your next speech, then work out the question that gets you there. 'They could not tell us who pays' is a line, and 'Which group pays the price?' is the question that earns it. A question with no line behind it is only conversation.
Ask, do not argue
Questioning time is for collecting answers. When you get the one you wanted, say thank you and go to the next question. The argument about what it means belongs in your speech, where nobody can interrupt it.
One short question at a time
A question with two parts lets the other side answer the easier part. Keep each one to a single sentence that could be answered in a few words, and ask the second part separately.
Write the answers down
An answer you cannot quote is worth little two speeches later. Note the exact words of any definition or concession, or have a partner do it while you ask, and bring it back with 'in questioning, they told us.'
Ask how it works in your format
How long the questioning lasts, who may ask, whether a speaker can refuse a question and whether you may ask to see evidence all differ between formats, leagues and classrooms. Ask your teacher, your coach or the tournament before the round, and do not assume the rules of the last format carry over.
Fitting the list to your format
A block of cross-examination
When one debater questions another for a set period, plan two or three short sequences, each on one argument, and put the most important first in case time runs out. Start in Clarifying or Evidence and finish with one sequence from Consistency.
Crossfire, where both sides ask
When both debaters may question each other, answer briefly and ask straight back, or the period turns into the other side's speech. Short questions from Evidence and Consequences work best because they are hard to turn into a counter-question.
Points of information
A point of information is offered during an opponent's speech and has to fit in a breath, and the speaker can usually decline it. Pick questions that survive being cut to one line: 'Who pays for this?' or 'Where has this worked?' Offer them steadily through the speech, and sit down without fuss when you are refused.
A class debate with no questioning period
If your format has only speeches, the same questions become rebuttal lines. 'The other side never told us what happens to someone who ignores the rule' does the work of the question, and it invites the judge to notice if the next speaker leaves it unanswered.
Moderating or asking from the audience
Put the same question to both sides with the same time to answer, and keep your own view out of the wording. The last group on the list is written for this seat. An audience question should be one sentence and end in a question mark. A speech from the floor takes time from the debaters and rarely gets an answer.
Building the closing trap
Work backward from the contradiction
Find two things the other side needs to be true that cannot both be. Write the contradiction as your last line, then the two agreements you need in order to reach it, and ask in that order.
Collect the agreements apart
Ask for the first agreement, change the subject, and ask for the second a few questions later. Two premises asked back to back tell an alert opponent where you are heading.
Stop one question early
Once both agreements are on record you have what you came for. Asking how their case can still stand gives them the rest of the period to repair it, while saying it in your next speech gives them nothing until theirs.
When they see it coming
A debater who senses the trap will qualify the answer with 'it depends' or 'in some cases.' Ask which cases, take the narrower agreement, and tell the judge later that the claim had to shrink to survive.
What loses a questioning period
The open invitation
'Why do you think that?' and 'Can you explain your case?' hand the other side free speaking time. Prefer questions with short answers, and keep the open ones, such as the worst realistic outcome, for moments when any answer helps you.
Arguing with the answer
If the answer is bad for you, move on quickly and calmly. Fighting it out in questioning tells the judge the answer hurt, and you seldom win an argument your opponent is allowed to answer at once.
Rudeness
Talking over an answer, sarcasm and eye-rolling tend to cost more than they gain. You may cut a long answer short, and the polite way is 'Thank you, that answers it,' followed by the next question.
Bluffing when you are the one answering
The list works in reverse: expect these questions and prepare short, honest answers. 'I do not have that figure with me' loses less than an invented one, and conceding a small point gracefully protects the large ones.