I was only a freshman. It was the final round of my National Forensic League national qualifying tournament, and I was thoroughly unprepared for the question which was quickly approaching. This was the 'old days' of the original cross-examination period, with a question which was 'not to exceed one minute,' and my two minutes to answer. Just before prep began for the round, I was given a basic synopsis of the rules - then off I went. I gave my speech, and the sound of clapping ushered in my doom. The girl who spoke before me approached, and asked her question. I stumbled through my piecemeal answer. My crash course lesson on cross-examination harshly and quickly indoctrinated me into the world of National Forensic League final round extemp.
Sadly, my experience with cross-examination is not an isolated case of a novice extemper. In two primary forms, and in various venues, cross-examination has showed its (sometimes ugly) face in extemp. Today, the new three minute multiple question cross-examination period is used by the National Forensic League only in the final round of the national tournament. But the NFL forbids the use of cross-examination at national qualifying tournaments.
This article considers primarily the purpose of a cross-examination period in extemp. It then explores whether this purpose could be better served with an expanded use, and what rounds and or situations it might expand into. The article attempts to answer such questions as what impact cross-examination has on judges, at what levels such a period is necessary, and whether or not cross-examination has had a positive impact on the event.
To begin, we must evaluate the purpose of cross-examination, to determine whether these goals are being achieved. Extemp today has often been plagued with internal debate about the correct ratio of evidence to analysis, with some coaches and students contending that over-use of evidence has commonly held back the development of an analytical style. Shawn Augsburger, a two time California State tournament competitor, and current judge, argues that extemp is moving in a dangerous direction, with students knowing how to cite sources, but lacking adequate analytical style and knowledge1. Cross-examination could attempt to remedy such a problem, not by limiting source quality, but by forcing a competitor to 'know their stuff.'
The cross-examination also allows the questioner to have an opportunity to try to challenge judges image of their competitor, while helping themselves. Coach of 22 national champions in the past 20 years, William Bennett solidified this idea in a lecture in June of 20042. He explained that the primary purpose of questioning is to find omissions of an opponent, inaccuracies, and to solidify a positive judge opinion. By properly using the cross-examination period, a student may further their cause, while testing the oversights of other extempers. Such a 'check on abuse' (to steal insight from debate) aids in developing the qualify of analysis, and developing strategic extempers.
But even in utilizing this cross-examination there are fallbacks, one of which is how to avoid appearing too aggressive. This difficulty was addressed by Former NFL Secretary, James M. Copeland in a 1994 article published in the Rostrum3. Among other strategies for cross-examination, Copeland suggests assuring not to be overly attacking, long, and complex during questioning. He advocates finding the happy median between that and the extreme on the other side, being too open-ended and 'puff ball' in asking questions. Copeland addresses at the end of his article the final round of NFL nationals in 1984 where the incumbent national champion attempted to make a joke, which backfired and may have taken a serious toll on his scores in the round. The true implications of the cross-examination period have had profound impacts on final round performances, and on overall rankings in the NFL national tournament.
While strategy and winning plays a role, there is also the ubiquitous requirement of any addition to speech and debate; that it adds educational value to the activity. Any cross-examination period will have an impact on the lone realm of success, but also plays an integral role in the development of skills which will translate into other facets of the single-minded extemper's life. Cross-examination demands entirely new skills of an extemper - or more accurately, ensures that they are using the skills of a truly 'extemporaneous' speech. As coach Rita Pritchard said last year, "The questioning strategy and the ability to give a spontaneous response are both great learning tools4." Often, extempers can be very successful, while also maintaining their reliance on their 'tubs.' Cross-examination pulls extempers out of their usual element, often removing the reliance evidence, and rewarding not only the use of a great wealth of knowledge, but also the 'off the cuff skills' that should be seen in every extemp speech -- at its best it is allowing for education by force.
Cross-examination in extemp can serve many purposes. We need to establish the basic criteria with which the questioning period can be evaluated. The first purpose is to ensure that extempers are keeping up with current events and trends. Secondly, questioning makes it more likely that extempers develop skills of impromptu speaking, and learn the strategy for successful exchanges in cross-examination. Third, extempers are forced to find a balance between strategy and impressing judges. The final purpose is that students will gain knowledge, and learn new skills -- not only for extemp, but for life as well. Sadly, however ideologically sound the concept of cross-examination is, there still arises the question of whether the questioning period achieves its goals.
One of the primary concerns about cross-examination is that the efforts of a competitor may not be rewarded by having an impact on the judge and an improved ballot rank. California forensics instructor Ron Underwood expressed this worry in a meeting of the California High School Speech Association, when he contended that the majority of judges do not change their decisions based on cross-examination5. This worry, if confirmed, could destroy the intent of a cross-examination period. Former national trophy winner, and current coach and extemp judge, Jesse French, agreed with the worries of Underwood in an interview on July 20, 20046. French explained that in almost every instance of judging a round with a cross-examination period, his opinion of the round was not changed by the questioning. Mr. French, however, clarified his reasons, claiming that this was largely due to the fact that the best extempers - those who give the best speeches, and know the most -- are the same extempers who are best prepared for the cross-examination.
If judges don't change their opinion of a speaker based on the cross-examination period, there would be very little reason to continue it, let along expand its use. But there still may be an opportunity and reason to support questioning. Mr. French and Mr. Underwood argue that in most situations the cross-examination period will not change a judge's opinion. While seemingly important observations, they may actually solidify the success of cross-examination. Most extempers have prepared well enough, so the questioning doesn't pose a problem for them. The example of the 1984 final round, on the other hand, demonstrates the still pertinent role of cross-examination in extemp. The faux pas of one extemper and the tact that was used to turn his joke into his downfall is truly valuable. The purpose of cross-examination may not be to play a major role in determining ranks, but rather to catch the anomalous extemper who isn't fully prepared. The impact of cross-examination is important, but will have a decisive impact only in isolated instances.
Would extemp be aided by expanded cross-examination use? Karen Jardine proposed in a meeting of the California High School Speech Association that cross-examination should either be used in all rounds or no rounds at all7. The idea offers advantages and downsides as well.
Emory Bucker wrote at the turn of the century, "More cross-examination are suicides than homicides." Bucker may have struck on exactly the reason cross-examination shouldn't be expanded to all rounds - extemporaneous suicide. If questioning periods were expanded to all rounds, not only would it be time consuming, it could be impractical for tabulation purposes, as coach Reed Niemi pointed out. Novice extempers would be at a disadvantage7. A novice extemper is still developing their skill in analysis, and quick thinking, to add another pressure of having to deal with more experienced extempers could damage their career, but also may discourage people from becoming involved.
The cross-examination period, however, does have the potential to serve a great purpose, outside of just the prestigious National Forensic League national tournament. Nerman Kamel argues in 2003 that the limited use of cross-examination damages extemp7. Kamel suggested the expansion of cross-examination to include final rounds of all tournaments, as well as possibly expanding to include semi-final rounds at major tournaments. Certainly expanding its use to NFL district final rounds appears warranted.
The proposition of a cross-examination period in all final rounds has great validity. Cat Horner Bennett clarified in July of 2004 that current competitors are sent to nationals with little to no questioning preparation, and will often not gain enough from cross-examination8. Nor will they be able to do a good job. Expansion of cross-examination into non-national championship final rounds would give those students who consistently are competing at top levels the opportunity to practice better their trade, and become more skilled.
Kamel's other suggestion, the expansion to include other influential rounds, such as semi-finals, may pose some difficulties. Once again Jesse French contends that an expansion would only damage extemp, for it would reduce the respect and unique nature of the final round. It could also unduly separate extempers too early, so that those who haven't had the opportunity to make it to final rounds could have an extra difficulty ever advancing so far.
The debate will undoubtedly continue. Should cross-examination be expanded? The National Forensic League should begin to publicly consider the implications of the current system of cross-examination. By using cross-examination in all final rounds the four criteria for the period would be most forwarded, and the NFL may just be helping our beginning extempers, rescuing an occasional future freshman from my ignoble experience.
Please Note: During its Fall 2004 meeting, the NFL Executive Council lifted the ban on cross-examination at NFL District Tournament. The use of cross-examination in both International and U.S. Extemp is now the decision of each individual District committee.
- This paper was developed as part of a CDE summer institute scholar's class on writing with William H. Bennett.
1 "Analysis: The Forgotten Key to Extemp Success," Extempprep.org 17 July 2004. http://www.extempprep.org/analysis.html 2 William H. Bennett, "Strategies of Cross-Examination," CDE Pre-Nationals Camp, Candlewood Suites, Salt Lake City UT, 12 Jun. 2004. 3 "Cross-Examination in Extemp," Rostrum, ed. Feb. 1998., 17 July 2004 http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/CopelandFeb98.pdf 4 Minutes from California High School Speech Association 5/17/03. 5 Minutes from the California High School Speech Association 5/17/03. 6 Jesse French, personal interview, 20 July 2004. 7 Minutes from the California High School Speech Association 5/17/03. 8 Cat Horner Bennett, personal interview, 7/21/04.
(Scott Cheesewright is a senior at Durango High School, in Durango, CO.)
