Cross-examination
Questions that set traps and corner your opponent — with the follow-ups. Built for debaters who need evidence that holds up under cross-examination, not vibes.
Key highlights
A five-question line
Questions sequenced to lock in concessions step by step — not scattered shots.
The target assumption
Built to expose the one assumption the opponent's argument depends on.
Dodge-proofed
Each question carries the answer you want and a follow-up if they evade.
The payoff line
The sentence to land next speech that cashes in what they conceded.
About this template
Cross-examination is won by sequence, not by zingers. Give the argument you're up against and this template writes a five-question line that walks your opponent into concessions and exposes the assumption their case rests on — each question paired with the answer you're fishing for and a follow-up for when they dodge.
It ends with the single sentence to land in your next speech, the one that turns what they conceded into your point. Instead of improvising questions on your feet, you walk into cross-ex with a plan that goes somewhere.
Model Diplomat vs. generic AI
The same prompt in a general chatbot can produce something that reads right and isn't. Here's the difference.
| Aspect | This template | ChatGPT / generic AI |
|---|---|---|
| Sources | Primary documents, cited and openable | Often fabricated, or none at all |
| Format | Laid out as debate flow, carded and ready to run | Prose you still have to card and structure yourself |
| Verifiability | Every claim checkable against its source | No way to tell what's real |
| Built for the work | Tuned for diplomacy, politics, and law | General-purpose, not domain-aware |
| Cost | Free to start | — |
Who it's for
Competitive debaters
Building a cross-examination with evidence that holds up under cross-examination.
Debate students new to evidence
Learning how carded, sourced arguments are actually constructed.
Coaches and judges
Prepping practice rounds and showing students what strong cases look like.
Anyone arguing across formats
Adapting a case to policy, LD, PF, or World Schools conventions.
What you'll fill in
A preview of the one field you'll complete in the composer — the rest is written for you.
The prompt
This is what lands in your composer — edit the [blanks] and send.
My opponent is arguing: "[the argument you want to cross-examine]". Write me a cross-examination line: five questions in sequence that lock in concessions and expose the weakest assumption, each with the answer I'm fishing for and the follow-up if they dodge. End with the one sentence I should land in my next speech that uses what they conceded.
Start from this template
Model Diplomat fills it in with answers grounded in primary sources — every claim comes with a citation you can check.
Related templates
Browse all →Debate case
Aff/neg case with carded evidence. Every claim sourced to a real document.
Rebuttal prep
Anticipate the other side's best arguments and line up your responses.
Country brief
Foreign-policy position on a topic, with allies, voting record, and rationale.
Position paper
Conference-ready paper in your committee's standard format. Footnoted and exportable.