Cross-Examination & Clarification

One team cross-examines the other team's arguments, asking challenging questions to expose weaknesses, seek clarification, or elicit specific information.

Dialogue

Listen and follow along with the conversation

Prosecution Team Lead (Male)

Thank you. My question for the affirmative is this: Your proposal heavily relies on increased public sector funding, but you've offered no concrete plan for how to mitigate the inevitable tax burden on middle-income households. Could you elaborate on that, please?

Affirmative Team Member (Female)

Certainly. Our plan outlines a progressive tax increase on corporate profits and high-net-worth individuals, specifically targeting those who can afford to contribute more without significant impact on their livelihood or economic activity. We believe this approach minimizes the burden on middle-income families.

Prosecution Team Lead (Male)

I appreciate the clarification regarding the source of funding. However, you stated 'minimizes the burden,' but given the scale of your proposed social programs, is it truly minimal? Can you provide any projections or data to support the claim that this will not indirectly impact middle-income households through increased consumer prices or reduced job growth?

Affirmative Team Member (Female)

We anticipate a short-term, negligible inflationary impact, counterbalanced by the long-term economic benefits of a healthier, better-educated workforce. Our economic models, which we can provide for review, suggest that the increased purchasing power and reduced social costs will offset any minor price increases, particularly for essential goods.

Prosecution Team Lead (Male)

So, if I understand correctly, you're suggesting that the trickle-down effect of social improvements will directly alleviate the tax burden, rather than addressing it with direct fiscal policy? Could you confirm that interpretation?

Affirmative Team Member (Female)

That's not entirely accurate. While we do project long-term societal benefits, our initial fiscal policy, as stated, directly taxes corporate profits and high-net-worth individuals. The improvements in workforce health and education are supplementary benefits, not the primary mechanism for mitigating the initial tax burden. Is that clearer?

Prosecution Team Lead (Male)

It clarifies the distinction. My final point on this: your models, as you mentioned, are projections. Have you considered any contingency plans should the economic benefits not materialize as quickly or as effectively as anticipated, leading to prolonged inflationary pressures or a slower return on investment for these programs?

Affirmative Team Member (Female)

Yes, our framework includes periodic reviews and a built-in flexibility mechanism. If economic indicators deviate significantly from projections, specific program allocations can be adjusted without compromising core objectives. We also include a buffer in our initial funding estimates. We're confident in our projections, but prepared for contingencies.

Vocabulary

Essential words and phrases from the dialogue

mitigate

To make a problem or negative effect less serious or severe. In debates, use it when discussing ways to reduce risks, like 'mitigate the tax burden.'

elaborate

To explain something in more detail. It's polite in discussions; say 'Could you elaborate?' to ask for clearer information.

progressive tax

A tax system where richer people or companies pay a higher percentage. Useful in policy talks to describe fair funding methods.

burden

A heavy load or responsibility, often financial. In debates, refer to 'tax burden' for the pressure taxes put on people.

projections

Estimates or predictions about future results, based on data. Common in arguments to support claims, like economic projections.

contingency plans

Backup plans for unexpected problems. In discussions, mention them to show preparedness, like for policy risks.

framework

A basic structure or system for organizing ideas or plans. Use it in debates to describe overall approaches, like 'our framework includes reviews.'

buffer

Something that protects against shocks or losses, like extra money in budgets. Practical for talking about financial safety nets.

Key Sentences

Important phrases to remember and practice

Could you elaborate on that, please?

This is a polite question to ask for more details. Use it in debates or conversations to seek clarification. The structure uses 'could you' for politeness and 'please' to be courteous.

Certainly. Our plan outlines a progressive tax increase...

Starts a response positively with 'Certainly' (meaning 'of course'). Useful for agreeing to explain. 'Outlines' means describes the main points; great for presenting plans in discussions.

I appreciate the clarification regarding the source of funding.

Shows thanks for explanation with 'I appreciate.' Useful to acknowledge points in debates, building rapport. 'Regarding' means 'about'; common in formal talks.

We anticipate a short-term, negligible inflationary impact...

Predicts future effects with 'anticipate' (expect). 'Negligible' means very small. Helpful for economic discussions; use to balance pros and cons in arguments.

So, if I understand correctly, you're suggesting that...

Checks comprehension politely. 'If I understand correctly' paraphrases to confirm. Essential in cross-examinations to avoid misunderstandings; structure uses 'so' for transition.

That's not entirely accurate.

Politely corrects a misunderstanding. 'Not entirely accurate' softens disagreement. Use in debates to refute without offending; good for intermediate learners to handle challenges.

It clarifies the distinction.

Acknowledges clearer understanding of differences. 'Clarifies' means makes clear; 'distinction' means difference. Useful after explanations to show progress in dialogue.

We're confident in our projections, but prepared for contingencies.

Expresses belief with caution using 'but.' 'Confident in' shows trust; 'prepared for' means ready. Practical for ending arguments, balancing optimism with realism.