"Firing Line" Style Debates as an Alternative to Cross-Examination Debates?

I think there is value in the structure of cross-examination heavy academic debates.  That format is roughly:

1v1

• 1AC - First Affirmative Constructive
• Cross-examination of the Affirmative speaker by the Negative Speaker
• 1NC - First Negative Constructive
• Cross-examination of the Negative speaker by the Affirmative Speaker
• 1NR - First Negative Rebuttal of the Affirmative
• 1AR - First Affirmative Rebuttal of the Negative
• 2NR - Second Negative Rebuttal of the Affirmative
• 2AR - Second Affirmative Rebuttal of the Negative
• (additional rounds could be added depending on the complexity of the topic)
• NC - Negative Conclusion
• AC - Affirmative Conclusion

2v2 

• 1AC - First Affirmative Constructive
• Cross-examination of the First Affirmative speaker by the Second Negative Speaker
• 1NC - First Negative Constructive
• Cross-examination of the First Negative speaker by the First Affirmative Speaker
• 2AC - Second Affirmative Constructive
• Cross-examination of the Second Affirmative speaker by the First Negative Speaker
• 2NC - Second Negative Constructive
• Cross-examination of the Second Negative speaker by the Second Affirmative Speaker
• 1NR - First Negative Rebuttal of the Affirmative
• 1AR - First Affirmative Rebuttal of the Negative
• 2NR - Second Negative Rebuttal of the Affirmative
• 2AR - Second Affirmative Rebuttal of the Negative
• (additional rounds could be added depending on the complexity of the topic)
• NC - Negative Conclusion
• AC - Affirmative Conclusion

There are other ways that a similar structure has been adapted, such as:

1v1

• Affirmative Constructive
• Negative Constructive
• Affirmative Rebuttal
• Negative Rebuttal
• (additional rounds could be added or rebuttal rounds as such could be omitted depending on the complexity of the topic)
• Affirmative CX of the Negative
• Negative CX of the Affirmative
• Affirmative Conclusion
• Negative Conclusion

The value of these cross-examination style debates depends on the ability of the debaters to engage in a proper cross-examination.  A proper cross-examination has the following characteristics:

1. The person asking the questions (the questioner) is limited to asking questions, not making arguments.
2. The person answering the questions (the answerer) is limited to answering the question asked, without re-crossing the questioner.
3. The questioner controls the time, meaning that the answerer needs to stop talking when interrupted by the questioner.
4. The questions need to be addressed to the arguments/evidence presented in the debate by the answerer.

When all four of these are regularly violated by both sides, the debate can descend into chaos.  When they are violated by one side, and honored by the other side, the debate can be confusing to the audience.

One option is just to have an informal dialog.  A possible advantage of this approach is that there are no strict rules to be followed or disregarded.  The downside of this approach is that it can tend to be a bit chaotic and meandering.  A good informal dialog can depend on leadership by a host/moderator in keep the dialog moving along a path toward timely conclusion.  In cases like a “round table” discussion, an informal dialog may be a sort of necessary evil, as it would be complex to have a First constructive speech for each of four (or more) different positions, followed by three or more cross-examinations thereof, etc.  The downside of this approach is that it can be very challenging to moderate, and it can lend itself to being dominated by one person who is more talkative than the other.

Another option is to have a “Firing Line” style format, to provide a degree of structure and balance with fewer restrictions on the debaters.  There are various ways that this could be implemented.  One way would be to begin with opening statements by each side, followed by rebuttals, and then ramped down back-and-forth statements by either side on a given topic of the debate.  For example:

• First Side Opening statement (15 minutes)
• Second Side Opening statement (15 minutes)
• First Side Major Rebuttal (15 minutes)
• Second Side Major Rebuttal (15 minutes)
• Topic 1
• Round 1
• First Side 2 minutes
• Second Side 2 minutes
• Round 2
• First Side 2 minutes
• Second Side 2 minutes
• Round 3
• First Side 2 minutes
• Second Side 2 minutes
• Round 4
• First Side 2 minutes
• Second Side 2 minutes
• Round 5
• First Side 2 minutes
• Second Side 2 minutes
• Round 6
• First Side 1 minute
• Second Side 1 minute
• Round 7
• First Side 30 seconds
• Second Side 30 seconds
• (Either fixed to seven rounds max or continue 30 second back and forth until moderator or debaters go to next topic)
• Topic 2 (same format as Topic 1)
• etc. for additional topics
• First Side Summary of the Discussion (5 minutes or so)
• Second Side Summary of Discussion (5 minutes or so)

One downside of this format is that it requires the host to be a quite active in keeping track of and controlling the time.  An upside is that this format can allow for topics of maximum of about 30 minutes per topic to be covered in a relatively fair way.  It’s also more or less scalable for debates that have larger or smaller numbers of topics.

A potential advantage of this format is that some topics may go less than seven rounds, before both sides feel everything that needs to be said has been said.  Another potential advantage of this format is that it would allow for convenient indexing and “flowing” of the debate on particular topics of interest.

In this format, the first hour of the debate is a bit more static, and the second hour (or more) of the debate is more dynamic.  The topics could be agreed in advance by the debaters, or could be selected in alternation by the debaters (for example, first topic is Side 1’s pick, second topic is Side 2’s pick, etc.), or they could be picked by the moderator or selected by some kind of random draw from a list of possible topics etc.  

I haven’t done any debates in this specific format. 

Another variation of this is to simply go to alternating two minute speeches (without topical constraint) after the rebuttals.  The result might be something similar to day two of the Harold Camping vs. James White debate (link). This variation could be tweaked to be two minutes for side 1, followed by 4 minutes for side 2, and then alternating four minute sections, to allow two minutes to respond to the other side and two minutes to raise a new issue for one's own side, with a final section of the pattern being a two minute section for side 2.

Four minute chunks and an expectation of alternating points, could help to reduce somewhat the amount of direct action by the host/moderator.