As the judge’s stopwatch clicks to alert the beginning of the round, the two partners spew rapid-fire questions at opposing debaters. Across the podium, voices press, searching for clarity and scanning for gaps in reasoning. In Cross-Examination (CX), a debate event, there are no second chances and one minor slip up may come with the price of losing the round.

After becoming quarterfinalists last year at the UIL State competition at the University of Texas, senior Vincent Cao and junior Maddox Jameson tried their hand once again, becoming two-time quarterfinalists and advancing to the Mar. 22 finals date after the initial preliminary rounds taking place the day before.

“We have to prepare for every single case we may encounter and just be ready, just know everything,” Jameson said. “It’s a lot of accumulation of knowledge throughout the entire year of active effort that you put in to keep improving.”

Each year, UIL chooses one set policy for CX competitors around Texas to argue. The debate takes place in a two-on-two format in which competitors must thoroughly grasp both the affirmative and negative viewpoints of the given governmental policy in order to successfully compete. According to Jameson, preparations for this year’s case started directly after the conclusion of last year’s state competition.

“CX debate is essentially being able to get a policy and propose that policy,” Jameson said. “So we work towards building up our physical and mental repertoire of everything surrounding our case, everything that opponents could possibly argue about it, and then we also have to do the reverse.”

According to Jameson, the duo’s strengths and weaknesses complement each other, enhancing their proficiencies. Given that Cao has had an extra year of experience and will be graduating this year, there has been a large transfer of knowledge.

“Vincent’s strong suit is often manipulating evidence and working it in a good way, analyzing evidence and using evidence to support his arguments, and refuting other evidence that might be brought up,” Jameson said. “It requires a different kind of thinking. Whereas, I’m better than Vincent in analytical arguments. I think more refutationally, refuting things in a logical manner instead of using the evidence against it. So I’m weak in using the evidence to support my answers and he’s weak in going more purely analytical, and so we make up for each other’s faults there.”

However, Cao said getting to these levels of success has not been easy and that the most optimal way to gain expertise in this form of debate is trial and error and seeing what will work in an actual real-world environment during rounds.

“A good debater is just going to go through [arguments] one by one and then answer them,” Cao said. “But a really great debater would be able to figure out how some of these arguments might be similar, how their answers to certain arguments might be able to be cross-applied to other arguments.”

According to Cao, up until recent years, the involvement of CX within the debate program was subpar, without many people who were substantially interested or involved.

“Before I started doing CX, basically nobody at our school actually took CX seriously,” Cao said. “So when I started doing it, I started really trying to build the program back up and get people on board with CX. So I really hope that Maddox [keeps] that up and [keeps] trying to grow the program because I really do think CX is probably one of the best debate events, and I would hate to see it fizzle out again after I leave.”

Cao said the longevity of the program greatly depends on the dynamic evolution of its debaters, which motivates them into tactically altering their thought processes.

“He’s really helped me emphasize my critical thinking more rather than just taking things at face value,” Cao said. “And on that same note, I’ve helped him not be so thorough and critical about everything because that takes a lot of time, especially when you have limited time in the round. You really have to be able to pick and choose which arguments you want to prioritize and which ones that might require less thinking.”

Now, this partnership’s time together is coming to an end, with both Cao and Jameson expressing their increasing nostalgia as the year comes to a close and graduation looms on the horizon.

“It kind of sucks because I’ve gotten really close to him over the years,” Jameson said. “ It’s the same thing as the loss of a close friend in the same way. Anyone with close friends older than them who graduate would experience that loss. I’m so used to having these interactions and him being there. It makes it weird just thinking that he won’t be there.”