Cross Examination

First, as someone who has participated in cross-examination debate, this was not at all how one would go, there would be a lot less back and forths and much more conciseness within the answering of each question. A simple yes or no with a source would suffice.

Arguments:

It essentially boiled down to a point of semantics, as pro ADMITTED:
-would a federal level reform of criminal justice be effective?
-would it be justified for the federal level to enact the reform?

First of all - Con does demonstrate that there have been programs that have started the process of reform, thereby proving that their effects in some regard, and, citing the agreement of Pro, that there should be criminal reform

Second - Pro delves into the semantics about how a local reform would be better, but Con rightly points out that the federal government could simply enact a law, requiring each state to reform criminal justice systems.

As both points are ultimately won out by superior sources and rhetoric by Con - Arguments go to Con.

Sources:

As to sources - Con provides 5 different sources throughout the affair, each backing up the point they were making adequately; however, Pro uses 11 sources, each of which does correlate to their point and provides impact. Sources go to Pro.

BS&G: Both debaters are adequate in this regard, tie.

Conduct:

Con asks to end the debate after it has dragged on, Pro has made self-admittable semantic points, each with the implied goal of slowing down conversation. Conduct to Con.