Cross-Examinations
Cross-Examinations are structured interrogations that place a single belief, assumption, or claim under sustained pressure.
No resolution is offered. No synthesis is allowed.
The belief leaves intact — but no longer innocent.
Think of it as a courtroom where the goal is not conviction… but visibility.
What this encounter is
A controlled environment for asking: “What would have to be true for this claim to survive?” You’ll feel the weak points—not as shame, but as information.
- Forces clarity: define the claim in one sentence
- Questions remain tight (no topic drift)
- No “final answer” is produced
- Ends with questions, not closure
Pressure labels
Not intensity for its own sake—just honest load.
Why Cross-Examine a Belief?
Because many beliefs survive by avoiding questions. Not because they’re false—because they’re protected. Cross-Examinations create a safe, structured place where protection can relax… and the belief can finally be seen.
Beliefs tend to hide inside feelings
Cross-exams separate the claim from the emotional fog around it—without dismissing the emotion.
Certainty can be a defense mechanism
The goal isn’t to remove certainty. The goal is to discover whether it has earned its confidence.
Pressure reveals what’s carrying the weight
Under questioning, a belief shows whether it rests on evidence, tradition, experience, fear, loyalty—or habit.
How Cross-Examinations Work
This is not a debate format. It’s a disciplined interrogation with a narrow scope. You choose the claim. The cross-exam keeps it on the table until its assumptions are visible.
Pin the claim
You state one belief in a single sentence. Not a paragraph. Not a vibe. One sentence.
Define the terms
The cross-exam asks what each key word means in your mouth. “Good.” “True.” “God.” “Freedom.” “Love.”
Apply sustained pressure
Not to destroy the belief—but to test what holds it up. Evidence, authority, experience, coherence, cost.
End without a verdict
The session ends with unresolved questions and visible assumptions. No winner. No “final takeaway.”
Rules of the Room
Cross-Examinations can feel intense, so the guardrails matter. These rules keep the pressure honest—and keep it from becoming coercion.
One claim at a time
No pile-on. No “and also.” If the claim expands, it becomes untestable. We keep it narrow on purpose.
No synthesis allowed
The cross-exam doesn’t reconcile opposing views. It exposes assumptions. Synthesis is a different tool on a different day.
No emotional manipulation
No steering toward faith or doubt. No guilt. No “therefore you should.” If it starts to preach, it fails.
You can stop at any moment
A clean exit is built into the format. Stopping is not failure. Sometimes stopping is the honest data.
Cross-Examinations Library
Publish-ready starters. Replace the links with your real pages or GPT tools. Each one targets a single claim and keeps the pressure focused.
“God is good.”
A cross-exam that forces the word good to stand still. Is it moral goodness? Power used benevolently? A definition? A lived inference?
- Defines “good” without borrowing the conclusion
- Tests the claim against suffering and inconsistency
- Ends with open questions, not reassurance
“Love is the point.”
Many people believe this. Fewer can define it. This cross-exam asks what love demands, what it permits, and what it refuses.
- Distinguishes love from approval, comfort, and avoidance
- Tests “love” as a moral metric
- Presses the cost of love without moralizing
“I know what I believe.”
A cross-exam that distinguishes belief from identity, habit, and inherited scripts. The goal isn’t doubt. It’s precision.
- Separates belief, loyalty, and membership
- Tests what would change your mind (if anything)
- Names the “cost” of revision without forcing it
“Meaning is made, not given.”
A cross-exam for modern existential confidence. What does “made” mean? Who makes it? What happens when two meanings collide?
- Tests whether “meaning” requires a source beyond the self
- Presses coherence under suffering and death
- Refuses the comfort of quick nihilism or quick faith
“Truth is relative.”
Not an argument against relativism—an interrogation of what the claim can actually mean without collapsing. Relative to what? In what domain? With what exceptions?
- Separates taste, morality, and reality claims
- Tests for self-contradiction gently but firmly
- Ends with a refined claim you can actually live with
“I have to be right.”
A cross-exam of the hidden necessity under many arguments: not “truth,” but safety. What does being right protect? What does being wrong threaten?
- Names the protective function of certainty
- Separates truth-seeking from self-defense
- Ends with one small “honest risk” question
Put one belief on the table.
Not your entire worldview. Not your life story. One sentence. If it survives, it survives honestly. If it doesn’t, you learn what was holding it up. Either way, you leave with clearer sight.