Imagine a professional game of ping pong. Both players are constantly mobile, they strategically aim at vulnerable areas of the table to bypass their opponent’s defenses, and they switch up the speed of the ball to throw off their opponent. Now, imagine a ping pong game where both players stand relatively still, they aim at the same spot of the table every time, and they try to use the maximum amount of force they can without making the ball miss the table. The first game has complex strategic dimensions. The strategy of second game is simply to use brute force.
Many debaters try to approach crossfire like the second game of ping pong - their crossfire strategy is one of brute force. The debaters may initially ask questions, but ultimately they try to argue endlessly and butt heads with their opponents. Unsurprisingly, this does not result in strategic concessions from the opposing team. Opponents will almost never agree that they are wrong about an important issue in a debate.
To avoid this, debaters should translate the contentions they want to make into question form. Questions are not about forcing an opponent into agreement. Questions are like strategically aimed shots. They are trickier, and might throw off a prepared opponent. A strategic and mobile ping pong player will often beat a player that reduces ping pong to a game of brute force. Similarly, approaching crossfire with prepared questions instead of arguments is a superior approach.