Developed by Martine Peters, professor at Université du Québec en Outaouais
Collaborators: Faustine André, Alexandre Bédard and Cathy-Anne Boiteau

1.1.1. Debate Benefits. 3
1.1.2. Debate Objectives. 3
1.1.3. Student Debate Guidelines. 3
1.1.4. Debate Timetable. 6
1.1.5. Debate Evaluation Criteria. 6
1.1.6. Resources. 8
1.1.7. Examples of Possible Debates by Field of Study. 9

Information for Professors

1.1.1. Debate Benefits

• Easy to evaluate (formative or summative assessment)
• Students can use Ai2 to prepare their arguments
• Active involvement
• Interaction in real time, encouraging authentic communication
• Healthy and constructive competition
• Intellectual and diverse dynamics
• Simple to organize and few resources needed
• Autonomy of participants

1.1.2. Debate Objectives

• Gain knowledge of the topic being debated.
• Improve oral communication by structuring and clearly expressing ideas in a compelling way.
• Develop critical thinking by analyzing and evaluating arguments logically and thoroughly.
• Increase research skills of identifying, synthesizing and using relevant information.
• Organize ideas by structuring arguments coherently and logically.
• Collaborate effectively as a team to develop collective argumentative strategies.
• Manage stress and emotions in a high-pressure public speaking environment.
• Improve mental flexibility by adapting arguments and reacting to unexpected circumstances.
• Develop creativity by generating new ideas or arguments to respond to opposing viewpoints.
• Develop active listening by paying attention to opposing viewpoints and responding to them respectfully.
• Make rapid decisions in formulating and revising arguments during debates.
• Increase persuasion skills to influence and effectively negotiate in an argumentative context.

1.1.3. Student Debate Guidelines

The goal of this activity is to develop your communication, critical thinking and research skills. You will work as a team of four to defend a position on a given topic and to counter arguments from the opposing team in a thorough and respectful way.

The two teams must choose a topic from the proposed list. Following that, teams will choose their position (Team A—For or Team B—Against) by way of a random draw or based on their opinions.

Team Composition

            Each team is composed of four people. Each member must actively participate by presenting at least one argument or by responding to counter-arguments.

Roles:

• Moderator: This is a student who is not on a team, but who monitors time.
• Head Coach: Introduces the team’s position, presents key arguments.
• Assistant Coaches (2 members): Develop and refine central arguments.
• Rebutter: Responds to the opposing team’s arguments and concludes the debate.

Debate Sequence (number of minutes may vary):

Part of Sequence	Role	Tasks	Time
Introduction	Moderator	Presents topic and mentions timing rules	1 minute
Round 1	Team A Head Coach	Presents arguments for	3 minutes
	Team B Head Coach	Presents arguments against	3 minutes
	Teams A and B	Team discussion	3 minutes
Round 2	Team A Assistant Coaches	Refines arguments for	3 minutes
	Team B Assistant Coaches	Refines arguments against	3 minutes
	Teams A et B	Team discussion	3 minutes
Round 3	Team A Rebutter	Responds to opposing arguments	2 minutes
	Team B Rebutter	Responds to opposing arguments	2 minutes
	Teams A et B	Team discussion	3 minutes
Conclusion	Team A Rebutter	Brief summarizing conclusion	2 minutes
	Team B Rebutter	Brief summarizing conclusion	2 minutes
Large-group discussion, with a vote to decide the winning team			10 minutes
Total time			40 minutes

Debate Rules:

1. Respect for time: Each intervention must respect the allotted time. A signal will be given one minute before the time expires.
2. Taking turns: Each team must wait its turn to speak. Interruptions or interjections are not allowed.
3. Justification of arguments: Each team must support its arguments with facts, examples and reliable sources.

Rules of Conduct

• Respect and courtesy: The debate must be carried out in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Interruptions and personal attacks are forbidden.
• Plagiarism: All borrowed ideas or information from external sources must be properly cited. Students who plagiarize will be severely penalized.
• Use of IA: Artificial intelligence can be used to prepare your arguments, but the team’s job is to agree on the choice and development of arguments. Remember to be transparent about use of AI and please disclose it, because an evaluation criterion concerns this aspect.

Preparation

Research: You are required to conduct in-depth research on the assigned topic. Remember to use reliable and well documented academic sources.

Team Strategy

• Discuss as a team how to coordinate your interventions and structure your arguments. All members must fully understand their roles.
• Anticipation of counter-arguments: Try to predict the opposing team’s arguments and prepare strong counter-arguments.
• Each team member must be equally and actively involved in presentation of arguments and rebuttals.

Helpful Tips

• Time management: Practice respecting the time allotted for your interventions.
• Active listening: Be attentive to opposing arguments so you can effectively respond to them.
• Argumentation: Do not just give opinions; support your statements with concrete evidence and relevant examples.
• Taking notes: While the opposing team is speaking, take notes so you can better structure your rebuttals.

Possible Variation for an Online Class

Simultaneous online debate

• Put the various groups who are debating in different classrooms.
• Divide the spectators among those groups.
• Ask the moderator to record the debate (so the teacher can watch it).
• Spectators can also participate in evaluation.

1.1.4. Debate Timetable

Tasks	Week
Present guidelines and evaluation matrix (course plan)	1
Present teams and topic choices	2
Random draw for team presentation dates	2
Submission by each team of plan containing arguments and counter-arguments (formative assessment)	4
Team 1 against Team 2 Team 3 against Team 4	6
Team 5 against Team 6 Team 7 against Team 8	7
Team 9 against Team 10 Team 11 against Team 12	8

1.1.5. Debate Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criteria	Criteria Definition
Content Criteria
Clarity of arguments	Ability to formulate ideas in an understandable, logical and concise way.
Quality of evidence	Relevance, reliability and diversity of evidence (scientific, professional, blogs, etc.) provided to support arguments.
Rebuttal of opposing arguments	Ability to respond effectively to opposing team’s arguments and to suggest strong counter-arguments.
Creativity of arguments	Originality of ideas; evidence of personal reflection.
Structural and Organizational Criteria
Structure and organization	Clarity and logic in idea organization; fluidity of transitions.
Quality of conclusion	Ability to summarize arguments and conclude the debate in an impactful way.
Academic Integrity Criteria
Citation of sources	Thoroughness and clarity in use and mention of sources.
Transparency in use of sources	Relevance and reliability of sources during the debate.
Behaviour and Performance Criteria
Respect of time	Respect of time allotted for each intervention.
Respectful interaction	Respect toward opposing team, demonstrated by absence of interruptions or personal attacks.
Engagement and participation	Level of involvement of each team member in the debate.
Transparency and AI Use Criteria
Transparency in AI use	Remarks in text about AI use, to explain which tool was used, how and where in the activity.

Criteria	Level 1: Weak	Level 2: Fair	Level 3: Good	Level 4: Excellent
Clarity of arguments	Vague arguments; difficult to understand	Understandable arguments, but sometimes confusing or underdeveloped	Well structured arguments, but sometimes a lack of specificity	Very clear, logical and well-articulated arguments throughout the debate
Quality of evidence	Little or no evidence to support arguments	Some evidence, but often unreliable or not very relevant	Evidence generally reliable and relevant, but lacking diversity	Strong and varied evidence, always relevant to support each argument
Rebuttal of arguments	Unable to rebut opposing arguments	Limited rebuttal; lack of compelling counter-arguments	Good rebuttal, but some weaknesses in responses to counter-arguments	Effective and relevant rebuttals; clear and compelling responses to counter-arguments
Creativity of arguments	Arguments copied or mainly inspired by external sources without modification	Arguments not very original or mainly taken from other sources with a few modifications, without personal analysis	Mainly original arguments, with some elements borrowed from external sources and well adapted	Completely original arguments, clearly thought out, with personal input based on in-depth research
Structure and organization	Lack of clear structure; ideas presented in an unorganized way	Structure evident, but awkward transitions or very little organization of ideas	Structure generally well defined, with some hesitations	Clear and fluid structure; well organized and logically connected ideas
Quality of conclusion	Missing or very weak conclusion; lack of summarization	Conclusion given, but incomplete or not very compelling	Good conclusion; well summarizes main points, but somewhat lacking in impact	Strong and compelling conclusion; perfectly summarizes main points and their impact
Citation of sources	No citation or sources not very reliable, non-verifiable	Some sources cited, but in an incomplete or questionable way	Proper citations of reliable sources, but sometimes lacking diversity	Accurate, complete and varied citations from reliable academic sources
Transparency in use of sources	Sources unmentioned or hidden, possible plagiarism	Sources partly mentioned, but lack of transparency in their use	Proper use of sources, mentioned in a transparent and explicit way	Sources clearly mentioned and integrated transparently throughout arguments
Respect of time	Allotted period frequently exceeded; or interventions that were too short	Partial respect of time with allotted period sometimes exceeded; or lack of content	Respect of time, but interventions sometimes too fast or slow	Complete respect of time, well-balanced interventions
Respectful interaction	Disrespectful interactions; frequent interruptions or personal attacks	Some disrespectful behaviours or interruptions	Overall respectful interaction; some minor interruptions	Respectful interaction; no interruption or personal attack
Engagement and participation	Very little involvement or active participation	Limited participation; unequal involvement of members	Good involvement; active participation by most members	Very strong involvement; active and balanced participation by all members
Transparency in AI use / Criteria not applicable if AI not used	No remarks to indicate which AI tool was used, how and where	Remarks that give few details about the tool and how and where it was used	Remarks that indicate which AI tool was used, with some details about how and where	Remarks that indicate which AI tool was used, with all details about how and where

1.1.6. Resources

Bauschard, S. (2023). Debating in the World of AI. Education Disrupted: Teaching and Learning in An AI World. https://stefanbauschard.substack.com/p/debating-in-the-world-of-ai?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1673728&post_id=138620336&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2fm3lf&utm_medium=email

Bauschard, S. (2025). Speech & Debate: The Ultimate Training for an AI-Augmented World. Education Disrupted: Teaching and Learning in An AI World. https://stefanbauschard.substack.com/p/speech-and-debate-the-ultimate-training?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1673728&post_id=156602138&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2fm3lf&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

1.1.7. Examples of Possible Debates by Field of Study

• Economics: Does cryptocurrency represent the future of global financial systems?
• Law: Should surrogate motherhood be legalized in every country?
• Sociology: Does social media foster social cohesion or isolation of individuals?
• Political Science: Is direct democracy a better form of government than representative democracy?
• Psychology: Is psychometric testing a reliable tool to assess human intelligence?
• Education: Can online learning replace in-person learning in universities?
• Medicine: Should euthanasia be legalized for all terminal medical conditions?
• Environment and Ecology: Is sustained economic growth possible without harming the environment?
• Computer Science: Does artificial intelligence represent a large-scale threat to employment?
• History: Has colonization had positive effects on colonized nations, beyond its negative impact?
• Physics: Is research into nuclear fusion the ultimate solution to the global energy crisis?
• Biology: Should genetic modification of humans (CRISPR) be allowed to prevent hereditary diseases?
• Chemistry: Does nanotechnology in consumer goods pose environmental and health risks?
• Mathematics: Is mathematics a universal language or just a human tool to describe reality?
• Astronomy: Should colonization of Mars be a scientific and economic priority for humanity?
• Geology: Should seabed mining be prohibited to protect marine ecosystems?
• Environmental Science: Can renewable energy really meet long-term global energy needs?
• Neuroscience: Is neuroenhancement (by way of implants or cognitive drugs) ethical in a non-medical context?
• Material Sciences: Are biodegradable plastics the best solution to plastic pollution?
• Oceanography: Are oceans an untapped resource for solving global energy challenges, through technologies such as tidal energy?
• Arts Management: Should GAFAM do more to increase discoverability of Quebec creations?