Debates
Another effective exercise in the development of conversation skills with higher-level EFL students is the
introduction of topics in the form of structured debates. These generally take a long time to prepare and present,
so expect to use at least a full class if planning debates. The procedure is outlined below:
Lead In
Teachers can make the topic less serious (ie. the cafeteria food menu should have more choices) or more
serious (ie. Capital punishment should be abolished). In any case, it is important for teachers to provide
a topic lead in and some background info.
Introduce and define key vocabulary involved, as well as any other related vocabulary that might come
up.
Give students time to research the issue and encourage each group to develop a plan of attack: who
will talk during which part of the debate? The teacher should supply each team with the materials (ie.
research articles, topic handouts, key vocabulary, and sentence patterns to be used).
Make sure to remind them that it is mandatory for everyone to participate in the research and strategic
planning of the debate, including:
o preparation time in anticipation of possible responses from the opposite team
o discussion with team before the rebuttal about the arguments made by the opposing team and
how to counter them
Structure:
Split the class into teams (1 pro, 1 con) of two-three students per team who take turns presenting
arguments and counterarguments. For bigger classrooms (20+students), teams may need to consist of 4-
5 students per team.
During the debate, the other groups waiting their turn will serve as the judges. The teacher provides an
evaluation grid (example below) to the judges, who will decide which side presented a stronger case in
the debate. The winners will be chosen at its conclusion.
There is a single chairperson in the classroom- who acts as a referee to maintain time-limits and
enforce debate rules.
Rules:
1. No reading from paper
2. Notes/cue cards are allowed ONLY (no other electronic aids permitted)
3. Both teams must remain on focus with the debate topic
4. No speaking out of turn, wait until it is your turn
5. When the chairman demands to stop talking, all talking should cease
6. Speaking times need to be respected (although they will vary depending on level of students and
class size):
o 1st member of Pro team: 2-3 minutes
o 1st member of Con team: 2-3 minutes
o 2nd member of Pro team: 2-3 minutes
o 2nd member of Con team: 2-3 minutes
o 1st member of Con team: 2-3 minutes (rebuttal)
o 2nd member of Pro team: 2-3 minutes (rebuttal)
o Cross-examination
During the debate, the other students in the class should be watching and evaluating both teams on their
clearness, audibility, enthusiasm, organization, supporting research, rebuttals, and their cross examination. Once
the debate is finished, the evaluating students can rate the two teams using a point system from one to five (see
handout below), and the winners will be based on the calculations of every observing students points. This
opens up a great way for students to practice and train their conversational skills. For example:
CONTENT
1 2 3 4 5 Overview (Summary of case)
1 2 3 4 5 Quality of Recommendations/Explanations
(Recommendations for what should be/has been done differently, OR, Explanations for why
current situation is successful)
1 2 3 4 5 Summary/Conclusion
(Review of major points; Statement of relevance to practice of management)
PROCESS
1 2 3 4 5 Verbal Behavior (clarity/choice of words/voice level)
1 2 3 4 5 Nonverbal Behavior
(posture; body gestures; eye contact; presence, use of notes/reading)
1 2 3 4 5 Timing (Within limit; coordination; efficient use of time)
1 2 3 4 5 General Coherence (Ability to follow points; quality of transitions)
The teachers grading process, on the other hand, does not have to name a winner or a loser. If students clearly
communicate ideas, use appropriate grammar, and demonstrate their fluency and pronunciation, then the debate
serves its purpose. Teachers should praise students for their efforts, while providing constructive feedback at the
end of the debate.
