Updated September 20, 2026

ESL Debate Lesson Plan — a 60-minute procedure that gets the whole class talking (B1-B2)

A complete, timed lesson that gets every student speaking — including the ones who never raise their hand. Print-ready.

Level: B1 → B2 (CEFR) · secondary and post-secondary
Duration: 60 minutes
Class size: 12 to 32 students
Framework: CEFR: sustained monologue (B1 "explain a viewpoint"), spoken interaction (B2 "argue, respond to counter-arguments"), listening (B1 "follow a line of argument").

Debate is the highest-yield speaking activity in a language classroom: it exercises vocabulary, the syntax of argument, active listening and turn-taking all at once. The hard part isn't running it once. It's running it so that three confident students don't do all the talking while everyone else waits it out.

This plan solves that structurally: assigned roles, tight timing, and one rule that forces every speaker to restate what the previous speaker said before replying. It was written for ESL/EFL at B1-B2, but works unchanged in a first-language classroom.

What you need: a room, a board, a timer. Nothing else.

Objectives

→State a position and support it with at least two structured arguments.
→Restate an opponent's argument before responding to it — listening you can actually verify.
→Use concession and contrast markers: admittedly… however, that may be true, but…, even if we accept that…
→Qualify a position rather than defending it as a binary.
→Speak within a constrained format without a fully scripted text.

Materials

☐A timer everyone can see (projected phone or online countdown).
☐The board, split into FOR / AGAINST columns.
☐The useful-language bank below, printed or projected.
☐The rubric, one copy per assessed student.
☐Slips of paper for drawing sides at random.

Lesson procedure · 60 min

5 min
Warm-up — the opening position
Teacher — Write the motion on the board. Take a show of hands: FOR / AGAINST / undecided, and write the three numbers in a corner. Don't comment on the result — you'll come back to it at the end.
Students — Vote. Each writes their starting position in one sentence, to compare at the end of the lesson.
8 min
Assigning sides — drawn, not chosen
Teacher — Draw sides at random, ignoring the vote. This is the hinge of the whole lesson: defending a position you don't hold forces students to find real arguments instead of reciting convictions. Form teams of 3 or 4.
Students — Find out their side. Complain a little. Start looking for arguments they'd never have looked for otherwise.
12 min
Team preparation
Teacher — Circulate. Ask every team the same single question: "What is the other side's strongest argument, and what do you say to it?" Ban full scripts — keyword notes only.
Students — Prepare three arguments and anticipate two counter-arguments. Assign roles: who opens, who rebuts, who closes.
20 min
The debate — constrained format
Teacher — Keep time strictly. Order: FOR opening (90 s), AGAINST opening (90 s), then alternating 60-second turns. Non-negotiable rule: every turn opens by restating what the previous speaker said ("So your point is that…"). A missing or inaccurate restatement costs the turn.
Students — Debate. Listen — because the restatement rule makes them. Take notes on opposing arguments while waiting for their turn.
8 min
The reversal
Teacher — Announce that each team must now state the other side's best argument, in one sentence. This is the most productive part of the lesson and the one everyone cuts for time — don't cut it.
Students — State the opposing side's strongest argument. Often realise here that the position they were assigned actually holds up.
7 min
Final vote and debrief
Teacher — Vote again. Compare with the opening numbers. Ask those who changed their minds which argument moved them — not who "won". Highlight two or three well-turned phrases you heard.
Students — Vote again, compare with their opening sentence, and name the argument that shifted them.

Assessment rubric · / 20

Criterion	Points	1	2	3	4
Argument quality and structure	6	Assertions without support; restates the position without backing it.	One supported argument; the rest remain opinions.	Two structured arguments, each backed by an example or a figure.	Arguments ranked from strongest to weakest, each one supported.
Listening and restatement	4	Does not restate, or distorts the opponent's argument.	Restates loosely, simplifying it in their own favour.	Restates accurately before responding.	Restates accurately and in its strongest form before responding.
Rebuttal	4	Ignores objections and carries on.	Answers beside the objection.	Answers the objection directly.	Answers the objection and shows why it does not defeat the position.
Language — range and cohesion	4	Very limited range; ideas juxtaposed without linking.	Simple, repetitive linkers (but, because).	Varied linkers; concession used correctly.	Precise, qualified language; concession and contrast handled well.
Format and turn-taking	2	Interrupts, runs well over time.	Runs over time or speaks out of turn.	Respects the format.	Respects the format and makes room for others to speak.

Ready-to-use topics

Should homework be abolished?
Should phones be banned in high schools?
Do school uniforms reduce inequality?
Should letter grades be scrapped?
Does remote work damage team culture?
Should voting be compulsory?
Should social media be banned for under-16s?
Is mass tourism destroying what it comes to see?
Should short domestic flights be taxed more heavily?
Should artificial intelligence be regulated by law?
Can eating meat still be justified?
Should public transport be free?
Has professional sport become an advertising vehicle?
Should advertising to children be restricted?
Should cities ban cars from their centres?
Does online anonymity do more harm than good?
Should national service be mandatory?
Should museums be free for everyone?
Is a four-day work week realistic?
Should schools teach personal finance?
Does repeating a year help anyone?
Should the highest salaries be capped?
Are video games art?
Is colonising Mars worth the cost?

Adaptations

A quiet or self-conscious class

Start with five minutes of simultaneous pair debates: the whole class talks at once and nobody is being watched. The noise breaks the inhibition. Then move to the public format.

Very mixed levels

Give each team a role matched to level: A2-B1 students open (prepared position, little improvisation), B2 students rebut (heavy improvisation). Everyone speaks; nobody is exposed beyond their level.

Large class (30+)

Have two teams debate in front of the class, but give the audience a job: each non-debater completes one rubric row for an assigned speaker. Nobody is a passive spectator.

Online

The format survives video conferencing if mics are muted by default and opened only on turn. The restatement rule matters even more there: it proves the student was listening.

A 45-minute period

Drop the reversal (step 5) and cut preparation to 8 minutes. Keep the opening and closing votes whatever you do — they are what gives the activity its point.

Follow-up

Each student writes a 150-word paragraph defending the opposite of the position they argued in class. It is the single most productive follow-up: it forces them to use the opposing arguments they just heard, and it is hard to outsource convincingly to an AI, because it has to draw on what was actually said in the room.

The same lesson with ELBO

·Timing, turn-taking and handing over from one speaker to the next are handled automatically — you no longer keep time while trying to listen.
·Students join with a six-character code on the board. No account, no email address, no form.
·The rubric above fills in during the debate, on your screen, criterion by criterion. The participation report shows who spoke, for how long, and about what.
·A training AI can push students when they stall, and stand in as an opponent for odd-numbered teams.
·Each student's work accumulates in a profile that follows them year to year — progress in argumentation becomes visible instead of being reassessed from zero each September.

Run it without the logistics

NOVA handles timing, speaking turns, the rubric and the participation report. One code on the board — your students never create an account.

Try NOVA free

Frequently asked questions

Do sides really have to be drawn at random?

Yes, and it is the thing that makes the difference. When students argue their own opinion they recite what they already think and learn nothing. When the side is drawn, they have to build an argument — which is the actual skill being taught. It also defuses sensitive topics: nobody can be reduced to the position they were handed.

What if a student refuses the side they drew?

Offer them the judge role: they complete the rubric for both sides and say at the end which argument struck them as strongest, regardless of side. Same listening and analysis skills, nothing to defend.

How do I assess 30 students in one lesson?

You can't, and you shouldn't try. Assess six to eight students per lesson, announced in advance, and rotate across the year. The rest complete the rubric for a classmate: peer assessment on a single criterion is reliable and keeps them attentive.

Does this work in a first-language classroom?

Yes, unchanged. Drop the useful-language bank and raise the bar on the language criterion. The core of the lesson — drawn sides, compulsory restatement, the final reversal — has nothing to do with learning a foreign language.

Can I use this freely?

Yes. Print it, photocopy it, edit it, pass it to colleagues. It is free with no strings: no account to create, no email to leave.

Free to reproduce for classroom use. · elbo.world