# Welcome to Argutopia! We're passionate about supporting your efforts to help students find their voices. Our mission is to make debating a part of every class, regardless of the course content! ## A one-stop platform for the resources, guidance and tools required to put debate in every class. Constructive argumentation is essential to understanding and navigating the world. Unfortunately, many of us seem to have forgotten how to argue constructively with one another. Like any skill, argumentation needs to be taught, but students lack opportunity, instructors lack know-how and the broader society lacks appreciation for reasoned discourse. Argutopia gives you the tools you need to structure productive and engaging debates for your students. Using your own topic or materials we provide, you can schedule students to prepare, debate and evaluate arguments from one platform. ![](/files/2EP2hbFqXDNNFmlrYxVN) #### We're guided by three goals: 1. *Make every student a debater.* Debate-centered instruction (DCI) enlives the classroom, motivates students to acquire valuable skills and imparts the knowledge and predisposition for students to be effective citizens. Robert Litan of the Brookings Institution [makes the case](https://www.brookings.edu/book/resolved/) that every class should focus on teaching students to make and evaluate arguments. 2. *Demistify argumentation.* Argutopia harnesses the power of visual and dynamic learning through its [spatial model of argumentation](/instructors-guide/start-here/the-model-explained). Students see the interactions between arguments illustrated on their screens and can manipulate the model to reflect their perceptions of the debate. 3. *Make debate convenient for Instructors to use in their classes.* Hundreds of prepared topics for [debate](https://argutopia.co/library), social sharing of resources, threaded video recording for outside-of-class asynchronous debates, videoconferencing for competition between classes or between schools, extensive instruction and support for teachers and more make *Argutopia* a one-stop platform for incorporating debating into any class. {% hint style="info" %} Interested in becoming a beta user? Email us at with a little bit about who you are. {% endhint %} # Start here! This section gives you an overview of the unique approach Argutopia takes to Debate-Centered Instruction. # The debate visualizer, explained Argutopia is based on a visual model that illustrates the otherwise-abstract moves that may be made in a debate. #### If you'd prefer, you're welcome to review [the paper on which the visualizer is based](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cuZXtMzZEVfi8iP8mH_aGNqkwAntPtgB/view?usp=sharing) or access [a recorded lecture](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZmibvQlP7w_lD4DzaxWmZfF0ujri-AhX/view) that covers much of the material discussed below. ## Why does debate need a visualizer? Debating has been recognized as powerful pedagogy since Plato was engaging his students in arguments at the Academy over 2000 years ago. And despite the fact that almost everyone argues on a daily basis, we are neither very good at constructive argumentation nor do most understand what's happening when they argue with someone. Arguments--as they represent our values, preferences and desires--are abstractions without form or substance. As such, they can be difficult to explain and understand. But not only are arguments abstractions, the process of exchanging arguments may itself be considered an abstraction. What we're arguing about, what the other side's position and main arguments are and how to engage those arguments effectively exist only in our perceptions of the interaction. Productive debates depend on the ability of advocates to identify, understand and engage competing arguments to test the best of opposing ideas. As anyone who's engaged in a heated exchange can tell you, this isn't always easy to do. Between the vagueness of language, the partisanship of opposing sides, the nearly-infinite options for ideas to express and the emotional dimensions of disagreement, argumention can be complex, confusing and not at all clear. Working with abstractions in an abstract context is challenging for seasoned advocates, much less for students just cutting their argumentative teeth. Hence the need for a concrete representation of what happens in a debate. Our visualizer illustrates the abstract territory in which a debate occurs and the moves available to advocates in a debate. By illustrating where arguments may be positioned and where argumentative efforts may be applied, the visualizer structures students' debating, resulting in a more productive and satisfying experience. The visualizer is based on the metaphor of a playing board, where the *players* are guided toward certain *moves* to accomplish a particular *objective*. The *players* are the Pro and Con debaters, the *moves* are the strategic options available to them and the *objective* is for the debaters to make arguments more likely to be favored by their audience. The visualizer serves as a blueprint for debaters' preparation, a scaffold for the audience's attention during the debate and a representation of the audience's preferences for Pro or Con efforts after the debate. As such, itl functions as both a playing board and a scorecard for the debate. ## The territory of controversy The visualizer begins by defining the territory of debate, separating arguments relevant to the topic from those which are irrelevent. The boundaries of the controversy are set by the [*topic*](/instructors-guide/start-here/writing-topics-and-issues#writing-effective-topics) being debated. In a debate about banning the sale of tobacco, for instance, arguments about public health, the economic consequences of a ban and whether users have a right consume tobacco products are relevant; arguments about colonizing the moon or requiring COVID vaccine passports are irrelevant. ![The territory of controversy, separating relevant arguments from irrelevant arguments](/files/-MkQ3agz9HN9HNwgsl3x) The territory of the controversy is divided into Pro territory--all the potential arguments available to those arguing for the the topic--and Con territory. The line dividing Pro from Con is a *point of clash*, where those arguments compete. Broady speaking, the objective of the Pro and Con side to to make arguments (and engage their opponents' arguments) to move the line in their favor, thereby occupying more territory: ![Pro and Con arguments interact at a point of clash in an effort to gain or defend territory](/files/-MkQ4Y-jMCHj-FFLLC2s) The territory of a controversy may be subdivided into [*issues*](/instructors-guide/start-here/writing-topics-and-issues#using-issues-to-structure-controversy) representing smaller, more focused points of clash within the larger controversy. ![Issues subdivide territory](/files/-MkQ8hAjyw-OE36QK53E) Issues direct the debaters' and audience's attention, making the debate more predictable and easier to follow. If we were to debate about whether we should ban tobacco products, the issues we explore might include the public health, economic and individual rights dimensions of the topic. ![Issues for a debate on banning tobacco products](/files/-MkQ9EXSu4cQNSeE6wxb) ## The moves in debate The exchange of arguments is the essence of debating, but exchanging arguments actually consists of a number of discreet *moves* debaters may make. #### Definitional argumentation Definitional argumentation involves the contest over what the terms of the topic mean. If arguing about a ban on tobacco products, debaters may disagree over whether a ban on tobacco products includes nicotine delivery devices such as vaping pens. If "tobacco products" means "all substances that deliver nicotine" then a ban would include such devices. If "tobacco products" includes only those products that are made of tobacco, vaping devices wouldn't be banned. Such a distinction may be material to the debate and subject to the arguments made by the debaters. #### Constructive argumentation Constructive argumentation involves building arguments to establish, advance and hold territory in the debate. When a debater makes a claim--particularly about a theme or subject not yet introduced into the debate--and substantiates that claim with evidence and reasoning, they are engaged in constructive argumentation. Constructive argumentation also involves assembling a series of arguments to make a complete case for the Pro or Con side of a topic or defending an argument from an opponent's critique. #### Deconstructive argumentation Deconstructive argumentation consists of engagement with an opponent's arguments in an effort to diminish the strength of that argument in the eyes of the audience. Typically comprised of direct refutation, deconstructive argumentation occurs when a debater identifies a competing argument, offers critique of that argument's evidentiary foundation or reasoning operation and explains how the weakening of that argument affects their opponent's overall effort. #### Comparative argumentation Comparative argumentation occurs when debaters move beyond the (constructive or deconstructive) consideration of individual arguments and focus on the big picture. Debaters are engaged in comparative argumentation when they explain why the arguments they're winning should be considered more in their audience's evaluation of the debate than the arguments their opponents may be winning. These moves may be prioritized in the order of their function and complexity. Definitional argumentation establishes the meaning of terms in the controversy, which is foundational to the constructive argumentation that builds arguments on that foundation. Deconstructive argumentation by an opponent follows, interrogating the constructive arguments made by the other side. Finally, and most challenging, is comparative argumentation, where opponents attempt to convince the audience that the points they're winning are more important to the audience's consideration than their opponents' points. ![The heriarchy of argumentative moves](/files/-MkQS7csYppY3MyPsbgC) ## The moves and the board The moves that debaters make in a debate affect the "board" on which the debate is "played." Through their effort to define territory, establish their own arguments, critique their opponents' arguments and compare their effort to their competitors' efforts, debaters attempt to accomplish the objective of occupying more territory than their opponents. #### Construction & Deconstruction: the axis of *preference* Recall that a point of clash is where the Pro and Con arguments interact. On the visualizer, this effort is represented by a vertical line dividing each issue. The arrows indicate the argumentative efforts of the opposing sides to advance the line in their favor, thereby occupying more of the controversy's territory. ![Pro and Con exchange efforts on the axis of preference](/files/-MkQO4PzQd1RebhcCeU1) The distribution of space within each issue representsthe audience's preference for the Pro or Con arguments. That preference depends on which side makes the more compelling arguments that can withstand the scrutiny of their opposition. #### Comparative argumentation: the axis of *significance* Debaters may also direct their efforts at arguing that some issues are more important than others. This comparative argumentation highlights for the audience the issues that the debaters may argue should be more relevant to the audience's decision. The visualizer represents this effort along the axis of significance. ![](/files/-MkQVjnMiwnAnrRc5RsX) The distribution of space among issues reflects the importance of particular issues in the audience's decision. As the audience allocates more space to a particular issue to reflect their perception of that issue's significance, the remaining issues recede in significance. ## The debate's scorecard As noted earlier, the visualizer both structures the debater's efforts and scaffold's the audience's attention in the debate. As the debate unfolds, each audience member may record arguments in their respective spaces and allocate the territory to reflect their evaluation of the competing arguments. Thus, if the visualizer looks like this before the debate: ![Pre-debate visualizer for "ban tobacco" debate](/files/-MkQ9EXSu4cQNSeE6wxb) it may, after the debate, appear as follows: ![Post-debate visualizer for "ban tobacco" debate](/files/-MkQXQC1rZxK2tseV-a_) The audience has recorded the Pro and Con arguments in their appropriate locations on the board. Based on their assessment of those arguments, the audience has allocated the territory according to their preference for the Pro or Con position within each issue and the significance of each issue relative to others. In this case, the "scorecard" represents a Pro win earned by convincing the audience not only that tobacco use poses a significant public health risk but also that such a risk was more important than the economic or individual rights consequences of implimenting that ban. The audience was convinced that tobacco products should be banned. # What do you want your students to do? Learn about the various options you have for engaging your students constructive argumentation exercises. Though Argutopia is built to help students debate as a way to encounter course material, there's more to Argutopia than just debating. In fact, there's more to academic debating as a pedagogy than simply having your students argue for and against a topic. Perhaps even more valuable than giving a speech is having students evaluate the arguments made by the Pro and Con debaters. Argutopia's [intuitive debate visualizer](/instructors-guide/start-here/the-model-explained) helps student judges understand how to make and explain their decision. Students can be assigned to judge as individuals or participate in a small group that deliberates to reach consensus on a decision. You can use Argutopia--and design your assignments--using these three phases as a framework: ![Argutopia helps your students argue, observe and evaluate positions](/files/-MkcuY2SO5DyPJ8o0VFN) ### Beyond debates? While we use the familiar term "debate" to describe what Argutopia does, there's no reason you have to imagine your assignment as a formal debate. * Could you assign a small group of students to discuss the Pro and Con sides of the topic with no structured speeches, but relying on the model to guide their discussion? Sure! * Could those assigned to represent the Pro and Con arguments not be imagined as advocates, but as well-researched experts who respond the audience's questions structured by the model in a panel discussion? Of course! * Would it work to have the whole class discuss a topic collectively with one person noting major arguments on a common model projected for all to see? Why not? * Following any of these alternative argumentative exercises, could your assignment culminate with small group deliberation leading to a consensus decision structured and expressed by the model? Yes! We hope you'll use your imagination and expertise to invent an approach to encourging argumentation that works for you and your students. # Topic or assignment first? Have content you want to debatify? Teaching a debate class and looking for a topic? Check this out. Some instructors come to Argutopia for help administering a debate without much concern for the topic their students will argue. Others come to us with a topic they'd like to "debatify," but need help setting up a successful debate experience for their students. You're welcome to start from either point. You can begin with your own topic or use one of our [debate kits](/instructors-guide/start-here/debate-kits) to kick off your assignment. If you choose to use a debate kit, you'll benefit from curated topics, customized issues and--in many cases--links to resources that your students can use to prepare. Any kit you choose will be automatically imported into your assignment If you'd prefer to create a debate using your own topic, check out our guide to [writing topics and issues](/instructors-guide/start-here/writing-topics-and-issues). # Debate Kits Learn about our ready-made topics, issue sets and resources available for you to use. Argutopia contains [over 100 debate kits](https://argutopia.co/library) that are ready for you to use. Each kit contains a topic, issues that focus students' advocacy on the topic and--in most cases--a link to resources that you can share with your students to help them prepare. Search our database of kits to see if there's one that will work for your assignment! ![](/files/h20FvBMhaJQkgrlLWFPk) When you select a debate kit, the topic, issues and resources will automatically be imported into your assignment for your students to see. # Writing topics & issues A well-written topic and set of issues provides the structure and direction necessary to make your debate assignment a success. Controversy is an excellent way for students to encounter course material. Nearly any subject matter, from Civics and Social Studies to Science and Math, can benefit from providing students opportunities to exchange arguments about a controversial topic. Arguing for and against a topic engages students, promotes deep learning and--when properly organized--immerses the audience in consideration and evaluation of arguments that promotes metacognition. Preparing your material for students begins with selecting the subject matter suitable for a debate. Perhaps it's competing explanations of natural phenomena, an ethical quandry posed by a newly-developed technology, the conflict between literary characters that leaves their morality in question or simply a dispute over public policy; whatever the case, arranging a debate for your students begins with writing an effective topic for the debate and structuring the students' inquiry with well-written issue questions. ## Writing effective topics Topics serve an important function in controversy: an effective topic defines the boundaries of the controversy, assigns Pro and Con responsibilities to the participants and serves as the standard for determining which sides arguments prevail. In strictly logical terms, the topic is a proposition with truth value. That is, the topic is a declarative statement that is controversial and which may be proved more or less true given the arguments the audience finds most persuasive. Functional topics have three characteristics. Well-written debate topics are: 1. **Controversial:** the subject should address a subject of legitimate dispute and should have a clear, binary focus. 2. **Simple:** the wording should reflect an appropriate scope for the debate and should address a single point of dispute as a binary proposition. 3. **Balanced:** the proposition should be phrased in a way that presents fair opportunities for both Pro and Con arguments. Here are some examples to illustrate these characteristics: ***“Alaska should promote public health”*** This topic doesn't articulate a controversial subject: it's difficult to argue that a state should *not* promote public health; the controversy likely lies in the means by which that state does so. Moreover, the scope of this topic isn't well-defined: *how* should the state of Alaska promote public health? The nearly limitless ways in which they could do so doesn't give the debaters opportunity to prepare well for their debate. Here's another poorly-written topic: ***“Alaska should end the production, distribution, sale and consumption of all products that include any form of nicotine or other dangerous substances that may cause a significant public health risk.”*** This version of the topic is unnecessarily complex and too broad in scope. Banning any of the proposed elements of tobacco use would likely be sufficient to focus the debaters on the controversy at hand and, more importantly, the phrase "or other dangerous substances that may cause a significant public health risk" is so broad as to include nearly any manufactured substance. A final example of a dysfunctional topic: ***“Alaska should ban the sale of deadly tobacco products that cause the needless deaths of millions of innocent people every year around the world.”*** This topic is not balanced. The use of loaded language ("deadly tobacco products," "needless deaths, "millions of innocent people") predisposes the audience to the Pro side of the debate, denying the Con a fair chance to make their case. A more well-phrased version of this motion would be ***“Alaska should ban tobacco products.”*** This topic is concrete and focused, identifying a particular policy suggestion related to public health. The topic also focuses on what likely would be a very controversial proposal, with plenty of ground for the Con side to argue that such a ban would have serious economic consequences and would deprive tobacco users of their rights. Finally, the topic is expressed clearly and without biased phrasing, allowing both sides in the debate a fair chance to convince the audience of their position. {% hint style="info" %} Remember, you can always select from the [debate kits](/instructors-guide/creating-assignments#debate-kits) already loaded into Argutopia for a well-written topic and set of issues. {% endhint %} ## Using Issues to structure controversy Bundled up inside most controversies are any number of sub-controversies that may give focus and structure to a debate. Your students' debates will be more productive if you guide their preparation and execution with issues that direct their attention to these designated sub-controversies. #### Where do issues come from? Issues are the product of arguments made and the expectation that such arguments invite a response. When an argument is articulated in a context that demands engagement from an opponent, an issue exists. In most cases, this means that issues arise organically in the course of a debate from the arguments the debaters make. However, articulating a set of issues before the debate begins can direct the debaters' attention toward relevant points of dispute and scaffold the audience's consideration of the debate, making the exercise more productive for all involved. While the potential issues for any given debate may be nearly infinite, limiting the focus and number of issues you provide to participants will give them confidence that they'll be able to manage the arguments in the debate. This scaffolded approach is key for students inexperienced with debating: by limiting the potential areas of argument for which they'll be responsible they gain confidence that their preparation will ready them to exchange arguments on the subjects identified by the issues. {% hint style="warning" %} We recommend planning for 2-5 issues for any given debate. Fewer than 2 means you don't benefit from focused consideration of various facets of the controversy; more than 5 becomes difficult for debaters to manage. {% endhint %} The most effective way to identify issues is to generate a list of arguments you'd expect to encounter in a debate (or, even better, have your students generate lists of Pro and Con arguments that may be relevant to the topic). From this list, you can begin to identify themes that contain the arguments from each side. Remember, you'll likely generate far more arguments than issues; well-structured issues are not necessarily inclusive of *all* potential arguments that may be made, but identify important and representative areas of controversy within which the debaters may make productive arguments. #### Writing effective issues Like topics, issues should be written to be controversial, simple and balanced. Unlike topics--which are written as declarative propositions the debaters attempt to prove true or false--issues are typically written as questions to represent the inquiry they invite. The best issues are written as closed-ended or binary questions. Open-ended questions don't allow a clear distinction between Pro and Con ground and can be confusing for novice debaters. Thus, issues such as *"Will a ban on tobacco products violate users' rights?"* is preferable to phrasing the issue *"How will a ban on tobacco products violate users' rights?"* Writing effective issues requires attention to several characteristics: 1. Issues should be to **inclusive**: writing issues requires that they're sufficiently broad to accommodate all potential arguments for that subject but sufficiently narrow to capture those arguments in a useful, structured way. 2. Issues should be **equivalent**: the potential amount of material in each issue should be relatively equal to other issues. Scoping issues properly so that they address a roughly-similar amount of material makes understanding the whole of the controversy easier for the participants. 3. Issues should be **distinct**: each issue should focus on a discrete sub-controversy relative to the larger controversy. Well-written issues contain all potential arguments related to that sub-controversy and exclude other arguments that focus on a different subject. #### Sequencing issues Once you have a set of well-phrased issues, you can give some thought to the order in which those issues are arranged. In some controversies, the issues would likely be encountered by decision-makers in a particular order; it helps with the clarity of the debate to anticipate that order and sequence your issues accordingly. Consider these potential issues for the "ban tobacco" debate: * Will a ban be effective in reducing rates of consumption? * Will a ban produce significant economic consequences? * Does tobacco use produce public health impacts significant enough to warrant banning? From the perspective of someone making a decision about whether to ban tobacco or not (i.e.: the audience deciding between the Pro and Con positions in a debate), it makes sense to encounter these issues in a particular order. The first issue that should be contemplated is whether the alleged problem is significant enough to warrant a dramatic legislative action such as a ban. If no problem exists or if that problem is insignificant, questions of whether a ban will work or the undesireable consequences of implimenting a ban are irrelevant. Assuming the audience has been convinced that a problem exists, the next question they'll consider is whether the proposed solution to that problem works. In this case, arguments about whether a ban would deter a sufficient number of tobacco users to drive down the public health impacts of tobacco use are relevant. Finally, if the audience is convinced that a problem exists and that the solution will produce results, the audience may move on to consider the unintended consequences of implimenting the solution. Such consequences may make the solution undesireable, despite the fact that it solves a problem. Thus, the proper sequencing of the above set of issues would be as follows: 1. Does smoking produce public health risks significant enough to warrant banning? 2. Will a ban be effective in reducing rates of smoking? 3. Will a ban produce significant economic consequences? {% hint style="info" %} Remember, you can always select from the [debate kits](/instructors-guide/creating-assignments#debate-kits) already loaded into Argutopia for a well-written topic and set of issues. {% endhint %} \ # Video Guides Check here for our collected video guides. You'll also find these videos embedded throughout our documentation {% embed url="" %} # Setting up your class {% embed url="" %} ## Create your account We use a magic link emailed to your inbox to log you into Argutopia. Enter your preferred email address, then check your inbox for the link we've emailed you to access Argutopi {% hint style="info" %} 1. You'll need an Instructor account to create assignments for your students. Email with some information about yourself and we'll get an Instructor account set up for you! {% endhint %} ## Creating your class You'll need to create a class before you can create debates. Simply click on "Create New Class" and give your class a name you and your students will recognize. You'll also need to provide start and end dates for the class; these typically are the same as the semester or quarter during which you'll use Argutopia. ![Create your class](/files/-MkPSyIqclr-HyTNyrqb) ## Invite students to your class Next you'll need to invite student to join your class on Argutopia. Choose the "Students" option in the left menu bar, then click the "Invite Students" button in the upper right corner of your screen. That will bring up a dialogue box that contains a unique link to your class. Share this link with your students so that they may create an Argutopia account that is automatically associated with your class.
![Input students' email addresses](/files/vdxgvKwNBBOciwXQ64iq) Once your class is fully rostered on Argutopia, you can begin to build your assignments! # Creating assignments Want your students to debate? You have options! Choose from one of our prepared debate kits or use your own topic to create synchronous or asynchronous in-person or virtual debates! ## Create a new assignment In Argutopia, an "assignment" is typically a debate involving a topic and issues, students assigned to argue the Pro and Con side and, often, other students assigned to judge their peers' efforts (though there are [other ways to use Argutopia to encourage your students to argue](/instructors-guide/start-here/what-do-you-want-your-students-to-do)). The first thing you'll need to do is decide how your students will debate. {% embed url="" %} ### How will students debate? At present, Argutopia supports two kinds of debates: real-time, in-person debates or asynchronous threaded video debates. ![](/files/JghygUzHm9Z2dnjPBBbt) Real-time, in-person debates are most traditional, where students debate live, usually in a class before their fellow classmates. Asynchronous, threaded video debates allow you to have students debate outside of class time by recording their speeches in succession from within Argutopia, then making those sequenced speeches available to their peers for review. Each type of debate has some particular features, but both approaches begin with you selecting a start date and topic/issues as well as deciding whether and how the students not debating will judge. ### Choosing a topic & issues You'll begin by selecting a topic and issues your students will use to prepare for and participate in the debate. You can either write your own topic and issues to populate the model your students will access (check out our [guide to writing topics & issues](/instructors-guide/start-here/writing-topics-and-issues)) or you can elect to use one of our [debate kits](https://argutopia.co/library). ![Write your own topic & issues or use one of our curated debate kits](/files/z2lHyHYuSuJuYNavKk6I) You can always edit the topic and issues and add or delete issues to customize the material for your needs. You're also able to add resources to the kit; typically this will link to articles, bibliographies or examples of arguments you'd like your students to use when preparing for their debates. Once you've selected a topic and issues, you'll then be asked to choose whether your students will render a decision (i.e.: judge) for the debate. ### Decision settings {% embed url="" %} One of the most powerful experiences in a debate assignment happens when the audience considers the arguments exchanged by the Pro and Con sides and renders their decision about which side prevailed. Argutopia makes it easy for you to arrange for your students to evaluate the arguments and articulate their rationale for their decision. ![](/files/w33nl2ZtB1mT3Y6AzUjM) #### Individual decisions If you opt to have your students submit only individual decisions, they'll have the opportunity to record the Pro and Con arguments in the appropriate areas and allocate the model to reflect their assessment of the debate. Once they submit their completed model, their job is done. #### Group decisions Having students [deliberate in small groups](/students-guide/deliberating-with-your-judging-group) about the outcome of the debate provides another opportunity for students to engage in metacognition, where they spend time talking and thinking about how they're talking and thinking. This is a powerful way to engage your students and get extra pedagogical mileage out of a debate. If you opt to have students deliberate in small groups, they'll first submit an individual decision (and completed model) for your review. Once you publish their individual decisions to the group, the students can meet, compare models and work collaboratively on the creation of a single, group model that reflects the consensus of the deliberators. From here, your assignment choices branch off depending on whether you're designing an asynchronous, threaded video debate or a real-time, in-person debate. We'll consider each in turn. ### Asynchronous, threaded-video debates Asynchronous, threaded video debates allow the Pro and Con debaters take turns recording their speeches (and viewing the previous speeches) outside of class time, typically with 24 hours for each speaker to record their speech. You're also able to [assign other students judging responsibilities as individuals or small groups](#decision-settings). Having already selected a topic and the decision making approach for your asynchronous debate, you're ready to decide upon the format and set the due dates. #### Format & Due Dates {% embed url="" %} Here you'll decide how students will face off. Asynchronous, threaded video debates are limited on format options as students record their contributions on their own time, making interactions like cross examination difficult. You can choose to have students debate in 1 v 1, 2 v 2, 3 v 3 or 4 v 4 debates.\ \ Once you select a format, you'll be given the option to set the length of each speech and the date by which it must be submitted. If you'd like, you can choose the "Auto Schedule" option and we'll schedule the students to submit each speech on a 24 hour cadence, beginning the day after the assignment opens. You can also edit the times and dates to your preferences; at present, we're limited to recording only 5 minutes of video but we'll extend that soon. Remember to check the due dates for the adjudicators, both individual and groups. Regardless of when you choose to have students submit their work, the due dates must reflect the order of speeches (1st Pro - 1st Con - 2nd Pro - etc.). ![](/files/a8jZjxSwCqlbmtBVQAhY) #### Assign debate roles {% embed url="" %} Your next step is to assign students to their roles in the debate. You may do so manually, selecting each student from a list accessible via the "Edit Students" option in each role. You can also add (or delete) debates until you're satisfied with the roles students have been assigned. Alternately, you can let us assign students to roles in the debate. Selecting "Auto Create" brings up a list of students rostered in your class. From that menu you may select which students you want to place into debater and/or judge roles. Note that we avoid conflicts for you: if you opt to have all your students take a turn as a debater and as a judge for the same assignment, we'll make sure that they're scheduled to judge a different debate than the one in which they're assigned Pro or Con responsibilities. ![Assign student roles or use auto create to let us do it for you!](/files/HCjVIpvl2cDY3r5JGqYk) Before you move on, review the debates to be sure that you're happy with all the role assignments we've made. If you'd like to swap students into different roles, simply drag-and-drop them where you want them to be. {% hint style="warning" %} In the event that the number of students in your class isn't evenly divisible by the number of slots required to have each student debate, you may need to assign some students 2 (or more) debating roles in the assignment. You can do so by editing the students in the debate missing a speaker; be sure that the student isn't expected to speak in two different debates on the same schedule. {% endhint %} #### Review and publish {% embed url="" %} In the final step of assignment creation you'll be able to review all assignment details including the mode of debate, the topic and issues, due dates and the like. Importantly, you'll also see the order of speakers for each debate; you can adjust speaker order by dragging-and-dropping speakers into the order you prefer. Note that we'll be sure to maintain the Pro-Con order to be sure that the debate proceeds in order. ![](/files/1GxtLMpwh2CJTWhU16ke) When you're satisfied, simply click "Create Assignment" and we'll make the assignment available to your students. ### Real-time, in-person debates When most Instructors think of a debate, they traditionally imagine students assigned to Pro and Con roles making arguments before a live audience. Argutopia helps you set up such debates for your classes. Earlier in the setup process you [selected a topic](#choosing-a-topic-and-issues) and [determined whether your students will judge](#decision-settings) the debates they watch; now you're ready to put the rest of the debate together. #### Selecting a format for your real-time, in-person debate {% embed url="" %} The format of your debate depends on your preferences. Do you want students to debate as individuals, partnerships, trios? Do you want a short debate or one that may last over an hour? Argutopia gives you a number of options. Option one is to use a pre-designed format already loaded into Argutopia. Popular formats such as Lincoln-Douglas or Public Forum are available based on the number of debaters on each side and the amount of time you'd like the debate to last. ![Let us suggest a format based on your parameters](/files/SYB1ZK4pVmq7YuLkU4gt) A second option is to design your own format using our format designer. When you select "Design my own" and specify the number of debaters on each side, we'll open our format designer to assist you with creating your own format. {% embed url="" %} Add in elements from the menu on the left. "Speeches" refer to any opportunity for a Pro or Con debater to develop or review their arguments; "Interactions" are opportunities for the debaters to interact through cross examination, discussion or the like; and "Notes" allow you to communicate critical information within the layout of the format. ![Use the format designer to create your ideal format (or edit an existing format)](/files/qBBhd6E6PuLYrXNBiMtI) You can specify the name of each element, the designated speaker(s), the time limit and any notes you'd offer as you add each element to the format. #### Assign debate roles {% embed url="" %} Once your format is finalized, your next step is to assign students to their roles in the debate. You may do so manually, selecting each student from a list accessible via the "Edit Students" option in each role. You can also add (or delete) debates until you're satisfied with the roles students have been assigned. Alternately, you can let us assign students to roles in the debate. Selecting "Auto Create" brings up a list of students rostered in your class. From that menu you may select which students you want to place into debater and/or judge roles. Note that we avoid conflicts for you: if you opt to have all your students take a turn as a debater and as a judge for the same assignment, we'll make sure that they're scheduled to judge a different debate than the one in which they're assigned Pro or Con responsibilities. ![](/files/Ihc0uzbW9j7FJTKav5jX) Note that you can set the dates for debates from here. We default to having the debate, individual adjudication and group deliberation scheduled for the same day; you may adjust accordingly. We also automatically schedule multiple debates in the same assignment for different days, avoiding weekends. Finally, you can drag-and-drop students to rearrange their roles or move them between debates. {% embed url="" %} When you're finished with assigning roles, you'll next proceed to an assignment review screen where you can do a final check of the debate you've arranged and make the assignment available to your students by clicking "Create Assignment." # Your assignment dashboard Review assignment details, evaluate student's submissions, delete assignments and more. ## Visualizer publishing options You can control who sees an assignment's visualizer(s) from the dashboard. By selecting various options, you can publish an average visualizer compiled from all individual visualizers submitted to the debaters, publish the judges' individual visualizers to the debaters and to the deliberation group and, finally, publish the deliberation group's consensus visualizer to the debaters. Most instructors prefer to review visualizers before publishing them to members of the class; you can review the models under the "Submissions" tab near the top of the screen. ![Choose who sees which visualizers](/files/-MkVEnw4ZVflC4AWh1LN) ## Edit Assignments We make it easy to edit your assignments from your assignment dashboard. Simply select the debate you'd like to edit from the "Debates & Submissions" tab and click the "Edit Speeches" or "Edit Judges" button. ![Edit speeches or judges from your assignment dashboard](/files/uCIXjc9kaGiQTgkZ56oi) Once in the editing menu, you can change speakers assigned Debater or Judge roles, change the length of speeches or change the due dates for elements of the assignment. ![](/files/Kt2M0eGULgOVuX2SAed7) ## Review Submissions By selecting the "Submissions" tab near the top of the screen you can review students progress and competed work. If an assignment is comprised of multiple debates, each debate is accessible via a tab near the top of the screen. Once selected, you can see that debate's Pro and Con visualizers (prepared by the debaters in anticipation of the debate), the judges' individual visualizers, an average of all the judges' visualizers and, once complete, a visualizer representing the consensus of the deliberation panel. ![Review submissions from the "Submissions" tab](/files/-Mk_0eTZArYllD7csBTP) # Accessing your assignment When you arrive on Argutopia, you'll select the class in which you're enrolled and then see the assignments in which you're scheduled. ![Select the debate in which you're scheduled](/files/-MkVRZf8UrJ1bvRs3rBN) Remember that you may be a debater, a judge or both in any assignment. If you're scheduled to debate and judge for the same assignment, you'll be given the option to choose which role you'd like to assume when you open an assignment. ![Choose the role in which you'd like to access the assignment](/files/-MkVZo2nCyPIewM3Hwhq) # Debating ## Preparing for your debate Entering an assignment as a debater takes you to your debate's home page. From here, you can see a schedule of the speeches due (and your own due date), information about the participants and their roles in the debate, watch speeches recorded by other participants and more. The main feature of your debate's home page is a model with the issues for your debate already designated. These are the issues for which you'll need to create arguments, either in support of your position or those you anticipate the other side making. ![The issues for your debate](/files/-MkV__tOSNiOsJmhRknK) As you prepare, you can add arguments for your side complete with claims, reasons and evidence to support your position on the motion. You can also add arguments you anticipate your opponents making to help strategize responses to their arguments. ![Prepare your arguments and anticipate your opponents' arguments for each issue](/files/-MkV_pQsOE5xwc-oH1sf) Once you're satisfied with your preparation, you should save your visualizer. You may also access a text-based version of the arguments you've created to use during the debate. If you're participating in a real-time, in-person debate, your instructor will provide you and the others involved in your debate with time to have the debate. If you're scheduled to participating in an asynchronous debate, read on to learn how you'll record your speeches! ## Asynchronous debates For asynchronous debates you can record your own speeches and review others' speeches from within Argutopia. Unless you're the first speaker, you'll want to review the recordings of previous debaters before recording your own speech. You can access all previous speeches through the "Watch Debate" menu. When you click "Watch" for each speech, a video player will pop up from which you can control the replay of the video. ![Review previous speeches before recording your own](/files/-MkVaQyRE6k4fm0xHtes) You can record the arguments made by your teammates or opponents on the visualizer so that you have a complete understanding of the interactions in the debate. When it's time for you to record your own speech, select the "Speech Schedule" to access the video recorder. Click "Record" to access the video recorder and adjust the options as you'd like (recording just the screen, recording just your video or recording the screen and your video). ![Record your speech when it's your turn](/files/-MkVaoOaYq4qa48zsEwq) You can review and re-record your speech if you'd like. When you're ready, you can insert the recording into the debate and submit it for your Instructor's and the other debaters' review. ![Remember to submit your speech when you're satisfied with the recording](/files/-MkVbEB3dEEb469cYkUY) # Judging a debate Argutopia makes judging a debate easy. Your Instructor will tell you when you're scheduled to judge, but you can always [access your assignments](/students-guide/untitled) to see what debates are occuring. For some assignments, you may be a debater in one debate but a judge in a different debate. Both of these roles can be accessed from your assignments homepage; once you select an assignment, you'll be given the option to enter that assignment in either a debater or judge role. ## Adjusting the visualizer to reflect your decision Once you're in your debate's homepage, you can find a lot of information about your debate. You can check a list of participants, view the assignment instructions and due dates, see the schedule of speeches (and whether they've been recorded) and more. Once you're finished viewing the debate and recording the arguments, you can adjust the visualizer to reflect your decision. Drag the sliders left or right within each issue to reflect which side convinced you most of their position on the issue. Adjust the size of each issue to reflect how important that issue was to your decision. In the end, the side that occupies the most space on the visualizer is the winner. ![Adjust the model to reflect your decision](/files/-MkZlf5nzc141jO1cV45) Don't forget to save your visualizer when you're finished. Once you save the visualizer, it will be available for your Instructor to review. Your Instructor may also require you to participate in a deliberation group to reach consensus on the outcome of a debate. You can read more about [deliberating with your judging group here](/students-guide/deliberating-with-your-judging-group). ## Viewing speeches in an asynchronous debate If you're judging an asynchronous debate, you'll wait until the debaters have recorded their speeches. When the speeches are complete, you can watch them from the "Watch Debate" menu on the model page. From the video player you can pause, rewind and adjust the speed of play as you record the debaters' arguments on your model. ![Watch debaters' speeches and record their arguments on the model](/files/-MkZj8WpaXGnJ_YMMTRs) ## # Deliberating with your judging group Discussing your decision with a small group of judges in order to come to agreement on the winner of the debate--also known as *deliberating*--is a terrific way to check your perceptions of the debate you've watched. Before you can deliberate, you must [complete an individual decision and submit your completed visualizer of the debate](/students-guide/judging-a-debate) so that others can understand how you arrived at your decision. Once your Instructor makes your group members' visualizers available for you to review, you can begin deliberating. ## Viewing other judges' visualizers Once your Instructor has made other judges' visualizers available for your review, you can choose to view them in two ways. First, you can use the drop-down menu to select which visualizer you'll see. Note that you can also choose to work on the consensus visualizer--the one that you and your fellow judges will discuss and agree upon--from this menu. ![Use the drop-down menu to view different models](/files/-MkZoPRwDzR4hlGqTEGK) You can also see a quick-view of each judge's visualizer by clicking the "Compare all judge models" button. This brings up a comparison window that allows you to see how each judge has allocated their visualizer and to click each visualizer to see the expanded view. ![Compare all judges' models](/files/-MkZqWahWwYmv-mH0IWp) When you're ready, you can select the Consensus visualizer to discuss the decision with your fellow judges, record the arguments you feel are relevant and adjust the visualizer in a way that all judges agree to. Remember to save your Consensus visualizer so that your Instructor can review it!