• 1 Split class into two balanced camps: Team Harm vs Team Good.
• 2 Distribute the 8 Role Cards and instruct everyone to fill in Vote 1 on their slips.
• 3 Run the 5 timed stages strictly; ring a bell to rotate debate rounds.
• 4 Tally points on the board: +1 for correct hedging, +1 for sharp rebuttals.
• 5 Open the Teacher Key for error correction; award the +3 pts swing bonus.

📌 Tip: Keep turns under 90 seconds to preserve debate momentum.

• 1 Stay strictly in character: argue exclusively from your persona's societal standpoint.
• 2 Score team points by weaving target Hedging Phrases into every speech.
• 3 Challenge opponents head-on using the Yellow Question Pill on your card.
• 4 Vote honestly in Vote 2 after listening to all argument rounds.
• 5 The team that flips the greatest number of audience votes wins the match!

🎯 Goal: Persuade your peers, do not just read points from your card.

Step 01

Teams & Vote 1

Form groups, receive role cards, and register initial stance on slips.

Step 02

Role Prep

Study role cards, select hedging starters, and rehearse counter-attacks.

Step 03

The Big Debate

4 thematic rounds of cross-examination between paired roles.

Step 04

Vote 2 & Tally

Mark final opinion votes, count net swings, and declare winners.

Step 05

Wrap-up & Key

Teacher error correction, language recap, and individual feedback.

CONFIDENTIAL

tend to

"Teens tend to spend hours scrolling without noticing time pass."

may well

"Constant notifications may well cause severe attention fragmentation."

is likely to

"An addictive feed is likely to distort teenagers' view of reality."

seems to

"It seems to improve creative expression among shy adolescents."

Hedging Token

Earned whenever a speaker correctly deploys a hedging starter (may well, tend to, likely to, seems to) in context.

Rebuttal Strike

Awarded for directly addressing the opponent's yellow question pill with a structured counter-argument.

Vote Swing Bonus

Granted to the team that convinces the highest number of classmates to change their vote from Vote 1 to Vote 2.

"The continuous algorithm seems to influence what teens consider normal beauty standards."

"Constant notifications tend to be a major distraction during intensive homework sessions."

"Heavy daily scrolling is likely to harm sleep schedules and academic focus."

"Restricting app privacy may well protect teenagers from predatory marketing tactics."

"Curating an online profile tends to boost creative skills and future employment networking."

"Constant parental monitoring seems to damage mutual trust between teens and families."

🔴 Key Arguments for Team Harm

• Addictive Design: Variable-reward loops mimic gambling mechanisms, eroding self-control.
• Attention Deficit: Multitasking between tabs causes rapid cognitive exhaustion.
• Commercial Surveillance: Underage browsing habits are monetized without clear parental oversight.

🔵 Key Arguments for Team Good

• Social Inclusivity: Lonely or rural youth find niche clubs (coding, music, activism) inaccessible locally.
• Democratized Knowledge: Free educational creators simplify complex science and humanities topics.
• Portfolio Building: Visual profiles serve as modern resumes for artistic and technical gigs.

1. Which role's opinion surprised you the most today, and why?

2. Did anyone change their vote after hearing a specific argument? Which one?

3. Which hedging phrase felt most natural to use when defending your idea?