DEBATE ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
In Fall 2025, the Colleges of Liberal Arts & Sciences, in partnership with the University of Utah’s John R. Park Debate Society, launched a three-year “Debate Across the Curriculum” Initiative, with support from the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations.
Debate Across the Curriculum teaches and demonstrates the value of debate as a technology for decision-making in the context of uncertainty, as well as a tool for productively navigating disagreement across (political, social, and cultural) differences, while engaging students in debate exercises linked to curricular content in their general education and other classes.
Beginning with facilitated debates in over twenty classrooms, the initiative aims to develop curricular supplements that will eventually support fully scalable, instructor-led debates with the capacity to deliver the promising impacts of the Fall 2025 pilot to students across the campus and throughout their educational pathways. Guided by the Provost’s Civic Discussion & Debate Initiatives Advisory Taskforce, these efforts seek to make available to students at the University of Utah and beyond, the proven discussion and debate pedagogy of the 150 year old John R. Park Debate Society, recognized in a 2018 Concurrent Resolution of the Utah Legislature for “exemplary accomplishments” teaching students “not only to analyze and express complex ideas effectively, but also to listen, concur, question, or dissent with reason and compassion.”
Why We're Doing This
Facilitates constructive controversy - Simulated debates, like Debate Across the Curriculum, promote intellectual curiosity, increase willingness to engage in perspective-taking, enhance the quality of problem solving, and promote creativity. (Johnson & Johnson, 2014)
Reduces verbal aggression and increases productive discourse - Simulated debates and associated instruction decrease verbal aggression and increase willingness to engage in deliberative exchange—skills that transfer to classroom discussions and beyond. (Colbert, 1993)
Fosters intellectual flexibility and openness to diverse viewpoints - Because debates engage both, or many, sides of issues, participants develop what researchers call argumentative flexibility—the ability to seek alternative perspectives, hold multiple opinions simultaneously, and seriously examine viewpoints they may personally oppose. This creates what one scholar describes as an openness to the world and others. (Bellon, 2000)
Debate Structure
Example Debate Topics
Reflection Questions
- Content: Topic selected in consultation with instructor and grounded in course curriculum
- Format: Parliamentary Style - Alternating speeches for and against the topic (4 minutes), with questions for the speaker after each speech
- Speaking turns: Speakers are recognized by, and questions are directed to, the chair (trained facilitator)
- Debrief: Collective reflection on the debate between participants
- Resolved: AI is worth the cost
- Resolved: Climate action should be the government's number one priority
- Resolved: No book should be banned
- Resolved: The Western concept of masculinity should be expanded
- Resolved: The military is a tool to promote peace
- What did you like?
- What did you learn? In particular, what was the best argument made by the side you did not agree with?
- How can you apply what you learned or liked about the debate outside of class?
“The Debate Across the Curriculum program at the University of Utah is without a doubt one of the boldest and most robust civil discourse programs in the nation. The U’s ability to integrate debates directly into the classroom across a wide range of fields, especially at such a rapid pace, means they are a model to watch. We all hope to see the campus of the future be characterized by open inquiry and courageous thought- and the University of Utah may soon be able to show us what that looks like.”
-April Lawson, Co-Founder, Insight Debate and Dialogue; Designer and Founding Director of Braver Angels’ Debates and Public Discourse program
SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT
INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK
| Participating College/Unit | Number of Classes | Number of Students |
|---|---|---|
| Humanities | 8 | 136 |
| Social & Behavioral Sciences | 4 | 155 |
| Science | 6 | 574 |
| Fine Arts | 1 | 18 |
| Undergraduate Studies (Quest) | 4 | 94 |
| TOTAL | 23 | 977 |
- “Debate Across the Curriculum is the most magnetic, engaging thing I’ve been part of so far at the U.”
- “I have decided to structure my whole class around this.”
- “This program breathed new life into my class.”
- “This has made my job easier.”
STUDENT DATA
(See figure 1 below)
STUDENT FEEDBACK
- Common Ground: Following Debate Across the Curriculum participation, students felt they had more in common with peers who hold opposing views—reporting a 7% increase in perceptions of shared values, priorities, and/or experiences with those who hold opposing views. Compared to the control group, Debate Across the Curriculum participants demonstrated 12% greater perceptions of common ground, suggesting that the initiative helps students recognize shared perspectives across disagreement.
- Anticipated Stress: After participating in Debate Across the Curriculum, students anticipated feeling less stress discussing controversial or political issues during a potential internship. Anticipated stress decreased by 6% over time, and Debate Across the Curriculum participants reported 14% lower anticipated stress compared to the control group.
- Comfort in Interactions. Debate Across the Curriculum participation helped students feel more at ease engaging across differences. Students’ comfort interacting with peers who hold opposing views increased by 6%, and participants expressed 14% more ease than the control group.
- Expressing Opinions at the U. After participating in Debate Across the Curriculum, students felt more comfortable sharing their honest perspectives about politics and governance at the University of Utah. Students’ comfort increased by 8%, and participants reported 12% greater comfort than the control group.
- “I enjoyed asking people questions about their viewpoints because it allowed me to figure out my own viewpoint, think more critically.”
- “I think the coolest thing was just being able to have a political discussion that is not heated. I think that from what I hear and see that's kind of a rare occurrence in today's world.”
- “I feel like something that I learned from this was taking multiple different sides of a topic and like hearing each side of it and like critically thinking about what each argument has to say.”
- “I liked that this debate the format kept things from getting personal. It allowed things to stay all relevant towards the actual material rather than devolving towards more personal or individualized remarks.”
- “I liked it, even if we were agreeing or opposing with whatever idea we shared, it was more like we were agreeing or opposing with, or I guess opposing the question, not necessarily the person, which I feel like is a big issue in debate where it's like, oh my gosh, this is a personal attack, or this feels like you're attacking my character, or something like that, but instead it's kind of more like, well, how do you think about this question in particular.”
Pilot Results Demonstrate Significant Gains Across Four Civic Outcomes
GREAT CAMPUS DEBATE: “Generative AI Does More Harm Than Good”
Following the success of the FALL 2025 Debate Across the Curriculum Pilot, a campus-wide debate, “The Great Campus Debate” was held in November 2025, to offer the broader campus community a chance to participate. Hear what students had to say: