Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: 8b90f5d6d479adb10961f14460e63f0501ab46fddc81faffd2721bac5a7ba314

# Animal Fight

Pairs or small groups argue which of two randomly paired animals would win in a hypothetical contest, building quick verbal cases before voting.

**Time:** 15 minutes. Based on the ESL Active time band of 5 to 15 minutes; standard 15-minute UWT session plan covering 3 rounds.
**People:** 4 to 24. Pairs or groups of 3; whole-room voting

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Practice quick argumentation, creative justification, and verbal fluency in a low-stakes debate format.
**Use it when:** Use as a warm-up, an energizer, or a lighthearted debate drill to get participants speaking and testing arguments quickly.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the group needs serious tactical alignment, sensitive interpersonal discussion, or deep strategic planning.

## Materials and tools

- Whiteboard, flip chart, or projector screen
- Dry-erase markers
- Prepared list of animal pairs or animal cards

## Before participants arrive

1. Prepare a list of 6 to 10 distinct animals with varied traits (e.g., eagle vs. badger, gorilla vs. crocodile).
2. Ensure all participants can clearly see the board or display screen.

## Say this to open

We are going to run a quick debate game called Animal Fight. In each round, I will reveal two animals. In your pairs, one person will advocate for Animal A and the other for Animal B. You have 90 seconds to build the most convincing, creative case for why your animal wins a contest against the other. Stick to facts, physical traits, environment, or clever strategies.

## How to run it

### 1. Introduce rules and assign pairs (3 minutes)

Explain the format. Divide the room into pairs. If there is an odd person, create one group of three where the third person acts as the immediate judge. Show a sample matchup (for example, Badger vs. Octopus) and assign which seat takes which side.

### 2. Run pair debates across three rounds (6 minutes)

Run three rapid rounds of 2 minutes each. For each round, write two animals on the board. Partners swap advocacy sides each round. Give them 30 seconds of quiet prep, then 90 seconds of back-and-forth debate. Call time firmly at the end of each round.

### 3. Conduct whole-room showdown (3 minutes)

Select one matchup from the rounds. Invite two volunteer advocates to present their single best 30-second argument to the entire room. Call for a quick show of hands to vote on which argument was more persuasive.

### 4. Debrief and transition (3 minutes)

Ask 1 or 2 debrief questions focused on how people constructed their cases and pivoted under time pressure. Conclude the exercise.


## Debrief questions

- What made a sudden, unexpected argument persuasive when you had little time to prepare?
- How did you handle defending an animal that seemed at an obvious physical disadvantage?

**Finished output:** Completion of three rapid debate rounds and a whole-room vote on sample arguments.

## Remote

Display animal pairs on a shared slide or via meeting chat. Send pairs into breakout rooms for 90-second debates, or run spotlight rounds in the main room where participants vote using chat or on-screen polling.

## Hybrid

Pair in-person participants with in-person partners and remote participants with remote partners in breakout rooms. Display the current animal matchup simultaneously on the room projector and the shared virtual screen. Collect votes via chat and in-room hand raises.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may participate verbally or by typing bullet points in chat or on scratch paper.
- Anyone may choose to serve as a neutral judge/timekeeper in their pair instead of debating.

## If the session gets stuck

**Debaters run out of ideas after 20 seconds.**

Prompt them to define the arena or terrain (e.g., deep water, dense forest, pitch darkness) to change the tactical advantage.

**One participant dominates the dialogue.**

Enforce strict timed alternating turns of 30 seconds per side within the pairs.


## Terms used here

- Advocate: The participant assigned to defend a specific animal's chances of winning.

## Participant material: Sample Animal Matchups Card

Round 1: Honey Badger vs. Bald Eagle
Round 2: Silverback Gorilla vs. Saltwater Crocodile
Round 3: Kangaroo vs. Giant Panda
Bonus / Tiebreaker: Electric Eel vs. Grizzly Bear

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in ESL Active (eslactive.com/activities/animal-fight/) as an EFL/ESL speaking game.

The core mechanic of pitting two randomly chosen animals against each other for language and debate practice is preserved from ESL Active. UWT structured the session into a 15-minute facilitation plan featuring three 2-minute pair rounds, structured timing, a group voting step, access choices, and debate debrief questions.

[ESL Active](https://eslactive.com/activities/animal-fight/)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/animal-fight/