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: e82b49e7b492e4d13d1c3deea0f36616bbbb411f88516f4869e9bd84f32440ee

# Distributed Debates

Pairs of small teams prepare opposing arguments on distinct hypotheses about a shared prior experience, then present and compare their logic.

**Time:** 25 minutes. UWT suggested duration based on the five-step debriefing game flow in the source text.
**People:** 4 to 24. An even number of teams (4, 6, or 8 teams) of 1 to 3 people, paired as opposing sides (supporters vs. attackers) for each assigned hypothesis. Odd participants join existing teams as third members or serve as neutral timers.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Test hypotheses against observable data and logic following an experiential activity or simulation.
**Use it when:** After a simulation, auction, role play, or team challenge when people have strong, divergent theories about why participants behaved the way they did.
**Skip it when:** When participants lack a common shared experience to analyze, or when the group has fewer than four people.

## Materials and tools

- One hypothesis card or printed prompt per team
- One notepad or sheet of lined scratch paper per team
- One pen per team
- One countdown timer visible to the room

## Before participants arrive

1. Draft 2 to 4 clear hypotheses about the base activity just completed.
2. Print or write each hypothesis on index cards (two cards per hypothesis: one marked Supporter, one marked Attacker).
3. Arrange seating into distinct team stations.

## Say this to open

We just completed our simulation, and people often leave with very different explanations for what happened. We are going to test these explanations using Distributed Debates. I will read each hypothesis aloud and assign teams to debate them. Each pair of teams will examine one specific statement: one team will build the strongest argument supporting it, and the other team will build the strongest argument attacking it. Base your arguments on what actually happened in the room and comparable real-life situations.

## How to run it

### 1. Read hypotheses and assign roles (3 minutes)

Read each prepared hypothesis aloud to the room. Divide participants into an even number of teams (4, 6, or 8 teams; 1 to 3 people per team, placing odd participants into teams of 3). For each hypothesis, designate one team as Supporter and the other as Attacker. Hand each team their matching hypothesis card, scratch paper, and pen.

### 2. Draft arguments in parallel (8 minutes)

Teams review the base simulation and note factual observations, data points, and real-world parallels to justify their assigned stance. Everyone writes notes on their team scratch paper. Give a one-minute warning before the time expires.

### 3. Present opposing cases (8 minutes)

Select the first matched pair of teams. The Supporter team has 1 minute to deliver their case. Immediately after, the Attacker team has 1 minute to deliver their case. Repeat this sequential exchange for each assigned hypothesis pair. Enforce strict 1-minute limits using the countdown timer.

### 4. Evaluate argument logic (6 minutes)

For each debate pair, ask participants who were not on those two teams to state which side presented a more logical, data-grounded case. Take up to 2 brief comments per hypothesis pair. Conclude by reviewing what the findings reveal about the original simulation.


## Debrief questions

- Which arguments relied on observable facts from our simulation rather than unproven assumptions?
- How did arguing an assigned stance change your personal view of that hypothesis?
- What real-world situations mirror the patterns we identified today?

**Finished output:** Written talking points on team scratch paper and a room evaluation of which side presented the stronger evidence-based argument.

## Remote

Display the hypotheses on a shared slide. Move participant pairs or trios into breakout rooms labeled with their hypothesis and assigned stance (Supporter or Attacker) for 8 minutes. Return everyone to the main room. The facilitator calls on each Supporter team for 1 minute, followed immediately by their matched Attacker team for 1 minute, repeating sequentially for all hypothesis pairs. Use the chat box or hand-raise reaction for the rest of the room to identify the more logical argument.

## Hybrid

Pair in-person participants with in-person partners and remote participants with remote partners. In-person teams use index cards; remote teams view assigned cards in a shared document or chat. During presentations, project remote speakers onto the room display so both audiences hear arguments equally.

## Access and participation choices

- Teams can choose a single spokesperson to present or divide their speaking time.
- Any participant may contribute strictly through written notes during the preparation phase without speaking to the room.

## If the session gets stuck

**A team personally disagrees with their assigned stance (for example, Attackers actually agree with the statement).**

Remind the team that their assignment is to build the strongest counter-argument or legal brief against the statement, which tests the limits of the hypothesis regardless of personal belief.

**Speakers exceed the one-minute limit during presentations.**

Sound an audible timer chime at exactly 60 seconds and thank the speaker to promptly pass the floor to the opposing team.


## Terms used here

- Base activity: The prior experiential simulation, game, or role play that provides the shared data for debriefing.
- Hypothesis: A proposed explanation or claim about why people acted a certain way during an activity.

## Participant material: Sample Debriefing Hypotheses Card Set

HYPOTHESIS 1:
Statement: Extroverts get trapped into competitive escalation more frequently than introverts.
Role A: Supporter (Argue why this is accurate using simulation observations and real-world logic).
Role B: Attacker (Argue why this is inaccurate or incomplete using counter-evidence).

HYPOTHESIS 2:
Statement: The only way to succeed in this scenario is to refuse to participate.
Role A: Supporter (Defend non-participation as the optimal logical choice).
Role B: Attacker (Defend engagement and show how participation can be managed successfully).

HYPOTHESIS 3:
Statement: The presence of an audience encourages competing participants into dysfunctional behaviors.
Role A: Supporter (Show how observation and peer presence drove escalation).
Role B: Attacker (Show how escalation occurs independently of observers due to internal incentives).

HYPOTHESIS 4:
Statement: The only way to avoid heavy losses during final stages is early negotiation with your competitor.
Role A: Supporter (Demonstrate why early negotiation is the sole viable defense).
Role B: Attacker (Demonstrate alternate strategic maneuvers that avoid losses without direct negotiation).

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Thiagi GameLetter (February 2009), edited by Sivasailam Thiagarajan and published by The Thiagi Group.

The raw input artifact ('TGL: February 2009') gathered multiple distinct newsletter items under one publication slug, including three debriefing games, a blindfolded navigation exercise, and a jolt. This run sheet reconstructs 'Debriefing Game 1: Distributed Debates' as a fully runnable standalone debriefing activity. We added explicit pacing, an odd-number participant assignment rule, neutral Dollar Auction sample hypotheses, and accessibility provisions.

[The Thiagi Group](http://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/february2009.html)

[The Thiagi Group](https://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/february2009.html)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/tgl-february-2009/