The students of the fifth classes were involved in a Debate (structured debate) workshop.

The Debate consists of a competition between two groups of students, with predefined speaking times and a jury that declares a winner.

Within the debate, participants learn to support a thesis and counter others' arguments in an open and respectful exchange of opinions. Participants must be able to present the most appropriate arguments, adhering to the assigned rules and without overpowering others.

The educational and training objectives of the Debate are:

• Develop students' critical thinking
• Refine expressive skills and public speaking
• Know how to research sources and documents, assessing their reliability
• Evaluate different viewpoints on the same issue
• Collaborate and participate with peers in a responsible and constructive manner
• Be able to assess the effectiveness and limitations of others' speeches.

The Debate consists of several phases, all important for the success of the exchange:

• PHASE 1: choosing the topic. In this phase, the students were asked to compile a list of possible topics based on their interests; subsequently, after a democratic vote, the topic for the debate was chosen. Each class selected a different theme. It was emphasized that the chosen topic should have specific characteristics and should not be too broad; it should allow students to clearly take a stance for or against a particular position.
• PHASE 2: research of materials. In this phase, the students were given a time frame (one week, i.e., the interval between one meeting and another) to research materials on which to base their arguments.
• PHASE 3: assignment of the thesis and division into two groups: one for and one against. Both groups researched and listed advantages and disadvantages regarding the proposed topic; these aspects became the basis of their dissertation. An important element was that the division into groups occurred randomly (through a draw) and was not based on personal opinions; thus, everyone had to support the assigned position, without personal and spontaneous adherence.
• PHASE 4: choosing the spokesperson. Each group, in a collaborative and democratic manner, chose a classmate to act as the spokesperson within the team and to speak during the debate. The choice was left to the students to allow them to agree on who might be the most suitable classmate for the role, also based on each person's characteristics. Two or three other figures were then identified within the group to assist the spokesperson in presenting the arguments. The other group members intervened at later moments in designated and more collegial spaces.
• PHASE 5: conducting the debate. This phase was the operational one in the strict sense, as it was the phase in which the students presented the results of their research. It consists of several sub-phases: 1. The presentation of the problem, its relevance, the statement of the position taken (for or against), and the anticipation of the arguments that the team will develop during the debate; each sub-phase lasts 3 minutes; this also serves to develop the synthesis skills of individual students. It is conducted by the first of the three debaters identified by the team. 2. The phase of initial arguments presented by the second debater. In this sub-phase, evidence supporting their position is presented. 3. The rebuttal of others' arguments by the third debater. This moment of the debate involves presenting counterarguments directed at the position held by the opponents. All negative elements are identified and contested. 4. The open dialogue. In this phase, the entire class participates, still divided into two teams. It is the phase that lasts the longest in terms of timing, precisely to allow everyone to express their opinion and enable a critical and constructive exchange. 5. Epilogue by either a fourth debater or again the first. In this phase, all the key points supported by their teammates are recapped, and the strength of their arguments is reiterated, without introducing new data or elements.
• PHASE 6: the jury's judgment. As already mentioned, there is also a jury composed of three people who assigns a score (from 5 to 10 points) to each group at the end of each phase, considering two fundamental aspects: formal and rhetorical aspects and the richness and coherence of the content. Each juror assigns their score, and then the individual scores are summed; at the end, the winning team is determined.

 Also here, during the last meeting, a moment of collective reflection with the class was planned to identify the difficulties encountered and the feelings of each student. The students were able to reflect on the concept of teamwork, particularly on the difficulty of collaborating and cooperating with classmates they had not chosen but who had been randomly paired, on the difficulty of arguing positions different from their own, and finding criticisms or advantages on topics that, according to common opinion, did not have such a dichotomy (such as war).

They experienced the possibility of putting themselves in someone else's shoes and reflecting on positions different from their own, honing their critical spirit. In particular, the jury members experienced the difficulty of expressing a judgment and evaluation towards people with whom they share a good part of the day, the challenge of being impartial, of not being influenced by personal opinions and sympathies; they experienced the fear of being judged and attacked for their evaluations while remaining firm in their positions.

The feedback from the students was very positive, and all three classes worked actively and proactively, demonstrating good maturity both in choosing topics and in arguments, and they utilized the moments provided to them in the most productive way possible.