The challenge of debate at lower levels is not vocabulary or grammar. It's social risk. To argue a position in public, in a foreign language, in front of people whose opinion you care about, is genuinely frightening. Lower-level students who are already anxious about speaking in English face this double exposure: the fear of saying something wrong linguistically, plus the fear of saying something wrong socially.
The activities below solve this by reducing the social risk through format design. When the disagreement is built into the structure rather than generated by personal conviction, students argue positions without the vulnerability of commitment. When the stakes are clearly low, the anxiety drops. And when the format is genuinely fun, motivation overrides the fear. YapYapGo is a classroom speaking practice tool for ESL and EFL teachers. Its Debate mode with assigned positions is specifically designed for this: students argue a side they were given, which creates the necessary psychological distance. Here's how to run debate at A2-B1 in ways that work.
The core design principle
Every format below shares one feature: the student is not personally responsible for the position they are arguing. This is the single most important design decision in lower-level debate. When students choose their own position, they feel personally judged when challenged. When they are assigned one, they can defend it with full commitment while maintaining the implicit understanding that it's not really "them."
This is also why the assigned-position format produces better language than free choice. Students who are arguing a position they'd choose anyway coast on their existing understanding. Students arguing the opposite view have to think harder, search for more vocabulary, and produce more complex constructions.
Format 1: The lottery debate (A2-B1)
Setup: Write ten simple, lighthearted statements on slips of paper. Examples:- "Coffee is better than tea."
- "Cats are better pets than dogs."
- "Summer is better than winter."
- "It is better to be an early riser than a night owl."
- "Pizza is better than sushi."
Each student draws a slip. Whatever the slip says, that is their position. They have two minutes to prepare their argument. Then they find a partner and debate for three minutes. The partner argues the opposite view.
The lottery element removes all personal stakes. Students embrace absurd positions enthusiastically because it's obvious they didn't choose them. And producing arguments for "coffee is better than tea" generates exactly the same language structures as producing arguments for more serious topics.
Follow-up: After the debate, ask students to vote on which arguments were most convincing - not which position they personally hold. This keeps the focus on the quality of argumentation.2. The role card debate (A2-B1)
Give each student a character card: "You are a 70-year-old teacher who believes young people don't work hard enough." / "You are a 25-year-old student who believes university is too expensive." Characters are simple and slightly exaggerated.
Students debate as their character, not themselves. The character provides full plausible deniability. Even genuinely shy students often find role cards liberating - they're not speaking; their character is.
Best topics for this format: technology and generations, work habits, parenting styles, education, entertainment preferences.3. The emoji debate (A2)
Project two emoji reactions to a statement: 👍 and 👎. Students must argue for one reaction. The format is so obviously low-stakes that even the most anxious students can participate.
"Using your phone during meals" - are you 👍 or 👎? Argue your position in two minutes with your partner.
The emoji shorthand removes the need to construct an opening stance. Students simply explain the reaction. At A2, this is enough to generate four to five sentences of genuine argument.
Tool tip: YapYapGo's Debate mode assigns sides automatically, which removes the social awkwardness of position-choosing entirely. The debate timer handles the structure so you can circulate and support nervous students during their speaking turn rather than managing logistics.
4. The fishbowl warm-up (B1)
Two students debate in the centre of the room while the rest of the class observes and notes one strong argument each. After three minutes, the outer students replace the inner ones and must build on or refute what they heard.
Why this reduces anxiety: students in the outer circle have time to prepare what they'll say before it's their turn. By the time they're in the fishbowl, they've heard the arguments, identified a response, and feel more confident.
5. The whisper debate (A2-B1)
Same format as a standard pair debate, but with one rule: both students must speak at a volume where only their partner can hear. This removes the audience entirely. Students who are terrified of speaking loudly in front of classmates often produce dramatically more language in a whisper format.
After the whisper debate, students summarise their partner's strongest argument to the class - but they're reporting, not speaking for themselves. This is another layer of protective distance.
6. The team protection format (B1)
Students debate in teams of two against teams of two. One person speaks while their partner listens and can pass them a note with a suggestion. The speaking partner can choose whether to use it.
The team dynamic provides psychological support: you're not alone up there. The note-passing mechanism gives anxious students a safety net without removing their responsibility to speak.
Topics that work at lower levels
The topic matters enormously at lower levels. Choose statements that:
- Require no specialist knowledge
- Connect to personal experience
- Have genuinely defensible positions on both sides
- Use vocabulary within the students' range
- "It is better to live in a big city than a small town."
- "Homework should be abolished."
- "People should exercise every day."
- "It is better to have a few close friends than many acquaintances."
- "Social media is a waste of time."
- "Children should have smartphones."
- "It is better to be famous than to be rich."
- "Cars should be banned from city centres."
- "People work too many hours."
- "It is better to rent a home than to buy one."
The language toolkit to give before debate
At lower levels, provide the toolkit explicitly. Write these on the board before every debate session and refer to them:
Stating your position:- "I think..." / "I believe..." / "In my opinion..."
- "...because..." / "...so..." / "One reason is..."
- "For example..." / "For instance..."
- "I don't agree because..." / "I think differently..."
- "That's true, but..."
- "You might be right about X, but..."
These six phrase types are everything a B1 student needs to conduct a basic debate. They don't need more until they've automated these.
For more on teaching the language of disagreement explicitly, see our post on how to teach students to disagree politely in English. For the full debate format guide for more advanced students, see how to run a classroom debate with ESL students.
A classroom countdown timer and a random student picker for calling on pairs to share are both particularly important at lower levels - it gives nervous students a clear sense of how long they need to sustain the speaking task, which reduces anxiety more than any amount of teacher reassurance.
Sources:
- Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety. The Modern Language Journal. - Social risk as the primary driver of speaking anxiety.
- Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. - Affective filter reduction as prerequisite for acquisition.
- MacIntyre, P. et al. (1998). Conceptualizing Willingness to Communicate. The Modern Language Journal. - Safe context as the primary driver of willingness to speak.