CAGE DEBATING

Description of the tool

Step by step description:
1.create a 'cage', a boxing ring, by marking an area of approx. 4 sq.m. with the rope. Divide the group in two. Three people from the facilitating team will be the jury and sit at a table in front of the 'cage'. The two groups are standing on the left and right side of the table. Explain the rules: the chairman of the jury will read out a statement, one of the contestants will defend this statement, and the other will be opposed to it. The way of handling the subject is up to the contestants; but you might get bonus points for making people laugh. Every 'fight' (the contestants are not allowed to touch each other, they may only speak, not scream or shout) lasts for two minutes maximum; a contestant can give in before the two minutes are over. The game is also finished when one of the contestants can't reply within 10 seconds. The judges decides on the points; they can distribute four points for each game, but can decide by themselves how these points are divided.
2.One person from every group is invited to enter the cage. One of the facilitators reads out the statement, the whistle is blown and the stopwatch starts counting. One of the contestants than opens the fight by taking either sides, and waits for a reply. If this reply doesn't come fast enough, he can add arguments to this, but his opponent should have a chance to talk. After two minutes (or earlier in case of a K.O., the whistle gets blown again and the jury deliberates on the points for each team. No discussion is held at that time, but the next to contestants are invited into the cage.
3.When all participants have been in the cage at least once, the jury ends the contest and points out the winner. Then, a discussion follows, using (some of the) questions at the 'reflection and evaluation’ section.

Reflection and evaluation:
·how did you feel when someone of your group won?
·do you think the judging was done fairly? How did you feel about the way of judging?
·what do you think of using humour in a serious discussion?
·how did you experience the time pressure?
·do you think this is a good way of discussing subjects?
·did you have the feeling you were in a group, or did the 'battle' feel more like an individual fight?
·did people react to the statements you made?
·was it hard to defend a statement you actually didn't agree on, because you were forced to take that side?

Comments:
This method has been tried out on both national as international meetings, and often led to surprising results; an eloquent speaker who was always first to talk and to cut off all discussion was baffled by an opponent who all of a sudden decided to hold his defence in Chinese, thereby winning on laughing-decibels, a loosing group tried to bribe the jury and successfully managed to do so with one of the members - which didn't keep them from loosing by the way.