In all of his time in engineering school, Bartlomiej Gdowski had never had an assignment like the one he received in his final year of graduate studies at the AGH University of Science and Technology in Krakow, Poland.

The Master’s degree candidate was expecting more of the usual from his program in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Engineering—projects on cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, quantum cryptography and the like. Instead, Gdowski says the assignment left him and most of his classmates dumbfounded: “What are you supposed to do in an Oxford debate?”

But Gdowski’s instructor, Prof. Marcin Niemiec, knew exactly what the students needed to do and, crucially, why. For the past six years, Niemiec’s engineering students have participated in formal, Oxford-style debates on hot-button issues in ICT and computer science. Not to make them good debaters, but to make them better engineers. It seems to be working.

The Great Oxford Debate

Although humans have been arguing since the dawn of language, the Ancient Greeks first formalized the practice, making grappling with grand ideas a spectator sport. Today, formal debates take place around the globe in settings from elementary schools to national parliaments.

But not usually in engineering faculties.

While debates are embraced elsewhere on university campuses—philosophy departments, social science classrooms, and student-led clubs—most engineering educators never consider formal debates as a pedagogical tool. But when a sociologist serendipitously taught him the principles of Oxford-style debating, Niemiec had a hunch it could pay off in his own classroom.

In case you’re not a member of the Oxford Union, the preeminent debating society that popularized the format, Oxford-style debating works like this. Two teams of four members each take turns arguing for or against a simple assertion or  “motion,” such as “Humanity should populate Mars.” One team argues in favor of the motion (the proponents), the other against (the opponents). A debate starts with one debater for the proponents making their time-limited argument for the motion, e.g. Humanity should populate Mars because we need a backup planet in case things here on Earth go sideways. Then one member of the opponents argues against the motion, e.g. Humanity should not populate Mars because the resources could be better spent on this planet. The teams go back and forth until all eight debaters have had their say, with each successive team member performing a different role from their predecessor. (See “Role of Speaker” chart, below.)  More advanced debates allow brief interjections from the other team. A chairperson monitors the proceedings and a secretary keeps track of time (each speaker has a predetermined limit, typically five minutes). After each debater has delivered their arguments, an audience votes for the winning team.

Why Engineers Should Learn to Debate

More than 60 of Niemiec’s students have participated in Oxford-style debates in his annual cybersecurity class, with each student participating in three debates: one as a proponent, one as an opponent and one as a judge. Niemiec has also organized debates, including a competition, for other AGH University cybersecurity programs.

Niemiec says his student debaters have always been motivated and engaged participants. Which is not to say it’s a necessarily pleasant experience. “Most of us did enjoy [it],” says Gdowski. Those who didn’t, he says, weren’t keen on speaking in public.

But that’s the whole point. Formal debating helps students develop tools glossed over by the traditional engineering curriculum, such as public speaking, persuasion and emotional intelligence, which are crucial to effectively spar with debate opponents and read the subtle reactions of judges. Honing these skills will benefit an engineer throughout his or her entire career, starting with landing a job. According to a 2020 literature review titled “The Importance of Soft Skills for Engineering,” study after study has found that engineering employers prize soft skills even above technical skills. It cites a mind blowing statistic: of all skills desired by employers, 85 percent relate to soft skills and only 15 percent are technical.

Oxford-style debates are also a tool for teaching teamwork. Each member of the four-person team has a specific role to play, and each debater must build on the arguments of earlier speakers. Preparation and coordination are key. It’s one of the reasons Niemiec believes Oxford-style debates are, among all possible styles of debate, particularly well-suited for the classroom.

But perhaps the biggest benefit of Oxford-style debates for engineers is the pondering of engineering issues.

Yes, it’s true that most engineering problems are settled by physics rather than rhetoric. The efficiency of a solar panel is immune to arguments; the most eloquent of speeches can’t reduce the drag on an airplane. But insofar as engineering exists in the human world of ethics and politics and technological tug-of-wars, even engineers can find answers in formal debate.

Consider these cybersecurity motions Niemiec’s students have debated:

1. Opening the source code increases the security level of the application.
2. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the security level in cyberspace.
3. Research in the IT field which may give rise to global threats (e.g. quantum computing) should be regulated by law.
4. Law enforcement agencies should be able to read confidential messages sent by citizens.

The student debates did not, of course, provide a clear solution to any of these thorny topics. But the true educational value of debate is in exploring an issue from every angle. Debaters must be able both to argue their own side and to counter the strongest opposing arguments. It requires broad study.

Preparing for the debates was time well spent, says Gdowski. He argued against the aforementioned motion two, and for motion three, which went against his natural bias as an ICT engineer to oppose regulation in his field. And while his opinions after the debates didn’t change, they did soften. If Gdowski felt 100 percent certain about a motion beforehand, he says he’s now closer to 70 percent.

“I think we were more open-minded after debating,” Gdowski says.

According to surveys of Niemiec’s students, 80 percent of his former debaters believed debating improved their IT knowledge, and 97 percent said it improved their soft skills.

Niemiec’s Three Laws of Motions

Engineering isn’t the only technical field of study that’s starting to dabble with debate. In their 2017 paper titled “It’s no debate, debates are great,” three health-sciences academics recommend debate for pharmacy students, outlining similar benefits of the teaching tool and suggesting it should be more broadly adopted in the field. Others have offered similar conclusions for microbiology and nursing studies.

Niemiec is trying to light the way for engineering educators, most recently with a preprint paper that provides advice on how to bring Oxford-style debating into an engineering classroom.

The most important part, Niemiec writes, is the motion. “Define an appropriate and interesting motion, and you’re halfway there.”

Niemiec acknowledges that this task is easier said than done, but he provides three helpful guidelines for successful motions:

1. A motion should not be obvious. Debaters should be able to find a similar number of arguments for and against it.
2. A motion should involve a current topic of interest. This is more motivating for debaters and more engaging for the audience.
3. A motion should be short and unambiguous. Both sides should understand and interpret it in the same way.

Niemiec also advises educators to assign debate teams at random, that age-old trick for teaching teamwork. And he highly recommends opening the debates to an audience, which could be other students or faculty members, since a persuadable crowd is a good motivator for the debaters. After the debate, the chairperson—usually the instructor—should provide feedback to each student.

Niemiec believes that debates are best suited to graduate students, because undergrads may lack enough technical knowledge to participate. Gdowski disagrees with his professor on this point, lamenting a deficiency of soft skills training in his own undergraduate studies, a gap that could have been filled by formal debate. Educators in other fields have found that mixing undergraduate and graduate students in debate teams provides excellent mentorship opportunities.