Debates are an extremely valuable classical exercise. I use them at the conclusion of reading because students can weigh all of the story and the Socratic discussion we enjoyed along the way in order to sharpen their own ideas on a particular question.

Put differently, debates give students a chance to deeply contemplate and form an argument in a personal way. In other words, they learn to develop a thesis. Classically speaking, they are coming to know and embody a Truth.

We divide our debates into three rounds: opening (present story context and thesis), position (make argument), and rebuttal (attack opposing view).

Once the debates are concluded, students are then ready to formally write their ideas in essays, which turn out beautifully. Pretty much across the board, this approach makes for essays that are much stronger and more well-thought-out than before I started using debates as a pre-writing activity.

Plus, the students love it!   

Here is a quick summary of three popular debate questions. They are written as such that either side could win; it all depends on which one makes the better argument.  

Debate Question One: Is King Arthur a righteous king?  

Proposition: Yes! 

This side lists out all of Arthur’s good qualities, moving from the literal (i.e., creating the Code of Chivalry) to the figurative (i.e., striving to be humble).

Then they move on to explain how this is connected to righteousness in his person and in his kingdom. They define righteousness as the desire and will to do what is right in God’s eyes. Based on this definition, they say Arthur always tries to do so.

Finally, they argue that his imperfections do not outweigh the goodness he showed throughout his whole life. Even when he failed, his desire was to do good. He simply did not always know what the right course of action was because some of the issues, like the affair, were so complicated. Plus, Arthur is on his way to Heaven at the end of the book. 

Opposition: No! 

This side focuses on Arthur’s weaknesses, also moving from the literal (i.e., his handling of the affair) to the figurative (i.e., demonstrating pride and anger).

Then they move on to argue that his vices outweigh his virtues, primarily because he died heavily laden with vice. Using the same definition of righteousness above, they argue that the desire to do what is right is not enough. It must be coupled with the will, and Arthur’s will for revenge after the affair blinded him from seeing the world through God’s eyes.

In the rebuttal, they acknowledge Arthur’s good side, but point out that the “grievous wound” in his soul holds him back from going straight to heaven. If he was righteous in life, he would have not have needed Purgatory.  

Debate Question Two: Do Guinevere and Lancelot really love each other?  

Proposition: Yes! 

This side typically begins by painting a picture of Guinevere’s marriage to Arthur as one-sided. Arthur wanted to marry Guinevere, so she had to marry him. Lancelot, on the other hand, was the object of her free will.

In the second round, they address our class definition of love, which is wanting the ultimate good for another. They argue that even though pursuing their love in a secret affair may not have been the best for either of them, they were trying their best given the circumstances. Neither one could very well tell Arthur what was going on without committing treason and breaking his heart.

Furthermore, they both repent of the sin of adultery in the final years of their lives. Guinevere enters a nunnery; Lancelot enters the priesthood. Both remain devoted to each other, but to God first. In this way, they want the ultimate good for one another by praying for their mutual redemption.  

Opposition: No! 

This side also starts off by describing Guinevere’s marriage to Arthur. However, in contrast to the proposition side, they argue that Guinevere did not have to accept his proposal. Arthur never forced his will on anyone, not even an enemy, so he would hardly have done so on the woman he loved.

Furthermore, Guinevere seems happily married for many years, and Arthur appears to be a good, devoted husband. As such, the opposition side concludes that Guinevere’s interest in Lancelot was unjustifiably selfish and the product of lust, not love.

From here, they move onto our definition of love, arguing that Guinevere could not have wanted the ultimate good for Lancelot if she was willing for him to risk his honor as a knight and betray the trust of the Round Table, for such would hurt him both in life and in death.

In their rebuttal, they congratulate Lancelot and Guinevere for wanting redemption, but lambast them for having the affair in the first place, which they knew was wrong. If they truly loved each other, they would have kept their distance.   

Debate Question Three: What brought down the Realm of Logres—the affair or the plots of Mordred?  

Proposition: The Affair! 

This side begins by describing the affair between Lancelot and Guinevere, noting that it was a constant, ever-growing stain on the realm that was bound to bring about destruction.

In the second round, this side typically explains the nature of sin itself. They focus on how venial sins, if left unchecked and unforgiven, grow into mortal sins. Further, they argue that sin hurts not only the sinner and its object, but the world more broadly. Such was the case with Lancelot and Guinevere. Their sin of adultery reverberated throughout the entire kingdom.

Finally, while Mordred may have started the battle that ended Logres, it was the affair that gave him the opportunity.  

Opposition: Mordred! 

This side likes to focus on Mordred’s character in its opening. They point out that as the son of Morgana, he was born with a hatred for Arthur and a desire to bring about his downfall. Thus, his goal was precisely that which occurs.

In the second round, they argue that from the time of his emergence in the story, he was lying in wait for his chance. In fact, it was he who exposed the affair and brought it to Arthur’s attention. Other knights knew what was going on, but Mordred was the only one who took action because he was self-interested in its revelation.

In the rebuttal round, they argue that Mordred would have found a way to accomplish his designs even without the affair. He is pure evil.