You're Wrong
One statement. Two sides. Students argue the pro or con position with generated keywords and structured arguments — then defend every word.
Open App →Solo vs Class, or Two Groups Facing
- 1The layout depends on the debate mode chosen at setup. In Solo Defender vs Class, one student sits at the front and defends the statement against the rest of the class. In Team vs Team, split the class into two groups facing each other, with the current speaker from each side at the front of their group.
- 2The keyword lists are visible to both sides — they are not secret advantages. The linguistic challenge is using the keywords in coherent arguments, not choosing which position is 'right'.
- 3Turns cycle one student at a time — the app names the 'Current Speaker' and moves through every student on the roster in turn, so everyone gets to speak rather than a few vocal students dominating.
- 4There's no vote at the end. The goal is a faster, livelier exchange than a traditional structured debate, not a verdict — keep momentum up by moving briskly from one speaker to the next.
The Teaching Logic Behind You're Wrong
You're Wrong generates a single debatable statement — a claim that is genuinely arguable in both directions — alongside a fully scaffolded pro position and con position. Each position has a descriptive title, a set of supporting keywords, and a list of pre-structured arguments (short talking points, not full sentences, for students to build on). Argument count scales with CEFR: 3 arguments per side at A2 and B1, 5 at B2, and 6 at C1/C2.
The keyword lists are level-appropriate vocabulary for each position — not synonyms for the statement's key word, but the specific nouns, verbs, and phrases that are semantically native to that argument. Pro and con keyword sets are distinct, which means the same topic produces two different lexical registers — students on different sides must speak in different vocabulary.
Three debate modes change who's on the roster: Solo Defender vs Class pits one named student against the rest of the class; Team vs Team splits named students into two sides; Random Hot Seat shuffles a list of students and calls them up one at a time. In every mode, the app cycles turns through individual students by name, so all of them get to speak rather than just a couple of vocal ones.
Why It Works
Assigned positions increase argument quality
Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) demonstrate that genuine argument requires a position — and that position-taking is itself a linguistic and cognitive act, not just a social one. When students are assigned a position rather than choosing one, they must argue for a claim regardless of personal belief, which requires exactly the modal, hedging, and distancing language that produces advanced L2 argumentation.
Lexical sets for opposing arguments build semantic precision
Harmer (2007) notes that vocabulary teaching is most effective when words are encountered as members of functional sets — words that do the same job together. The per-side keyword lists in You're Wrong create functional lexical sets: students do not just learn 'these are words about the topic' but 'these are the words used to argue THIS side of THIS topic'.
Opposition pressure produces more precise language
Swain (1995) argues that learners speak more precisely when they are challenged rather than merely listened to. The debate format creates a natural challenge structure: an opponent who disagrees. Students pushed to justify and defend positions produce more complex syntactic structures than students engaged in cooperative conversation.
Step-by-Step in Class
Choose a topic and a debate mode
Type a theme and select a CEFR level. Then choose how the roster works: Solo Defender vs Class, Team vs Team, or Random Hot Seat, and set the per-turn time (1, 2, or 3 minutes). The AI generates a debatable statement with complete pro and con scaffolding — pick something genuinely questionable, since flat factual statements don't generate a real discussion.
Review positions and keywords
Show the statement, the pro title and keywords, and the con title and keywords. Give a minute for each side to skim their pre-built arguments before turns start — these are talking points to build on, not scripts to read.
Run the turns
Follow the 'Current Speaker' prompt as it cycles through the roster — Solo Defender faces the rest of the class each turn; Team vs Team and Random Hot Seat call up one named student at a time from each side. Award points as students land keywords and arguments.
Keep it quick, then move on
There's no final vote — the point is a faster, livelier exchange of arguable claims than a formal debate format gives you. Once everyone on the roster has had a turn, wrap up and generate a new statement rather than dragging the same one out.
How to Set It Up for Different Levels
Generates a B1-appropriate debatable statement on a familiar topic (school, technology, environment) with 3 arguments per side and keyword lists focused on common opinion vocabulary: 'on the one hand', 'however', 'because of this'.
B1 learners can express opinions but struggle to provide multiple supporting reasons in sequence. The 3 pre-structured arguments give them a rehearsal scaffold — the first time they argue this structure, they use the generated arguments; the second time, they build their own.
Generates an ethically complex statement with 5 arguments per side and keywords including concession frames ('While it is true that...'), counter-argument signals ('Critics might argue...'), and evaluative adverbs.
B2 learners can argue but rarely concede — they present their position as absolute. Ethical topics inherently require acknowledgement of the opposing position's partial validity, which trains the concession + rebuttal structure ('I accept that X is true; however, Y is more important').
Generates a C1-level statement with 6 nuanced arguments per side. One named student defends the pro position against the rest of the class taking turns from the con side.
Facing a sequence of different challengers, rather than one fixed opponent, forces the defender to track and respond to a wider range of attacks — closer to a real Q&A than a scripted exchange, and a faster way to get the whole class talking than pairing everyone off.
Ways to Extend the Game
Side Switch
Halfway through, call 'Switch!' — students must immediately argue the opposite position using the other side's keywords. The cognitive and linguistic demand of defending a position you just argued against produces some of the richest spoken output of any debate format.
Keyword Audit
Assign one observer per side. The observer tracks each speaker's keyword usage with a tally chart. Afterwards, they report: who used more keywords? Were they used correctly in context? The audit creates metalinguistic awareness around lexical argument.
Written Argument Submission
After their turn, each student writes a 100-word written summary of their strongest argument. Comparing the spoken and written versions shows how their language choices change across modes — and why spoken argumentation vocabulary differs from written essay language.
Fastest Lap
Time how long it takes to cycle through every student on the roster once. Generate a new statement and try to beat that time on the second round — keeps the pace brisk and rewards quick, confident turns over long-winded ones.
Pair It With
Class Clash
Class Clash scales You're Wrong from pair-based to team-based debate with intensity settings — after students have practised one-on-one argumentation in pairs, Class Clash applies the same structure with team dynamics and competitive energy.
Persuasion Arena
Persuasion Arena adds a confidence-betting mechanic to position-taking — after practising structured debate in You're Wrong, students apply those argument skills in a competitive format where committing to a position has a points consequence.
BubbleTalk
BubbleTalk surfaces the specific claims worth debating within a topic before You're Wrong formalises the debate — use Bubble Talk to identify the most contested statement from a set, then generate a You're Wrong debate around that exact claim.