How do you plan a paid conference debate with opposing viewpoints?

You've put a debate in your conference programme because the audience needs to hear different views. Then the preparation calls reveal a problem. Both speakers agree with each other, one wants to promote their service, and nobody is quite sure what the audience will learn from watching them disagree.

The first thing to settle is the decision your delegates actually face. Write a clear statement that one speaker can support and another can challenge, give both the same starting facts, and appoint a moderator who can test their reasoning. The useful result is an audience that understands when each recommendation might work and what it would need to check before acting.

That takes more preparation than booking two confident people. You need to establish that their disagreement is real, agree how they will use evidence, and leave time for each person to answer the strongest objection. Otherwise, a debate can become two presentations with an argument attached.

We'll work through a fictional paid conference for independent retailers. Its debate asks whether small retailers should offer free delivery on every domestic online order. The event, participants, costs and timings below are invented planning examples. They aren't customer results, industry benchmarks or recommendations about what delivery policy a retailer should adopt.

Choose a question your audience needs to resolve

Think about the decision someone will take back to work. A retail owner might be deciding whether to change delivery charges before the next selling season. They need to understand which costs to examine, what their customers value and what would make the proposed change unwise. That's a useful reason to spend part of a paid conference comparing opposing recommendations.

"The future of retail" doesn't tell your speakers what to disagree about. "Is free delivery good?" leaves almost every condition unstated. A more workable starting statement is, "Independent retailers should offer free delivery on every domestic online order." Now someone can make a case for the policy and someone else can explain why they would reject it.

Before confirming that wording, define the situation. Are you discussing standard delivery only? Does "free" mean that the retailer covers the delivery charge without raising product prices during the comparison? Are unusually heavy products outside the example? The speakers may dispute whether those boundaries are sensible, but they need to know what they are being asked to defend.

For our fictional session, the programme team specifies standard delivery for ordinary parcels within one domestic market. Express delivery, oversized goods and international orders are outside the discussion. The customer pays the displayed product price, with no separate standard delivery charge. These are assumptions for this session, chosen to stop speakers comparing completely different offers.

That definition also reveals a worthwhile objection. A retailer who sells across very different delivery zones may say the proposed policy is too broad. Keep that challenge. The point of defining the statement is to make objections understandable, not to arrange a question the supporting speaker can win easily.

Check the question with prospective delegates before inviting anyone. Ask what they would need to know before changing their own delivery policy. If their real difficulty is choosing a fulfilment provider, a debate about charging customers may miss the problem. If they want to understand the tradeoffs between charges, order value and delivery costs, the session has a clearer purpose.

Your paid conference planning guide should establish the wider audience and programme promise first. The debate then answers one question within that programme. You don't need every attendee to face the decision immediately, but enough of them should recognise why the comparison matters.

Write a useful outcome in ordinary words. For example, delegates should leave able to identify which information they need before deciding whether to remove standard delivery charges. That is a promise the session can reasonably attempt to fulfil. Promising that the audience will discover the best delivery policy for every retailer sets up an answer no responsible speaker can provide.

Confirm there are two defensible recommendations

A debate needs a meaningful disagreement. During separate preparation conversations, ask each prospective speaker what they would advise a retailer in the defined situation to do, why they would advise it and what could change their recommendation. Listen for differences in the reasoning, rather than differences in how confidently they speak.

One person might support free delivery because they believe the buying experience and repeat custom justify covering the cost. Another might favour a minimum order value because small orders could become too expensive to fulfil. Those are possible positions in our invented example. The actual session needs people who can substantiate their own recommendations and engage with the other person's objection.

If both people favour the same threshold policy, change the format or find a different question. Don't ask one to perform a belief they don't hold while presenting the exchange as their professional advice. An exercise in arguing an assigned position can have a learning purpose, but the audience should be told that this is what it is watching.

Harvard's classroom debate guide starts with a proposition, the statement being debated. It recommends specifying evidence expectations and organising responses between opposing sides. It also allows students to argue assigned positions. We're adapting the structure for a paid professional programme, where speakers' actual recommendations and commercial interests should be clear to buyers.

Some questions don't benefit from a debate at all. When a claim can be settled by checking a reliable record, check it. When delegates need to learn a process, demonstrate it. When several people have useful experiences but no substantial disagreement, your panel discussion guide offers a better starting format.

You also don't have to manufacture equal credibility for every proposed position. An invitation to challenge a policy doesn't excuse invented evidence or personal attacks. Give speakers a fair opportunity to explain their reasoning, then hold the reasoning to the same standard. The organiser's obligation is to deliver a worthwhile discussion, including an honest account of what remains unsupported.

Invite speakers who can answer each other

Choose participants for their ability to explain and defend a recommendation in front of your specific audience. A well-known name may help sell tickets, but the preparation conversation should establish more than recognition. Ask the person to describe a decision they can discuss publicly and the limits of what that example tells them.

For our fictional retail event, you might invite an operator who supports covering delivery costs and another who favours a threshold. They don't need identical businesses. They do need enough shared context to compare advice, while explaining how their businesses differ. Someone running a national warehouse operation may have useful experience, provided they don't treat its arrangements as automatically available to a small shop.

Give each person a fair description of the other speaker's position. Ask, "What is the strongest reason a sensible retailer would choose that approach?" A participant who can answer is more likely to address the real objection. If they can only describe the other view as foolish, you have preparation work to do before promising a constructive debate.

Check commercial interests early. A speaker may sell delivery services, advise retailers or work for a session sponsor. That doesn't automatically remove their expertise. It does change what the audience needs to know and what questions the moderator should ask. Agree a short, accurate disclosure that describes the relationship without using the introduction as an advertisement.

The moderator matters just as much. They need enough subject knowledge to notice when the speakers are using different definitions, and enough confidence to interrupt a familiar industry figure. Ask how they would handle an unsupported claim or a participant who answers every objection with a sales pitch. Their response will tell you more than a polished introduction video.

Avoid giving one participant a quiet advantage through preparation. If one gets the complete case, running order and opening question, provide those to the other too. Equal preparation doesn't require identical personalities, fees or experience. It requires both to understand the same task and the same conditions for taking part.

Agree who makes the final programme decision if a speaker won't accept those conditions. The moderator should be able to flag a problem, but the organiser owns the booking and the promise made to buyers. Resolve it before announcing the session, while changing the format is still straightforward.

Give both sides the same case and evidence rules

Speakers can appear to disagree while discussing different businesses. One talks about profitable repeat customers ordering several items. The other talks about a first-time customer buying one low-priced product. Both examples may be valid, but the audience can't tell which recommendation addresses the starting question unless the moderator makes the difference explicit.

Prepare a short common case. Describe the type of retailer, the products being discussed, the delivery policy being considered and the decision deadline. State which information is known and which is missing. Keep it short enough for the audience to understand without reading a business plan during the session.

In our example, the fictional retailer sells ordinary parcels online and is considering removing standard delivery charges for the next season. Its team has order and delivery records but has not tested the proposed policy. The debate will examine what those records would need to show before either speaker would recommend a change. We aren't supplying imaginary performance results for the speakers to treat as proof.

Ask each participant to identify the evidence behind important claims before the joint preparation call. For a published study, collect the original link, what was measured and the relevant limits. For a business example, ask what the speaker can actually disclose. A private recollection can explain a decision, but it shouldn't be introduced as an independently verified industry finding.

A useful preparation record separates four things: the recommendation, the reason for it, the evidence offered and the conditions under which the speaker expects it to apply. That last part is often where the discussion becomes useful. The audience can compare those conditions with its own circumstances instead of copying an answer from a different business.

The University of Michigan's guidance for difficult discussions recommends establishing a clear purpose, shared background and participation expectations. Its setting is teaching. The relevant adaptation here is to agree the question and starting information before asking a paid audience to follow a contested business decision.

Set a deadline for sources so the moderator has time to read them. Mark unresolved claims plainly. If a speaker can't substantiate an important number, ask them to remove it, qualify it accurately or explain it as an unverified recollection. Don't quietly place the figure in a slide because it makes the opening sound stronger.

Apply the same approach when the source supports less than the proposed claim. A study of one market doesn't establish what all retailers should do. A sales increase doesn't establish an increase in profit. Your speaker can still discuss the finding, but the audience needs the scope that makes it understandable.

Keep a small list of claims that may need checking after the session. Name the person who will do that work and where any correction will appear. This gives the moderator an honest option when a new factual claim can't be resolved live. They can identify the uncertainty and continue without pretending that confidence settles it.

Build time for an actual response

A debate works through the relationship between the arguments. If almost all the time goes into opening statements, the audience hears two prepared presentations and a hurried conclusion. Protect enough time for speakers to explain why the other recommendation might fail and then answer that challenge.

For our example, we'll use a fictional 50-minute session with two speakers and one moderator. This allocation is a planning choice, not an established optimum. It gives the audience an initial explanation, a reply from each side, a moderated exchange and a chance to question the speakers.

• Minutes 0 to 4: the moderator introduces the decision, scope, speakers and participation rules.

• Minutes 4 to 14: each speaker has five minutes to explain their recommendation and its evidence.

• Minutes 14 to 22: each has four minutes to respond to the other's opening and address the strongest objection to their own position.

• Minutes 22 to 34: the moderator tests the disagreement through the common case.

• Minutes 34 to 44: selected audience questions are put to the speakers.

• Minutes 44 to 48: each speaker has two minutes to state their conclusion and what would change it.

• Minutes 48 to 50: the moderator identifies the remaining disagreement and explains the follow-up.

The allocations add to 50 minutes. Introductions and transitions are included within their respective sections. Rehearse those transitions so nobody treats them as additional time after a speaker finishes. Confirm the stage clock and time signals, including what the moderator will do when somebody continues after their allocation.

The first speaker doesn't have to open and close every round. Agree an order that lets each person respond, and make it visible in the running order. If the first speaker presents before hearing the other's full argument, their later reply needs to address what was actually said. A rebuttal answers another person's argument. A second prepared speech that ignores the objection doesn't do that work.

Prepare a shorter version. If production authorises a 40-minute session after an earlier overrun, our example reduces the moderated exchange from 12 to six minutes and audience questions from ten to six. Everything else stays within its allocation. That removes ten minutes deliberately, rather than asking everyone to speak faster and hoping the schedule recovers.

The programme producer should approve that adjustment and tell the moderator before they begin. If you have specifically sold a guaranteed audience question opportunity, check whether the revised delivery can still honour it. Scheduling convenience doesn't erase a promise made to a buyer.

Budget for preparation as well as stage time

A debate may use fewer people than a large panel, but it still needs preparation. Include speaker fees, moderator work, travel where relevant, production, access support and any source checking you have agreed to provide. Existing staff time also belongs in your assessment, even when it doesn't create a separate supplier invoice.

Here's a deliberately limited cost example in USD. Two speakers receive $600 each, the moderator receives $450, additional caption preparation costs $250 and an extra technical rehearsal costs $100. Those selected costs total $2,000. They aren't quoted market rates, and they don't represent the full conference cost or every possible debate expense.

Check what each amount buys. Does the moderator fee include reading submissions and attending a joint preparation call? Do speaker commitments include the agreed source list and rehearsal? A low stage fee can become an expensive booking if the preparation you need is treated as extra work after confirmation.

Within a conference pass, you generally won't know how much ticket income belongs to one session. Assess whether the debate delivers a useful part of the programme at a cost the event can support. Don't divide the conference's ticket sales by the number of sessions and describe the result as revenue earned by this debate.

If you're selling the debate separately, state exactly what that ticket includes and budget for the complete offer. A promised recording, hosted reception or follow-up workshop needs someone to deliver it. Use your speaker agreement template to record actual obligations and permissions, then confirm any specific terms with the people involved.

Write a brief that leaves room for disagreement

Send the substantive brief before the joint call. Include the audience, proposition, common case, speaker roles, evidence requirements and running order. Explain that you want the speakers to challenge recommendations and assumptions, while keeping the discussion focused on the decision. A request to "keep it lively" doesn't establish any of that.

Ask each speaker to prepare their best argument and the strongest objection to it. They should also identify a condition that would make them change their recommendation. That doesn't mean arranging a scripted concession. It means establishing whether the advice has limits the audience can examine.

Use the joint call to test definitions and practical arrangements. In our free-delivery example, ask both speakers what they mean by a delivery cost and which customer orders they are considering. If their disagreement disappears once those terms are clear, tell the programme team. You may have discovered a useful comparative discussion rather than the debate you originally advertised.

Don't rehearse every reply. A prepared structure helps speakers bring accurate material and understand the rules. A complete script can make their responses sound detached from what the audience just heard. Rehearse the opening, transitions and interruptions instead, then leave the substantive exchange responsive to the actual arguments.

Your conference speaker briefing can cover arrival, access requirements, contacts and technical details. Keep the debate instructions easy to find within that wider preparation. A speaker shouldn't have to search through venue parking information to discover that their opening has a firm time limit.

State how recording, quotation and later editing will work. Explain whether the recording will include audience questions, where it may appear and who handles requests about the published version. Agree the arrangement before the event. An announcement from the stage can't substitute for resolving conflicting expectations during preparation.

For sponsors, distinguish acknowledgement from control over the discussion. If a sponsor representative is participating, make clear that they face the same evidence and moderation rules. If the sponsor requires an unchallenged presentation of its offer, describe and schedule that presentation honestly. Don't sell a supposedly independent debate while privately promising one side immunity from questions.

End the call with unresolved matters and named owners. Perhaps one source needs checking, one definition needs rewriting and the producer needs to confirm captioning. Send the agreed decisions afterwards. A friendly conversation isn't enough if each participant remembers a different version of the session.

Describe the session clearly before people buy

The programme description should identify the decision, the opposing recommendations and what the audience will be able to examine. Explain who the session is for and any assumed knowledge. People deciding whether to spend money on a conference need more than a promise of provocative speakers.

For our invented event, the description might say that two retail operators will examine the case for and against covering standard domestic delivery on every order. The moderator will test their recommendations against a shared retailer scenario, followed by selected audience questions. Delegates will leave with questions to apply to their own costs and customer information.

That description doesn't promise a universal answer or a dramatic confrontation. It also gives you something to check against the final brief. If preparation changes the question materially, update the programme and tell affected buyers as appropriate. Don't leave the old headline in circulation because it sounds more exciting.

Put the information where the buyer makes the decision. Use the ticketing solution to sell the event, and make sure the event description explains whether the debate is included in the pass or requires a separate purchase. Ticket types can distinguish what someone is buying; your programme wording still needs to explain the session itself.

Avoid describing a casual audience vote as research that will reveal what the industry believes. If you're inviting a vote, explain its purpose and whether participation is optional. Some people will want to hear the evidence without declaring a position publicly. Their choice shouldn't prevent them from getting the value they bought.

Make the exchange accessible to follow and join

Fast exchanges can become difficult to follow, especially when speakers interrupt or refer to slides the audience hasn't had time to read. Build the production around the conversation you want. Test every microphone, agree one speaker at a time and make the moderator's interventions audible to everyone.

W3C's accessible events guidance covers advance preparation, microphones, clear speech and explaining relevant visual information. Use it with your production and access providers when planning the session. In a debate, those arrangements need to work while people challenge each other, as well as during prepared opening statements.

For the retail example, the moderator should say the delivery assumptions aloud. If a speaker introduces a chart, they should explain the comparison and the relevant limits instead of pointing and saying, "As you can see." Provide agreed materials in an accessible format and allow time for captions or interpretation to follow the exchange.

Offer a written route for questions alongside any microphone route. It can help someone who needs more time to compose a question, prefers not to speak publicly or can't easily reach a roving microphone. Give people clear instructions for using it, and assign someone other than the moderator to review submissions.

For hybrid delivery, that question monitor should include remote participants under the same announced selection criteria. Test a complete remote question and response, including the sound the remote audience receives. A working stage microphone doesn't prove that people online can hear an audience member at the back of the room.

Confirm a practical alternative if the digital question tool fails. Paper cards or a staffed microphone may suit the room, but remote attendees need a route they can actually use. The producer should know who announces a change and who checks that submissions are reaching the moderator.

Give the moderator questions that expose the difference

Prepare questions around the decisions the audience needs to understand. In our example, "Why do you like free delivery?" may produce a general opening. "What would you need to see in this retailer's records before recommending free delivery on every order?" asks the speaker to connect the policy with evidence the audience could recognise.

Then ask the opposing speaker to address that reasoning. "Which assumption in that recommendation would you check first, and why?" is more useful than a general invitation to disagree. It identifies the contested part of the advice without requiring either person to attack the other's competence.

A good sequence might examine who pays for delivery, which orders create the greatest difficulty and how the retailer would judge a trial. The speakers may propose different tests. Ask what result would lead each to stop the trial or change the policy. You're helping the audience understand the recommendation as a decision it could evaluate.

Brown University's guidance on facilitating discussions includes asking for clarification, requesting evidence and preventing participants from speaking over one another. In this professional setting, the moderator can use those practices to make the disagreement intelligible while leaving the business judgment open to challenge.

Prepare direct interventions for predictable problems. If someone substitutes a different retailer for the common case, the moderator can say, "That example has a different order pattern. What would you recommend for the retailer we're discussing?" The speaker can explain why that difference matters, but the audience shouldn't have to discover the change unaided.

For an unsupported number, try, "What does that figure measure, and where does it come from?" If the answer remains unclear, say that the claim hasn't been established and put it on the follow-up list. Moving on is reasonable once the uncertainty has been made clear. Letting the figure pass as accepted evidence is a different decision.

For repeated interruptions, the moderator can say, "Let them finish this answer, then I'll bring you in on that specific point." If the behaviour continues, apply the agreed intervention rather than repeating increasingly polite hints. Speakers should already know that the moderator can stop an answer and move the discussion forward.

The moderator can also correct a misleading account of the opposing view. Ask the speaker being described whether the summary is accurate, then return to the actual objection. A debate becomes much less useful when somebody spends several minutes defeating a position nobody on the stage holds.

Select audience questions by their usefulness

Tell delegates how questions will be chosen before inviting submissions. Prioritise questions that test a central assumption, clarify evidence or help the audience apply the discussion. Combine genuine duplicates without implying that every submission will receive a separate answer. A short question period cannot support that promise.

Keep the question monitor's task specific. They collect and group submissions, flag anything requiring a conduct response and pass relevant questions to the moderator. The moderator still decides how a question fits the exchange and which speaker should answer first. Don't leave that person scrolling through a live feed while also listening for a factual contradiction.

A question such as, "Would your answer change for a shop with mostly low-priced single-item orders?" adds a useful condition. A detailed request to assess one attendee's entire business may be better handled through a general principle. Explain that decision kindly so the audience understands why the moderator has shortened the question.

If someone uses the microphone for a speech, interrupt early enough to preserve time for others. "Please give us the question you want the speakers to answer" is a clear request. If the contribution continues as a speech, the moderator can move on under the rules already announced.

Apply selection criteria consistently. A question shouldn't disappear because it challenges a sponsor's preferred policy. At the same time, rejecting personal abuse or a request for confidential client information doesn't amount to suppressing a relevant objection. Separate the substance of a challenge from how it was submitted.

Keep a reserve question in case the audience needs time to begin. Identify it as the moderator's question. You don't need to invent an attendee or suggest that a submission arrived when it didn't. A useful prepared question is enough to continue the session honestly.

Decide how to handle a debate that changes on the day

A speaker cancellation can remove one side of the argument. Check whether a qualified replacement can prepare properly, rather than filling the chair with whoever is available. If that isn't possible, decide whether the remaining speaker and moderator can deliver a clearly described interview about the decision, including objections they can discuss accurately.

Tell the audience what changed. The moderator can question the remaining speaker, but shouldn't pretend to represent the absent participant's professional position. If the advertised debate was a material reason people bought, the programme team needs to consider the buyer communication and available remedies under the event's actual commitments. Don't make that decision by improvising an announcement on stage.

For a remote connection failure, agree a recovery period and a signal from production. The moderator can use the time to clarify the case or take a question that doesn't require the absent speaker. If the person returns, briefly explain what happened before asking them to respond. If they don't, describe the revised format honestly.

Personal attacks require a different response from a difficult business objection. Pause the exchange, state the relevant participation rule and redirect if a constructive discussion remains possible. Name the event lead who can handle a continuing conduct problem so the moderator isn't trying to manage the stage and an incident elsewhere in the room simultaneously.

An allegation about an identifiable person or company may also need a pause. The moderator shouldn't invite a public pile-on or act as if the debate can establish an unfamiliar allegation immediately. Ask speakers to return to the decision and escalate the specific issue to the responsible event lead for review.

Agree a stopping point before the event. If a participant repeatedly ignores the rules or the session cannot continue safely, the producer and moderator need a clear way to end or change it. That decision is easier to carry out when it has already been discussed with the speakers and delivery team.

Close with what the audience can now judge

Use each speaker's conclusion to make the remaining choice clearer. Ask them to state their recommendation for the common case, the strongest remaining objection and the information that could change their mind. They may finish closer together than they began. That's a useful result if the reasons are clear, rather than a failure to produce enough conflict.

The moderator's summary should distinguish agreement, disagreement and uncertainty. In our example, both speakers might agree that delivery costs need checking while disagreeing about when the retailer has enough evidence to remove charges. Report what the speakers actually established. Don't write the outcome into the programme brief before the conversation happens.

Reuters' editorial standards emphasise checking sources and correcting errors transparently. Those are journalism standards, not rules for conference debates, but they provide a useful discipline for the follow-up. If an important factual claim changes, make the correction understandable to the audience that heard it.

A vote can show the views of the people who chose to respond at that moment. It doesn't establish which recommendation will work, and it doesn't represent the wider industry. If different people answer before and after the session, a change in totals also doesn't prove that particular individuals changed their minds.

Publish only the follow-up you have agreed to deliver. That might include source links, the common case and a short note about a claim that needed correction. Use attendee email for the relevant event update, keeping a later promotional offer separate. Loopyah distinguishes event updates from promotions and handles the appropriate recipients; you still own the accuracy and usefulness of the material you send.

Use this brief to prepare your own session

You can adapt the following questions into a working brief. Answer them before confirming the session, then update the record after the preparation call. The completed brief should let a producer or replacement moderator understand what has been promised without reconstructing your conversations.

• Who is paying to attend, and which decision will this debate help them examine?

• What exact statement will one speaker support and the other challenge?

• What do the important terms mean, and which circumstances are outside the discussion?

• What starting case will both speakers receive, including information that remains unknown?

• What does each person actually recommend, and what could change their recommendation?

• Which sources and examples can they use accurately and discuss publicly?

• What interests or sponsor relationships should the audience know about?

• How much time is allocated to openings, replies, moderated exchange, questions and conclusions?

• What can the moderator interrupt, and who handles a continuing conduct or production problem?

• How can people in the room and online submit questions and follow the discussion?

• What has been agreed about recording, quotations, corrections and later materials?

• What changes if someone cancels or the available time is reduced?

For our fictional event, the producer's completed record would say that the debate is included in the main conference pass, runs for 50 minutes and uses two speakers with genuinely different delivery recommendations. The moderator receives both source submissions before the joint call. The programme lead owns unresolved claims, while a separate question monitor handles room and remote submissions. The production lead can authorise the prepared 40-minute version if required. These are example responsibilities to assign to actual people, rather than additional jobs that must each require a new hire.

Use that record for a short readiness conversation. Ask the moderator to explain the disagreement without looking at the session title, then ask each speaker to explain what the other side recommends. If those accounts conflict, fix the brief before the event. Ask the producer which piece of follow-up is actually promised and who will send it. These checks are more revealing than asking whether everyone has read the document and accepting a round of yeses.

Afterwards, ask delegates which distinction helped them assess the decision and which part remained unclear. Read those answers alongside the moderator's notes about unsupported claims, repeated questions and missed opportunities to respond. Applause and a lively room can tell you something about the experience, but they don't explain whether the reasoning was useful.

Before you repeat the session, return to the original question. If delegates can now identify the conditions behind each recommendation, consider a new case that tests the unresolved issue. If they only remember who argued most forcefully, revise the brief and the moderation before booking the same debate again.