1. Call for papers

In many international academic contexts, structured debate, in its competitive form (competitive debate) or its disciplinary form (classroom debate), is widely used in university curricula. Universities such as Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge have prestigious debating societies, globally renowned, which regularly take part in national and international tournaments (Haapala, 2016; Park, 1987). For example, at the 2025 World Universities Debating Championship (WUDC), the world championship for university debating, more than two hundred teams from the world’s most renowned universities took part (Panama WUDC, 2025). Moreover, even when it is not practised in its competitive form, debate is often integrated as a teaching method in humanities and science degree programmes, where it is recognised as an effective tool both for developing epistemological awareness, critical thinking and transversal competences, and for acquiring subject-specific content (Cinganotto et al., 2021; De Conti, 2025a; De Conti, 2019; De Conti & Manzini, 2024; Giangrande, 2023; Ko & Mezuk, 2021; Russo, 2021; Sellami, et al., 2025).

Despite the growing international interest in structured debate – research on which, in some contexts, is also funded by quasi-governmental bodies (QatarDebate, 2022) – in many European academic contexts, and particularly in Italy, there remains significant resistance to its adoption in university education, and above all a persistent marginalisation of debate within pedagogical reflection, even though it is foundational to Western culture. Indeed, debate, understood as a regulated and potentially competitive argumentative exchange, has for centuries been one of the main ways in which Western culture has conceived and practised rationality, as well as conducted teaching. Since Greek antiquity, with Socratic dialectic and especially with the dialectical encounters discussed by Aristotle in the Topics, debate has constituted a method of cognitive inquiry and a form of intellectual exercise aimed at the pursuit of truth through the confrontation of opposing theses (Aristotle, 2003; Leone, 2023; Perillo, 2025). This model remained central in medieval scholastic thought and in Renaissance academic disputation, becoming a historical and cultural expression of dialectical rationality that run through and shaped the development of critical thought in the West (Giangrande,2025b; Leone, 2023; Novikoff, 2013; Panofsky, 1986).

In the evolution of knowledge, structured debate has a clear analogy with the processes through which knowledge develops in a critical, dialogical and non-linear manner. Just as knowledge progresses through the confrontation of alternative theses, imaginaries and paradigms (Feyerabend, 2024; Gramigna, 2021; Rescher, 1977; Rescher, 2007), competitive or classroom debate is based on a structured confrontation between opposing positions, oriented towards a free interpretation of the theses to be defended, the testing of conceptual frameworks and arguments, and the rational evaluation of evidence (Ajello, 2023; De Conti, & Giangrande, 2017; Llano, 2023, cf. Dewey, 2019). In this sense, debate not only reflects the ways in which knowledge evolves, but also actively promotes the epistemic dispositions and competences needed to participate in such processes: open-mindedness, willingness to revise one’s convictions, awareness of fallibility and attention to the justification of ideas (Ang, et al., 2019; De Conti, 2024; Holzer et al., 2018; Tamanini, 2023). The activity of debate, therefore, is not merely a rhetorical exercise, but a pedagogical device that cultivates attitudes and tools proper to a critical, metareflective and inclusive epistemology, also through the use of new technologies (Al-Sharafi, et al., 2025; De Conti, 2025b; Giangrande, 2025a; Inoue, 2023).

Furthermore, structured debate can be understood as an educational procedure grounded in fairness and morality, insofar as it embodies and enacts principles consistent with the values of peace, non-violence, democracy and openness to pluralism (Bartanen & Littlefield, 2015; De Conti, 2013; De Conti & Zompetti, 2019; Mosa, et al. 2025; Zompetti, 2023; cf. Dewey, 2018). Its structure guarantees conditions of equality among participants by establishing shared rules, equitable speaking times and assessment criteria based on argumentative quality rather than on role, charisma or authority. In this way, debate not only simulates fair and inclusive deliberative practices, but transmits them as a concrete formative experience, turning the exchange of ideas into an opportunity for civic and ethical learning (Camarda, 2024; Camarda & Di Bono, 2024; Refrigeri & Russo, 2020; Rogers et al., 2017).

The epistemic and ethical horizons that structured debate can open up therefore allow it to be understood as an instrument of emancipation: it enables individuals to become aware of their own systems of thought, to relate them to different visions, and to recognise the power of oracy (Leone, 2023; Hill, 2021; Monaldi, 2025) and its transformative value at the social level (Lopes, et al., 2023; Hill, 2021). It thus promotes an epistemic responsibility that is not exhausted in oratorical performance, but is translated into the capacity to exercise autonomous, dialogical and justice-oriented thinking. In this sense, debate not only develops argumentative competences, but also fosters the construction of critical and participatory subjectivities, capable of engaging with conflict in a non-violent way and of contributing actively to democratic life.

In light of the above, while remaining aware of the possible drifts that this practice may encounter (cf. Giangrande, 2021; De Conti & Zompetti, 2019; Mamberti, 2025), can we conceive of an education of the individual that dispenses with what debate promotes and brings about?

1.1. Topics covered

The aim of this call is to promote critical reflection and research on the pedagogical dimensions of structured debate. Contributions proposing innovative conceptualisations, historical reinterpretations or in-depth literature reviews will be particularly valued. The following topics constitute priority, though non-exhaustive, areas of the call:

• History and genealogy of debate as a form of Western rationality
• Epistemology of knowledge and structured debate
• Debate and education for complexity
• Debate and oracy
• Debate as a pedagogical and formative device
• Debate and academic teaching: methodologies for the university
• Debate and initial and continuing teacher education
• Debate and the school system: competences, curriculum and assessment
• Debate and disciplinary knowledge: integrations and challenges
• Debate and the culture of competition: risks and potential
• Debate, democratic citizenship and peace education
• Debate and processes of individual and collective emancipation
• Debate, school inclusion and civic participation
• Debate and interculturality: exchange and otherness
• Debate and artificial intelligence: ethical and cognitive challenges
• Debate in the university’s third mission

2. Call rules

2.1. Timeline

The full texts of contributions must be submitted by 30 October 2026. The expected publication window is tentatively scheduled to close after 30 November 2026. Any extensions will be indicated in updates to this call. The Editorial Office undertakes to process articles within the timelines indicated at the end of the description of the review process. The promoting committee (the Authors of this call), together with the Editorial Office, reserves the right to close the call early if, before the deadline, a critical mass is reached of contributions that have passed peer review and that allow the issue to be completed. Any contributions not selected by the guest editors or submitted to the Editorial Office after the relevant deadlines may be considered for a regular issue.

For more information on the review process: https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/review_policies_and_regulations

2.2. Type and format of contributions

• The types of contributions accepted by Formazione & insegnamento are described at the following link: https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/paper_types
• Please note the required length of the body text of contributions (i.e. excluding title page, abstract, keywords and bibliography): 3,500‍–‍6,000 words.
• Contributions must constitute original research and must not contain plagiarism or copyright infringements.
  • For details on copyright and licensing: https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/copyright-and-licensing
  • Journal’s code of ethics: https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/ethical_statement
  • AI Policy: https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/ethical_statement (at the bottom of the page)
• Formazione & insegnamento publishes in: English, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and French. In view of the recent reintroduction of French, French-speaking authors are asked to bear with us, since the French-language interface of the website is still being developed. However, an option for submitting contributions in French is available in the management system.
• Please submit contributions in the language in which they were originally written.
• Contributions must be prepared in APA7, thus complying not only with its bibliographic style, but also with its line spacing and page layout. In particular, please note that:
  • Footnotes may not be used for bibliographic purposes
  • In any case, the use of footnotes is strongly discouraged, as it does not lend itself well to PDF page composition
  • APA7, in very broad terms, requires A4 pages with one-inch margins, a Roman typeface, left alignment, double (or 1.5) line spacing, indentation for quotations, and no special typographical embellishments (in practice, the document will resemble a typewritten page, with approximately 350 words per page)
  • The use of a Reference Manager is recommended (Zotero or any other reference manager integrated into word-processing software). If you use one, however, make sure to remove the macros with the “unlink citations” command before submitting
  • For further details, please refer to: https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/ethical_statement (and to the links indicated there)

2.3. Review process

The publication of the special issue does not depart from the journal’s normal rules for peer review, which provide for:

• Double-blind review
• External and independent reviewers, with no conflicts of interest with the Authors
• Qualified reviewers (holders of a PhD or of high-level qualifications, assessed by the Editorial Office following examination of their CVs)
• Use of the PKP OJS management system

The preliminary editorial screening (desk review) is intended to assess whether the contribution meets the minimum submission criteria. For more information on why contributions are rejected at the preliminary assessment stage: https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/libraryFiles/downloadPublic/91

2.4. The role of the guest editors

The guest editors work alongside the Editorial Office in the following phases:

• Preliminary evaluation of contributions (to verify their alignment with the content of the call)
• Formulation of recommendations for the selection of external Reviewers
• Formulation of the final recommendation, once the reports of the external Reviewers have been examined
• Drafting of the editorial
• Dissemination and promotion of the call
• Communication with the Authors

2.5. Discrepancies

In the event of discrepancies between this text and the journal’s policies, the latter take precedence.

References