Debate Strategy�Part I
Ryan Lafferty
Info Slide: VAX is a vacuum manufacturing company that produces, sells, and distributes vacuums. Many people vehemently oppose VAX vacuums, and view them as subpar, inferior products. In recent years, a large community of common folks and professional cleaners alike have joined forces to oppose any and all VAX products. This group is informally known as the “Anti-VAX movement.”
Motion: THW, as the Anti-VAX movement, rename and rebrand itself
Info Slide: One of the greatest controversies in socialist thought pertains to the work of baking: the fact that bakers make so much dough has triggered fierce controversy within Marxist circles. In contemporary ages, most Marxists are divided into two broad, ideologically splintered groups: the Yeeters and the Yeasters. Yeeters believe that since bakers are rolling in dough, their ovens must be seized and their flour nationalized. In contrast, the Yeasters believe that bakers knead that dough and are thus entitled to it.
Motion: THP Marxist–Yeeters ideology over Marxist–Yeasters ideology
THBT the spelling of the words “hyphenated” and “non-hyphenated” should be swapped so that they are spelled “hyph-enated" and “nonhyphenated," respectively
TH, as the Norwegian military, would install barcodes on all its battleships so that when those ships return to port, they can easily Scandanavian
THBT it would be cooler if people took global warming more seriously
WELCOME!
Few (5?) Quick Notes
(1) Hi! I’m Ryan!
about me:
(ok this slide is just here to say that if you ever wanna ask questions just shout over me, i’m not your teacher i’m just a random debate dude who talks to his shampoo about debate)
translation: ask questions!!!
(2) What This All Is
(3) Overview/Plan for Today
1—Pre-Gaming, But It’s Debate Style!
2—Superbly and Strongly Strategically Strategizing
3—We’re Gonna Make You Popular Have Cool Style
4—Kahoot (optional)
(well, all of this is optional…?)
(4) Canada-US Debate Civil War
Canada: British Parli (CNDF?? CP??)
America: American Parli (and a bunch of other weird confusing formats like LD and PF and Policy and odd stuff like this)
Week 3: we’ll cover some specific BP strategy, today will be generic to any format/structure of debate!
Part 1: Pre Gaming, Debate Style
Prep Time
**Important overview: there’s no one “right” way to prep—different people use different strategies, and the best way to find what works best is to experiment!
Ground Rules
1) Be Blunt
Yes, be kind during prep. But also, be honest. If your partner is saying nonsense, say “dear sir or madam, the words which you utter render negative sense to mine ears.”
4) Check Your Bias(es)
We all have biases—liberal, conservative, leftist, libertarian, etc. KNOW WHAT YOUR BIAS IS!
2) Be Ready
Have the Google Doc ready (and shared). Have your paper ready. Be ready to go when the motion(s) drops! Don’t be the “oh wait where are my pens” guy…
3) Have a Checklist
You get to pick what’s on it—but the gist is, have a semi-regular idea of what you want a good prep session to look like—roughly how much time to spend where, a list of questions to answer, etc.
5) Pick a (Prep) Leader
Prep is often more efficient when one person leads—asking questions, dictating what the argument order will be, etc. Determine who this will be in advance!
6) Be Serious… Mostly…
Sure, 15 minutes is tight on time, but crack a joke here and there, have some fun, without losing TOO much focus :)
11
Some Advice
1—Make sure to devote some time at the beginning to just talk and brainstorm, and make sure to devote some time at the end to just scaffold arguments (i.e., write out notes)
2—It’s good to have someone lead, but make sure that both of you are being heard (and watch out for gender dynamics in prep—y’all boys need to be mindful of this, especially!)
3—Avoid writing out long-form notes—try to use short-hand instead, so that you can spend more time talking/thinking/brainstorming and less time writing!
4—When you do debate practice, force yourself to prep in less time than you’ll actually get (e.g. 7-10 minutes). This forces you to become more efficient!
Prep Idea #1
SILENT PREP
Take 1-2 (maybe even more) minutes to just SILENTLY think about the topic, brainstorm arguments, figure out what the clash is going to be, etc.
Why? Talking can be disruptive and throw off good ideas you have early on in prep time!
**BP: this can be especially useful for closing-half prep!
Prep Idea #2
ASKING QUESTIONS
What clashes are likely to come up in this round?
What arguments do we absolutely have to prove in order to win? More generally, what are our/their burdens?
What is the comparative? What are some alternatives? What are some other ways of trying to solve this problem?
What does this look like in the real world? Any examples?
Prep Idea #3
DETERMINING A PATH-TO-VICTORY
Consider how the debate might play out, and try to devise a winning strategy. In other words, try to avoid just aimlessly generating arguments: instead, try to think about how your arguments will fit into the debate, and try to anticipate what arguments will be most strategically important!
Daily Life Hack
Brought to you by Debate Inc. ® © ™
You don’t actually have to do this, but imagine that the first sentence in your speech is just a statement of your “path to victory” in the debate!
THBT in developing countries aid organizations should be banned from religious proselytizing
PM Intro: “Our path to victory in the debate is as follows: we’ll explain why the change in the quantity of aid is quite small, whereas the quality and coerciveness of aid is far better under our side of the house!”
THW ban social media companies from independently deplatforming politicians
PM Intro: We’ll win this debate in two ways: first, we’ll explain why the principle of free speech beats any other practical argument, and second, we’ll weigh the harms of radicalization above any harms OPP might choose to run in this debate”
THBT artists should prioritize the political impact of their works over their aesthetic value
LO Intro: “Our path to victory is simple: we’ll beat GOV on social justice by explaining how this will whitewash political art, and then win on how this is bad for artists, a stakeholder that we’ll demonstrate is most important in the round”
THW allow citizens to purchase additional votes from the government at a cost proportional to their wealth
LO Intro: “We’ll win this debate by explaining that this is a principled wrong, and is independently illegitimate, and we’ll also win on pragmatics by weighing our arguments about harming the poor above any GOV benefits”
Prep Idea #4
MICRO & MACRO
Micro—are the individual warrants sound? Do the mechanisms make sense? Is the impacting clear? And are impacts well-weighed/framed?
Macro—are the arguments addressing important stakeholders? Are arguments strategically chosen? Are we talking about things that are actually going to be significant in the round?
Prep Idea #5
ENGAGING STRONGLY
Remember… while you are prepping, so too are your opponents! Try to anticipate what they’ll likely run and figure out how you can beat it—not just with your arguments, but also with responses! (After all, no one ever said that all 15 minutes of prep have to be focused on brainstorming arguments!)
Prep Idea #6
WARNING AGAINST GOOGLE
Common Denominator?
Envisioning how the round will play out!
Round Vision
Visualizing the Clash
Round Vision: Strategy #1
1. Uber mistreats its workers by treating them as contractors | We can regulate this, e.g. require them to be treated as employees | 😭🥴😱😔😩😞😳🤨😮😫🤯😤😐😬😵🤢🤠🤒 |
2. Uber destroys the conventional taxi system, which is bad | The taxi system is bad, competition is good! | Taxi systems offer better service, better for low-income drivers |
THW ban Uber
Round Vision: Strategy #2
THW ban televised political debates
Argument #1: televised presidential debates, for the majority of people, reinforce their own beliefs and amplify polarization
HIGH DEGREE OF CERTAINTY
Argument #2: televised presidential debates shift the views of undecided voters in bad/harmful directions
HIGH DEGREE OF SCALE
(MAGNITUDE)
Example
Part 2: All the Strats
WASH
COMPARE
INSURE
Strategy #1: The Debate Power Wash
aka, washing clashes out
“I will always choose a lazy person to do a difficult job, because he will find an easy way to do it.”
— Bill Gates
— Ryan Lafferty
In other words: when you can be lazy and win by being lazy, be lazy!
Big Picture
Take the arguments/clashes you’re (1) losing, or (2) never going to win, and make them seem… unimportant! Make them seem like a “wash,” in other words (translation: make it seem like neither team can win the debate there!)
Case Study #0
THW ban homework
GOV 1: Homework takes up time in a student’s life, when they could otherwise be doing better, more meaningful things
GOV 2: Homework worsens academic outcomes by making students more tired, more stressed, and less able to concentrate in class
OPP: Homework improves performance in school by reinforcing the concepts taught in class
What Does “Washing” Look Like?
GOV says homework is good for academic performance…
OPP says homework is bad for academic performance…
Maybe GOV is right… Maybe OPP is right…
Maybe homework is good for academic performance… But like… Maybe it’s bad???
GOV
OPP
HW is good for performance
HW is bad for performance
🤑🤑Million Dollar Idea🤑🤑
GOV
OPP
HW is good for performance
HW is bad for performance
sadly, this tactic is illegal :(
GOV
OPP
HW is good for performance
HW is bad for performance
HW incurs a large opportunity cost
So… What is “Washing?”
GOV: homework is bad for academic outcomes
OPP: homework is good for academic outcomes
In a way, these two arguments “wash out” → they neutralize each other, somewhat! This means the margin of change in terms of “academic outcomes” is quite small…
But you know what has a larger marginal change? The GOV argument about giving students more time!
Case Study #1
TH regrets modern medicine's prioritization of longevity over quality of life (e.g. extending lifespan vs. palliative care)
GOV 1: The average patient has a preference for quality of life, even at the expense of longevity (e.g. entering hospice care rather than undergoing chemotherapy)
OPP 1: The average patient has a preference for longevity, even at the expense of quality of life (e.g. enduring a years-long battle with cancer)
!!PROBLEM!!
Do we actually know, with any reasonably high degree of certainty, what the average patient wants?
Solution: Win Somewhere Else!
EX: Winning from OPP
“Judge, neither team can know with a high degree of certainty which of these two options—longevity or QoL—the average patient will prefer. But on OPP, we’ll prove that when medical institutions focus on extending people’s lives, rather than just improving their lives, we develop a better understanding of how to combat the underlying disease, which means that in the future, we can stop people from getting terminally ill in the very first place. So it doesn’t matter whether more patients prefer quality-of-life treatments to longevity treatments or vice versa, since in the long term, we win on our argument about medical research—which is a far less uncertain and far less marginal argument
Case Study #2
In a post-pandemic world, THBT remote work should remain the norm
GOV 1: This increases economic efficiency because people are more productive working from home
GOV 2: This empowers and enables women to enter/join the workforce
OPP 1: This harms economic growth because people are less efficient working from home
OPP 2: This is bad for the economy because WFH decreases the need to live in cities, which results in harmful de-urbanization
!!PROBLEM!!
Both teams make plausibly correct/impactful economic arguments. Given this, how can we evaluate the round most cleanly?
Solution: Win Somewhere Else!
EX: Winning from GOV
“Both teams have reasonably good argumentation on whether a norm of WFH will be good or bad for the economy. But even if you think OPP wins the clash over economic growth, it’s marginal (that is, insignificant and heavily watered-down) because we also have strong offense on this clash. Given that neither side can claim that their economic benefits are an uncontested slam dunk, we win on our argument about empowering women, because that’s where the scale of impact is the greatest and least-marginal
Real Example #1
THP a world where all writing is pseudonymous (i.e. authors do not reveal their identities)
GOV: Better for social movements, more diversity of ideas, protect people’s freedom of speech, limit cancel culture, etc.
(~17 total benefits listed by GOV)
OPP: lots of pragmatic arguments, but also a principled argument about people’s right to own and embrace their identity in their writing!
NAUDC ‘21 Open Finals — Opp Whip
“Why does the principle matter? The principle is not just a throwaway, the principle is a really important argument in the debate! And the underlying reason is that if you believe that anything is close in the debate — if you believe, for example, that the margin on social change is very close, which it is, or that monetization is not perfectly mechanized — then the principle is obviously a deadlock breaker!”
Max “God” Rosen
Real Example #2
TH objects to the giving of international military aid
GOV: bunch of pragmatic arguments about worsening conflict, funding harmful regimes (e.g. Assad in Syria), etc.
OPP: military aid to vulnerable, rebel groups like the Kurds is good!
WSDC ‘21 Open Quarters — OPP
Two types of countries receiving military aid: (1) bad or autocratic actors, e.g. Assad in Syria getting chemical weapons from Russia, and (2) vulnerable actors, e.g. Kurdish militias fighting for independence/survival getting weapons through military
OPP strategy: wash out (1) and win on (2)—how?
“If Assad wants chemical weapons, he’s got the money and power to get them anyways, like forcing his own scientists to make them! But poor, underfunded, vulnerable rebel groups can’t get these weapons otherwise, and are uniquely dependent on aid”
Conclusion
“Washing” is a strategy you can use to delete losing or difficult-to-win clashes from the round
It’s not a substitute for actual weighing—you still have to weigh out some other clash or other argument—but by “washing” a clash out, you can narrow the debate to a set of arguments you’re more likely to win
Strategies for Washing Clashes
1—Portray clashes as being marginal, i.e. the scale/size of change isn’t large enough for the other team to win
2—Portray clashes as uncertain, i.e. that clash isn’t likely (weighing on probability) to be a slam dunk for either side/team
EX: even if OPP wins X, their benefit is marginal, so comparatively, our benefit of Y is much more significant!
EX: even if OPP wins X, their benefit is very uncertain, so comparatively, our benefit of Y is more important!
Strategy #2: The Power of the Comparative
¿bruh, wut is a comparative?
Comparative?
In every debate, each team stands for something — in other words, you’re never debating some proposal or idea in isolation, you’re comparing the GOV world to the OPP world
What each team defends is their “comparative” — there’s a GOV world, there’s an OPP world, and debate requires us to compare these two worlds, analyze what’s different, and have a whole lot of fuss over which world is better!
Three Things with Comparatives
1—Arguing on the comparative
2—Making arguments about the comparative
3—Tackling sided motions using tricky comparatives
making cool clever comparative claims
Central Goal: Make Your Arguments Robustly Comparative
THW ban out-of-court settlements for workplace discrimination and harassment
GOV: “Out-of-court settlements are bad because victims stay silent and can’t speak out against abusive bosses or corporate policies. This causes harm to people in the future when they’re subject to the same sort of treatment”
THW ban out-of-court settlements for workplace discrimination and harassment
GOV: “Out-of-court settlements are bad because victims stay silent and can’t speak out against abusive bosses or corporate policies. This causes harm to people in the future when they’re subject to the same sort of treatment”
We need some comparative analysis here!
Lacking, the comparative analysis is.
THW ban out-of-court settlements for workplace discrimination and harassment
GOV: “Out-of-court settlements are bad because victims stay silent and can’t speak out against abusive bosses or corporate policies. This causes harm to people in the future when they’re subject to the same sort of treatment. Under our side, however, victims are able and likely to speak up since they feel a duty to protect other people, and even if they don’t, they can be a part of class-action lawsuits or share their stories through mechanisms like social media. The proliferation of this information will help protect people from future harm!”
Some nice comparative analysis!
cool debate thing™©:
argumentatively analyzing the comparative can often be a very clever strategy!
Case Study #1
TH regrets the glorification of hard work
OPP—ask yourself, “what is the comparative?” In this circumstance, that means: what narrative would have otherwise arisen/emerged if we hadn’t glorified hard work? What else would we have glorified instead?
Case Study #2
THW legalize all drugs
GOV—ask yourself, “what is the alternative, i.e. the status quo, in this debate?” Is it really true that criminalizing drugs just eliminates them from society? Or is it more likely that the actual comparison is between legally regulated drugs and illegal black market drugs?
Case Study #3
Assuming the technology exists, TH supports non-sentient artificial intelligence that limited deceased loved ones in appearance, personality and mannerisms
GOV—ask yourself, for the bereaved, how else might they go about trying to cope with their loss? What are the alternatives they might turn to? Aren’t people likely to turn to bad, harmful alternatives in moments of severe grief?
Case Study #4
THW not offer government incentives (e.g. subsidies, tax breaks) to private firms to relocate
GOV—if you’re a city and you’re trying to attract private firms to relocate to your city, how else might you go about doing that? Maybe you have to focus on building infrastructure, improving services, educating the local workforce, etc., instead of just offering subsidies/tax breaks?
**interestingly, this is often a particularly good strategy for “sided” (i.e. unbalanced) motions
Example #1
TH supports privately-run prisons
What is the comparative (i.e. alternative) to privately-run prisons?
alternative: ~public~ prisons
insert Darth Vader’s theme song here
Example #2
TH supports a mainstream men’s rights movement
What is the comparative (i.e. counterfactual, alternative) to a mainstream men’s rights movement?
alternative: ~fringe~ and ~radical~ movement
insert Jaws theme song here
Conclusion?
Make your analysis COMPARATIVE to the other side, and you can often win debates by thinking cleverly about the COUNTERFACTUAL
Strategy #3: Be the Insurance You Want to See in the World
How much tax does a really good debater have to pay to the IRS?
$0, because they’re so charitable!
haha plz IRS can u let me file my “even if” responses as deductions against my taxable income pwease
GOOD DEBATERS ARE CHARITABLE!
Three Implications
Implication #1
Adhere to the principle of charity when making and refuting arguments!
In other words: make your arguments and refutations increasingly charitable to the other side as you go
Response 1: “this is nonsense”
Response 2: “even if it’s not
nonsense, it’s still wrong”
Response 3: “even if it’s not
wrong, it’s still not winning”
Implication #2
Develop multiple paths to victory, at least one of which takes the other side at its best!
EX: THO the use of torture in the fight against terrorism
1—In principle, torture is always wrong/immoral [one P2V]
2—Torture is ineffective and doesn’t yield any positive outcomes [another P2V]
3—Torture actively emboldens terrorist recruitment and misdirects resources in the combat against terrorism [another P2V]
Implication #3
Be conscious of potentially better ways opposing claims could be made or interpreted
“A higher minimum wage will increase the amount of money, thus inflation”
VS
“A higher minimum wage will increase demand, thus spurring demand-pull inflation, while raising production costs, thus triggering simultaneous cost-push inflation, creating an inflationary spiral
Part 3: Slick and Silky Style
If you clean a vacuum cleaner, do you become a vacuum cleaner?
Why are #2 pencils the best if they’re #2?
If you decide to be indecisive, what are you?
Why do we call them buildings if they’ve already been built?
Is there a synonym for synonym?
If you son becomes a priest, do you call him Father?
How far can you travel east before you are traveling west?
The Great Questions of the Universe
How do you win a debate?
Good arguments
Compelling style
Clever impacts
Strong warrants
Clear weighing
Robust mechanization
Actor analysis
Deep brainstorming
Referencing examples
Persuasive conclusions
Effective flowing
Insightful POIs
Powerful rhetoric
Partner communication
Illustrating arguments
Succinct characterization
Incentive juxtaposition
Clarifying POCs
Brilliant strategy
Content prioritization
Good time management
Multiple responses
Argument clarity
Preemptive framing
Favorable definitions
Precise vocabulary
Effective cross-ex
Strong instincts
Reading the judge
Being amicable
Perceptual dominance
Being calm
Being cool
Being collected
Being competent
Projecting self-confidence
Mitigating opponents
Flipping impacts
Integrating responses
Covering the flow
Including spec knowledge
Avoid filler words
Vary tone, pitch
Establishing a path to victory
Listening to feedback
Identifying dropped points
Broad matter generation
Familiarity with format
Reading judge paradigms
Keeping up with the news
Demonstrating significance
Following time limits
Appearing in-control
Using prep efficiently
Bringing a live lion into the room and threatening to set the lion free if the judge doesn’t give you the win
Opening with an introductory statement that clearly favors your side and saying George Washington said it
Defining “This House” as yourself and then saying you agree with the resolution
Pretend you prepped the wrong side of the motion but insist on immediately giving the PMC, which you then knock out of the park
Gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss
Spend all of prep writing out the first joke you’ll use in your speech, then ad-libbing the rest as you go along
Grasping your pens so hard they shatter and splatter ink everywhere, forcing everyone in the room to clean up and making tab give a bye
Bribe the judge with an infinite, life supply of peanut butter
Give your speech in a thick Russian accent and say “приветствую Родину” (hail to the motherland) at least once every two minutes
Give your entire speech while doing cartwheels, and when asked why, simply respond “oh, you can’t do that too?”
Spend all of your speaking time focused solely on convincing the judge that you are the reincarnation of the person who first invented Parliamentary Debate and you are the unquestionable authority on this event, so any effort to deny you the win or give you anything below a speaker score of 30 will be met with eternal wrath and fury in the afterlife (which you also control)
How do you win other things?
Tetris
Don’t let the blocks get to the top!
Chess
Get the other side’s king into checkmate position
Checkers
Idk dude I never understood this game
In most other activities, there are clearly defined standards and metrics for what constitutes a win
But what about in debate?
And then, from the sandy beaches nearby, JULIA the GLORIOUS ARTIST, inquired: “GOOD LORD OF DEBATE, shall there be a winner in these skirmishes of logic?”
And to this, the Good Lord responded, “brothers and sisters, in this land, one team, either the Government or the Opposition, shall be crowned champion.”
Following upon this, EIRA the PODCASTER continued, “GOOD LORD OF DEBATE, how shall the winner be determined?”
But alas, the Good Lord had a plane to Hawaii to catch, and was thus unable to answer the question, and so the KINGDOM of PARLILAND was left unknowing of that strategy or debating approach which would reap them the eternal glory of victory in battle. And so the Villagers of Parliland, for many days and many nights, voyaged far and wide in search of the optimal debating strategy to win debates.
… and then, on the Seventh Day, the GOOD LORD of PARLI descended above from the Heavens, and she spoke to the good people of PARLILAND. And the Good Lord said, “O to my faithful and loyal servants! I hereby proclaim this to be my KINGDOM, one of logic and reason.”
And then, from the grassy green fields below, JARED the HONORABLE THEATERSMAN called out “GOOD LORD OF DEBATE, by what rules shall your great almighty Kingdom be governed?”
And to this, the Good Lord responded, “brothers and sisters, this land shall be the land of PARLI. And in this land, speeches shall follow the 7-8-8-8-4-5 speaking pattern, with all remarks not to exceed 30 seconds grace. And my faithful servants shall use neither the Box of Google nor the Word of Any Other Parli-er when preparing, which shall occur for a length of time not to exceed 15 minutes.
473
474
Takeaway #1: Debate has no rules*
Takeaway #2: Debate is, in a sense, a game
* = Well yes obviously duhhh there are rules, the point is, those rules do little to define what constitutes a winning “move”
So, what does that actually mean?
PERSUASION is the name of the game
Four Persuasive Debate Commandments
Patent pending
Commandment #1: Love Thy Big Picture
Typical Judge? More Generally, Typical Person?
Commandment #2: Thy Ought Strive to be Memorable
Memorable?
Judges are human beings, not flawless robots
**Only do this if you are actually funny…
The second greatest trick the devil ever pulled? Convincing veteran debaters they didn’t need to make their speeches interesting!
Six More Ideas on That. . .
1—Have productive introductions! Judges have short attention spans, so the first 15-30 seconds of your speech is vitally important for establishing how and why you win the debate! (e.g. “OPP’s failure to respond to X argument loses them this debate…”)
2—Even if you don’t use your intro productively, do something more interesting than stating your name! Start with rhetoric, for instance! HOWEVER, use rhetoric to supplement your analysis, not as a replacement (i.e. don’t use rhetoric for rhetoric’s sake). Rhetoric is especially useful at the beginning and end of a speech!
3—Establish some partner unity: reference your partner’s name! Hype them up! Boost their credibility! (e.g. “Ryan already gave you excellent material here; he told you…”)
4—Avoid non-emotional buzzwords when impacting out arguments (e.g. “. Instead, use more emotional language when impacting (e.g. “increase economic growth😭” “help families put food on the table😍”)
5—Finish arguments/refutations with powerful, rhetorical conclusions (e.g. “that’s why GOV gets none of their benefits,” “at the end of this point, it should be clear that there is no possible principled justification for this policy, rendering their proposal fundamentally immoral”
6—Strive to be efficient with your words. When you can use precise language, use precise language. When you can summarize/analyze without wasting lots of breath, don’t waste breath. And drill this, too!
Commandment #3: Adapt In-Round (to thy Judge)
~Princeton!~
Two Caveats
1—We are ALL bad at reading other human beings; if we weren’t, then like, rom coms just like wouldn’t exist (idk, i don’t watch tv 😭😭😭)
So, be cautious when making decisions based on how judges react!
**Note: this is also uniquely hard in the digital era, especially when all you have is a black square on Zoom
2—With multi-judge panels, this is basically useless—don’t obsess over this! It’s basically a waste of your time!
Commandment #4: Public Speaking Ain’t for Losers
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
😍
In Person?
Is It Really Different?
No bruh
…
…
…
Yes bruh
Difference #1
Speaking in front of someone IN REAL LIFE is different than speaking in front of someone OVER ZOOM
Difference #2
Interacting with judges IN REAL LIFE is different than interacting with judges OVER ZOOM
Ok, enough lecture
How about Kahoot??