Introduction

Competitive and classroom debates have long been recognized as an effective educational tool in various domains of life (Freeley & Steinberg 2013). The development of some of the skills and attitudes is empirically demonstrated, e.g., argumentation skills (Jodoi 2025; Majidi et al. 2021), critical thinking (Harefa 2024), and communication skills (Howe and Cionea 2021; Jodoi 2023), as well as a simulated public forum in which civic and professional decision-making are practiced. Although these benefits are well-documented, the practice of debate faces various challenges, and its popularity remains limited, especially in Japan. Specifically, debate has not been adequately addressed for introverted individuals, as it inherently involves elements of public presentation before a large audience, which can be daunting for those who are hesitant to participate. Therefore, it is essential to develop environments where such individuals can engage in debate comfortably if they wish to do so. One approach to achieve this is through reasonable accommodation (see Nagase 2022).

In Japan, the implementation of reasonable accommodation in the educational field is expanding, with national and private schools legally obligated to provide such accommodations upon student request from April 2024 (Cabinet Office Japan 2024). This mandate is in alignment with the “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” Adopted by the United Nations in December 2006 and signed by the Japanese government in September 2007, this prompted the Japanese government to require educational institutions to accommodate students with special needs (Iwakuma et al. 2023). Data about the outcomes of accommodations is trickling on. One case study within the educational field in Japan reported positive outcomes from the use of remote real-time captioning for students with hearing impairments (Shimonakamura and Furuta 2024). However, while these efforts frequently target visible disabilities such as hearing and mobility impairments, invisible disabilities. Moriña (2024) underscored that invisible disabilities have been overlooked. Invisible disabilities pose more significant challenges than visible ones because they are often not recognized by those around the individual, including the individual themselves (Connor 2012). Consequently, affected individuals may lose valuable learning opportunities in educational settings. The present study aims to address invisible disabilities defined by Moriña (2024) within the context of education, with a particular focus on debate education in Japan.

Competitive debate has not adequately addressed inclusiveness (Poapst and Harper 2017). Although efforts have been made to render debate more inclusive, they have often been unsuccessful due to the concerns that such measures might compromise fairness, a crucial element in competitive debate (Mayes and Zirkel 2018). For instance, allowing deaf participants to use text-to-speech software instead of speaking, and providing them with additional preparation time, might be seen to give them an “unfair” advantage over other participants because the additional preparation time for typing texts may also be used to find and organize arguments. Indeed, a tournament designed to prioritize inclusiveness was planned but ultimately canceled due to the insufficient participant numbers (Cronk 2022).

It has been claimed that debate and other forms of argumentation are considered less culturally compatible in Japan and other (East) Asian cultures (Becker 1986; Nisbett 2003). Some of such claims are more philosophical, based on the authors’ own experiences, and there are studies that may or may not be compatible with such cultural correspondence, as reviewed by Suzuki (2020). At the personal level, Baker et al. (2021) reported that introverted individuals feel more comfortable discussing sensitive topics when using avatars in communication, suggesting that such technologies could be a key remedy to encourage argumentation among those who may be afraid of participating in open discussion. In the context of debate, how technologies can assist debate participants is outlined by Inoue (2023), considering various challenges in debate participation and the need for fairness in competition.

Against these backdrops, the present study aimed to provide debate opportunities for individuals who experience anxiety when speaking before an audience. Anxiety is one of the psychological challenges commonly observed in classrooms, particularly during active learning activities (Baepler 2021). Debate is one such activity that can induce anxiety. Generally, computer-mediated communication enhances social presence (Jin 2010), and the use of avatars has been identified as a potential method for reducing anxiety in conversational settings (Yoneyama et al. 2023). In this study, we incorporated avatar and voice-changing technology into debate formats to explore both the potential benefits and the challenges of implementing these tools in debate competitions and classroom settings. These technologies, which conceal personal identifiers such as face and voice, could make it easier for those who feel stressed during presentations to engage in debate. Furthermore, they could facilitate the expression of opinions in high context cultures, such as Japan, where people often avoid open discussions (Masuda and Nisbett 2001; Prunty et al. 1990).

Research questions

In this article, we set up the following research questions (RQs) and report the results of a preliminary experiment of using avatars and voice-changing technology in a typical competitive debate format. The questions are:

RQ1: Is it possible to implement debate with avatar and voice-changing technology?

RQ2: Does debate with avatar and voice-changing technology facilitate open argumentation?

RQ3: Are there any advantages and disadvantages when debating with avatar and voice-changing technology?

Methods

Design and application

Our experiment is a feasibility study of using popularly available computer tools to conduct one debate round, masking speakers’ personal features without radically changing the rules of an existing debate format. As we reviewed in the Introduction, empirical research aimed at integrating debate and reasonable accommodation has been limited. This study, therefore, is exploratory in nature, making a record of technical setups and insights from the debate participants.

The format of debate is based on an extemporaneous style of competitive debate called “parliamentary debate,” which is “one of the fastest growing debate formats in the world” (Eckstein and Bartanen 2015, p. 463). The particular format used in this experiment was based on the PDA (Parliamentary Debate Personnel Development Association) format (Nakagawa 2019), designed for Japan’s high school students, which is a shortened format of the so-called “North American” style of parliamentary debateFootnote 1. The specific format has the following speeches:

Prime Minister: 3 min.

Leader of the Opposition: 3 min.

Member of the Government: 3 min.

Member of the Opposition: 3 min.

Opposition Reply: 2 min.

Government Reply: 2 min.

In parliamentary debate, during the four constructive speeches (first four speeches), the opposing team’s members may ask a question or give a short response, called a POI (Point of Information). These may or may not be allowed by the speaker holding the floor. The motion for the debate is given to the teams 15–20 min before the round starts in a typical tournament. During that preparation time, speakers may prepare some notes but are not allowed to use the Internet to search for information, and impossible to write up a complete manuscript because of the time constraints.

Settings of the venue

To accurately replicate the situation in which the two teams are connected from separate locations, the debate utilized in this study was conducted using two adjoining rooms (Fig. 1). The debates were recorded via Zoom and also recorded on the video camera in each room, operated by one of the authors seated in each room.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The room setting in this research.

Full size image

Technologies

One notebook computer was set up in each room, prepared by the authors. One Zoom account was used for each computer, and the two debaters of each room shared the computer. The two speakers were seated in front of the computer and took turns to speak into the built-in microphone. The other team’s voices, via the voice-changer, were heard from the built-in speakers. They turned on the camera but used Zoom’s avatars, dogs, and rabbits (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

A screenshot of a debate with an avatar.

Full size image

Voxal, a voice-changing software developed by NCH Software, was chosen after trying several voice-changing tools based on the naturalness of the changed voice, the ease of installation and use, and cost.

Participants

For this experiment, an open call for participation was made to students engaging in debates in the ESS (English Speaking Society, an extra-curricular student club). Four students applied and were selected. They were between 21 and 27 years old (M = 23.5 and SD = 2.17), and all had experience in parliamentary debate. All of them are active members of the ESS, in which they practice “parliamentary” debating. One of them had experienced another style of debating in high school. In addition to debating in English, all of them had varying degrees of experience in debating in Japanese. They were divided into two debate teams: Group A and Group B, with each group comprising two students. The participants received an explanation about the purpose of the experiment and an overview of the procedure in advance. They were paid in accordance with the university rules, at a rate equivalent to that of regular teaching assistants or similar duties.

Procedure

The motion for the experiment was “Japan should abolish the death penalty.” It is a popular debate topic, and the participants had previously debated the same or similar motions in practice and tournament rounds. Group A was assigned to the affirmative (government) side, while Group B argued the negative (opposition) side of the proposition.

On the day of the debate, the participants received instructions from the authors about the experiment and tested the Zoom connection with the voice-changer activated. Then the debate motion was announced to the debaters, as is customary in “parliamentary” debate. Then, Groups A and B moved to separate rooms and were given 20 min to prepare for the debate. They were allowed to take notes but not allowed to conduct research via the Internet, nor to write up a complete manuscript.

The debaters directly communicated within the respective teams. They communicated with the opposite team members only through Zoom and Voxal. The debate was moderated by one of the authors in the room. There was no judge in the room, but the debaters were told that the recorded debates would be viewed by the authors and some experienced judges.

In the first round of debate, the teams debated in English. After about a 30 min break, the teams debated in Japanese, an equivalent death penalty topic.

Following the two debates and about another 30-min break, the four debaters were individually interviewed by two of the authors; one debater was interviewed by one of the authors in one room, followed by another interview. In a separate room, the other two debaters were interviewed in the same way.

Interviews

To explore the unknown aspects of participants’ feelings toward debate with avatar and voice-changing technology, an interview-based survey was selected (see Barkhuizen et al. 2013) on the utility of this approach. We conducted semi-structured interviews to collect participants’ impressions of the experimental debate, compared it with face-to-face debates, and solicited suggestions for improvement. The interview was conducted in JapaneseFootnote 2. All interviews were transcribed and coded using the techniques suggested by Corbin and Strauss (2008). The initial questions were designed to capture data on:

  1. (1)

    Overall thoughts on debates

  2. (2)

    Was there a difference between Japanese and English debates?

  3. (3)

    Benefits felt through the debate

  4. (4)

    Necessary improvements felt through the debate

  5. (5)

    Impressions of using avatars

  6. (6)

    Impressions of using a voice-changer

Judging

The debates were not judged on the spot. The three authors were present at the experiment and observed the debates. The debaters knew that the rounds were experimental, and the decision would not be given. The recorded debates were judged by two experienced debate judges, who wrote a written ballot and additional notes about the speakers’ features and other noticeable aspects of the debate. This effectively simulates a real-time debate in which debaters’ features are masked with avatars and the voice-changer, since the judges will most likely watch the debate online in this kind of debate with avatars and a voice-changerFootnote 3. What was missing was real-time feedback from the judge and the debaters’ reaction to such feedback but in a typical competitive debate round.

Results and discussion

This section reports the results of the study based on the various data collected for the study, including the authors’ notes during the preparation for and monitoring of the debates, the transcripts of the interviews, and the written feedback from the two judges who watched the recorded debates. The authors observed all stages of the debate process, including the preparation, the speeches during the debate, and the post-debate activities.

RQ1. Technological feasibility

There were some technical troubles before the debate started. Although the authors tested the technologies and the PCs beforehand, we had a number of minor troubles in the experiment, both during the setup and during the debate. One of them was a sudden termination of the voice-changer app, possibly influenced by the low specs of one PC. We managed to restart the app and were able to proceed with the debate. Another was about sound setting, i.e., the PC (Zoom) must be muted while the other team was speaking to avoid howling sounds. If only one PC were audio-enabled, there would be no echoing in principle. We used the PC’s built-in microphone and speaker, which might have caused the trouble. The four debaters did not seem to be seriously disturbed by those troubles because they did not raise such concerns except for one, who observed that “setting up for the debates looked challenging”.

Once the debate started, it proceeded smoothly without any critical interruptions, except for one instance when the voice-changer crashed. None of the debaters expressed a concern about this interruption. From the speaker’s viewpoint, the debates were about the same as those online debates they had already experienced a number of times using Zoom and other online platforms such as Mixidea (https://mixidea.org/). They spoke into the microphone, looking at the computer screen. Their own and their debate partner’s voices were heard without any mechanical changes.

When they listened to and watched the other team on the screen, their reactions were mixed. In terms of the avatars, they did not feel uncomfortable in facing the animal characters on Zoom. Two of them noted that facial expressions and hand movements should accurately follow those of the real speaker. Changing the pitch of the voice across the board may have yielded a problem. One student noted that his original voice was low-pitched, and so he worried that lowering the pitch further might have made his voice too low-pitched to make it difficult to hear.

Did the avatar and voice-changer effectively mask the speaker identities? In our experiment, the participants knew each other, and so we asked them whether they recognized them from the voice. They said that the voices were different enough to mask the identity but they noticed other ways of speaking to identify the speaker, such as the choice of arguments and rhetorical organization. Those features cannot be changed by using avatars and voice-changers.

The two judges who watched the debate in English on video did not find any difficulties and wrote their ballots. While one of them did not feel any discomfort in judging a debate with avatars and changed voices, the other noted a mismatch between the animal avatars and apparent Japanese English, as well as a problem in synchronizing the avatar movements and voice in the Opposition team. The judges also identified some of the features, such as male-female distinction and argumentation typical of Japanese debaters, both in content and delivery. One of them also noted that watching the debaters’ facial expressions would be helpful in giving feedback, which did not happen in this experiment.

Overall, in terms of the technical feasibility and logistics, the current popularly available technologies of voice-changers and video avatars can serve as reasonable communication tools in a debate round. Changing voice identity and using avatars do not seriously interfere with the debate. This is probably because of our recent frequent experiences in online debating, especially after the COVID campus lockdowns (Inoue 2023). These environmental factors also contributed to demonstrating the high feasibility of conducting debates using avatars and voice-changing technologies.

RQ2. Facilitation of open and rational argumentation

Regarding RQ2, all participants mentioned they did not feel any differences in the ease of engaging in debating between face-to-face and technology-mediated debate. Because of the nature of competitive debating, all of them said that they paid their attention almost exclusively to the contents of the arguments, not the way the arguments were delivered.

One interesting finding related to open and rational argumentation was that participants were aware of the issue of the “institutional bias,” i.e., well-reputed schools’ speakers were highly rated in tournaments. They suggested that by reducing this bias through the use of technology, participants might feel more comfortable and confident in presenting their arguments. Although some tournaments conceal the institutional affiliation of the teams, it often does not work, especially in domestic tournaments, as judges recognize debaters’ institutions when seeing their faces in the debate room. The participants noted that the avatars and voice-changers would further mask the speaker's identity. One of the students, however, said that he did not recognize the speakers’ institution in a face-to-face round unless they were very familiar with them, since he was not regularly participating in international tournaments and did not identify many of the speakers, even though he found them to be persuasive speakers.

Although the students said that they concentrated on the contents in debate, some of them also said that delivery is also important, and effective use of voice, gestures, and facial expressions may be part of the persuasive skills. These nonverbal elements can influence how persuasive messages are received, particularly in formats where such cues are conventionally considered essential to effective communication. As this touches on a fundamental question in communication studies, a deeper investigation may benefit from the involvement of researchers across diverse fields. One of them also questioned the need for being anonymous in debate, saying that the voice and face should not be changed if the purpose of debate is to practice speaking in public.

In educational or classroom settings, one student suggested that the teacher’s bias in grading may be mitigated, while another noted that knowing the speaker’s information may help judges or teachers to give feedback tailored to the needs and challenges of the speaker.

In this way, the avatars and the voice-changer in the current study helped the debaters focus on the contents without being influenced by speaker identities, such as appearance and prior reputation. This may lead to “fairer” judgments by adjudicators, as winners are determined solely based on the content of the debate. Such fairness could be especially beneficial in maintaining motivation among debaters from less privileged institutions. But the participants recognized similar effects in conventional online debating. Furthermore, the participants identified potential and challenges associated with this avatar-mediated debate. These are the answers for RQ3.

The two judges wrote detailed reasons for their decision based on the arguments and counterarguments. They were informed of the concepts of this study in advance. Their feedback comments were concerned about the strengths and weaknesses in arguments, the organization of the speeches, and the overall strategies of justifying the advocate’s overall position. The two judges disagreed in their decision, but the effects of avatars and voice-changers were unknown.

RQ3. Advantages and disadvantages of debating

The first thing to consider is the distinction between this format and traditional online debates without avatar and voice-changing technology. One participant remarked, “I did not find any difference with online debate using Zoom. If I turn off the video, I can hide my face, which, I think, is the same as using an avatar. As for voice changing, I did not understand why it is important.” Another participant mentioned,

In online debates, I often do not watch the PC screen because I need to take notes and think about my speech. Therefore, the existence of avatars did not have any effect on my feelings about the debate. I think it is the same for judges because they also need to take notes about what debaters said in the round.

So, the technologies were effective but not uniquely effective over traditional online debates, which probably led one of the participants to say that the avatar-voice-changer debate was not worth the costs.

Secondly, the positive aspect they pointed out was eliminating biases based on speakers’ identities when evaluating them. Although debate is primarily judged by the content that debaters present in the round, it is inevitable that speakers’ identity affects the evaluation. A typical example is giving more credibility to a speech just because the speaker has authority. A participant in this study said, “Using avatars may decrease the judge’s biases based on the authority of the speakers. I sometimes observe debates where debaters with authority are highly evaluated despite the quality of their speech not being so good.”

On the other hand, another participant indicated that eliminating identities might diminish the attractiveness of debates, stating,

If we focus only on the fairness of evaluation, then, of course, anonymity might be better, such as voice changing technology or blocking visual information. Well, I mean, debate is not only about logic, is it? Facial expression is also important, as well as the quality of your voice and the way you deliver your message, so I think it’s all about persuasiveness in debate.

In terms of the fear of public appearance, one of the students noted that the technology may help, but also added that overcoming such a fear is one of the reasons students practice debating. Another also told of his high school experience in which he gradually became accustomed to public speaking by participating in debates.

One of the judges noted that although he didn’t feel uncomfortable judging the debate, it might be somewhat difficult to provide feedback or coaching to each debater. In a subsequent interview, he said, “If I can give debaters feedback face-to-face, I can adjust the content based on their reactions. For instance, if they seem not to understand the feedback, I can rephrase my words or start from more basic points.” He also commented on the limitations of using a voice-changer: “The effects of voice were more noticeable than I had expected. I could still distinguish between male and female speakers, and if a debater tends to mumble, that remains unchanged”.

Summary of the findings

The initial findings from the experiment suggest that it is possible to conduct debates using avatars and voice-changing technologies. Although previous research has reported positive effects on communication through the use of avatars (Park et al. 2023), their application in debates has been limited. The observation in this study is beneficial, as there has been scant empirical research on utilizing avatars and voice-changing technologies for reasonable accommodation, which could potentially broaden the accessibility of debate in public.

Another finding is related to the potential for avatars and voice-changing technologies to facilitate fairer debate judging. Participants remarked that current debate judging can be biased by the perceived authority of debaters, often disadvantaging beginners who may lose even if they deliver quality speeches. This issue is exacerbated when inexperienced individuals judge debates, a common scenario in Asia due to a shortage of qualified judges (Jodoi et al. 2023; Park 2019). This biased judging can demotivate beginners who feel their efforts are unrewarded. Utilizing avatars and voice-changing technologies could mitigate this problem by anonymizing debaters, thereby focusing judgments on the content of speeches rather than the speaker’s authority. At the same time, avatars and voice-changers cannot fully conceal some of the features of debate speeches, e.g., choice of words and argumentation strategies, which may partially enable judges to infer the identities of the debaters.

Conversely, a participant also emphasized the importance and attractiveness of face-to-face debate, highlighting debate’s role not merely as an exercise for logical thinking but as a practice in communication where facial expressions and vocal tones are crucial. The primary skills thought to be acquired through the practice of debate, which include speaking and communication (Inoue and Nakano 2006; Williams et al. 2001), could be compromised by the use of technology, as avatar-mediated communication fundamentally differs from face-to-face interactions (Park et al. 2023).

Furthermore, past research has indicated that debate judging often favors majority opinions in the judging panel if they discuss the debate before they reach the final decision, which is common in parliamentary debateFootnote 4. Schwartz-DuPre (2006) discussed gender biases in judging, noting that speeches by male debaters were typically rated higher than those by female debaters. This bias may contribute to the low retention rates of female debaters in the US (Poapst and Harper, 2017) and Japan (Morooka 2020). By anonymizing debaters’ genders through avatars and voice-changing technologies, debate could become more inclusive and fairer, potentially increasing female debaters’ willingness to participate.

Conclusions and limitations

This study explored the potential of avatar and voice-changing technology to facilitate debates with reasonable accommodation. We utilized pre-installed avatars in Zoom and widely available Voxal, demonstrating that debate using these technologies is feasible in many contexts. The study identified both advantages and disadvantages of employing these technologies. The primary advantage is that they enable fairer judging by mitigating gender bias and other discriminative factors historically present in debate communities. Conversely, the disadvantage is that such technologies may diminish the communication skills and inherent enjoyment derived from in-person debating, which warrants further empirical investigation. Also, the current technologies, albeit much developed in recent years, require some additional setups and risks of technological failures before or in the middle of a debate round. Further research is necessary to explore the balance of these factors in creating more inclusive debate environments.

Like many studies, this study also has limitations. Firstly, the participants knew one another, and their backgrounds were similar. Although we were able to obtain in-depth insights, more diverse participants are desired in future research. For instance, recruiting participants who actually experience anxiety or debate beginners could provide deeper insights into the potential of creating more inclusive debate environments, as they represent the intended target of this format. Also, it may be worth employing a large number of participants to obtain enough data for quantitative methods. Such improvements would provide a broader understanding of the benefits and challenges associated with inclusive debate, thereby strengthening the argument for its necessity and importance.

Secondly, this study did not include a control group, which limits the strength of its conclusions. Future research could address this by including a control group—such as a traditional face-to-face debate without technological interventions—to provide more persuasive evidence regarding the effectiveness of using technology for inclusive debate. Furthermore, including a control group with a video-off condition could help further explore the impact of avatar use, as one participant mentioned they did not perceive any difference between debating with an avatar and debating with the video turned off. Given this preliminary observation, future research should explicitly and rigorously compare avatar-based debates with alternative debate conditions—including video-off, standard video-on, and traditional face-to-face debates—to systematically evaluate the specific advantages, if any, of avatar and voice-changing technologies over simpler and more accessible alternatives. Such comparative analyses will be essential for providing robust evidence regarding whether these advanced technological interventions significantly enhance inclusivity or reduce anxiety compared to less resource-intensive debate formats.

Thirdly, the application of these technologies in actual debate competitions needs further examination. This study confirmed the feasibility of using avatars and voice-changing technologies mutually, but challenges may arise when competitors are unevenly equipped with these technologies. Addressing these discrepancies to ensure fairness in judging is crucial in future research. This problem is more concerned with whether the technologies should be used even if they are available, and who should be allowed to use the technologies.

Finally, the future study should consider inclusive methods beyond avatars and voice changing, particularly for individuals with disabilities such as hearing or visual impairments who are also excluded from traditional debate formats. Expanding debate accessibility requires understanding the specific barriers these individuals face and exploring technological solutions to overcome them.

Despite these limitations, this study is meaningful in that it reports on the use of avatars and voice-changing technology in debate—a subject rarely documented previously. In an era where reasonable accommodation is increasingly demanded, debate formats must adapt accordingly. This research marks an important step toward achieving truly inclusive debates.