Develop sharper advocates.
Real-time argument practice, without the partner time sink.

Soapbox builds the persuasion, judgment, and on-your-feet thinking your firm needs — through live, human reasoning, long considered one of the most effective ways to develop skill. Practice that once took a partner's time is now scalable through our AI-supported platform for assigning, running, and assessing live sessions.

Get in touchTry the demo
Why Soapbox?

Live argument practice is more powerful than you think.

Soapbox's 1:1 live argument-practice approach to training is based on decades of research.

Across 225 undergraduate STEM studies, active learning raised exam performance by 0.47 SD (about 6 percentage points) and cut failure rates from 34% to 22%. Debate is active learning because students must apply course knowledge, defend their thoughts, challenge opposing ideas, and respond in real time. — Freeman et al., 2014, PNAS

In a study on two political science classes—one taught through lecture and the other through debate—the latter produced stronger performance on comprehension, application, and critical evaluation. — Omelicheva & Avdeyeva, 2008, PS: Political Science & Politics

Ang et al.'s systematic review found strong support for debate in health-professions education, with low-bias studies consistently reporting gains in both healthcare content learning, in addition to core professional skills such as critical thinking, communication, teamwork, and evidence appraisal. Its effectiveness comes from the preparation debate demands: students have to research the issue, evaluate the evidence, consider competing perspectives, and synthesize their thinking into a persuasive argument. — Ang et al., 2019, GMS Journal for Medical Education

Hausmann et al. found pairs required to jointly explain solutions solved more problems while asking for fewer hints. On Soapbox, pairs of students effectively collaborate to dissect both sides of a resolution, deepening their learning in the process. — Hausmann et al., 2008, Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society

A large review of critical-thinking teaching studies found that students' critical thinking skills improved when it was taught directly: across 341 effects sizes, the average improvement was about 0.30 of a standard deviation; the strongest approaches gave students chances to talk through ideas, debate, work with realistic examples, and get guidance—which supports using structured debate and feedback. — Abrami et al., 2015, Review of Educational Research

In a five-week study, Chen et al. had 42 undergraduate students take part in online group debates and researchers rated the "depth" of students' debate contributions on a scale from -1 to +1, where higher numbers showed deeper critical thinking; the group's score rose from 0.81 in the first debate to 0.90 in the fifth, suggesting that repeated, structured debate can strengthen students' critical-thinking performance. — Chen et al., 2022, Frontiers in Psychology

In a multiyear study, students who participated in a dialogic-argumentation intervention later wrote stronger arguments on entirely new topics than peers who spent the same time on essay writing plus whole-class discussion, and they showed greater awareness of how evidence supports claims. — Kuhn & Crowell, 2011, Psychological Science

NACE defines communication, critical thinking, leadership and teamwork as core career-readiness competencies, and WEF's 2025 survey of 1,000+ employers says 39% of key skills will change by 2030; with analytical thinking on the rise, alongside other soft skills such as resilience, curiosity, leadership, social influence, and flexibility. — NACE Career Readiness; World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs Report 2025

A 51-year review of college-participation research found that classroom discussion often concentrates participation among a small minority of students, a pattern described in the literature as the 'consolidation of responsibility.' With Soapbox, to alleviate this concern, our proprietary debate structure ensures that each student has several opportunities to speak. — Rocca, 2010, Communication Education

An observational study of nine college classes over 95 hours found that men spoke 1.6 times as often as women and were more likely to speak without raising their hands, interrupt others, and hold prolonged floor time. The authors specifically note that professors' interventions, clear and enforced participation rules, and classroom structure can alter these participation hierarchies, so dedicated turns can be presented as a practical inference from the study's findings. — Lee & McCabe, 2021, Gender & Society

A 722-student study found one-to-one interactive oral assessment was associated with improved assessment and course performance, with no significant differences by gender, international status, or language background—suggesting Soapbox's 1:1 speaking format helps drive inclusively and equity in the classroom. — Davey et al., 2025, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

With regards to uneven participation, research points to social friction, not empty minds: shyness, fear of peer judgement, and anticipating that a dominant talker will answer first are major reasons students stay silent. Dedicated turns remove that race to answer first, providing everybody with an opportunity to speak. — Rocca, 2010, Communication Education

In a blind field test across five university psychology modules, 94% of GPT-4 submissions went undetected, and the AI scripts scored about half a grade boundary above real students—showing why static written work no longer verifies who did the thinking. — Scarfe et al., 2024, PLOS One

In a PRISMA-guided systematic review of 17 studies, it was concluded that oral assessment can enhance validity, reliability, and academic integrity when it is well aligned, supported, and implemented. Because oral assessment allows real-time interaction, examiners can probe students' reasoning and better distinguish superficial recall from deep understanding. — Nallaya et al., 2024, Issues in Educational Research

Nallaya et al. found oral assessment's rise is tied not only to misconduct concerns but to authenticity: spoken, two-way response mirrors workplace situations where students must justify decisions and answer follow-ups, not just submit polished prose. — Nallaya et al., 2024, Issues in Educational Research

HOW TRAINING FORMATS COMPARE

What each format actually shows you.

TRAINING FORMATWhat it usually revealsLimitation
Written assignmentFinal polished productAI can over-assist; the reasoning process may be hidden
PresentationPrepared explanationLimited responsiveness; often one-way
Group discussionParticipation and exchangeSome students dominate, others disappear
Live 1-on-1 debateUnderstanding under challengeRequires careful structure and support — which Soapbox provides
+Full reference list
  1. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
  2. Omelicheva, M. Y., & Avdeyeva, O. (2008). Teaching with lecture or debate? Testing the effectiveness of traditional versus active learning methods of instruction. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41(3), 603–607. doi.org/10.1017/S1049096508080815
  3. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents' thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545–552. doi.org/10.1177/0956797611402512
  4. Ang, R. X., Chew, Q. H., Sum, M. Y., Sengupta, S., & Sim, K. (2019). Systematic review of the use of debates in health professions education — does it work? GMS Journal for Medical Education, 36(4). doi.org/10.3205/zma001245
  5. Hausmann, R. G. M., Chi, M. T. H., & Roy, M. (2008). Learning from collaborative problem solving: An analysis of three hypothesized mechanisms. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. arxiv.org/abs/0805.4223
  6. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314. doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063
  7. Chen, X., Wang, L., Zhai, X., & Li, Y. (2022). Exploring the effects of argument map-supported online group debate activities on college students' critical thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 856462. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.856462
  8. National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). Career readiness: Competencies for a career-ready workforce. naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined
  9. World Economic Forum (2025). The Future of Jobs Report 2025. weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025
  10. Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185–213. doi.org/10.1080/03634520903505936
  11. Lee, J. J., & McCabe, J. M. (2021). Who speaks and who listens: Revisiting the chilly climate in college classrooms. Gender & Society, 35(1), 32–60. doi.org/10.1177/0891243220977141
  12. Davey, K., Sallows, G., & Della Vedova, C. B. (2025). Utilising one-on-one interactive oral assessments as the major final assessment within a bioscience course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2502577
  13. Nallaya, S., Gentili, S., Weeks, S., & Baldock, K. (2024). The validity, reliability, academic integrity and integration of oral assessments in higher education: A systematic review. Issues in Educational Research, 34(2), 629–646. iier.org.au/iier34/nallaya.pdf
  14. Scarfe, P., Watcham, K., Clarke, A., & Roesch, E. (2024). A real-world test of artificial intelligence infiltration of a university examinations system: A "Turing Test" case study. PLOS One, 19(6), e0305354. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305354
The argument room

Structured, engaging, and easy-to-use.

Every session uses the same format, so associates always know what to expect and can put their energy into the argument itself. Having to think on their feet makes the exchange genuinely engaging, and knowing they will have to defend a position keeps associates motivated to prepare.

A timed, three-part format

Two-minute openings, a five-minute freeflow exchange, and ninety-second closings. Long enough to engage deeply, short enough to fit between billable work.

A format associates lean into

Arguing against a colleague in real time raises the stakes in a way a passive CLE module never can. Associates stay engaged for the full exchange and leave genuinely invested in the argument.

Everything they need, in the room

Video, mic, timer, running phase timeline, notepad, and a rubric — all leading to a highly engaging and easy-to-use experience.

LITIGATION ASSOCIATES · SPRING COHORT

Illegally obtained evidence should be excluded even when it is highly probative of guilt.

AFF OPENJacob Sykora
NEG OPENJesse Zender
FREEFLOWBoth
AFF CLOSEJacob Sykora
NEG CLOSEJesse Zender
Phase 1/5Affirmative Opening1:54
JS
Jacob Sykora
Affirmative · your opponent
AFFJacob Sykora
JZ
Jesse Zender
NEGJesse Zender
Floor: Jacob Sykora
Evaluation

Every session comes with feedback.

Running a one-on-one session for every associate in a cohort would take days, and assessing them all by hand would take a partner hours. Soapbox handles both. It runs each session on the platform, scores every associate on your weighted criteria, writes up what worked and what to improve, and rolls the results into a picture of the whole cohort. Live assessment that means less work, not more.

Scored on your criteria

Four criteria: structure, topic, engagement, and clarity. Choose which apply and set the weights.

Written, specific, and fair

Each associate gets thorough and constructive written feedback. Skill development, in addition to assessment, is a key part of using our tool. Soapbox enables both partners and associates to review individual skill progression over time.

From one session to the whole cohort

Each result rolls up into cohort averages and trends over time, so you can see growth and continued opportunities for improvement.

Cohort

Litigation Associates — Spring Cohort

23 associates · 23 active 0 pending
11
Sessions
78%
Avg score
100%
Participation

Cohort evaluation criteria

Averaged across all sessions
Position and argument structure↗3%82%
Topic understanding, support, and reasoning↗2%79%
Engagement with opposing arguments↗3%72%
Clarity, professionalism, and respect↗2%79%
Guided demo · click through it

Walk through the experience: from setting up a new assignment to evaluating those that have been completed.

Write the resolution, choose the criteria that count and how much each is weighted, then set the scheduling window.

Soapbox
Sessions
1Resolution, criteria & window2Cohort & sides
Step 1 of 2 · Assignment

Draft the assignment.

Set the resolution, how it's judged, and the window associates argue within. Save as a draft now, or move on to pair associates.

Phrase as a complete statement the AFF side must defend. Displayed in Fraunces.

A sentence or two of background. Shared with both associates.

Evaluation criteria

4 of 4 selected · 100% weighted

These appear in the room's evaluation panel and frame post-session analysis. Set how much each is worth toward the final score — weights should add up to 100%. Saved with the assignment.

CriterionWeight
%
%
%
%
Total100%

Assignment window

The date range associates can hold their session within. Each pair coordinates their own exact time between these dates — there's no single fixed session for you to manage.

Associates can start arguing from this date.

Every session must be finished by this date.

Frequently asked

Questions, answered.

No. The format is a structured conversation, not a competition. Associates get the resolution and their side in advance, and the timed structure carries them through. It's designed for everyday skill-building, not a moot-court team. Thorough feedback and continued practice help associates sharpen their advocacy over time.

That's the whole point of the live format. There's no document to generate, so an associate can't outsource it to a chatbot. They have to defend a position, out loud, against a real colleague, in real time. You're seeing genuine reasoning and persuasion in the moment, not a polished artifact produced who-knows-how.

Any area where associates need to reason through and defend a position. If a question can be argued, interpreted, evaluated, or negotiated, it can become a session. Firms can use Soapbox across the practice, from litigation and corporate to negotiation, client counseling, regulatory, and internal policy. You write the resolution and framing, so each session helps associates build the knowledge your firm cares about — while practicing the critical, durable skills that all associates need.

You set a date range window, instead of a single deadline. Each pair coordinates their own time and meets online to hold their session. There's no need to schedule the whole cohort into one block or book a conference room.

Get in touch

Bring sharper advocacy training to your firm.

Submit your information and we'll set up a short call to answer any questions you have and walk you through Soapbox.

Request a meeting