Why Soapbox?

Live argument practice is more powerful than you think.

As GenAI reshapes junior legal work, Soapbox gives firms a scalable, research-backed way to preserve the live practice, feedback, and judgment-building young lawyers need.

The old training ground is changing. Basic research, first drafts, cite-checking, and document review have long been staples in junior-lawyer learning. As AI automates more of that work, firms need more intentional ways to build judgment and feedback loops. — Thomson Reuters Institute, 2025

The International Bar Association notes that more tasks once handled by young lawyers can now be done by AI. As workflows change, training and coaching become more important so junior lawyers build deep expertise, not just AI fluency. — International Bar Association, 2026

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. — Davey et al., 2025, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

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 argument 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 argument can strengthen 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

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%. Argument is active learning because lawyers must apply their knowledge of the law, 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 lawyers effectively collaborate to dissect both sides of an argument, deepening their learning in the process. — Hausmann et al., 2008, Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society

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, this format tests reasoning and better distinguishes 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 FORMAT	What it usually reveals	Limitation
Written assignment	Final polished product	AI can over-assist; the reasoning process may be hidden
Presentation	Prepared explanation	Limited responsiveness; often one-way
Group discussion	Participation and exchange	Some students dominate, others disappear
Live 1-on-1 argument	Understanding under challenge	Requires careful structure and support — which Soapbox provides

+Full reference list

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). Career readiness: Competencies for a career-ready workforce. naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined
World Economic Forum (2025). The Future of Jobs Report 2025. weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025
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
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
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
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
Thomson Reuters Institute (2025). Legal training and AI leadership. thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/ai-in-courts/legal-training-ai-leadership
International Bar Association (2026). AI technology presents both opportunity and threat to young lawyers. ibanet.org/ai-technology-presents-both-opportunity-and-threat-to-young-lawyers

The practice room

Structured, engaging, and easy-to-use.

Every session follows the same simple format, so associates can focus on the substance of the argument. They prepare a position, defend it live, respond to pressure, and leave with constructive feedback. Having to think on their feet makes the exchange genuinely engaging, and knowing they will have to defend a position keeps associates motivated.

A timed, three-part format

Two-minute openings, a five-minute freeflow exchange, and ninety-second closings. Long enough to require substantive legal reasoning, short enough to fit around billable work.

A format associates lean into

Arguing against a colleague in real time raises the stakes in a way passive training rarely can. Associates stay engaged because they have to listen, respond, and defend their position under pressure.

Practice skills every lawyer needs

The format builds durable skills that matter across practice areas: issue framing, legal reasoning, judgment, active listening, concise communication, and professional disagreement.

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

Affirmative · your opponent

AFFJacob Sykora

NEGJesse Zender

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

Issue framing and argument structure↗3%82%

Command of law, facts, authority, and context↗2%79%

Reasoning, synthesis, and judgment↗3%72%

Responsiveness and adaptability↗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

@a.calloway Sign out

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.

Resolution

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

Topic categoryoptional

Framing or contextoptional

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

Issue framing and argument structure

Does the associate identify the central legal issue or proposition, state a clear position, define the scope of the dispute, and organize the argument in a logical roadmap?

%

Command of law, facts, authority, and context

Does the associate accurately state the relevant legal rules, standards, authorities, facts, procedural context, and policy considerations, where applicable, without misstating doctrine, overclaiming, or relying on unsupported assertions?

%

Reasoning, synthesis, and judgment

Does the associate apply law to facts or principles persuasively, weave legal authority and factual, practical, or policy context into a compelling argument, address weak points, handle implications, hypotheticals, and counterexamples, distinguish or neutralize adverse authority, make appropriate concessions, and show sound judgment about which arguments to press or abandon?

%

Responsiveness and adaptability

Does the associate engage directly with opposing arguments and questions, adapt based on how the exercise develops, sharpen what landed, refine or concede what did not, and communicate with clarity, concision, and professionalism?

%

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.

Opens

Associates can start arguing from this date.

Closes

Every session must be finished by this date.

Frequently asked

Questions, answered.

What practice areas does it work for?

Soapbox works across all practice areas because associates everywhere need to think on their feet, reason through complex issues, explain their judgment, and defend or refine a position. From litigation and corporate to negotiation, client advice, regulatory strategy, and risk assessment, the firm sets the resolution and framing — so each session reinforces the substantive knowledge your lawyers need while building the durable skills every associate uses.

How do busy associates find the time?

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.

Is this a real measure of skill?

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.

Get in touch

Reach out to learn more.

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

Prefer to email directly? Reach us at jesse@trysoapboxdebate.com

Develop sharper lawyers.
Real-time reasoning practice, without the partner time sink.