Arguments
Three players: one in center, two on sides taking opposite positions. The center player must maintain logical and emotional agreement with both simultaneously.
Structure
Setup
Three players. One stands in the center (the Integrator). Two players stand on either side of the center player (the Advocates), each holding a distinct position on a given topic.
Play
The two Advocates each make their case to the Integrator simultaneously, in short bursts. The Integrator must respond to each Advocate with genuine agreement - nodding, validating, echoing, saying "yes, exactly" - while the other Advocate is also speaking and also requiring agreement.
The Integrator cannot agree with one and dismiss the other. Both must be acknowledged. The Integrator must find the truth in each position and validate it.
Topic Selection
Topics that work well have genuine tension: Should we prioritize speed or quality? Should we invest in growth or stability? Should we make individual or collective decisions?
Topics that don't work: trivial preferences, topics where one position is obviously correct, deeply personal or political topics that cross into real conflict.
Variation: Increasing Pressure
The Advocates gradually speed up and become more insistent. The Integrator must maintain genuine agreement even as the pressure increases.
Variation: Switching Roles
After two minutes, the Integrator takes an Advocate position and one of the former Advocates becomes the Integrator. Each role produces a different learning experience.
How to Teach It
How to Explain It
"Two advocates, one integrator. Advocates: make your case. Integrator: agree with both of them, genuinely. Find the truth in each position. Don't dismiss either side."
Why It Matters
Arguments trains the integrative cognitive capacity that is required for effective decision-making in complex organizations: the ability to genuinely understand and validate competing positions without immediately converging on one. Most people respond to competing claims by choosing a side - this is natural but often ineffective. The exercise makes the integration move explicit and physical: the Integrator must visibly demonstrate acknowledgment of both positions, which requires actually finding something valid in each.
Common Coaching Notes
- Genuine agreement, not performative nodding. The Integrator should actually speak: "You're right that speed matters because..." and "But you're also right that quality underlies everything because..." Simultaneous, real responses.
- The discomfort is the lesson. When participants feel the impossibility of genuinely agreeing with opposing views, that feeling is exactly the point. Name it: "What happened in your body just then?"
- Topic selection matters enormously. Too trivial removes the tension. Too personal makes it uncomfortable in the wrong way. Sweet spot: organizational tensions that are real but not interpersonally loaded.
Debrief Questions
- What did you notice in the Integrator role?
- What made it possible to find truth in a position you disagreed with?
- Where in your work are you expected to integrate competing views?
In Applied Settings
Organizational Context
Arguments addresses the challenge of leadership in tension-filled organizational environments. Leaders and facilitators in complex organizations are routinely asked to hold competing perspectives simultaneously: the voice of customers and the constraints of operations, the urgency of the present and the requirements of the future, the needs of individuals and the needs of the team. Applied improv provides an experiential framework for building this capacity rather than simply describing it.
Workplace and Leadership Applications
The exercise is particularly valuable in leadership development programs focused on decision-making under complexity, organizational design contexts where structural tensions are built in (matrix organizations, cross-functional teams, competing strategic priorities), and team settings where factions with opposing views need a constructive format for integrating their perspectives. The integrator role is directly analogous to the role of a leader in a strategic conversation, a facilitator in a contentious meeting, or a manager caught between the needs of their team and the directives of the organization.
Meeting and Workshop Use
Arguments can be used as a brief warm-up before a meeting where competing views need to be integrated, or as a standalone exercise in a team development workshop. In either case, it works best when participants can connect the exercise directly to a real organizational tension they face: "What are the two positions you are regularly asked to integrate in your role?"
Debrief for Transfer
Facilitators can move from the exercise to a structured discussion of real organizational dilemmas: "Where in this organization do you face a genuine Arguments situation? Who are the two advocates you're expected to integrate? What would genuine acknowledgment of both look like in that situation?" This transfer conversation is where the organizational development value of the exercise is realized.
Skills Developed
Worth Reading
See all books →
When I Say This, Do You Mean That?
Enhancing Communication
Cherie Kerr; Julia Sweeney
The Improv Mindset
Change Your Brain. Change Your Business.
Gail Montgomery; Bruce T. Montgomery
Theater Games for Rehearsal
Viola Spolin
Yes, And
How Improvisation Reverses No, But Thinking and Improves Creativity and Collaboration
Kelly Leonard; Tom Yorton
Acting Through Improv
Improv Through Theatresports
Lynda Belt; Rebecca Stockley
Pirate Robot Ninja
An Improv Fable
Billy Merritt; Will Hines
Related Exercises
Two Players -- One Voice
Two players face each other and attempt to create and speak the same sentences simultaneously, starting from a central topic. Requires extreme concentration and give-and-take.
Back to Back
Back to Back is a trust and connection exercise in which two players sit or stand with their backs pressed together and work together on a physical or verbal task without the benefit of eye contact. Common tasks include standing up simultaneously from a seated position, telling a collaborative story, or mirroring each other's movements through physical pressure alone. The absence of visual cues forces participants to communicate through weight, pressure, breath, and vocal tone, developing a physical listening channel that operates independently of sight. The exercise appears across multiple performance traditions, from Augusto Boal's Games for Actors and Non-Actors to John Abbott's The Improvisation Book, and is one of the most widely used partner exercises in both improv training and applied improvisation settings.
Argue like a Philosopher
Partners practice constructive argumentation following philosophical principles, exploring how to disagree productively while maintaining respect.
One Voice
One Voice is a game and exercise in which two or more performers speak simultaneously, attempting to produce the same words at the same time without prior coordination. The group must listen intently and follow collective impulses rather than individual intention, producing coherent shared speech as a single entity. The game develops group mind, deep listening, and the capacity to surrender individual control to collective will.
Fusillade
Fusillade is a high-energy exercise in which players face rapid-fire prompts or challenges from the group or a facilitator and must respond instantly. The barrage prevents deliberation and forces purely instinctive response. The exercise builds resilience under pressure and comfort with imperfection.
Mirror
Mirror is a foundational partner exercise in which one player moves and the other copies with as much precision as possible. The basic challenge is simple to see and simple to feel: both players must stay connected closely enough that the movement reads as one shared action instead of one person chasing the other. Across published training material, Mirror is used to build concentration, body awareness, responsiveness, and nonverbal listening.
How to Reference This Page
The Improv Archive. (2026). Arguments. Retrieved March 17, 2026, from https://improvarchive.org/exercises/arguments
The Improv Archive. "Arguments." The Improv Archive, 2026. https://improvarchive.org/exercises/arguments.
The Improv Archive. "Arguments." The Improv Archive, 2026, https://improvarchive.org/exercises/arguments. Accessed March 17, 2026.
The Improv Archive is a systemically maintained repository. The archive itself acts as the corporate author.