<p>This paper introduces a new format of academic debating called the “Cracovian debate,” designed with a single goal: the cognitive gain of all participants. Its cooperative nature supports this aim and distinguishes it from competitive debate formats. The Cracovian debate is based on the dialectical principle of charity, understood as a procedural framework for critical discussion. We begin by identifying the need for such a format, showing how the competitive structure of existing academic debates can hinder one of their key purposes—learning through the exchange of differing views. We then critique the metaphor of war that underlies adversarial debate and propose an alternative metaphor that encourages cooperation instead. Following this, we outline the Cracovian debate’s structure, goals, and flow, all derived from the dialectical principle of charity. We argue that this format complements competitive debating by fostering essential intellectual skills, including: (1) openness to new information and disconfirming feedback; (2) the ability to reconstruct opposing arguments in ways acceptable to their proponents; (3) careful argument analysis; (4) collaboration with people holding different viewpoints; and (5) depolarisation—viewing interlocutors as partners rather than opponents. The format has been tested in pilot research conducted between 2021 and 2024, which yielded valuable insights into debate dynamics and supported the initial hypotheses. The model now offers a foundation for further studies, such as corpus analysis, to evaluate its effectiveness in promoting argument quality, depolarisation, and cognitive outcomes. Appendix 1 presents the research results; Appendix 2 includes a facilitator’s manual for classroom use; and Appendix 3 provides a full transcript of a sample Cracovian debate.</p>