This study evaluates an innovative three-sided approach to classroom debate aimed at fostering critical thinking beyond adversarial argumentation. In an undergraduate Food Justice course, two teams presented arguments "for" and "against" pre-defined resolutions, while a third team explored areas of convergence and divergence at the "complex middle". Class members subsequently engaged in verbal and written reflections. Drawing on field notes, students' written reflections, and an evaluative student survey, the authors investigated the impacts of this approach. Most students found the three-team structure (80%) and post-debate verbal sharing sessions (72%) useful; almost two-thirds (64%) called for inclusion of a structured question/answer period. Many students actively embraced the complex middle as an interdisciplinary site for exploring real-world problems, noting flaws in their prior thinking, and becoming more alert to their socio-cultural positionalities. Additional research on similar pedagogies appears warranted.