Structured in-class debates are a valuable addition to courses that seek to foster students' development as citizens. In this study, we examine how different debate formats can impact their effectiveness as a pedagogical tool for advancing students' civic learning outcomes. We consider "moderated dualistic" debates that ask students to bring empirical evidence to bear on a yes/no question about a particular policy issue and "unmoderated pluralistic" debates that ask students to engage with multiple perspectives about essential political values. We find that both debate formats contribute to students' civic education: Moderated dualistic debates cultivated some political skills while unmoderated pluralistic debates deepened--and complicated--students' thinking about democratic values. From these results, we conclude that students' civic development benefits from experience with a variety of different debate formats that can prepare students for effective citizenship in distinct ways.