A debate chamber is a room for conducting the business of a deliberative assembly or otherwise for debating. When used as the meeting place of a legislature, a debate chamber may also be known as a council chamber, legislative chamber, assembly chamber, or similar term depending on the relevant body. Some countries, such as New Zealand, use the term debating chamber as a name for the room where the legislature meets.

Debating can happen more or less anywhere that is not immediately hazardous. Whether informal or structured, debates often have an audience. The debate does not involve the audience as such; they may even be watching remotely. Therefore, a debate can occur basically anywhere, even in the street, in a hallway, on board a moving vehicle, or any number of other unusual locations.

However, in common parlance, a debating chamber is a room set aside for the purposes of holding debates, usually permanently. It usually contains furniture set up to organize the debate, so as to clearly separate the people participating in the debate and the audience, and usually to clearly separate the sides of the debate. If the format of the debate includes a moderator (such as the speaker of a legislature) they must sit in a clear position of authority.

In general, a debate chamber has seats and tables for the moderator and the debate participants, and a separate seating area for the audience. Other facilities may include one or more podiums for delivering speeches, possibly located on a stage to facilitate presentation of the debate to an audience. Recording and broadcasting equipment may be installed in a debating chamber so that proceedings there can be shown to the public at large. In the case of a legislative chamber or the like, there may be separate galleries for the public, while members of the legislature (and appropriate staff) are the only ones permitted in the chamber proper.

The configuration of seating affects interpersonal communication on conscious and subconscious levels. For example, disagreements over the shape of a negotiation table delayed the Vietnam War peace talks for almost a year.

The geometry of seating position can support or determine a sense of opposition/confrontation, hierarchy/dominance, or collaboration/equality. Factors such as angle/rotation, proximity/distance, median/termini, and height/incline are all relevant considerations. The more directly two parties are positioned across from one another, the more likely their relationship will be one of opposition to each other; the less direct, or more "side-by-side" these positions are, the less likely such an opposing relationship becomes, but also the less effective it will be at fostering collaboration.

These effects can be observed in debate chambers, meeting rooms, and at dining or restaurant tables. For instance, with a long rectangular table, those seated at the "head" or "end" of the table are in a position of dominance; they can see everybody, and normally everybody can see them, but the others are restricted to seeing only those across from them. Circular, square, or elliptical tables facilitate more equal status between those seated, as well as less obstructed lines of sight. A circular gathering with three participants provides the only non-oppositional configuration of more than two persons that allows equal line of sight (all 120 degrees apart).

The smaller the group and setting, the greater the equity of participants and sight lines. Conversely, the more participants that are present, the greater is the disparity of sight lines between those sitting immediately adjacent and those more directly across, whose position in turn becomes more oppositional. Winston Churchill recognized this when he insisted the British House of Commons be rebuilt (after wartime bombing) in a similar size and configuration as the prior chamber, to maintain the intimate and adversarial style of debate which he believed was responsible for creating the British form of government.