help with assgn due in 48 hours

combs

Main

Home >Homework Answsers >Education homework help

hum

attached

19 days ago
27.07.2026
18

Report issue

files (3)

RESOURCEEthicalImplicationsofDebatingwithAI.docx
TemplateResearchandExplorationFindingsLog.docx
AssignmentResearchandExplorationFindingsLog.docx

RESOURCEEthicalImplicationsofDebatingwithAI.docx

Resource: Ethical Implications of Debating with AI

“Ethics” means thinking about what is right and wrong, and how our actions affect others. Ethics helps us consider how to use AI responsibly while practicing debate and critical thinking in Week 9.

When you debate with AI, you are not just practicing argumentation. You are also learning how technology shapes communication and decision-making. Unlike a human opponent, AI does not think, feel, or take responsibility for its words. Understanding the ethics behind this process will help you use AI thoughtfully and responsibly.

Bias in AI Responses

AI is trained on human data, which means it can reflect stereotypes or cultural bias.

· Question: Can I trust that an AI’s argument is always fair?

· Answer: Not always. AI may unintentionally reinforce bias or present a one-sided argument. It is your responsibility to analyze its claims critically rather than assume they are neutral.

Accountability

Humans can be held accountable for their arguments. AI cannot.

· Question: Who is responsible if the AI gives false or misleading information?

· Answer: When you use information from AI sources, you are held accountable for its accuracy. Since AI cannot be held accountable, you must fact-check its arguments and ensure that your debate responses rely on logic and credible sources.

Originality and Ownership

AI does not create new ideas. It rearranges existing information based on a prediction of what word logically comes next in a sequence.

· Question: Does AI count as a “real” debate partner?

· Answer: Not exactly. AI simulates debate, but it does not generate original reasoning the way a human does. Think of it as a practice tool designed to sharpen your own skills.

Confidence vs. Accuracy

AI often sounds polished and presents arguments in a way that you can read as confidence, even when the information is wrong.

· Question: Should I believe an AI’s argument just because it sounds convincing?

· Answer: No. The simulation or appearance of confidence does not equal truth. Part of this debate assignment is learning to spot weak or flawed reasoning, even when it is delivered persuasively.

The Role of Critical Thinking

Debating with AI is meant to test your reasoning and adaptability.

· Question: What is the real purpose of debating an AI tool?

· Answer: The goal is not to “beat” the AI but to sharpen your ability to think critically, respond quickly, and adjust your arguments under pressure. AI helps you practice, but the real learning happens in how you evaluate and respond.

AI can be a valuable tool for practicing debate, but it is not a human opponent. Use it to strengthen your reasoning and understanding of debate/argumentation, not as a source of unquestionable truth.

TemplateResearchandExplorationFindingsLog.docx

TEMPLATE: Research and Exploration Findings Log

SUPPORTIVE PERSPECTIVE: A source that argues in favor of or highlights benefits

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CRITICAL (Opposing) PERSPECTIVE: A source that questions, challenges, or highlights risks

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CONTEXTUAL/BACKGROUND SOURCE: A more neutral or explanatory source that provides data, history, or definitions

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

AssignmentResearchandExplorationFindingsLog.docx

Assignment: Research and Exploration Findings Log

This week, we will begin conceptualizing the topic we want to work with for our debate in Week 9. If you missed the resource about Picking a Topic, revisit it here.

Once you have picked your topic, you will research it, working to understand the current academic discourse surrounding the topic rather than choosing a side to begin with. Research informs understanding, so we want to start there.

Each week’s assignment is built on the one before it. This first assignment of the AI debate unit is all about researching a diverse array of sources to find three that meet the requirements listed below. Begin by researching the conversation surrounding your topic through reliable sources using the guidelines provided in the weekly lecture.

For each source, complete all sections in the template below. You must find three credible sources that represent different aspects of the topic:

· Supportive perspective: A source that argues in favor of or highlights benefits.

· Critical (or opposing) perspective: A source that questions, challenges, or highlights risks.

· Contextual/background source: A more neutral or explanatory source that provides data, history, or definitions.

Remember that you have access to the SMART Source Credibility Checklist, so be sure to use it to evaluate the sources you consider using this week.

Download and use this TEMPLATE Download TEMPLATE.

SUPPORTIVE PERSPECTIVE: A source that argues in favor of or highlights benefits

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CRITICAL (Opposing) PERSPECTIVE: A source that questions, challenges, or highlights risks

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CONTEXTUAL/BACKGROUND SOURCE: A more neutral or explanatory source that provides data, history, or definitions

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

Rubric

Research and Exploration Findings Log Rubric

Research and Exploration Findings Log Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Selection & Credibility	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentThree sources are credible, clearly represent supportive, critical, and contextual perspectives, and are highly appropriate to the topic. Sources demonstrate diversity (different types of authors, organizations, or publications) and reflect the current conversation on the issue. 13 to >11.0 ptsProficientThree credible sources provided with mostly clear perspectives; all fit the assignment requirements and are generally appropriate to the topic. 11 to >7.0 ptsSatisfactoryThree sources included, but one is weak in credibility, outdated, or does not fully fit the supportive/critical/contextual categories. 7 to >3.0 ptsDevelopingFewer than three credible sources OR perspectives are not distinct (for example, two sources that serve the same function). 3 to >0 ptsMissingNo credible sources provided.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Citations	10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentThree citations are in complete and accurate APA format. 9 to >7.0 ptsProficientThree citations included, with only minor errors in APA formatting (e.g., punctuation, italics, order). 7 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactorySome attempt at APA citation is made, but multiple sources contain major errors. 4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingIncomplete citation attempts; formatting largely incorrect or missing key details. 2 to >0 ptsMissingNo APA citations provided.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummaries of Sources	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentEach source summarized in at least five original sentences; summaries are objective, accurate, and in the student’s own words (no direct quotes). Writing demonstrates careful engagement with the text. 13 to >11.0 ptsProficientEach source is summarized in at least five original sentences. Summaries are generally objective, mostly accurate, and in the student’s own words, though minor lapses in phrasing or precision may appear. Writing shows solid understanding and engagement with the text. 11 to >7.0 ptsSatisfactoryEach source is summarized in at least four to five original sentences. Summaries are somewhat objective but may contain inaccuracies and/or rely too closely on the source’s wording. Engagement with the text is adequate. 7 to >3.0 ptsDevelopingSummaries may be brief or incomplete and/or three or less sentences. Writing occasionally loses objectivity, is inaccurate, and/or relies heavily on direct quotes. Understanding of the text is limited. 3 to >0 ptsMissingSummaries are incomplete, copied directly from the source, or not submitted.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAuthors' Purpose & Bias	10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentThree sources analyzed thoughtfully for both the authors’ purpose and potential bias. Student clearly identifies the author’s goals and possible limitations in perspective. Insightful commentary shows strong critical thinking. 8 to >7.0 ptsProficientPurpose and bias identified for each source with some detail and accuracy. 7 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactoryPurpose and/or bias mentioned but only at a surface level, with little explanation. However, the explanations are accurate. 4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingIncomplete, vague, or incorrect identification of purpose or bias; shows minimal engagement with the text. 2 to >0 ptsMissingNo analysis of purpose or bias included.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence Collection	10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent1–2 strong, relevant quotes, statistics, or examples are pulled from each source. Evidence is clearly chosen for usefulness in the future debate and demonstrates attention to detail. 9 to >7.0 ptsProficientEvidence collected from each source; mostly relevant and usable, though not always the strongest or most specific. 7 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactoryEvidence included but weak, vague, or not clearly useful for debate. 4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingMinimal evidence provided; selections are unclear, off-topic, or unexplained. 2 to >0 ptsMissingNo evidence collected.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication to Argument	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentClear and specific explanation for how each source might be used in a debate argument (1–2 sentences minimum per source). Student demonstrates strong understanding of how the source connects to possible claims, counterarguments, or context. 13 to >11.0 ptsProficientExplanation included for each source, mostly specific and relevant to debate preparation. 11 to >7.0 ptsSatisfactoryApplication included but vague, generic, or repetitive across sources. 7 to >3.0 ptsDevelopingExplanations incomplete, unclear, or not logically tied to how the source could support a debate argument. 3 to >0 ptsMissingNo application included.	15 pts

Total Points: 75

RESOURCE: Picking a Topic

Your debate, which you will engage in during Week 9, will be a live discussion of your position on a topic, presented as a written formal argument. We will discuss that form later, and you will be able to map your argument. In fact, you will be guided through the whole process.

· This week, Week 7, you will need to select a topic and find reliable resources that span many viewpoints on your chosen topic.

· In Week 8, you will spend time creating a position statement and mapping out your argument.

· In Week 9, you will engage in a live debate with an AI tool using your argument outline. Finally, in Week 10, you will reflect on your debate experience in an informal video response.

Again, you will be guided through this process step-by-step. However, you will want to begin thinking about a topic now.

What makes a good topic? A good topic should be meaningful to you personally or professionally. It should be important to other people as well.

For instance, you might choose a topic like “home schooling.” Is that an important topic? If someone is considering home schooling, understanding its effectiveness and some of the challenges would be important.

Obviously, you could take a position for or against. Whichever you choose, you know that some people will be on the other side.

Whatever topic you choose is fine. Just make sure that it is important to you and others. And be ready to read reliable sources to support not only your position but those who do not agree with you. As you do, remember that strong arguments come from understanding and respectfully engaging with opposing viewpoints, even when you disagree.

While the research will perhaps give you greater understanding that you can convey to your audience, the point of the exercise is to demonstrate that you can construct a solid argument that is free of bias and fallacies. By the time you get towards the end of this course, you should be able to do that without any difficulties.

AssignmentResearchandExplorationFindingsLog.docx

Assignment: Research and Exploration Findings Log

This week, we will begin conceptualizing the topic we want to work with for our debate in Week 9. If you missed the resource about Picking a Topic, revisit it here.

For each source, complete all sections in the template below. You must find three credible sources that represent different aspects of the topic:

· Supportive perspective: A source that argues in favor of or highlights benefits.

· Critical (or opposing) perspective: A source that questions, challenges, or highlights risks.

· Contextual/background source: A more neutral or explanatory source that provides data, history, or definitions.

Remember that you have access to the SMART Source Credibility Checklist, so be sure to use it to evaluate the sources you consider using this week.

Download and use this TEMPLATE Download TEMPLATE.

SUPPORTIVE PERSPECTIVE: A source that argues in favor of or highlights benefits

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CRITICAL (Opposing) PERSPECTIVE: A source that questions, challenges, or highlights risks

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CONTEXTUAL/BACKGROUND SOURCE: A more neutral or explanatory source that provides data, history, or definitions

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

Rubric

Research and Exploration Findings Log Rubric

Research and Exploration Findings Log Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Selection & Credibility	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentThree sources are credible, clearly represent supportive, critical, and contextual perspectives, and are highly appropriate to the topic. Sources demonstrate diversity (different types of authors, organizations, or publications) and reflect the current conversation on the issue. 13 to >11.0 ptsProficientThree credible sources provided with mostly clear perspectives; all fit the assignment requirements and are generally appropriate to the topic. 11 to >7.0 ptsSatisfactoryThree sources included, but one is weak in credibility, outdated, or does not fully fit the supportive/critical/contextual categories. 7 to >3.0 ptsDevelopingFewer than three credible sources OR perspectives are not distinct (for example, two sources that serve the same function). 3 to >0 ptsMissingNo credible sources provided.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Citations	10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentThree citations are in complete and accurate APA format. 9 to >7.0 ptsProficientThree citations included, with only minor errors in APA formatting (e.g., punctuation, italics, order). 7 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactorySome attempt at APA citation is made, but multiple sources contain major errors. 4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingIncomplete citation attempts; formatting largely incorrect or missing key details. 2 to >0 ptsMissingNo APA citations provided.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummaries of Sources	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentEach source summarized in at least five original sentences; summaries are objective, accurate, and in the student’s own words (no direct quotes). Writing demonstrates careful engagement with the text. 13 to >11.0 ptsProficientEach source is summarized in at least five original sentences. Summaries are generally objective, mostly accurate, and in the student’s own words, though minor lapses in phrasing or precision may appear. Writing shows solid understanding and engagement with the text. 11 to >7.0 ptsSatisfactoryEach source is summarized in at least four to five original sentences. Summaries are somewhat objective but may contain inaccuracies and/or rely too closely on the source’s wording. Engagement with the text is adequate. 7 to >3.0 ptsDevelopingSummaries may be brief or incomplete and/or three or less sentences. Writing occasionally loses objectivity, is inaccurate, and/or relies heavily on direct quotes. Understanding of the text is limited. 3 to >0 ptsMissingSummaries are incomplete, copied directly from the source, or not submitted.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAuthors' Purpose & Bias	10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentThree sources analyzed thoughtfully for both the authors’ purpose and potential bias. Student clearly identifies the author’s goals and possible limitations in perspective. Insightful commentary shows strong critical thinking. 8 to >7.0 ptsProficientPurpose and bias identified for each source with some detail and accuracy. 7 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactoryPurpose and/or bias mentioned but only at a surface level, with little explanation. However, the explanations are accurate. 4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingIncomplete, vague, or incorrect identification of purpose or bias; shows minimal engagement with the text. 2 to >0 ptsMissingNo analysis of purpose or bias included.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence Collection	10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent1–2 strong, relevant quotes, statistics, or examples are pulled from each source. Evidence is clearly chosen for usefulness in the future debate and demonstrates attention to detail. 9 to >7.0 ptsProficientEvidence collected from each source; mostly relevant and usable, though not always the strongest or most specific. 7 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactoryEvidence included but weak, vague, or not clearly useful for debate. 4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingMinimal evidence provided; selections are unclear, off-topic, or unexplained. 2 to >0 ptsMissingNo evidence collected.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication to Argument	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentClear and specific explanation for how each source might be used in a debate argument (1–2 sentences minimum per source). Student demonstrates strong understanding of how the source connects to possible claims, counterarguments, or context. 13 to >11.0 ptsProficientExplanation included for each source, mostly specific and relevant to debate preparation. 11 to >7.0 ptsSatisfactoryApplication included but vague, generic, or repetitive across sources. 7 to >3.0 ptsDevelopingExplanations incomplete, unclear, or not logically tied to how the source could support a debate argument. 3 to >0 ptsMissingNo application included.	15 pts

Total Points: 75

RESOURCE: Picking a Topic

· This week, Week 7, you will need to select a topic and find reliable resources that span many viewpoints on your chosen topic.

· In Week 8, you will spend time creating a position statement and mapping out your argument.

· In Week 9, you will engage in a live debate with an AI tool using your argument outline. Finally, in Week 10, you will reflect on your debate experience in an informal video response.

Again, you will be guided through this process step-by-step. However, you will want to begin thinking about a topic now.

What makes a good topic? A good topic should be meaningful to you personally or professionally. It should be important to other people as well.

Obviously, you could take a position for or against. Whichever you choose, you know that some people will be on the other side.

RESOURCEEthicalImplicationsofDebatingwithAI.docx

Resource: Ethical Implications of Debating with AI

Bias in AI Responses

AI is trained on human data, which means it can reflect stereotypes or cultural bias.

· Question: Can I trust that an AI’s argument is always fair?

· Answer: Not always. AI may unintentionally reinforce bias or present a one-sided argument. It is your responsibility to analyze its claims critically rather than assume they are neutral.

Accountability

Humans can be held accountable for their arguments. AI cannot.

· Question: Who is responsible if the AI gives false or misleading information?

Originality and Ownership

AI does not create new ideas. It rearranges existing information based on a prediction of what word logically comes next in a sequence.

· Question: Does AI count as a “real” debate partner?

· Answer: Not exactly. AI simulates debate, but it does not generate original reasoning the way a human does. Think of it as a practice tool designed to sharpen your own skills.

Confidence vs. Accuracy

AI often sounds polished and presents arguments in a way that you can read as confidence, even when the information is wrong.

· Question: Should I believe an AI’s argument just because it sounds convincing?

· Answer: No. The simulation or appearance of confidence does not equal truth. Part of this debate assignment is learning to spot weak or flawed reasoning, even when it is delivered persuasively.

The Role of Critical Thinking

Debating with AI is meant to test your reasoning and adaptability.

· Question: What is the real purpose of debating an AI tool?

TemplateResearchandExplorationFindingsLog.docx

TEMPLATE: Research and Exploration Findings Log

SUPPORTIVE PERSPECTIVE: A source that argues in favor of or highlights benefits

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CRITICAL (Opposing) PERSPECTIVE: A source that questions, challenges, or highlights risks

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CONTEXTUAL/BACKGROUND SOURCE: A more neutral or explanatory source that provides data, history, or definitions

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

AssignmentResearchandExplorationFindingsLog.docx

Assignment: Research and Exploration Findings Log

This week, we will begin conceptualizing the topic we want to work with for our debate in Week 9. If you missed the resource about Picking a Topic, revisit it here.

For each source, complete all sections in the template below. You must find three credible sources that represent different aspects of the topic:

· Supportive perspective: A source that argues in favor of or highlights benefits.

· Critical (or opposing) perspective: A source that questions, challenges, or highlights risks.

· Contextual/background source: A more neutral or explanatory source that provides data, history, or definitions.

Remember that you have access to the SMART Source Credibility Checklist, so be sure to use it to evaluate the sources you consider using this week.

Download and use this TEMPLATE Download TEMPLATE.

SUPPORTIVE PERSPECTIVE: A source that argues in favor of or highlights benefits

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CRITICAL (Opposing) PERSPECTIVE: A source that questions, challenges, or highlights risks

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CONTEXTUAL/BACKGROUND SOURCE: A more neutral or explanatory source that provides data, history, or definitions

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

Rubric

Research and Exploration Findings Log Rubric

Research and Exploration Findings Log Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Selection & Credibility	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentThree sources are credible, clearly represent supportive, critical, and contextual perspectives, and are highly appropriate to the topic. Sources demonstrate diversity (different types of authors, organizations, or publications) and reflect the current conversation on the issue. 13 to >11.0 ptsProficientThree credible sources provided with mostly clear perspectives; all fit the assignment requirements and are generally appropriate to the topic. 11 to >7.0 ptsSatisfactoryThree sources included, but one is weak in credibility, outdated, or does not fully fit the supportive/critical/contextual categories. 7 to >3.0 ptsDevelopingFewer than three credible sources OR perspectives are not distinct (for example, two sources that serve the same function). 3 to >0 ptsMissingNo credible sources provided.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Citations	10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentThree citations are in complete and accurate APA format. 9 to >7.0 ptsProficientThree citations included, with only minor errors in APA formatting (e.g., punctuation, italics, order). 7 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactorySome attempt at APA citation is made, but multiple sources contain major errors. 4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingIncomplete citation attempts; formatting largely incorrect or missing key details. 2 to >0 ptsMissingNo APA citations provided.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummaries of Sources	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentEach source summarized in at least five original sentences; summaries are objective, accurate, and in the student’s own words (no direct quotes). Writing demonstrates careful engagement with the text. 13 to >11.0 ptsProficientEach source is summarized in at least five original sentences. Summaries are generally objective, mostly accurate, and in the student’s own words, though minor lapses in phrasing or precision may appear. Writing shows solid understanding and engagement with the text. 11 to >7.0 ptsSatisfactoryEach source is summarized in at least four to five original sentences. Summaries are somewhat objective but may contain inaccuracies and/or rely too closely on the source’s wording. Engagement with the text is adequate. 7 to >3.0 ptsDevelopingSummaries may be brief or incomplete and/or three or less sentences. Writing occasionally loses objectivity, is inaccurate, and/or relies heavily on direct quotes. Understanding of the text is limited. 3 to >0 ptsMissingSummaries are incomplete, copied directly from the source, or not submitted.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAuthors' Purpose & Bias	10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentThree sources analyzed thoughtfully for both the authors’ purpose and potential bias. Student clearly identifies the author’s goals and possible limitations in perspective. Insightful commentary shows strong critical thinking. 8 to >7.0 ptsProficientPurpose and bias identified for each source with some detail and accuracy. 7 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactoryPurpose and/or bias mentioned but only at a surface level, with little explanation. However, the explanations are accurate. 4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingIncomplete, vague, or incorrect identification of purpose or bias; shows minimal engagement with the text. 2 to >0 ptsMissingNo analysis of purpose or bias included.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence Collection	10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent1–2 strong, relevant quotes, statistics, or examples are pulled from each source. Evidence is clearly chosen for usefulness in the future debate and demonstrates attention to detail. 9 to >7.0 ptsProficientEvidence collected from each source; mostly relevant and usable, though not always the strongest or most specific. 7 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactoryEvidence included but weak, vague, or not clearly useful for debate. 4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingMinimal evidence provided; selections are unclear, off-topic, or unexplained. 2 to >0 ptsMissingNo evidence collected.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication to Argument	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentClear and specific explanation for how each source might be used in a debate argument (1–2 sentences minimum per source). Student demonstrates strong understanding of how the source connects to possible claims, counterarguments, or context. 13 to >11.0 ptsProficientExplanation included for each source, mostly specific and relevant to debate preparation. 11 to >7.0 ptsSatisfactoryApplication included but vague, generic, or repetitive across sources. 7 to >3.0 ptsDevelopingExplanations incomplete, unclear, or not logically tied to how the source could support a debate argument. 3 to >0 ptsMissingNo application included.	15 pts

Total Points: 75

RESOURCE: Picking a Topic

· This week, Week 7, you will need to select a topic and find reliable resources that span many viewpoints on your chosen topic.

· In Week 8, you will spend time creating a position statement and mapping out your argument.

· In Week 9, you will engage in a live debate with an AI tool using your argument outline. Finally, in Week 10, you will reflect on your debate experience in an informal video response.

Again, you will be guided through this process step-by-step. However, you will want to begin thinking about a topic now.

What makes a good topic? A good topic should be meaningful to you personally or professionally. It should be important to other people as well.

Obviously, you could take a position for or against. Whichever you choose, you know that some people will be on the other side.

RESOURCEEthicalImplicationsofDebatingwithAI.docx

Resource: Ethical Implications of Debating with AI

Bias in AI Responses

AI is trained on human data, which means it can reflect stereotypes or cultural bias.

· Question: Can I trust that an AI’s argument is always fair?

· Answer: Not always. AI may unintentionally reinforce bias or present a one-sided argument. It is your responsibility to analyze its claims critically rather than assume they are neutral.

Accountability

Humans can be held accountable for their arguments. AI cannot.

· Question: Who is responsible if the AI gives false or misleading information?

Originality and Ownership

AI does not create new ideas. It rearranges existing information based on a prediction of what word logically comes next in a sequence.

· Question: Does AI count as a “real” debate partner?

· Answer: Not exactly. AI simulates debate, but it does not generate original reasoning the way a human does. Think of it as a practice tool designed to sharpen your own skills.

Confidence vs. Accuracy

AI often sounds polished and presents arguments in a way that you can read as confidence, even when the information is wrong.

· Question: Should I believe an AI’s argument just because it sounds convincing?

· Answer: No. The simulation or appearance of confidence does not equal truth. Part of this debate assignment is learning to spot weak or flawed reasoning, even when it is delivered persuasively.

The Role of Critical Thinking

Debating with AI is meant to test your reasoning and adaptability.

· Question: What is the real purpose of debating an AI tool?

TemplateResearchandExplorationFindingsLog.docx

TEMPLATE: Research and Exploration Findings Log

SUPPORTIVE PERSPECTIVE: A source that argues in favor of or highlights benefits

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CRITICAL (Opposing) PERSPECTIVE: A source that questions, challenges, or highlights risks

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CONTEXTUAL/BACKGROUND SOURCE: A more neutral or explanatory source that provides data, history, or definitions

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

AssignmentResearchandExplorationFindingsLog.docx

Assignment: Research and Exploration Findings Log

This week, we will begin conceptualizing the topic we want to work with for our debate in Week 9. If you missed the resource about Picking a Topic, revisit it here.

For each source, complete all sections in the template below. You must find three credible sources that represent different aspects of the topic:

· Supportive perspective: A source that argues in favor of or highlights benefits.

· Critical (or opposing) perspective: A source that questions, challenges, or highlights risks.

· Contextual/background source: A more neutral or explanatory source that provides data, history, or definitions.

Remember that you have access to the SMART Source Credibility Checklist, so be sure to use it to evaluate the sources you consider using this week.

Download and use this TEMPLATE Download TEMPLATE.

SUPPORTIVE PERSPECTIVE: A source that argues in favor of or highlights benefits

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CRITICAL (Opposing) PERSPECTIVE: A source that questions, challenges, or highlights risks

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

CONTEXTUAL/BACKGROUND SOURCE: A more neutral or explanatory source that provides data, history, or definitions

1. A full APA reference

2. Summarize the main idea of the source with a minimum of five sentences without using quotes.

3. Identify the author’s purpose and potential bias.

4. Pull 1–2 quotes, statistics, or examples from this source that you might use later.

5. How will the information in this source be used in your argument? Be specific in at least 1-2 sentences.

Rubric

Research and Exploration Findings Log Rubric

Research and Exploration Findings Log Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Selection & Credibility	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentThree sources are credible, clearly represent supportive, critical, and contextual perspectives, and are highly appropriate to the topic. Sources demonstrate diversity (different types of authors, organizations, or publications) and reflect the current conversation on the issue. 13 to >11.0 ptsProficientThree credible sources provided with mostly clear perspectives; all fit the assignment requirements and are generally appropriate to the topic. 11 to >7.0 ptsSatisfactoryThree sources included, but one is weak in credibility, outdated, or does not fully fit the supportive/critical/contextual categories. 7 to >3.0 ptsDevelopingFewer than three credible sources OR perspectives are not distinct (for example, two sources that serve the same function). 3 to >0 ptsMissingNo credible sources provided.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Citations	10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentThree citations are in complete and accurate APA format. 9 to >7.0 ptsProficientThree citations included, with only minor errors in APA formatting (e.g., punctuation, italics, order). 7 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactorySome attempt at APA citation is made, but multiple sources contain major errors. 4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingIncomplete citation attempts; formatting largely incorrect or missing key details. 2 to >0 ptsMissingNo APA citations provided.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummaries of Sources	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentEach source summarized in at least five original sentences; summaries are objective, accurate, and in the student’s own words (no direct quotes). Writing demonstrates careful engagement with the text. 13 to >11.0 ptsProficientEach source is summarized in at least five original sentences. Summaries are generally objective, mostly accurate, and in the student’s own words, though minor lapses in phrasing or precision may appear. Writing shows solid understanding and engagement with the text. 11 to >7.0 ptsSatisfactoryEach source is summarized in at least four to five original sentences. Summaries are somewhat objective but may contain inaccuracies and/or rely too closely on the source’s wording. Engagement with the text is adequate. 7 to >3.0 ptsDevelopingSummaries may be brief or incomplete and/or three or less sentences. Writing occasionally loses objectivity, is inaccurate, and/or relies heavily on direct quotes. Understanding of the text is limited. 3 to >0 ptsMissingSummaries are incomplete, copied directly from the source, or not submitted.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAuthors' Purpose & Bias	10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentThree sources analyzed thoughtfully for both the authors’ purpose and potential bias. Student clearly identifies the author’s goals and possible limitations in perspective. Insightful commentary shows strong critical thinking. 8 to >7.0 ptsProficientPurpose and bias identified for each source with some detail and accuracy. 7 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactoryPurpose and/or bias mentioned but only at a surface level, with little explanation. However, the explanations are accurate. 4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingIncomplete, vague, or incorrect identification of purpose or bias; shows minimal engagement with the text. 2 to >0 ptsMissingNo analysis of purpose or bias included.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence Collection	10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent1–2 strong, relevant quotes, statistics, or examples are pulled from each source. Evidence is clearly chosen for usefulness in the future debate and demonstrates attention to detail. 9 to >7.0 ptsProficientEvidence collected from each source; mostly relevant and usable, though not always the strongest or most specific. 7 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactoryEvidence included but weak, vague, or not clearly useful for debate. 4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingMinimal evidence provided; selections are unclear, off-topic, or unexplained. 2 to >0 ptsMissingNo evidence collected.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication to Argument	15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentClear and specific explanation for how each source might be used in a debate argument (1–2 sentences minimum per source). Student demonstrates strong understanding of how the source connects to possible claims, counterarguments, or context. 13 to >11.0 ptsProficientExplanation included for each source, mostly specific and relevant to debate preparation. 11 to >7.0 ptsSatisfactoryApplication included but vague, generic, or repetitive across sources. 7 to >3.0 ptsDevelopingExplanations incomplete, unclear, or not logically tied to how the source could support a debate argument. 3 to >0 ptsMissingNo application included.	15 pts

Total Points: 75

RESOURCE: Picking a Topic

· This week, Week 7, you will need to select a topic and find reliable resources that span many viewpoints on your chosen topic.

· In Week 8, you will spend time creating a position statement and mapping out your argument.

· In Week 9, you will engage in a live debate with an AI tool using your argument outline. Finally, in Week 10, you will reflect on your debate experience in an informal video response.

Again, you will be guided through this process step-by-step. However, you will want to begin thinking about a topic now.

What makes a good topic? A good topic should be meaningful to you personally or professionally. It should be important to other people as well.

Obviously, you could take a position for or against. Whichever you choose, you know that some people will be on the other side.

other Questions(10)