Debate & Position Paper

Common text, worked model and transfer

Fictional Rivermark case. A ten-day evening study pilot surveyed 40 current visitors: 24 request later hours, 10 prefer current hours, and 6 give no preference. Nonvisitors and transport providers were not surveyed. A staffing note requires two additional staff-hours daily for later opening but gives no wage or funding source. The last bus departs at 7:40 p.m. One representative proposes a 9:00 p.m. closing “because most students asked for it”; another wants transport investigated first.

Worked reasoning. The survey supports a preference among 24 of 40 respondents, not a preference among all students or the feasibility of later travel. “Investigate staffing and transport before a supervised extension trial” is a qualified recommendation. Its warrant is that access must be usable and feasible, not just popular. A fair counterclaim is that delaying the trial may leave a current need unmet.

Transfer notice. “Starting next week, the reading room welcomes evening visitors. Bring your work and plan your ride. Ask at the desk for details.” Identify what a first-time reader cannot determine. Revise with verified facts and mark unresolved details rather than inventing them.

All names and figures are course-created simulation material, not real public data.

Day 1

Organize a case

Direct instruction

Order reasons by the reader’s questions, with explicit criteria and evidence; do not simply follow source order.

Apply and preserve

Outline a 700–900-word paper with two reasons, a counterclaim and a conditional recommendation.

Check: Answer the task, cite a precise detail, explain the connection and disclose a limitation.

Day 2

Fair questions

Direct instruction

Cross-examination tests assumptions and asks for evidence. A question should not force acceptance of an accusation.

Apply and preserve

Write six neutral questions and predict which answers could change your position.

Check: Answer the task, cite a precise detail, explain the connection and disclose a limitation.

Day 3

Accountable listening

Direct instruction

Paraphrase before responding. Separate disagreements about facts from disagreements about values.

Apply and preserve

Conduct a timed or typed exchange; record two paraphrases, two evidence requests and a concession.

Check: Answer the task, cite a precise detail, explain the connection and disclose a limitation.

Day 4

Substantive revision

Direct instruction

A stronger position may become narrower after discussion. Explain what the exchange changed.

Apply and preserve

Revise a reason and counterclaim paragraph. Preserve and explain before/after excerpts.

Check: Answer the task, cite a precise detail, explain the connection and disclose a limitation.

Day 5

Defend the paper

Direct instruction

A defense tests reasoning, not speaking speed or memorization. Accessible modes use the same evidence standard.

Apply and preserve

Submit the paper, source map, dialogue record and revision trail; answer two evaluator questions.

Check: Answer the task, cite a precise detail, explain the connection and disclose a limitation.

Position paper and accessible defense

Submit the product, five daily responses, one before/after revision and a 150–250-word reflection explaining an improvement with evidence.

Mastery requires evaluator review at 8/10. Revise weak criteria and resubmit below 8/10. The completion button records evidence preparation, not academic approval.