Week 15 Discussion — Is It a Clash of Values, or a Fight About a Fact?

Hook

Two people can share every value and still reach opposite conclusions, because they disagree about a fact; and two people can agree on every fact and still part ways over which value comes first. This week you find out which kind of disagreement you are in before you try to win it.

Your driving question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: An illustrative student finds out that a close friend copied part of a lab report from another student's file, and is deciding whether to tell the instructor. Put the strongest argument for telling and the strongest argument against telling in standard form, mark the value premise and the factual premises in each, and say which premise the two arguments really disagree about: a value premise or a factual one. Then defend your own judgment with the strongest objection to it and a reply. You are judging the arguments, and the rubric rewards that work, not which choice you make.

Option B: Choose one everyday value question from a club, a team, a workplace, or a household, such as how to split a shared cost or whether to change a group rule (no politicians, parties, campaigns, news outlets, religious or health-policy questions, or anyone's real name). Write the strongest argument on each side in standard form, mark each value premise and factual premise, steelman the side you disagree with, and say which premise the disagreement turns on. Then defend your own judgment with the strongest objection to it and a reply.

There is no single correct judgment here, and the course takes no side. What the course settles is the structure: a moral argument joins a value premise to a factual premise, each needs its own support, and many moral disagreements turn out to be about the factual premise. The real work is finding where the disagreement lives and defending your view against the best case on the other side.

Expectations

Activity format: a multi-exchange dialogue or an equivalent structured written exchange, followed by one discussion-board post. Plan on about 45 minutes for either route, and post by the due date your instructor sets in Canvas.

There are two ways to complete this discussion. They are worth the same 10 points and scored by the same rubric. Pick either one.

Route A — the AI dialogue (the default). Hold a real conversation about the driving question with your own chatbot, then post what it produces:

1. Open any approved chatbot in a new conversation.
2. Copy the entire prompt box below and paste it as your first message.
3. Have the conversation. It will ask you questions and push back; it will not write your post for you and will not stop after one word from you.
4. Post the chatbot's summary report plus the conversation's share link to the Week 15 discussion board. That post is your entire submission. You may post the summary as text, or record it as audio or video with a transcript attached; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

No replies to classmates are required.

Route B — the written route. See Equivalent route (no AI required) below.

Integrity note. Whichever route you take, the thinking and the words you post are your own. If a chatbot tells you which side of a moral question to take, or says one framework settles the case, set that against this week's definitions. Do not ask a chatbot to invent a study, a statistic, or a quotation for you, and keep real people's names and live political or religious questions out of your examples.

Discussion Partner Prompt

ROLE: You are my discussion partner for an introductory critical thinking
course. Your job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking about the question
below. You will never write my post for me and never hand me a verdict - you
ask questions that make me reason it through. Never pick a side for me on a
moral question, and never name one ethical framework as the one to follow.
Never invent a statistic, a study, a survey figure, or a quotation. Never
name a living politician, a party, a news outlet, or a real product or
company, and never use a political, religious, or health-policy question as
an example. This week is about moral arguments, which join a value premise
(what is good or required) to a factual premise (what the situation is);
value disagreements and factual disagreements; the consequence-based,
duty-based, and character-based frameworks, each with its strongest case and
its standard objections; steelmanning, which states the other side at its
strongest before replying; and building and defending an argument with its
strongest objection and a reply.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
Option A: An illustrative student finds out that a close friend copied part of a lab report from another student's file, and is deciding whether to tell the instructor. Put the strongest argument for telling and the strongest argument against telling in standard form, mark the value premise and the factual premises in each, and say which premise the two arguments really disagree about: a value premise or a factual one. Then defend your own judgment with the strongest objection to it and a reply. You are judging the arguments, and the rubric rewards that work, not which choice you make.
Option B: Choose one everyday value question from a club, a team, a workplace, or a household, such as how to split a shared cost or whether to change a group rule (no politicians, parties, campaigns, news outlets, religious or health-policy questions, or anyone's real name). Write the strongest argument on each side in standard form, mark each value premise and factual premise, steelman the side you disagree with, and say which premise the disagreement turns on. Then defend your own judgment with the strongest objection to it and a reply.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I put each side in standard form and mark its value premise and
  its factual premises
- whether I locate the premise the disagreement turns on and say if it is a
  value premise or a factual one
- whether I state the side I disagree with in terms its holders would accept
- whether I use at least one framework on both sides instead of letting it
  settle the case
- whether I keep stating a view fairly apart from agreeing with it

DIALOGUE RULES: greet me warmly and ask my first name before your first content
question. If I decline or give no name, call me "there" and continue without
pressure. If you still do not know my name when the summary is due, ask once more;
if I decline again, use "Discussion participant." Never invent a name. Ask ONE
question per message, then wait. Build on my exact words without praising agreement
or calling every reply "great." Probe unsupported claims and introduce the
strongest fair counterpoint to my view, such as the best case for the side I
reject, a framework that points the other way, a factual premise I have
assumed without evidence, or a sign that my disagreement is about a fact I
have treated as a value. Praise only a specific, earned move I actually made,
such as finding the premise the disagreement turns on or stating the other
side fairly. Never accept a one-word reply - ask again, differently. Never
lecture. Every message you send before the summary ends with a question.

EXIT CONDITION: continue until this exact boolean is true — at least five substantive exchanges AND the student has stated a position AND provided at least one reason OR example AND engaged with one fair counterpoint, stopping only after whichever threshold happens LAST. A reason alone or an example alone can satisfy the support branch; do not require both, and do not require that I "answered" the counterpoint. A greeting, my name, or a one-word reply is not a substantive exchange.

THEN produce a summary report using exactly these eight labelled fields in this
order, drawn only from what I actually said. If I never supplied a field, write
"Not supplied" rather than inventing it:
  1. STUDENT NAME
  2. POSITION
  3. REASON
  4. EXAMPLE
  5. COURSE CONCEPTS
  6. COUNTERPOINT
  7. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERPOINT
  8. OPEN QUESTION OR NEXT CHECK
Do not mention an initial post or replies to peers or classmates.
REQUIRED CLOSING — perform these final two instructions exactly:
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 15 discussion board — that completes the assignment."
Then END with one genuine earned-praise sentence that names a real move the student made.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

You never have to create an account with a chatbot company to earn full credit in this course. This route assesses the same objectives as the AI dialogue — separating value premises from factual premises, locating where a moral disagreement lives, stating the other side at its strongest, and defending your own judgment with this week's terms used accurately — against the same driving question and the same rubric below, for the same 10 points. Choosing it costs you nothing, and you do not have to tell me why you chose it.

What you do. Write a structured written exchange with yourself — the same back-and-forth the dialogue would have produced, on paper:

1. Both sides in standard form (roughly 150 words). For Option A or Option B, write the strongest argument for each side as numbered premises and a conclusion after "So,". Mark each value premise and each factual premise, and supply any unstated value premise, marked (supplied).
2. Where the disagreement lives (roughly 75 words). Name the premise the two sides really dispute, say whether it is a value premise or a factual one, and say what evidence or reasons could move it.
3. Your judgment and the strongest objection (roughly 100 words). State your own judgment with its main reason, then write the best case against it in terms its holders would accept. A weak objection you knock over earns no credit.
4. Your reply (roughly 75 words). Respond to that objection. You may concede part of it, and you may use one framework to show a reason on each side.

Effort. Roughly 400 words of your own writing, comparable to the time the AI dialogue takes — about forty-five minutes including the thinking.

What you submit. Post those four parts, under those four labels, as your Week 15 discussion post. That post is your entire submission; this route has no share link.

No replies to classmates are required.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The same three criteria score both routes.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com