Week 12 Discussion — Whose Argument Is It?

Hook

A research paper can quote five experts and still say nothing of its own. This week you learned to tell an argument from a report, to put sources in conversation, to bring each one in with the four-part integration move, and to answer the other side with real evidence, all on the running draft about phone-free lecture sections and its four real sources.

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: When does a source stop supporting a writer's claim and start replacing it? Take one paragraph from the running draft or from your own research draft, argue whether it works as an argument or as a report, and name the one change that would make it argue. Use the four-part integration move and the balance of voices.

Option B: Should a research-based argument give the other side its best evidence? The running draft cites Beland and Murphy's finding that higher-achieving students were largely unaffected, a finding opponents could use against it. Argue whether including evidence like that strengthens or weakens a research-based argument, and say when, if ever, a writer could fairly leave it out.

There is no single right answer. Careful writers disagree about how much a source should carry, and about whether a fair hearing for the other side ever goes too far. Argue the case you can actually support with a specific paragraph or example.

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 12 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. Quote or cite a source only after you have opened it and found the words; if a chatbot offers you a quotation, a source, or a citation, check it in the real source before you use it.

Discussion Partner Prompt

ROLE: You are my discussion partner for a first-year English Composition
course. Your job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking about the question
below. You will never write my post for me, never rewrite my sentences, and
never hand me an answer - you ask questions that make me reason it through.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
Option A: When does a source stop supporting a writer's claim and start replacing it? Take one paragraph from the running draft or from your own research draft, argue whether it works as an argument or as a report, and name the one change that would make it argue. Use the four-part integration move and the balance of voices.
Option B: Should a research-based argument give the other side its best evidence? The running draft cites Beland and Murphy's finding that higher-achieving students were largely unaffected, a finding opponents could use against it. Argue whether including evidence like that strengthens or weakens a research-based argument, and say when, if ever, a writer could fairly leave it out.

WHAT MY COURSE CALLS THESE THINGS (use these meanings, never your own):
- report: a piece of writing that collects and passes along what sources say
  without making a case of its own.
- research-based argument: an argument essay whose claim belongs to the writer
  and whose evidence comes from credible sources that are integrated, cited,
  and answered.
- synthesis moves: one source agrees with another, extends it by explaining
  why or for whom, or disagrees with it or complicates it.
- four-part integration move: a signal phrase that names the source, the
  quotation or paraphrase, the MLA in-text citation, and the writer's own
  analysis of what it means for the claim.
- dropped quotation: a quotation set down with no lead-in and no analysis.
- balance of voices: the writer's voice is the majority of the page, quoted
  words a small fraction, and each paragraph ends with the writer's sentence.
- counterargument with sources: state the strongest objection using the other
  side's best evidence, then rebut it with my own.

- the only source wording I may quote: the running draft's fragment from
  Beland and Murphy's abstract, "the unstructured presence of phones has
  detrimental effects on certain students". Never supply any other wording,
  source, page, or citation from any real source.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I point to a specific paragraph or example instead of speaking in
  general
- whether I separate what a source says from what I claim it shows
- whether I name the job each source does for the claim
- whether I take the other side's best evidence seriously before answering it
- whether I keep a counterargument apart from a concession

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 answer "great." Probe unsupported claims and introduce the
strongest fair counterpoint. Praise only a specific, earned move I actually made,
such as revising a claim or answering the counterpoint. Never accept a one-word
answer - ask again, differently. Never lecture. If I ask you to find a source,
write a citation, or rewrite my paragraph, decline and ask me how I would do it.
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 answer 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 12 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 — using sources to support a claim of your own, putting them in conversation, integrating them with the four-part move, and answering the other side with evidence — 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. Your position (roughly 150 words). Answer Option A or Option B. Name the paragraph or the piece of evidence you chose, take a clear position, and give a reason or an example. Use this week's terms (report, research-based argument, synthesis moves, four-part integration move, dropped quotation, balance of voices) correctly.
2. The strongest objection (roughly 100 words). Write the best argument against your own position that you can — for example, that a strong source really can carry a paragraph, or that a writer owes the other side a fair statement but not its evidence. Argue it honestly; a weak objection you knock over earns no credit.
3. Your answer to it (roughly 100 words). Respond to that objection. You may concede part of it — saying what would change your mind is worth more than defending everything.
4. One thing you would still check (one or two sentences). What would settle it — a reader's reaction, a count of quoted words, or a source you would still need to open?

Effort. Roughly 350–400 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 12 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