Assignment: Live AI Debate & Transcript Purpose  This Week 9 assignment gives you the chance to practice constructing, presenting, and defending a formal argument by engaging in a live written

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDebate Prompt

10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentPrompt given to AI tool includes all four required elements, written with clarity, sets strong expectations.

9 to >7.0 ptsProficientPrompt given to AI tool includes most required elements, mostly clear, sets expectations adequately.

7 to >5.0 ptsSatisfactoryPrompt given to AI tool includes some required elements but is missing clarity or detail, potentially affecting the debate experience on a larger scale.

5 to >3.0 ptsDevelopingPrompt is vague, missing key parts, or unlikely to guide the debate effectively.

3 to >0 ptsMissingPrompt not submitted or missing most required elements.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDebate Length & Transcript Completion

15 to >13.0 ptsExcellentAt least 10 exchanges completed (5 AI, 5 student); transcript is complete, formatted, and labeled correctly.

13 to >10.0 ptsProficient8–9 exchanges completed; transcript mostly complete

10 to >7.0 ptsSatisfactory6–7 exchanges completed; transcript included but missing parts or details.

7 to >3.0 ptsDeveloping3–5 exchanges completed, or transcript is composed of the AI exchanges, and/or transcript incomplete or poorly organized.

3 to >0 ptsMissingFewer than 3 rounds completed, transcript is composed of minimal human interaction, or no transcript submitted.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument Construction

20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentArguments are clear, logical, and consistently support the position; strong use of reasoning and evidence; demonstrates critical thinking. Materials from Weeks 7 and 8 are clearly used to supplement the argument.

17 to >13.0 ptsProficientArguments are mostly clear and logical; some use of reasoning/evidence; generally supports the position well. Materials from Weeks 7 and 8 are used to supplement the argument.

13 to >9.0 ptsSatisfactoryArguments are present but uneven in clarity, organization, or support; limited reasoning or evidence.

9 to >4.0 ptsDevelopingArguments are weak, inconsistent, or off-topic; minimal reasoning or evidence. Low consideration of Weeks 7 and 8 materials to supplement the debate.

4 to >0 ptsMissingLittle or no argument presented.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResponsiveness to AI Counterarguments

30 to >28.0 ptsExcellentResponds directly to each AI counterargument with specific, persuasive rebuttals; consistently uses reasoning/evidence; maintains respectful and academic tone. Student may engage in more than ten exchanges with the AI tool, including asking clarifying or follow-up questions to better understand the AI’s perspective. Student may pivot or refine their argument based on the AI’s responses, demonstrating adaptability and depth of engagement similar to a real-life debate.

28 to >22.0 ptsProficientResponds to most AI points with relevant rebuttals; generally persuasive; tone appropriate. Student engages in multiple exchanges with the AI tool, occasionally asking clarifying questions that contribute to the development of the argument.

22 to >16.0 ptsSatisfactoryResponds to some AI points, but rebuttals are vague, repetitive, or only partially relevant. Student may engage with the AI tool but asks few or no clarifying questions, showing limited effort to explore or refine their position.

16 to >8.0 ptsDevelopingRarely engages with AI points; responses are weak, off-topic, or superficial. Limited interaction with the AI tool and little attempt to seek clarification or deepen understanding.

8 to >0 ptsMissingLittle or no attempt to respond to AI counterarguments.

30 pts