W6D3: A Debate about AI

What we’re doing

You’ll rotate through several stations, each presenting a controversial claim about AI. At each station, your team will:

  1. Add one argument (for or against the claim) supported by evidence from course readings
  2. Challenge or question one existing argument that’s already posted

This is about engaging with evidence and recognizing complexity, not about winning. You’ll be assigned positions and asked to question your own side’s arguments.

What to bring

  • Course readings (digital or notes)
  • A device to access the shared bibliography document (link will be provided in class)
  • Sticky notes will be provided

How it works

At each station (8-10 minutes):

  1. Read the claim and existing sticky notes

  2. Check the shared doc for citation details if needed

  3. Add your citation to the doc using format: [short-label] URL

    • We’ve pre-populated slugs for assigned readings (e.g., week2-licklider)
    • Only add new entries if citing something else

  4. Write sticky note with your argument: “[short-label] Your point”

  5. Write second sticky responding to an existing point: “But what about…?” or “This assumes…”

    • This one doesn’t need a citation - genuine questions are fine

Final debrief (10 min): Last team at each station will summarize the strongest evidence they saw on both sides.

What makes a good contribution

  • Specific evidence over general opinion (“Week 3 HBR article shows…” not “I think…”)
  • Challenges that sharpen thinking (“This only works if users can recognize errors” not “I disagree”)
  • Builds on what’s already there rather than repeating points

Why we’re doing this

You’ll practice distinguishing strong from weak arguments, engaging with course readings in real time, and recognizing that complex questions resist simple answers. This connects directly to the evaluation and “check against reality” mindset we’re building all semester.