Argumentation – Learning Aloud

Debating an AI Opponent

I have written on several occasions about the educational potential of debate. Researchers who focus on this topic often use the alternative term “argumentation“. Debate requires a deep understanding of the contested topic and offers a concrete way to exercise critical thinking. It also involves a motivational element because it involves competition. I read some educational research on debate and made a personal connection, noting how quality argumentation differed from the arguments I read on social media. Most of my previous posts about argumentation are available on my blog.

A couple of years ago, I encountered a proposal that AI chatbots could serve as debate partners and saw a connection to Deanna Kuhn’s research, which investigated text messages as a way to develop argumentation skills because the process created a written record that could be analyzed and discussed. I saw a similar opportunity in the written record produced in an AI chat and the AI system could provide an opponent.

I had done little more with this idea until recently, but I began thinking about a more formal debate format and decided to see how AI would implement the format I had in mind.

Here is the prompt I have been exploring.

I want you to debate me on the topic of whether a computer and keyboard or handwriting on paper is the best note-taking approach. First, write a 200-word position statement supporting handwriting, and I will do the same for using a keyboard. After evaluating my position, write a challenge to my position. I will reply and challenge your position.

I chose this topic because I have read much of the related research and popular press and I think I understand the issues and competing positions. I also argue the less popular digital approach. This combination seemed a good combination to evaluate the experience.

The change I made from my previous approach to an AI debate was to add the expectation that each participant create an introductory position the two parties a way to identify what appeared to be issues that were in disagreement. One more thing, while I first explored this experience using an AI subscription I use (Claude), I then tried the Mac mini on which I self-host an AI system (running Ollama) and repeated the process. The self-hosted experience was great and had the strange benefit of being to take an hour or so off for lunch and come back to the computer with the debate still active. I was particularly impressed by the content the AI was able to through at me. This Mac was not connected to the Internet and the only explanation I can offer is that I use the same setup to run a Karpathy Wiki and I have a great deal of relevant content within that system.

I have a substantial amount of content stored from this session and I often include such material as an Appenedix, but this was simply too much material. As an alternative, I decided I would upload the transcript of the entire debate to NotebookLM (Gemini Notebook) and include a link to this notebook for anyone interested in reading the transcript.

I had one final idea. What if I use the AI embedded with the notebook to ask for an evaluation of the arguments and a winner?

Even if you don’t examine the transcript of the debate, NotebookLM’s evaluation gives you a sense of the level of the content and the interaction produced. I was a little disappointed because I thought my position was beyond logical refutation, but Notebook seemed unwilling to declare me the clear winner. The experience was not unlike actual debates. Can you get your opponent to engage with you on what you want the judge to accept as the key or deciding issues?

Prompt: I want you to evaluate this debate considering whether taking notes by hand or using a computer is best in preparing a learner for tests based on lecture content. Are the best arguments made by the pro-keyboard or pro-handwriting supporter?

Evaluating this debate through the lens of preparing for tests based on lecture content reveals a fundamental tension between efficient information storage and active cognitive processing.

Both sides offer strong, distinct arguments depending on the type of test being taken and the student’s studying habits.

The Pro-Handwriting Case: Best for Conceptual Tests and Internal Recall

The pro-handwriting supporter makes the most compelling arguments regarding internalization, conceptual understanding, and performance under actual exam conditions.

The “Recall” vs. “Retrieval” Advantage: In an exam setting, students do not have access to their devices or a search engine. The handwriting supporter argues that digital note-taking promotes “cognitive offloading” and “retrieval” (knowing where to find a fact in a database) rather than “recall” (pulling a concept from internal memory). Handwriting forces the brain to do the heavy lifting immediately, creating the robust neural pathways needed to recall information under pressure without a digital “crutch”.
Performance on Conceptual Questions: Backed by the Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) study, the handwriting advocate highlights that because typing is fast, it leads to mindless “transcription”. Because physical writing is slower, hand-writers must summarize and prioritize key concepts in real-time. This “selective encoding” means they perform significantly better on conceptual and synthesis test questions.
The “Sieve” vs. “Bucket” Study Cycle: Handwriting acts as a “sieve” that filters information during the lecture. When test preparation begins weeks or months later, the hand-writer reviews a distilled, pre-processed “mental map”. In contrast, a typed “bucket” of notes requires the student to spend limited study time filtering a mountain of raw, flat data before they can even begin deep synthesis.

The Pro-Keyboard Case: Best for Detailed Tests and Long-Term Study Flexibility

The pro-keyboard supporter makes highly sophisticated arguments regarding information completeness, managing cognitive load, and the reality of long-term study cycles.

Performance on Detail-Oriented Questions: The keyboard allows students to type fast enough to capture almost everything accurately. For exams that test factual details and specific data points, the pro-keyboard side is heavily favored, as research indicates laptop users perform better on detail-oriented questions due to their comprehensive records.
Managing Lecture Cognitive Overload: The keyboard supporter rightly points out that a fast-paced lecture is not the ideal setting for deep conceptual thinking. Attempting to synthesize while keeping up with a speaker can cause cognitive overload. Keyboarding minimizes the friction of capture. This “offloads” the processing during class so the student can focus on capturing data, leaving the deep reflection to a low-pressure study environment.
Iterative Study and Optimization: Digital notes are highly malleable. Features like searchability, audio-linking, and inserting placeholders (like “XXX”) for missed content allow students to efficiently patch gaps, reorganize ideas, and elaborate on notes over a semester-long period. This active post-processing provides a substantial generative advantage over rigid, handwritten pages that are cumbersome to restructure.

Conclusion: Who Makes the Best Arguments?

The pro-handwriting supporter makes the superior psychological and cognitive arguments for final test performance. Their points are deeply anchored in established learning science—such as “desirable difficulty” and the “generation effect”—proving that the physical friction of writing is a feature that directly constructs a student’s internal cognitive map. Under test conditions, a “remembered concept” will always outperform a “searchable note”.

However, the pro-keyboard supporter makes the more realistic argument regarding modern study workflows. If a student is highly disciplined and actively uses the study phase to review, edit, and link their digital notes, the digital “workspace” provides a highly scalable and superior infrastructure for long-term learning.

Ultimately, if the goal of note-taking is to build a high-functioning cognitive map to ace conceptual exams, the pro-handwriting arguments are the strongest. If the goal is to build a durable, searchable archive for detailed reference, the pro-keyboard arguments win out.

Would you like me to create an interactive study guide or a set of flashcards based on these opposing cognitive theories to help you further analyze these learning principles?

References:

Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the Computer: A Microgenetic Study of Developing Argument Skills in a Computer-Supported Environment. Child Development, 79(5), 1310-1328

Mayweg-Paus, E., Macagno, F., & Kuhn, D. (2016). Developing Argumentation Strategies in Electronic Dialogs: Is Modeling Effective. Discourse Processes, 53(4), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1040323

Show Your Work – Improve Argumentation

Thinking is not visible to self and others and this reality limits both personal analysis and assistance from others. I have always associated the request to show your work associated with learning math so subprocesses of mathematical solutions can be examined, but the advantage can be applied when possible to other processes. I have a personal interest in the ways in which technology can be used to externalize thinking processes and the ways in which technology offers unique opportunities when compared with other methods of externalization such as paper and pen.

Ideas from different areas of interest sometimes come together in unexpected ways. This has been a recent experience for me with a long-term interest in argumentation and digital tools applied to learning. Argumentation may not spark an immediate understanding for educators. It sometimes help if I connect it with the activity of debate, but it relates to many other topics such as critical thinking and the processes of science as well. It relates directly to issues such as the distribution of misinformation online and what might be done to protect us all from this type of influence.

For a time, I was fascinated by the research of Deanna Kuhn and wrote several posts about her findings and educational applications. Kuhn studied what I would describe as the development of argumentation skills and what educational interventions might be applied to change the limitations she observed. It is easy to see many of the limitations of online social behavior in the immaturity of middle school students engaged in a structured argument (debate). Immature interactions involving a topic with multiple sides might be described as egocentric. Even though there is an interaction with a common topic, participants mostly state the positions they take with and frequently without supporting evidence. As they go back and forth, the seldom identify the positions taken by an “opponent” or offer evidence to weaken such positions. Too often, personal attacks follow in the “adult” online version, and little actual examination of supposed issues of interest is involved.

Consideration of the process of clearly stating positions and evidence for and against maps easily to what we mean by critical thinking and the processes of science. In the political sphere what Kuhn and similar researchers investigate relates directly to whether or not policy matters are the focus of differences of opinion.

Externalization and learning to argue effectively

Kuhn proposed that to improve (develop) critical thinking skills learners would benefit from experiences encouraging reflection. An approach that proved productive was based in multiple studies on two techniques for encouraging reflection. Across multiple age groups (middle school, high school, college students) she had pairs of participants argue using online chat. A pair had to agree on a given “move” or statement before submission (externalizing rationales for consideration) and submitting statements in chat both allowed an opportunity to focus on the message with interference from the face-to-face issues that are present in formal debate and to create a record that could be critiqued. In some studies, the participants were asked to complete forms asking for a statement of the positions taken by opponents and evidence offered in support of these positions. The effectiveness of the treatments was examined following training without such scaffolds.

AI arguments result in an external record

I and others have been exploring the experience of arguing with an AI opponent. One insight I had while exploring this activity was that it resulted in an external product that could be examined much in the way Kuhn’s chat transcripts could be examined. Classroom applications seem straightforward. For example, the educator could provide the same prompt to all of the students in the class and ask the students to submit the resulting transcript after an allotted amount of time. Students could be asked to comment on their experiences and selected “arguments” could be displayed for consideration of the group. A more direct approach would use Kuhn’s pairs approach asking that the pairs decide on a chat entry before it was submitted. The interesting thing about AI large language models is that the experience across submissions of the same prompt are different for each individual or for the same individual submitting the prompt a second time.

I have described what an AI argument (debate) looks like and provided an example of a prompt that would initiate the argument and offer evaluation in a previous post. I have included the example I used in that post below. In this example, I am debating the AI service regarding the effectiveness of reading from paper or screen as I thought readers are likely familiar with this controversy.

…

Summary

Critical thinking, the process of science, and effective discussion of controversial topics depends on the skills of argumentation. Without development, the skills of argumentation are self-focused lacking the careful identification and evaluation of opposing ideas. These limitations can be addressed through instructional strategies encouraging reflection and the physical transcript resulting from an argument with an AI-based opponent provides the opportunity for reflection.

References:

Iordanou, K. (2013). Developing Face-to-Face Argumentation Skills: Does Arguing on the Computer Help. Journal of Cognition & Development, 14(2), 292–320.

WebQuests Meet Argumentation

My Instructional Design and Technology class a week or so ago was discussing WebQuests as an example of a scaffolded information problem-solving task. I assume folks who read this blog have memories of the popularity of WebQuests. I say memories because even good educational ideas seem to fade as newer things come along.

I conclude my classes by having a student volunteer or me when no one has something to present offer a short description of a tech tool or service they feel educators should explore. A student described Parlay – a tool intended to help educators structure discussion. We noticed some similarities of the structure of a Parlay discussion and WebQuest and decided the Parlay approach might be a way to extend a WebQuest into a discussion or a debate.

A Parlay “design” is organized into four components – goals, content, discussion questions, and peer responses. Parlay offers a collection of lessons within what the service describes as the Parlay Universe.

You can also choose to create your own lesson and assign it to a class or maybe eventually contribute it to the Parlay Universe.

I have a favorite WebQuest called the “Snow Goose Dilemma” I created many years ago. I redid this exercise using Parlay and a YouTube video I found within Parlay.

This example can be found at https://go.parlayideas.com?invite_code=4m1@8BhsY. A lesson can be found by sharing a code or a link. This is the link option.

Parlay generates pseudonyms for participants so responses to the discussion questions are anonymous (the teacher has access to a dashboard that provides actual identities and other information about student activity). Other students are then invited to offer feedback (respond) to the question responses. Depending on the content and discussion questions this could easily become a format for lessons in argumentation.

Parlay offers educators a free trial with a cost of $160 per year. This price likely will put many off because it may seem a service one would use occasionally. The company sees things differently. It is too bad there are not other more intermediate opportunities for participation.

Topics and resources for argumentation

A task I have promoted multiple times for middle school and high school classrooms is argumentation. If you use the hashtag for this post, you will find the previous posts in which I describe what argumentation is (think debate) and explain the content area and high thinking skill development opportunities providing students opportunities to engage in formal argumentation offers.

One of the challenges for implementing class argumentation is the identification of issues that lend themselves to debate and the efficient access to the reasoning and evidence providing the background for such interactions. I have previously recommended the work of Kuhn (see the link above) because her book and the proven topics she offers as examples are one concrete way to get started with tested topics. However, you may want to find different topics that are better suited to integration with the topics you prioritize.

One point of departure could be some consideration of what your purpose is. How much do you want to emphasize finding factual information to emphasize positions students take (search and content evaluation), how much are you emphasizing respectful argumentation and the development of higher order skills, or are both important goals. Related to this consideration is the amount of time you want to spend. An argumentation exercise that begins or incorporates online search will simply require more time.

Here are two sources one of which I would suggest is heavily weighted toward a focus on argumentation and the other more weighted toward information evaluation related to argument reasoning and position.

ProCon

ProCon is my example of a site suited to provide the background for an efficient focus on argumentation, I think about the site as being useful to educators in three stages – what are some topics suited to argumentation, what is the background for a specific argument, and what are pro and con points important to this issue. The following three images were selected to exemplify these three stages.

All Sides

All Sides identifies current controversial topics and focuses on offering content sources that have been identified as providing a conservative or liberal bias on the controversy as well as a more centrist source. AllSides offers resources for educators related to how such content could be used. The following images offer an idea of how the content is organized.

Online argumentation can be improved

I try to think carefully about practices I support professionally. Professionally, I am an educator and cognitive researcher. Even when a topic might be relevant to my profession I would not claim I think carefully about that issue. When it comes to social media and the acrimony that can sometimes result from social media interactions, I don’t think this is the case. I believe I can both suggest there is potential in social media interactions and claim that too many are doing it wrong. Personally, I don’t claim that I always do it right, but I do claim I think carefully about how it should be done. This is because I see the damage done, but don’t want the opportunity to be discarded.

I read a lot about arguing (perhaps debate would be a more familiar way to describe what I value) so I think I understand the skills required, the lack of these skills evidenced in so many interactions, and evidence for some of the reasons skills are not present. Like so many practiced skills, performance is a function of proficiency and motivation. One needs to be motivated to learn skills and to apply them.

For educators whom I consider my primary audience and who may be interested in the development of such skills and dispositions as important goals, I have included a couple of resources at the end of this post. Mentioning experts by name in this post might make more sense if you take a look at my references.

In discussing the importance of teacher modeling, Kuhn notes that when it comes to interactions involving possible controversy what teachers model is very important and probably more important than modeling the skills involved. Kuhn describes the common justification for positions taken as “That’s just how I feel” as very common outside of school and what students encounter from peers and too many adults. Part of the benefit in learning argumentation skills is to recognize the inadequacy of this position. Reasons and evidence are important and being able to interact with a focus on reasons and evidence is essential when controversy is involved. Recognizing one has a responsibility to explain reasons and values and to request the same from others is what moves interactions forward.

Kuhn suggests the expectation that others be responsible for explaining reasons and values applies to teachers and textbooks. I assume this applies especially when asked for such justification – why do I need to know this? This can be a challenge. Clearly, “because I say so” and similar appeals to the significance of authority are not sufficient. Some goals are kind of squishy, but still capable of being offered as reasons. Evidence may be more of a challenge. In some cases, the reason may sound something like – “one of the expected purposes of an education is to develop in everyone an understanding of how xxx works so that this common knowledge can be assumed” is the reason. Perhaps evidence might be to point to a relevant disagreement within the general population as an example that this common understanding does not exist.

An important point in understanding argumentation is that even offering a reason with evidence is not equivalent to a resolution. Reasons and evidence for multiple positions exist and are of differing significance. Reasons and evidence can also be directly disputed as valid. Reaching an evaluativist level of knowing is advanced and includes both the recognition of both the subjective and objective. Translated it involves an understanding of what is meant by the commonly recognized phrase “everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts”. Hence, it is possible to understand that different individuals have different opinions and also accept that some opinions are more valid than others. Accepting argumentation as valuable means accepting and being able to engage in the exploration of reasons and evidence for the collective purpose of moving understanding in all involved forward.

I don’t see argumentation as capable of resolving all differences of opinion. However, it is a process to see if these differences are well reasoned and backed by evidence. Some differences come down to core values, but it is important to determine if this is really the case and to recognize what these core values actually are.

For deeper exploration and methods for skill acquisition, see the following:

Graff, G., Birkenstein, C. & Durst, R. (2018). They say, I say: Moves that matter in academic writing. Norton.

Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L. & Khait, V. (2016). Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing students’ thinking and writing. Routledge.

Kialo-Edu

I have written previously about my own experiences hosting an online argument/debate using Kialo.com. https://learningaloud.com/blog/2018/05/22/kialo-structured-argumentation].

Kialo organizes the pro and con positions on a stated issue. Others are invited to add to the sample pro and con statements the host uses to initiate the discussion and to respond with pro and con statements to the statements made by others. The developing argument is visually structured as hierarchically organized statements and eventually participants are encouraged to vote on the persuasiveness of component components of the discussion.

A couple of visuals from my own effort may help communicate what this looks like. The first shows the interface for contributing and examining the discussion. The second a visualization of a mature discussion.

Kialo has now spun off a version of its original effort no focused on classroom use [Kialo-Edu.com – https://www.kialo-edu.com. Kialo was always used in classrooms, but this new version allows some separation.

If this is at all interesting, I would encourage your attention to my original description of how the online tool works. Kialo offers content describing the intent of its new service for classrooms [https://www.kialo-edu.com/about] and offers additional background including tutorials, examples, and suggestions for application [https://support.kialo-edu.com/hc/en-us/articles/360035225932-Try-Out-Kialo-in-Five-Simple-Steps-High-School-Classrooms].

Argument analysis

An essential component of the critical thinking involved in issue-based disputes is the capacity to understand the logic and evidence offered in different sides of an argument/debate. Of the skills now deemed essential to 21st-century functioning, engaging in and understanding arguments may be among the most important. The openness of the online world and cable TV channels with specialized political foci would be examples of why the capacity to analyze positions has increased in importance. So, to compete with those who prioritize coding and STEM initiatives, I have been making the case for this overlooked, but critical skill.

I have tried to offer some suggestions for how argumentation/debate could be taught. One example would be the structured approach provided by Kialo. This is a tool that structures an argument for participants and increases participant awareness of the components of an argument as it is being advanced. This post focuses on a template for MindMup which is intended to be used to analyze an argument already made. The core goal in each approach is to increase the awareness of positions taken and related reasons and evidence for these positions. The capacity to step back and consider pro and con reasons and evidence is what is missing in so many naturally occurring debates.

MindMup (you probably note the similarity to MindMap) is a general purpose tool for organizing ideas. The argumentation analysis approach described in the link I provide above is a specialized template for this online tool. The advantage over a more general purpose “mind mapping” tool is the relabeling of common mind mapping tools (e.g., add reason, add objection). As an example, I have reworked a small section of a debate I hosted in Kialo as a MindMup visualization.