Arguing with an AI opponent

I became interested in argumentation as a way to develop critical thinking and engage more effectively when involved in a disagreement after reading the work of Deanna Kuhn (see citations). I encountered her when looking about for a way to deal with my bewilderment at the online political rhetoric I first recognized in association with the Presidential election of 2016. Spending time using social media at that time and continuing through today, I found myself perplexed by contentions I knew simply to be wrong or more honestly ridiculous and the vicious and flawed manner in which so many would defend such positions when challenged. Perhaps naive, I had assumed that engagement with these individuals involving logic and evidence would be helpful. This was not the case.

Argumentation has the sound of an emotional disagreement. This is not the intended reaction. An alternative term that conveys a similar meaning might be debate. Kuhn studied argumentation developmentally in educational settings and evaluated techniques to improve the quality of arguments (debates). Without proper training and practice, individuals resort to fallacious reasoning, ad hominem attacks, and other ineffective tactics that undermine their credibility and weaken their arguments. They tend to focus on what they have to say and fail to register the positions and evidence advanced by others. Ultimately, poor argumentation skills can hinder communication, hinder problem-solving, and hinder progress in various aspects of life. Processes we may not label as arguments, such as the process by which scientific research leads to advances or persuasive writing, but such processes are based on similar features – clear identification of positions with the suggestion of supporting evidence and the challenging of the value of evidence that has been advanced supporting opposing positions.

I have written multiple posts about argumentation and argumentation skill development and you may find some of these posts of interest. 

I am returning to this topic in reaction to a post on the potential of AI as a debate opponent by Eric Curts. Curt’s post includes a general-purpose AI prompt to engage a student in a debate with an AI “opponent” and suggests a list of topics for educators who may want to try offering their students this type of experience. I encourage your examination of his post.

I have made mention of debate as one way in which students might chat with AI, but Curt’s post encouraged greater exploration on my part. As I claimed in recent posts, educators simply need to explore AI just to see what they can get it to do as such exploration seems the best way to find relevant uses.

I have written at some length about the research comparing the value of student reading and notetaking by using paper or a laptop and was curious to debate this topic with an AI opponent. I advocate for the value of using digital resources, but I have read a great deal of this research and recognize there are many the claims and counterclaims. I was curious to see what the debate experience would be like. I was impressed with the experience.

I used my own version of Curt’s general purpose prompt. The first couple of responses from the AI system and me follow.

I would like you to engage in a debate with me. The topic of the debate will be whether reading from a book is superior to reading from a computer or tablet. You will take the position supporting the superiority of reading from a book. When you respond, only share one argument at a time. You go first. 

ChatGPT has a great feature that allows the sharing of a chat. Here is the transcript of the entire exchange between me and the AI.

The ease with which a ChatGPT transcript can be shared generated several related ideas. It would be easy enough to have students debate using a prompt generated by the teacher and to submit their transcripts for review. Kuhn used a related approach in her research. She had students argue using chat. The value of the chat transcript was in the opportunity for review and critique. Kuhn used the transcripts for research purposes, but also as a way to analyze the interaction as an instructional approach. Where the claims made by an opponent acknowledged and addressed? Was evidence provided to support the claims you made? etc.

Take a look at the Curts post and try debating an opponent yourself.

Citation

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