Ten Structured Academic Controversies for AP Classrooms

 Ten Structured Academic Controversies for AP Classrooms

Comprehensive reading pairs, sentence frames, and consensus-building tools for the five-step SAC process

A Teacher & Student Curriculum Packet

Designed for groups of four (two dyads) — AP Government, Lang, Psych, Bio, Environmental Science, Economics, and Computer Science Principles

Reading Boot Camp  ·  Reading Sage

TEN VOICES, ONE TABLE

Ten Voices, One Truth: Structured Academic Controversy Curriculum SLIDE DECK

Strategic Framework for Integrating Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) Across AP Curricula

"Ten Voices, One Truth" is a comprehensive curriculum packet designed to facilitate Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) within advanced high school classrooms. This educational strategy prioritizes cooperative learning over traditional debate by requiring students to research, present, and then switch perspectives on a given issue. Through a five-step process, small groups engage in active listening and evidence-based discussion to reach a shared consensus or define respectful disagreements. The materials include specific sentence frames and guided readings to help participants navigate complex topics like Supreme Court term limits, AI copyright, and carbon taxes. Ultimately, the curriculum aims to build cognitive empathy and reduce polarization by forcing students to articulate the strongest versions of opposing viewpoints.

1. The Institutional Imperative: Shifting from Adversarial Debate to Cooperative Inquiry

In the contemporary educational landscape, the capacity to navigate polarized environments is no longer merely a social asset; it is a critical cognitive requirement. Traditional pedagogical models often over-prioritize the "win," rewarding students for entrenching themselves in a singular viewpoint and dismissing counter-evidence. To meet the rigorous intellectual demands of Advanced Placement (AP) coursework, we must transition from these adversarial structures toward a model of cooperative inquiry. This shift cultivates cognitive empathy—the ability to understand the internal logic of an opposing view—ensuring our students develop the nuance required for high-level scholarship.

The following table evaluates the strategic differences between the traditional debate model and the Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) framework:

Feature	Traditional Debate	Structured Academic Controversy (SAC)
Goal	Win the argument against an opponent	Understand the issue fully to argue either side; find common ground
Position-taking	Chosen or assigned; defended throughout	Assigned, then deliberately reversed
Listening Requirements	Optional; often used to identify rebuttal material	Required and structured; must paraphrase accurately
Outcomes	A clear winner and a loser	A consensus statement or a refined, respectful disagreement
Social Effects	Can entrench polarized thinking and bias	Builds perspective-taking and reduces polarization

The "So What?" factor in this pedagogical pivot centers on student cognitive architecture. When students are incentivized to "win," they engage in selective perception, filtering out data that contradicts their stance. In contrast, the SAC model requires deep engagement with multiple perspectives, which facilitates the creation of more durable, complex mental models. This shift from victory to understanding directly enhances long-term retention of sophisticated AP-level content, as students must internalize the logic of every side to succeed in the protocol. Operationalizing this shift requires a disciplined adherence to the following pedagogical architecture.

2. The SAC Pedagogical Architecture: A Five-Step Implementation Protocol

For the SAC method to function as a high-leverage instructional tool, it must be implemented through a standardized, replicable process. Consistency across departments allows students to internalize the mechanics of the activity, thereby freeing their cognitive resources to focus on the complexities of the academic controversy itself.

The Five Steps of SAC are systematized as follows:

1. Form Teams: Organize students into groups of four, subdivided into dyads (pairs).
   • Cognitive Skill: Collaborative Scaffolding (distributing the cognitive load with a thinking partner).
2. Assign Positions: Randomly assign each dyad a position based on provided source texts.
   • Cognitive Skill: Perspective Decentering (breaking the link between personal identity and academic argument).
3. Present and Listen: Each dyad presents while the other listens without interruption and then paraphrases the argument to the presenters' satisfaction.
   • Cognitive Skill: Active Listening and Information Processing (ensuring accurate encoding of the "other" view).
4. Switch Perspectives: Dyads drop their original position and construct the strongest possible argument for the opposing side.
   • Cognitive Skill: Cognitive Empathy (reconstructing the internal logic of a counter-attitudinal view).
5. Seek Consensus: Students drop assigned roles and work as themselves to find common ground or articulate refined points of disagreement.
   • Cognitive Skill: Synthetic Reasoning (integrating conflicting data points into a cohesive understanding).

The "structural heart" of this process is the combination of Step 3 (Paraphrase-Passing) and Step 4 (Role Reversal). Step 3 creates a mandatory check against confirmation bias by requiring students to demonstrate they have accurately processed the opposing data before they can respond. Step 4 ensures students do not engage in "straw-man" arguments; they are professionally obligated to construct the strongest possible version of a view they may not personally hold. This prevents the dismissive tendency to view opposition as merely uninformed. This procedural rigor prepares students for the nuanced application of these steps across the AP disciplines.

3. Cross-Disciplinary Applications: Mapping SAC to AP Departmental Goals

The SAC method serves as a versatile tool for deepening inquiry across the curriculum, transforming static curriculum topics into dynamic, multi-perspective analytical exercises.

AP U.S. Government & Politics

• SCOTUS Term Limits: Students evaluate the tension between judicial independence (insulating the Court from political pressure) and democratic accountability (addressing the disconnect between life-tenured justices and contemporary legal understanding).
• The Electoral College: Students weigh the "one person, one vote" principle against the federalist objective of building broad geographic coalitions and protecting the interests of smaller states.

AP Computer Science Principles & English Language

• Section 230 & Liability: Students examine if platforms should be liable for algorithmic amplification. This forces a look at the tension between content safety and the risk of chilling legitimate speech or entrenching monopolies.
• AI-Generated Art & Copyright: Evaluates the "human author requirement" in copyright law. Students synthesize the creative decisions of "prompt engineers" against the ownership concerns of artists whose work trained the models.
• Workplace Monitoring: Students evaluate AI-driven tracking. They must balance legitimate business interests against the algorithmic failure to capture non-measurable but vital work, such as mentoring and creative problem-solving.

AP Biology & Environmental Science

• CRISPR Embryo Editing: Students analyze the trade-offs of preventing inherited disease against the risks of off-target edits (unintended genomic changes) and the "slippery slope" toward non-medical enhancement.
• National Carbon Tax: This focuses on the negative externality of emissions. Students must address the efficiency of a market-based tax against the risk of carbon leakage (industries relocating abroad) and the economic burden on lower-income households.

AP Psychology, Statistics, & Economics

• Juvenile Justice Reform: Students utilize adolescent brain development research regarding impulse control and risk assessment to determine if violent minors should be tried in adult systems or rehabilitative juvenile environments.
• Universal Basic Income (UBI): Students examine the automation of the labor market, contrasting a guaranteed economic floor with the risks of inflation and the inefficiency of non-targeted aid.
• Standardized Testing: In Statistics and Psychology, students evaluate the SAT/ACT by weighing the need for a common measurement of academic readiness against the correlation between scores and family resources.

By forcing students to grapple with these disciplinary tensions, we move beyond rote memorization. The SAC approach ensures that these "So What?" factors—the ethical, economic, and structural trade-offs of each subject—become the primary focus of student inquiry.

4. Operational Excellence: Classroom Management, Scaffolding, and Troubleshooting

Facilitators must maintain rigorous adherence to the SAC structure to prevent the process from devolving into a traditional debate where "winning" overrides "understanding."

Common Pitfalls & Strategic Fixes

Pitfall	Strategic Fix
Step 3 turns into rebuttal	Physically require the paraphrase ("What I hear you saying is...") before any new point is added.
Step 4 feels half-hearted	Pre-emptive Fix: Require dyads to identify the single strongest piece of evidence on the other side before switching.
Step 5 rushes to false agreement	Explicitly state that a refinement of disagreement is a valid, high-achievement outcome.
One student dominates a dyad	Mandate that each partner must use at least two specific sentence frames from the toolkit.

The Scaffolding Toolkit

Presenting a Position

• "Our position is that ___, because the evidence shows ___."
• "The strongest reason for our position is ___."

Active Listening

• "What I hear you saying is that ___."
• "Is it fair to say your position rests on the idea that ___?"

Confirming or Clarifying

• "Yes, that's an accurate summary of our position."
• "That's close, but let me clarify: what we actually mean is ___."

Switching Perspectives

• "Arguing from the other side, one could say ___, because ___."
• "If I were genuinely persuaded by this side, the evidence that would convince me most is ___."

Building Consensus

• "A statement that captures both concerns might be: ___."
• "We were not able to fully resolve ___, and here is why: ___."

The importance of Step 4: Identifying the strongest piece of evidence cannot be overstated. This serves as a critical "pre-emptive fix" because it forces an objective evaluation of data before the student begins the emotional labor of role-playing an opposing view. By isolating the data first, the subsequent perspective switch becomes a substantive analytical exercise rather than a performative one. This rigor in management ensures we can accurately assess student growth.

5. The Assessment Framework: Measuring Process Over Victory

To institutionalize the SAC model, assessment must prioritize cooperative metrics over the "winning" metrics of traditional debate.

Process-Oriented Rubric

Criteria	High Achievement
Evidence Utilization	Robust and accurate use of assigned-position evidence in Steps 2 and 3.
Active Listening	Demonstrates paraphrase accuracy to the satisfaction of the opposing dyad.
Cognitive Empathy	Effort in Step 4 to construct the strongest possible version of the opposing case.
Refinement of Disagreement	Clearly articulates shared ground or provides a nuanced description of why disagreement remains.

Post-Seminar Reflection & Meta-cognition

The individual debrief guide is essential for evaluating student meta-cognition. Specifically, when students are asked, "What additional evidence would you seek?", they are forced to identify the gaps in their own knowledge. This evaluates the student's ability to recognize the limits of their current understanding—a hallmark of an analytical scholar. Other debrief questions, such as identifying the most persuasive piece of evidence or the hardest part of consensus-building, require students to reflect on how their personal thinking was impacted by external evidence.

When implemented with fidelity, the Structured Academic Controversy method fulfills our institutional mission. It produces graduates who are not only analytically rigorous but also capable of the nuanced, respectful, and evidence-based engagement required of scholars in a complex, multi-perspective world.

 

Unpacking SAC: A Guide for Teachers

What Is Structured Academic Controversy?

Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) is a cooperative learning strategy in which small teams of four students explore a genuinely controversial issue from multiple perspectives rather than competing to “win” as opponents. Students are assigned a position, present it, listen actively to the opposing pair, then deliberately reverse roles to argue the other side before the whole group works together to build a shared consensus statement. The goal is not victory — it is deeper, more honest understanding of an issue's full complexity.

SAC vs. Traditional Debate

	Traditional Debate	Structured Academic Controversy
Goal	Win the argument against an opponent	Understand the issue fully enough to argue either side, then find common ground
Position	Chosen or assigned and defended throughout	Assigned, then deliberately reversed
Listening	Optional; often used to find rebuttal material	Required and structured — must paraphrase accurately before responding
Outcome	A winner and a loser	A consensus statement or a clearly articulated, respectful disagreement
Social Effect	Can entrench polarized thinking	Builds perspective-taking and reduces polarization

The Five Steps, Explained

1. Form Teams

Groups of four, split into two dyads. Working in pairs (rather than alone) reduces the pressure on any single student to have all the answers, and gives students a thinking partner throughout every step.

2. Assign Positions

Each dyad receives reading material supporting one side of the issue. Assign positions rather than letting students choose — this is what allows the strategy to build genuine perspective-taking skill rather than simply reinforcing a position a student already held.

3. Present and Listen

Each dyad presents its position while the other dyad listens without interrupting, then paraphrases what they heard until the presenting dyad confirms the paraphrase is accurate. This step, sometimes called “active listening” or “paraphrase-passing,” is the structural heart of SAC — it requires real listening, not just waiting for a turn to speak.

4. Switch Perspectives

Each dyad drops its original assignment and argues the opposing position. This step is what separates SAC from debate: students must construct the strongest possible version of a view they may not personally hold, which research on perspective-taking suggests builds genuine cognitive empathy and reduces the tendency to dismiss opposing views as simply uninformed.

5. Seek Consensus

All assigned positions are dropped. The full group of four discusses the issue as themselves, aiming for a consensus statement everyone can support, or a clear, respectful articulation of where reasonable disagreement remains. Both outcomes count as success — the goal is honest engagement, not forced agreement.

Classroom Setup Tips

●        Assign positions randomly or by count-off rather than by student preference, so students don't self-select into their existing beliefs.

●        Post the sentence frames somewhere visible, or keep them on the worksheet, for the first several SACs your class runs — students internalize the structure quickly with repeated use.

●        Circulate during Step 3 specifically; this is the step most likely to break down into cross-talk if the paraphrase-and-confirm structure isn't reinforced.

●        Consider having each group post its consensus statement (or disagreement statement) for a brief whole-class share at the end.

Common Pitfalls & Fixes

Pitfall	Fix
Step 3 turns into rebuttal, not listening	Physically require the paraphrase (“What I hear you saying is...”) before any new point can be added.
Step 4 feels fake or half-hearted	Ask each dyad to identify the single strongest piece of evidence on the other side before switching — naming it first makes arguing it easier.
Step 5 rushes to false agreement	Explicitly tell students that a well-articulated disagreement is an acceptable, valid outcome of Step 5.
One student dominates a dyad	Assign an internal norm: each partner must use at least two sentence frames aloud during each step.

Assessing an SAC

Consider assessing process over “winning” a position. A simple rubric might evaluate: (1) accurate use of assigned-position evidence in Step 2–3, (2) evidence of genuine listening in the Step 3 paraphrase, (3) the quality and effort of the Step 4 perspective switch, and (4) the thoughtfulness of the Step 5 consensus statement, including whether unresolved disagreement is articulated clearly and respectfully rather than glossed over.

 

SAC 1  ·  AP U.S. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Should U.S. Supreme Court Justices Serve Term Limits?

Essential Question:  Should the Constitution be amended to replace lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court with fixed terms (such as 18 years)?

Suggested Pacing (~50 min class)

Step 1 — Form Teams: 2 min

Step 2 — Assign Positions & Read: 8–10 min

Step 3 — Present & Listen (both directions): 10–12 min

Step 4 — Switch Perspectives: 8–10 min

Step 5 — Seek Consensus: 10–12 min

Whole-Class Debrief: 5–8 min

STEP 1 — Form Teams

Form a group of four. Split into two dyads (pairs) of two students each. Decide as a group which dyad will start as Position A and which will start as Position B — you will argue both sides before the seminar ends.

STEP 2 — Assign Positions & Read

Each dyad reads only its assigned position below. Annotate as you read: underline your strongest piece of evidence, and star the sentence you think best states your position's core claim.

Position A The Court Needs Term Limits Lifetime appointment made sense in 1787, when the average justice served far fewer years than justices do today. Modern justices are appointed younger and live longer, and some now serve over thirty years on the bench — far beyond what the Framers likely anticipated. Fixed, staggered terms (for example, eighteen years, with one seat opening every two years) would give every president a predictable, roughly equal number of nominations, instead of letting the timing of death or retirement hand some presidents three or four appointments and others none at all. Term limits would also reduce the intense political stakes around every nomination fight and every justice's health. When a single vacancy can shift the Court's direction for a generation, confirmation battles become desperate, hyper-partisan spectacles. Regular, predictable turnover would lower the temperature of each individual nomination and make the Court's membership feel less like a high-stakes lottery tied to mortality and more like a stable, evolving institution that reflects the country's changing values over time. Finally, many long-serving justices spend their final years on the bench increasingly disconnected from the lived experience of ordinary Americans. Term limits would keep the Court's membership in closer touch with contemporary legal and social understanding, without sacrificing judicial independence during each justice's fixed term.

 

Position B Lifetime Tenure Protects the Court The Framers gave federal judges lifetime tenure "during good Behaviour" for a specific reason: to insulate judicial decision-making from political pressure. A justice who never has to worry about re-election, reappointment, or a future job is free to rule based on the law and the Constitution, even when a ruling is deeply unpopular with the president, Congress, or the public. Term limits would reintroduce exactly the kind of political calculation the Framers were trying to eliminate. If justices knew their term was ending, some might begin considering their post-Court career — a return to a law firm, a future in politics, a lucrative speaking circuit — years before their term expired. That creates a new incentive to avoid controversial rulings or curry favor with whichever political actors might offer opportunities afterward, undermining the independence lifetime tenure was designed to protect. Term limits would also require amending the Constitution itself, a process intentionally made difficult specifically so that the basic structure of government isn't rewritten in response to short-term political frustration. Regular, guaranteed turnover might also encourage each president and party to treat every nomination as an opportunity to install a reliable partisan vote for a fixed period, rather than searching for a nominee who can build broad-based legitimacy for decades.

STEP 3 — Present & Listen

Position A presents first while Position B listens and takes notes without interrupting. Position B then paraphrases Position A's argument until Position A confirms it was understood accurately. Then reverse roles.

Sentence Frames for This Step

Presenting (say to your partner pair):

“Our position is that ___, because the evidence shows ___.”

“The strongest reason for our position is ___.”

“One piece of evidence that supports our view is ___.”

“This matters because it affects ___.”

Active Listening (say to the presenting pair):

“What I hear you saying is that ___.”

“Let me check my understanding: your main point is ___, and your evidence is ___.”

“Is it fair to say your position rests on the idea that ___?”

Confirming or Clarifying (say back to the listeners):

“Yes, that's an accurate summary of our position.”

“That's close, but let me clarify: what we actually mean is ___.”

STEP 4 — Switch Perspectives

Each dyad now sets its original assignment aside and argues the opposing position, out loud, to the other dyad — using the reading you were originally given by the other side, plus anything you learned while listening to them in Step 3.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“Arguing from the other side, one could say ___, because ___.”

“Even though our original position was ___, I can now see that ___.”

“A strong point on this side that I hadn't fully considered is ___.”

“This perspective matters to people who ___.”

“If I were genuinely persuaded by this side, the evidence that would convince me most is ___.”

STEP 5 — Seek Consensus

All four students now drop their assigned positions. Talk as a group of four about where you actually agree, where genuine disagreement remains, and whether you can write one shared consensus statement, or a clearly stated point of respectful disagreement.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“We agree that ___.”

“We still see this differently when it comes to ___.”

“A statement that captures both concerns might be: ___.”

“One possible middle position is ___.”

“Given everything we've heard, our group recommends ___.”

“We were not able to fully resolve ___, and here is why: ___.”

 

Areas of Agreement	What do all four of you already agree on, even partially?
Remaining Disagreement	Where do you still see things differently, and why?
Our Consensus Statement	Write one to three sentences your whole group of four can sign onto.

Individual Debrief (complete after the seminar)

1.    Which position did you personally find more persuasive by the end of the seminar, and what specific piece of evidence changed or reinforced your thinking?

2.    Describe one moment in Step 4 when arguing the opposite side made you understand that position better than you did just from reading about it.

3.    What was the hardest part of reaching (or not reaching) consensus in Step 5?

4.    If you could add one additional piece of evidence to either position, what would you look for, and why?

 

SAC 2  ·  AP U.S. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS / AP ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Should Social Media Platforms Be Legally Liable for User Content?

Essential Question:  Should Congress narrow or repeal Section 230 protections so that platforms can be sued over harmful content posted by their users?

Suggested Pacing (~50 min class)

Step 1 — Form Teams: 2 min

Step 2 — Assign Positions & Read: 8–10 min

Step 3 — Present & Listen (both directions): 10–12 min

Step 4 — Switch Perspectives: 8–10 min

Step 5 — Seek Consensus: 10–12 min

Whole-Class Debrief: 5–8 min

STEP 1 — Form Teams

Form a group of four. Split into two dyads (pairs) of two students each. Decide as a group which dyad will start as Position A and which will start as Position B — you will argue both sides before the seminar ends.

STEP 2 — Assign Positions & Read

Each dyad reads only its assigned position below. Annotate as you read: underline your strongest piece of evidence, and star the sentence you think best states your position's core claim.

Position A Platforms Should Face Greater Liability Social media companies are not neutral bulletin boards — their algorithms actively choose what to amplify, and they profit directly from keeping users engaged, even when the most engaging content is misleading, harassing, or dangerous. Under current law, platforms are almost entirely shielded from lawsuits over what their users post, no matter how much the platform's own algorithm boosted that content's reach. That shield removes much of the financial incentive to invest seriously in content moderation, since the platform bears little legal risk either way. Real-world harms connected to viral misinformation, coordinated harassment campaigns, and content promoting self-harm or extremism have prompted growing bipartisan calls to revisit this protection. Increasing platforms' legal exposure — even in narrow, well-defined categories, such as content the platform's own algorithm actively recommended — would create a direct financial incentive for companies to build safer systems, rather than treating moderation as an afterthought or public-relations exercise. Other industries are held liable for products that cause foreseeable harm; supporters argue there is no principled reason algorithmic amplification should be treated as fundamentally different from other business decisions that carry legal responsibility.

 

Position B Section 230 Protections Should Be Preserved Section 230 has been called "the law that created the internet" because it allows platforms to host enormous volumes of user speech without being sued into bankruptcy over every individual post. Removing or narrowing that protection would force platforms to make an impossible choice: either review every post before it goes live (effectively ending real-time posting as we know it) or take down anything even remotely controversial to avoid legal risk, chilling enormous amounts of legitimate speech in the process. Large companies might survive increased legal exposure by hiring huge moderation and legal teams, but smaller platforms, nonprofit forums, and startups — the next generation of online spaces — likely could not. Increased liability could end up entrenching the biggest existing platforms even further, since only they could afford the legal risk of hosting user content at scale. Supporters of preserving Section 230 also argue that responsibility for harmful speech should generally fall on the person who created and posted it, not on the platform that merely hosted it — similar to how a phone company isn't held liable for a harassing phone call. They favor addressing specific harms (like fraud or terrorism-related content, which are already excluded from Section 230's protection) through narrowly targeted laws, rather than dismantling the broader legal framework that allows open platforms to exist at all.

STEP 3 — Present & Listen

Position A presents first while Position B listens and takes notes without interrupting. Position B then paraphrases Position A's argument until Position A confirms it was understood accurately. Then reverse roles.

Sentence Frames for This Step

Presenting (say to your partner pair):

“Our position is that ___, because the evidence shows ___.”

“The strongest reason for our position is ___.”

“One piece of evidence that supports our view is ___.”

“This matters because it affects ___.”

Active Listening (say to the presenting pair):

“What I hear you saying is that ___.”

“Let me check my understanding: your main point is ___, and your evidence is ___.”

“Is it fair to say your position rests on the idea that ___?”

Confirming or Clarifying (say back to the listeners):

“Yes, that's an accurate summary of our position.”

“That's close, but let me clarify: what we actually mean is ___.”

STEP 4 — Switch Perspectives

Each dyad now sets its original assignment aside and argues the opposing position, out loud, to the other dyad — using the reading you were originally given by the other side, plus anything you learned while listening to them in Step 3.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“Arguing from the other side, one could say ___, because ___.”

“Even though our original position was ___, I can now see that ___.”

“A strong point on this side that I hadn't fully considered is ___.”

“This perspective matters to people who ___.”

“If I were genuinely persuaded by this side, the evidence that would convince me most is ___.”

STEP 5 — Seek Consensus

All four students now drop their assigned positions. Talk as a group of four about where you actually agree, where genuine disagreement remains, and whether you can write one shared consensus statement, or a clearly stated point of respectful disagreement.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“We agree that ___.”

“We still see this differently when it comes to ___.”

“A statement that captures both concerns might be: ___.”

“One possible middle position is ___.”

“Given everything we've heard, our group recommends ___.”

“We were not able to fully resolve ___, and here is why: ___.”

 

Areas of Agreement	What do all four of you already agree on, even partially?
Remaining Disagreement	Where do you still see things differently, and why?
Our Consensus Statement	Write one to three sentences your whole group of four can sign onto.

Individual Debrief (complete after the seminar)

5.    Which position did you personally find more persuasive by the end of the seminar, and what specific piece of evidence changed or reinforced your thinking?

6.    Describe one moment in Step 4 when arguing the opposite side made you understand that position better than you did just from reading about it.

7.    What was the hardest part of reaching (or not reaching) consensus in Step 5?

8.    If you could add one additional piece of evidence to either position, what would you look for, and why?

 

SAC 3  ·  AP U.S. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Should the U.S. Replace the Electoral College with a National Popular Vote?

Essential Question:  Should the president be elected by direct national popular vote instead of through the Electoral College?

Suggested Pacing (~50 min class)

Step 1 — Form Teams: 2 min

Step 2 — Assign Positions & Read: 8–10 min

Step 3 — Present & Listen (both directions): 10–12 min

Step 4 — Switch Perspectives: 8–10 min

Step 5 — Seek Consensus: 10–12 min

Whole-Class Debrief: 5–8 min

STEP 1 — Form Teams

Form a group of four. Split into two dyads (pairs) of two students each. Decide as a group which dyad will start as Position A and which will start as Position B — you will argue both sides before the seminar ends.

STEP 2 — Assign Positions & Read

Each dyad reads only its assigned position below. Annotate as you read: underline your strongest piece of evidence, and star the sentence you think best states your position's core claim.

Position A Abolish the Electoral College In a democracy built on the principle of one person, one vote, the Electoral College creates unequal voting power: a vote cast in a small state can carry several times the weight of a vote cast in a large state, simply because of how electoral votes are allocated. A national popular vote would ensure every American's vote counts equally, regardless of which state they live in. The current system also concentrates campaign attention on a small handful of competitive "swing states," while the concerns of voters in reliably red or blue states — the large majority of the country — are often ignored on the campaign trail, since candidates have little incentive to campaign where the outcome is not in doubt. A popular vote would give candidates a reason to compete for votes everywhere, not just in a handful of battlegrounds. Finally, the Electoral College has produced presidents who lost the national popular vote multiple times in U.S. history, including in recent, highly consequential elections. Supporters argue that outcome undermines public confidence in the legitimacy of the office and is difficult to justify in a system that claims to represent the will of the people.

 

Position B Preserve the Electoral College The Electoral College is a core feature of American federalism, reflecting the idea that the president is elected by a coalition of states, not simply by the largest population centers. Without it, presidential campaigns would have every incentive to focus almost entirely on densely populated urban areas where the most votes can be won most efficiently, potentially leaving the concerns of smaller and more rural states largely unaddressed. The current system also requires candidates to build broad geographic coalitions across different regions and types of communities, rather than simply maximizing turnout in their strongest areas. Supporters argue this pushes presidential candidates toward policies with wider national appeal, rather than policies that only need to satisfy a bare nationwide majority concentrated in a few places. Replacing the Electoral College would also require a constitutional amendment — a deliberately difficult process — and raises serious practical concerns, including the possibility of contested nationwide recounts in an extremely close popular vote, something the current state-by-state system is specifically structured to contain and localize.

STEP 3 — Present & Listen

Position A presents first while Position B listens and takes notes without interrupting. Position B then paraphrases Position A's argument until Position A confirms it was understood accurately. Then reverse roles.

Sentence Frames for This Step

Presenting (say to your partner pair):

“Our position is that ___, because the evidence shows ___.”

“The strongest reason for our position is ___.”

“One piece of evidence that supports our view is ___.”

“This matters because it affects ___.”

Active Listening (say to the presenting pair):

“What I hear you saying is that ___.”

“Let me check my understanding: your main point is ___, and your evidence is ___.”

“Is it fair to say your position rests on the idea that ___?”

Confirming or Clarifying (say back to the listeners):

“Yes, that's an accurate summary of our position.”

“That's close, but let me clarify: what we actually mean is ___.”

STEP 4 — Switch Perspectives

Each dyad now sets its original assignment aside and argues the opposing position, out loud, to the other dyad — using the reading you were originally given by the other side, plus anything you learned while listening to them in Step 3.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“Arguing from the other side, one could say ___, because ___.”

“Even though our original position was ___, I can now see that ___.”

“A strong point on this side that I hadn't fully considered is ___.”

“This perspective matters to people who ___.”

“If I were genuinely persuaded by this side, the evidence that would convince me most is ___.”

STEP 5 — Seek Consensus

All four students now drop their assigned positions. Talk as a group of four about where you actually agree, where genuine disagreement remains, and whether you can write one shared consensus statement, or a clearly stated point of respectful disagreement.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“We agree that ___.”

“We still see this differently when it comes to ___.”

“A statement that captures both concerns might be: ___.”

“One possible middle position is ___.”

“Given everything we've heard, our group recommends ___.”

“We were not able to fully resolve ___, and here is why: ___.”

 

Areas of Agreement	What do all four of you already agree on, even partially?
Remaining Disagreement	Where do you still see things differently, and why?
Our Consensus Statement	Write one to three sentences your whole group of four can sign onto.

Individual Debrief (complete after the seminar)

9.    Which position did you personally find more persuasive by the end of the seminar, and what specific piece of evidence changed or reinforced your thinking?

10. Describe one moment in Step 4 when arguing the opposite side made you understand that position better than you did just from reading about it.

11. What was the hardest part of reaching (or not reaching) consensus in Step 5?

12. If you could add one additional piece of evidence to either position, what would you look for, and why?

 

SAC 4  ·  AP ENGLISH LANGUAGE / AP COMPUTER SCIENCE PRINCIPLES

Should AI-Generated Art Be Eligible for Copyright Protection?

Essential Question:  Should artwork or writing generated substantially by artificial intelligence be eligible for the same copyright protection as human-created work?

Suggested Pacing (~50 min class)

Step 1 — Form Teams: 2 min

Step 2 — Assign Positions & Read: 8–10 min

Step 3 — Present & Listen (both directions): 10–12 min

Step 4 — Switch Perspectives: 8–10 min

Step 5 — Seek Consensus: 10–12 min

Whole-Class Debrief: 5–8 min

STEP 1 — Form Teams

Form a group of four. Split into two dyads (pairs) of two students each. Decide as a group which dyad will start as Position A and which will start as Position B — you will argue both sides before the seminar ends.

STEP 2 — Assign Positions & Read

Each dyad reads only its assigned position below. Annotate as you read: underline your strongest piece of evidence, and star the sentence you think best states your position's core claim.

Position A AI-Generated Work Should Be Protectable Throughout history, new tools have repeatedly changed how art is made — the camera, digital editing software, sampling in music — and copyright law has adapted each time to protect the creative choices of the human using the tool. An AI image generator is, in this view, simply the latest tool: a person still makes the meaningful creative decisions, from crafting a detailed prompt, to selecting and refining a specific output among many possibilities, to arranging or combining AI-generated elements into a finished piece. Without copyright protection, individuals and companies would have little legal ability to prevent others from freely copying and reselling AI-assisted work they invested real time, skill, and creative judgment into producing. That could discourage serious commercial and artistic investment in AI-assisted creative projects, since creators would have no way to protect or profit from their finished work. Supporters also argue that denying protection entirely creates confusing, inconsistent line-drawing problems: how much human editing or curation should be required before a piece qualifies? A clear, adaptable legal standard — rather than a blanket denial — would better serve both creators and the legal system.

 

Position B AI-Generated Work Should Not Receive Full Copyright Protection U.S. copyright law has long required a human author for a work to be protected — a principle courts have applied even to non-AI cases, such as denying copyright to a photograph taken by a monkey. When an AI system generates the actual pixels, words, or notes based on a short text prompt, the human's contribution may be closer to giving an instruction than to authoring the work itself, which is a meaningfully different kind of creative act than painting a canvas or writing a paragraph by hand. There are also serious unresolved concerns about how these AI systems were trained: many were built using massive datasets of existing copyrighted art and writing, often scraped without the original creators' permission or compensation. Granting full copyright protection to the AI-generated output, before resolving what is owed to the artists whose work trained the underlying model, strikes critics as rewarding a process built on an unresolved ownership problem. Finally, opponents worry that treating AI output as fully copyrightable could flood creative marketplaces with vast quantities of inexpensive, rapidly generated content, making it harder for human artists to find an economically sustainable audience for work that took far longer to create by hand.

STEP 3 — Present & Listen

Position A presents first while Position B listens and takes notes without interrupting. Position B then paraphrases Position A's argument until Position A confirms it was understood accurately. Then reverse roles.

Sentence Frames for This Step

Presenting (say to your partner pair):

“Our position is that ___, because the evidence shows ___.”

“The strongest reason for our position is ___.”

“One piece of evidence that supports our view is ___.”

“This matters because it affects ___.”

Active Listening (say to the presenting pair):

“What I hear you saying is that ___.”

“Let me check my understanding: your main point is ___, and your evidence is ___.”

“Is it fair to say your position rests on the idea that ___?”

Confirming or Clarifying (say back to the listeners):

“Yes, that's an accurate summary of our position.”

“That's close, but let me clarify: what we actually mean is ___.”

STEP 4 — Switch Perspectives

Each dyad now sets its original assignment aside and argues the opposing position, out loud, to the other dyad — using the reading you were originally given by the other side, plus anything you learned while listening to them in Step 3.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“Arguing from the other side, one could say ___, because ___.”

“Even though our original position was ___, I can now see that ___.”

“A strong point on this side that I hadn't fully considered is ___.”

“This perspective matters to people who ___.”

“If I were genuinely persuaded by this side, the evidence that would convince me most is ___.”

STEP 5 — Seek Consensus

All four students now drop their assigned positions. Talk as a group of four about where you actually agree, where genuine disagreement remains, and whether you can write one shared consensus statement, or a clearly stated point of respectful disagreement.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“We agree that ___.”

“We still see this differently when it comes to ___.”

“A statement that captures both concerns might be: ___.”

“One possible middle position is ___.”

“Given everything we've heard, our group recommends ___.”

“We were not able to fully resolve ___, and here is why: ___.”

 

Areas of Agreement	What do all four of you already agree on, even partially?
Remaining Disagreement	Where do you still see things differently, and why?
Our Consensus Statement	Write one to three sentences your whole group of four can sign onto.

Individual Debrief (complete after the seminar)

13. Which position did you personally find more persuasive by the end of the seminar, and what specific piece of evidence changed or reinforced your thinking?

14. Describe one moment in Step 4 when arguing the opposite side made you understand that position better than you did just from reading about it.

15. What was the hardest part of reaching (or not reaching) consensus in Step 5?

16. If you could add one additional piece of evidence to either position, what would you look for, and why?

 

SAC 5  ·  AP ENGLISH LANGUAGE / AP STATISTICS / AP PSYCHOLOGY

Should Standardized Tests Be Required for College Admissions?

Essential Question:  Should colleges require SAT or ACT scores as part of undergraduate admissions decisions?

Suggested Pacing (~50 min class)

Step 1 — Form Teams: 2 min

Step 2 — Assign Positions & Read: 8–10 min

Step 3 — Present & Listen (both directions): 10–12 min

Step 4 — Switch Perspectives: 8–10 min

Step 5 — Seek Consensus: 10–12 min

Whole-Class Debrief: 5–8 min

STEP 1 — Form Teams

Form a group of four. Split into two dyads (pairs) of two students each. Decide as a group which dyad will start as Position A and which will start as Position B — you will argue both sides before the seminar ends.

STEP 2 — Assign Positions & Read

Each dyad reads only its assigned position below. Annotate as you read: underline your strongest piece of evidence, and star the sentence you think best states your position's core claim.

Position A Standardized Tests Should Be Required High schools across the country differ enormously in grading standards, course rigor, and available Advanced Placement or honors offerings, which makes it difficult for admissions officers to compare GPAs from different schools on a truly level basis. A standardized test gives every applicant, regardless of which school they attended, one common measurement evaluated on the same scale. Research cited by testing supporters has found that standardized test scores, when combined with GPA, improve the ability to predict a student's first-year college academic performance compared to GPA alone — suggesting the test captures information about academic readiness that grades alone may miss. Supporters also note that some highly capable students who don't have strong extracurricular records, alumni connections, or access to essay coaching can use a strong test score to stand out in a competitive applicant pool, potentially widening opportunity rather than narrowing it. Finally, some worry that test-optional and test-blind policies shift more weight onto components of the application — essays, recommendation letters, extracurricular involvement — that may be even more susceptible to unequal access to expensive coaching, private counselors, and adult-guided polishing than a test score is.

 

Position B Standardized Tests Should Not Be Required Standardized test scores correlate strongly with family income: students from wealthier families have far greater access to expensive test-preparation courses, private tutors, and multiple retakes, advantages that have little to do with a student's underlying academic ability or potential. Critics argue this turns the test into as much a measure of family resources as of individual merit. A student's four-year high school GPA, by contrast, reflects sustained performance, consistency, and growth over time, rather than performance on a single high-pressure exam taken on one morning. Many colleges that have adopted test-optional policies in recent years have reported increases in application and enrollment diversity — including more first-generation and lower-income applicants — without a corresponding decline in those students' academic performance once enrolled. Opponents also point out that even a well-designed test is only ever one data point, and question why three or four hours of exam performance should carry outsized weight in a decision meant to evaluate years of a student's academic record, character, and potential. They favor holistic review that weighs many forms of evidence about a student's readiness and promise.

STEP 3 — Present & Listen

Position A presents first while Position B listens and takes notes without interrupting. Position B then paraphrases Position A's argument until Position A confirms it was understood accurately. Then reverse roles.

Sentence Frames for This Step

Presenting (say to your partner pair):

“Our position is that ___, because the evidence shows ___.”

“The strongest reason for our position is ___.”

“One piece of evidence that supports our view is ___.”

“This matters because it affects ___.”

Active Listening (say to the presenting pair):

“What I hear you saying is that ___.”

“Let me check my understanding: your main point is ___, and your evidence is ___.”

“Is it fair to say your position rests on the idea that ___?”

Confirming or Clarifying (say back to the listeners):

“Yes, that's an accurate summary of our position.”

“That's close, but let me clarify: what we actually mean is ___.”

STEP 4 — Switch Perspectives

Each dyad now sets its original assignment aside and argues the opposing position, out loud, to the other dyad — using the reading you were originally given by the other side, plus anything you learned while listening to them in Step 3.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“Arguing from the other side, one could say ___, because ___.”

“Even though our original position was ___, I can now see that ___.”

“A strong point on this side that I hadn't fully considered is ___.”

“This perspective matters to people who ___.”

“If I were genuinely persuaded by this side, the evidence that would convince me most is ___.”

STEP 5 — Seek Consensus

All four students now drop their assigned positions. Talk as a group of four about where you actually agree, where genuine disagreement remains, and whether you can write one shared consensus statement, or a clearly stated point of respectful disagreement.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“We agree that ___.”

“We still see this differently when it comes to ___.”

“A statement that captures both concerns might be: ___.”

“One possible middle position is ___.”

“Given everything we've heard, our group recommends ___.”

“We were not able to fully resolve ___, and here is why: ___.”

 

Areas of Agreement	What do all four of you already agree on, even partially?
Remaining Disagreement	Where do you still see things differently, and why?
Our Consensus Statement	Write one to three sentences your whole group of four can sign onto.

Individual Debrief (complete after the seminar)

17. Which position did you personally find more persuasive by the end of the seminar, and what specific piece of evidence changed or reinforced your thinking?

18. Describe one moment in Step 4 when arguing the opposite side made you understand that position better than you did just from reading about it.

19. What was the hardest part of reaching (or not reaching) consensus in Step 5?

20. If you could add one additional piece of evidence to either position, what would you look for, and why?

 

SAC 6  ·  AP MACROECONOMICS / AP U.S. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Should the Federal Government Implement a Universal Basic Income?

Essential Question:  Should the federal government provide every adult citizen with a regular, unconditional cash payment (a universal basic income)?

Suggested Pacing (~50 min class)

Step 1 — Form Teams: 2 min

Step 2 — Assign Positions & Read: 8–10 min

Step 3 — Present & Listen (both directions): 10–12 min

Step 4 — Switch Perspectives: 8–10 min

Step 5 — Seek Consensus: 10–12 min

Whole-Class Debrief: 5–8 min

STEP 1 — Form Teams

Form a group of four. Split into two dyads (pairs) of two students each. Decide as a group which dyad will start as Position A and which will start as Position B — you will argue both sides before the seminar ends.

STEP 2 — Assign Positions & Read

Each dyad reads only its assigned position below. Annotate as you read: underline your strongest piece of evidence, and star the sentence you think best states your position's core claim.

Position A Implement a Universal Basic Income Automation and artificial intelligence are projected to reshape or eliminate large numbers of jobs across many industries in the coming decades, and a universal basic income (UBI) would provide every citizen with a guaranteed economic floor regardless of how the labor market changes. Because the payment is unconditional and simple to administer, supporters argue it would also replace a fragmented, often bureaucratic patchwork of existing means-tested welfare programs, each with its own separate eligibility rules and paperwork, with one direct, efficient cash transfer. Advocates point to real-world pilot programs — in cities and countries around the world — in which recipients of guaranteed cash payments largely continued working, and some used the additional financial stability to pursue further education, start small businesses, or leave unstable jobs for better-fitting ones, results that push back against the assumption that guaranteed income causes people to stop working. Supporters also argue a cash floor would reduce the day-to-day financial stress and instability that can make it harder for lower-income families to plan, save, or invest in their own or their children's futures, potentially paying long-term social dividends beyond the direct cash amount itself.

 

Position B Reject a Universal Basic Income Providing a meaningful monthly payment to every adult in the country would require enormous ongoing federal spending, which critics argue would demand either substantial tax increases, large cuts to other programs, or significant new government borrowing — each with its own serious economic tradeoffs. Opponents also raise inflation concerns: if a large amount of new cash enters the economy without a corresponding increase in the actual production of goods and services, prices for necessities like housing and food could rise, potentially eroding much of the benefit the payment was meant to provide, particularly for the lower-income households it's designed to help most. Critics further argue that giving the same flat payment to every citizen — including people who are already financially secure — is a less efficient use of limited public resources than targeted programs designed to address specific needs, such as housing assistance, food assistance, or healthcare subsidies, which direct help specifically toward the people who need it, rather than spreading resources evenly regardless of need.

STEP 3 — Present & Listen

Position A presents first while Position B listens and takes notes without interrupting. Position B then paraphrases Position A's argument until Position A confirms it was understood accurately. Then reverse roles.

Sentence Frames for This Step

Presenting (say to your partner pair):

“Our position is that ___, because the evidence shows ___.”

“The strongest reason for our position is ___.”

“One piece of evidence that supports our view is ___.”

“This matters because it affects ___.”

Active Listening (say to the presenting pair):

“What I hear you saying is that ___.”

“Let me check my understanding: your main point is ___, and your evidence is ___.”

“Is it fair to say your position rests on the idea that ___?”

Confirming or Clarifying (say back to the listeners):

“Yes, that's an accurate summary of our position.”

“That's close, but let me clarify: what we actually mean is ___.”

STEP 4 — Switch Perspectives

Each dyad now sets its original assignment aside and argues the opposing position, out loud, to the other dyad — using the reading you were originally given by the other side, plus anything you learned while listening to them in Step 3.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“Arguing from the other side, one could say ___, because ___.”

“Even though our original position was ___, I can now see that ___.”

“A strong point on this side that I hadn't fully considered is ___.”

“This perspective matters to people who ___.”

“If I were genuinely persuaded by this side, the evidence that would convince me most is ___.”

STEP 5 — Seek Consensus

All four students now drop their assigned positions. Talk as a group of four about where you actually agree, where genuine disagreement remains, and whether you can write one shared consensus statement, or a clearly stated point of respectful disagreement.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“We agree that ___.”

“We still see this differently when it comes to ___.”

“A statement that captures both concerns might be: ___.”

“One possible middle position is ___.”

“Given everything we've heard, our group recommends ___.”

“We were not able to fully resolve ___, and here is why: ___.”

 

Areas of Agreement	What do all four of you already agree on, even partially?
Remaining Disagreement	Where do you still see things differently, and why?
Our Consensus Statement	Write one to three sentences your whole group of four can sign onto.

Individual Debrief (complete after the seminar)

21. Which position did you personally find more persuasive by the end of the seminar, and what specific piece of evidence changed or reinforced your thinking?

22. Describe one moment in Step 4 when arguing the opposite side made you understand that position better than you did just from reading about it.

23. What was the hardest part of reaching (or not reaching) consensus in Step 5?

24. If you could add one additional piece of evidence to either position, what would you look for, and why?

 

SAC 7  ·  AP BIOLOGY

Should CRISPR Be Used to Edit Human Embryos to Prevent Disease?

Essential Question:  Should scientists be permitted to use CRISPR gene-editing technology on human embryos to prevent inherited genetic diseases?

Suggested Pacing (~50 min class)

Step 1 — Form Teams: 2 min

Step 2 — Assign Positions & Read: 8–10 min

Step 3 — Present & Listen (both directions): 10–12 min

Step 4 — Switch Perspectives: 8–10 min

Step 5 — Seek Consensus: 10–12 min

Whole-Class Debrief: 5–8 min

STEP 1 — Form Teams

Form a group of four. Split into two dyads (pairs) of two students each. Decide as a group which dyad will start as Position A and which will start as Position B — you will argue both sides before the seminar ends.

STEP 2 — Assign Positions & Read

Each dyad reads only its assigned position below. Annotate as you read: underline your strongest piece of evidence, and star the sentence you think best states your position's core claim.

Position A Permit Regulated Therapeutic Gene Editing CRISPR technology offers the potential to correct the specific genetic mutations responsible for serious inherited diseases — such as Huntington's disease or certain forms of sickle cell disease — before a child is even born, potentially sparing that person a lifetime of suffering and eliminating the disease from their genetic line altogether, rather than merely treating symptoms after the fact. Supporters argue that medicine has long intervened in reproduction to prevent serious harm, from genetic counseling to embryo screening during fertility treatment, and that clearly regulated, disease-preventing gene editing represents a continuation of that same basic goal rather than a fundamentally new ethical category, provided it is limited to well-understood, serious disease-causing mutations rather than broader traits. A carefully constructed regulatory framework — requiring rigorous scientific review, restricting editing to specific well-studied disease-causing genes, and prohibiting non-therapeutic applications — could, in this view, allow the genuine medical benefits of the technology to reach families affected by devastating inherited conditions, while still maintaining meaningful ethical guardrails against misuse.

 

Position B Prohibit or Heavily Restrict Embryo Editing Unlike most medical treatments, an edit made to an embryo's genes is passed down to all of that person's future descendants, meaning any unforeseen consequence of the edit — including effects that current science cannot yet predict — would also be inherited by generations who never had any opportunity to consent to the change. Critics also point to a meaningful slippery-slope concern: technology developed and justified for preventing serious disease could, over time, be extended toward selecting or enhancing non-medical traits, potentially creating new and troubling forms of inequality between individuals whose families could afford genetic enhancement and those who could not. Current gene-editing tools, while increasingly precise, still carry a documented risk of "off-target" edits — unintended changes elsewhere in the genome — a risk opponents argue is especially serious when the edit is permanent and heritable, rather than limited to one patient's own body during their own lifetime. Given these unresolved scientific and ethical questions, opponents favor prohibiting or very tightly restricting embryo editing, even for clearly disease-related purposes, until far more is understood about its long-term safety.

STEP 3 — Present & Listen

Position A presents first while Position B listens and takes notes without interrupting. Position B then paraphrases Position A's argument until Position A confirms it was understood accurately. Then reverse roles.

Sentence Frames for This Step

Presenting (say to your partner pair):

“Our position is that ___, because the evidence shows ___.”

“The strongest reason for our position is ___.”

“One piece of evidence that supports our view is ___.”

“This matters because it affects ___.”

Active Listening (say to the presenting pair):

“What I hear you saying is that ___.”

“Let me check my understanding: your main point is ___, and your evidence is ___.”

“Is it fair to say your position rests on the idea that ___?”

Confirming or Clarifying (say back to the listeners):

“Yes, that's an accurate summary of our position.”

“That's close, but let me clarify: what we actually mean is ___.”

STEP 4 — Switch Perspectives

Each dyad now sets its original assignment aside and argues the opposing position, out loud, to the other dyad — using the reading you were originally given by the other side, plus anything you learned while listening to them in Step 3.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“Arguing from the other side, one could say ___, because ___.”

“Even though our original position was ___, I can now see that ___.”

“A strong point on this side that I hadn't fully considered is ___.”

“This perspective matters to people who ___.”

“If I were genuinely persuaded by this side, the evidence that would convince me most is ___.”

STEP 5 — Seek Consensus

All four students now drop their assigned positions. Talk as a group of four about where you actually agree, where genuine disagreement remains, and whether you can write one shared consensus statement, or a clearly stated point of respectful disagreement.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“We agree that ___.”

“We still see this differently when it comes to ___.”

“A statement that captures both concerns might be: ___.”

“One possible middle position is ___.”

“Given everything we've heard, our group recommends ___.”

“We were not able to fully resolve ___, and here is why: ___.”

 

Areas of Agreement	What do all four of you already agree on, even partially?
Remaining Disagreement	Where do you still see things differently, and why?
Our Consensus Statement	Write one to three sentences your whole group of four can sign onto.

Individual Debrief (complete after the seminar)

25. Which position did you personally find more persuasive by the end of the seminar, and what specific piece of evidence changed or reinforced your thinking?

26. Describe one moment in Step 4 when arguing the opposite side made you understand that position better than you did just from reading about it.

27. What was the hardest part of reaching (or not reaching) consensus in Step 5?

28. If you could add one additional piece of evidence to either position, what would you look for, and why?

 

SAC 8  ·  AP ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE / AP MACROECONOMICS

Should the U.S. Adopt a Nationwide Carbon Tax?

Essential Question:  Should the federal government impose a nationwide tax on carbon dioxide emissions to address climate change?

Suggested Pacing (~50 min class)

Step 1 — Form Teams: 2 min

Step 2 — Assign Positions & Read: 8–10 min

Step 3 — Present & Listen (both directions): 10–12 min

Step 4 — Switch Perspectives: 8–10 min

Step 5 — Seek Consensus: 10–12 min

Whole-Class Debrief: 5–8 min

STEP 1 — Form Teams

Form a group of four. Split into two dyads (pairs) of two students each. Decide as a group which dyad will start as Position A and which will start as Position B — you will argue both sides before the seminar ends.

STEP 2 — Assign Positions & Read

Each dyad reads only its assigned position below. Annotate as you read: underline your strongest piece of evidence, and star the sentence you think best states your position's core claim.

Position A Adopt a Carbon Tax Burning fossil fuels creates real costs — from climate-related damage to public health impacts — that are not currently reflected in the market price of energy, an economic problem known as a negative externality. A carbon tax directly prices that externality, giving businesses and consumers a clear, ongoing financial incentive to shift toward cleaner energy sources and more efficient practices, without the government needing to micromanage exactly which technology each company or household chooses to adopt. Supporters point out that a portion of carbon tax revenue can be returned directly to households as a dividend or rebate, which studies suggest can offset the higher energy costs for low- and middle-income families, who often spend a larger share of their income on energy compared to wealthier households. Economists across a wide range of political perspectives have expressed support for carbon pricing as one of the more efficient tools available for reducing emissions, compared to a patchwork of narrower regulations, because it lets the market — rather than a government agency picking specific technologies — determine the most cost-effective ways to cut emissions across the whole economy.

 

Position B Reject a Carbon Tax A carbon tax raises the price of energy, and those higher costs are often passed on to consumers through higher prices for electricity, gasoline, and everyday goods that rely on transportation and manufacturing. Critics argue this burden falls hardest on lower-income and rural households, who typically spend a larger share of their income on energy and may have fewer affordable alternatives, such as reliable public transit, available to them. Opponents also raise the concern of "carbon leakage": if U.S. carbon-intensive industries face significantly higher costs than competitors in countries without a similar tax, some production and jobs could simply relocate abroad, potentially without any net global reduction in emissions, since the same activity would simply continue producing emissions elsewhere. Critics favor alternative approaches — such as direct government investment in clean energy research and infrastructure, targeted efficiency standards, and subsidies for renewable technology — arguing these tools can reduce emissions meaningfully while avoiding the immediate, broad-based cost increases a carbon tax places on households and businesses across the entire economy.

STEP 3 — Present & Listen

Position A presents first while Position B listens and takes notes without interrupting. Position B then paraphrases Position A's argument until Position A confirms it was understood accurately. Then reverse roles.

Sentence Frames for This Step

Presenting (say to your partner pair):

“Our position is that ___, because the evidence shows ___.”

“The strongest reason for our position is ___.”

“One piece of evidence that supports our view is ___.”

“This matters because it affects ___.”

Active Listening (say to the presenting pair):

“What I hear you saying is that ___.”

“Let me check my understanding: your main point is ___, and your evidence is ___.”

“Is it fair to say your position rests on the idea that ___?”

Confirming or Clarifying (say back to the listeners):

“Yes, that's an accurate summary of our position.”

“That's close, but let me clarify: what we actually mean is ___.”

STEP 4 — Switch Perspectives

Each dyad now sets its original assignment aside and argues the opposing position, out loud, to the other dyad — using the reading you were originally given by the other side, plus anything you learned while listening to them in Step 3.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“Arguing from the other side, one could say ___, because ___.”

“Even though our original position was ___, I can now see that ___.”

“A strong point on this side that I hadn't fully considered is ___.”

“This perspective matters to people who ___.”

“If I were genuinely persuaded by this side, the evidence that would convince me most is ___.”

STEP 5 — Seek Consensus

All four students now drop their assigned positions. Talk as a group of four about where you actually agree, where genuine disagreement remains, and whether you can write one shared consensus statement, or a clearly stated point of respectful disagreement.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“We agree that ___.”

“We still see this differently when it comes to ___.”

“A statement that captures both concerns might be: ___.”

“One possible middle position is ___.”

“Given everything we've heard, our group recommends ___.”

“We were not able to fully resolve ___, and here is why: ___.”

 

Areas of Agreement	What do all four of you already agree on, even partially?
Remaining Disagreement	Where do you still see things differently, and why?
Our Consensus Statement	Write one to three sentences your whole group of four can sign onto.

Individual Debrief (complete after the seminar)

29. Which position did you personally find more persuasive by the end of the seminar, and what specific piece of evidence changed or reinforced your thinking?

30. Describe one moment in Step 4 when arguing the opposite side made you understand that position better than you did just from reading about it.

31. What was the hardest part of reaching (or not reaching) consensus in Step 5?

32. If you could add one additional piece of evidence to either position, what would you look for, and why?

 

SAC 9  ·  AP U.S. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS / AP PSYCHOLOGY

Should Juveniles Who Commit Violent Crimes Be Tried as Adults?

Essential Question:  Should the juvenile justice system transfer minors who commit serious violent crimes into the adult criminal court system?

Suggested Pacing (~50 min class)

Step 1 — Form Teams: 2 min

Step 2 — Assign Positions & Read: 8–10 min

Step 3 — Present & Listen (both directions): 10–12 min

Step 4 — Switch Perspectives: 8–10 min

Step 5 — Seek Consensus: 10–12 min

Whole-Class Debrief: 5–8 min

STEP 1 — Form Teams

Form a group of four. Split into two dyads (pairs) of two students each. Decide as a group which dyad will start as Position A and which will start as Position B — you will argue both sides before the seminar ends.

STEP 2 — Assign Positions & Read

Each dyad reads only its assigned position below. Annotate as you read: underline your strongest piece of evidence, and star the sentence you think best states your position's core claim.

Position A Try Certain Juveniles as Adults Supporters of adult prosecution for the most serious violent crimes argue that the severity of certain offenses, and the harm done to victims and communities, warrants a level of accountability the juvenile system — which is designed around rehabilitation and typically releases offenders by a certain age regardless of the offense — may not be able to provide. They also argue that transferring serious cases to adult court can serve as a meaningful deterrent against violent juvenile crime, sending a clear signal that the most serious offenses will carry serious, proportionate consequences regardless of the offender's age. Finally, supporters note that judges deciding whether to transfer a case to adult court typically consider case-specific factors — including the juvenile's age, the nature and planning involved in the offense, and prior record — arguing that this individualized review, rather than an automatic juvenile-system placement for every offense, allows the justice system to distinguish between cases that show significant premeditation and understanding of consequences and cases that don't.

 

Position B Keep Juveniles in the Juvenile System Adolescent brain development research consistently shows that the areas of the brain responsible for impulse control, long-term planning, and risk assessment continue developing well into a person's mid-twenties, which is part of why the juvenile justice system has traditionally treated youth offenders differently from adults in the first place. Studies comparing outcomes for juveniles processed in the juvenile system versus the adult system have found that youth transferred to adult court often show higher rates of reoffending after release compared to similar youth who remained in the juvenile system, which emphasizes rehabilitation, education, and treatment over punishment. Critics also point to serious safety and developmental concerns about placing minors in adult prison facilities, including elevated risk of victimization by older inmates, and note that data shows youth of color are transferred to adult court at disproportionately higher rates than white youth accused of similar offenses, raising equity concerns about how transfer decisions are actually applied in practice.

STEP 3 — Present & Listen

Position A presents first while Position B listens and takes notes without interrupting. Position B then paraphrases Position A's argument until Position A confirms it was understood accurately. Then reverse roles.

Sentence Frames for This Step

Presenting (say to your partner pair):

“Our position is that ___, because the evidence shows ___.”

“The strongest reason for our position is ___.”

“One piece of evidence that supports our view is ___.”

“This matters because it affects ___.”

Active Listening (say to the presenting pair):

“What I hear you saying is that ___.”

“Let me check my understanding: your main point is ___, and your evidence is ___.”

“Is it fair to say your position rests on the idea that ___?”

Confirming or Clarifying (say back to the listeners):

“Yes, that's an accurate summary of our position.”

“That's close, but let me clarify: what we actually mean is ___.”

STEP 4 — Switch Perspectives

Each dyad now sets its original assignment aside and argues the opposing position, out loud, to the other dyad — using the reading you were originally given by the other side, plus anything you learned while listening to them in Step 3.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“Arguing from the other side, one could say ___, because ___.”

“Even though our original position was ___, I can now see that ___.”

“A strong point on this side that I hadn't fully considered is ___.”

“This perspective matters to people who ___.”

“If I were genuinely persuaded by this side, the evidence that would convince me most is ___.”

STEP 5 — Seek Consensus

All four students now drop their assigned positions. Talk as a group of four about where you actually agree, where genuine disagreement remains, and whether you can write one shared consensus statement, or a clearly stated point of respectful disagreement.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“We agree that ___.”

“We still see this differently when it comes to ___.”

“A statement that captures both concerns might be: ___.”

“One possible middle position is ___.”

“Given everything we've heard, our group recommends ___.”

“We were not able to fully resolve ___, and here is why: ___.”

 

Areas of Agreement	What do all four of you already agree on, even partially?
Remaining Disagreement	Where do you still see things differently, and why?
Our Consensus Statement	Write one to three sentences your whole group of four can sign onto.

Individual Debrief (complete after the seminar)

33. Which position did you personally find more persuasive by the end of the seminar, and what specific piece of evidence changed or reinforced your thinking?

34. Describe one moment in Step 4 when arguing the opposite side made you understand that position better than you did just from reading about it.

35. What was the hardest part of reaching (or not reaching) consensus in Step 5?

36. If you could add one additional piece of evidence to either position, what would you look for, and why?

 

SAC 10  ·  AP PSYCHOLOGY / AP MACROECONOMICS / AP COMPUTER SCIENCE PRINCIPLES

Should Employers Be Allowed to Use AI to Monitor Employee Productivity?

Essential Question:  Should companies be permitted to use AI-driven software to track and evaluate employee productivity, including remote workers?

Suggested Pacing (~50 min class)

Step 1 — Form Teams: 2 min

Step 2 — Assign Positions & Read: 8–10 min

Step 3 — Present & Listen (both directions): 10–12 min

Step 4 — Switch Perspectives: 8–10 min

Step 5 — Seek Consensus: 10–12 min

Whole-Class Debrief: 5–8 min

STEP 1 — Form Teams

Form a group of four. Split into two dyads (pairs) of two students each. Decide as a group which dyad will start as Position A and which will start as Position B — you will argue both sides before the seminar ends.

STEP 2 — Assign Positions & Read

Each dyad reads only its assigned position below. Annotate as you read: underline your strongest piece of evidence, and star the sentence you think best states your position's core claim.

Position A Allow AI Productivity Monitoring Employers have a legitimate interest in knowing whether employees — particularly remote or hybrid workers who are harder to observe directly — are actually completing the work they're being paid for, and in protecting company time, equipment, and data from misuse. AI monitoring tools can provide employers with concrete, measurable information rather than relying purely on manager impressions, which can themselves be inconsistent or subject to unconscious bias. Supporters argue that data-driven monitoring can also benefit employees, by identifying process bottlenecks, uneven workload distribution, or training gaps that a purely subjective performance review might miss, potentially leading to fairer and more evidence-based promotion and compensation decisions. Finally, supporters note that many companies clearly disclose monitoring policies as a condition of employment, meaning employees can weigh that policy when accepting a position, and argue reasonable, disclosed monitoring of work-related activity on company systems is a legitimate business practice rather than an invasion of personal privacy.

 

Position B Restrict AI Productivity Monitoring Research on workplace surveillance suggests that constant monitoring can increase employee stress and anxiety, and can erode the sense of trust and autonomy that often drives genuine engagement and long-term productivity, potentially undermining the very outcomes employers are hoping to improve. Critics also point out that algorithms used to score employee "productivity" are trained on data that can reflect existing biases or fail to capture the real value of less measurable work, such as mentoring colleagues, creative problem-solving, or building client relationships — meaning a worker who looks less "productive" by a narrow algorithmic measure might actually be highly valuable in ways the system cannot see. Opponents draw a meaningful distinction between reasonably measuring outputs (whether assigned work gets completed and meets quality standards) and invasive minute-by-minute tracking of keystrokes, mouse movement, or webcam activity, arguing that current law and workplace policy have not kept pace with how far monitoring technology has advanced, leaving many employees with limited real protection or recourse.

STEP 3 — Present & Listen

Position A presents first while Position B listens and takes notes without interrupting. Position B then paraphrases Position A's argument until Position A confirms it was understood accurately. Then reverse roles.

Sentence Frames for This Step

Presenting (say to your partner pair):

“Our position is that ___, because the evidence shows ___.”

“The strongest reason for our position is ___.”

“One piece of evidence that supports our view is ___.”

“This matters because it affects ___.”

Active Listening (say to the presenting pair):

“What I hear you saying is that ___.”

“Let me check my understanding: your main point is ___, and your evidence is ___.”

“Is it fair to say your position rests on the idea that ___?”

Confirming or Clarifying (say back to the listeners):

“Yes, that's an accurate summary of our position.”

“That's close, but let me clarify: what we actually mean is ___.”

STEP 4 — Switch Perspectives

Each dyad now sets its original assignment aside and argues the opposing position, out loud, to the other dyad — using the reading you were originally given by the other side, plus anything you learned while listening to them in Step 3.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“Arguing from the other side, one could say ___, because ___.”

“Even though our original position was ___, I can now see that ___.”

“A strong point on this side that I hadn't fully considered is ___.”

“This perspective matters to people who ___.”

“If I were genuinely persuaded by this side, the evidence that would convince me most is ___.”

STEP 5 — Seek Consensus

All four students now drop their assigned positions. Talk as a group of four about where you actually agree, where genuine disagreement remains, and whether you can write one shared consensus statement, or a clearly stated point of respectful disagreement.

Sentence Frames for This Step

“We agree that ___.”

“We still see this differently when it comes to ___.”

“A statement that captures both concerns might be: ___.”

“One possible middle position is ___.”

“Given everything we've heard, our group recommends ___.”

“We were not able to fully resolve ___, and here is why: ___.”

 

Areas of Agreement	What do all four of you already agree on, even partially?
Remaining Disagreement	Where do you still see things differently, and why?
Our Consensus Statement	Write one to three sentences your whole group of four can sign onto.

Individual Debrief (complete after the seminar)

37. Which position did you personally find more persuasive by the end of the seminar, and what specific piece of evidence changed or reinforced your thinking?

38. Describe one moment in Step 4 when arguing the opposite side made you understand that position better than you did just from reading about it.

39. What was the hardest part of reaching (or not reaching) consensus in Step 5?

40. If you could add one additional piece of evidence to either position, what would you look for, and why?

 

Appendix: Extended Sentence Frame Bank

A larger bank of frames for classes that want more variety across multiple SAC seminars over the course of a semester.

Presenting a Position

“Our position is that ___, supported primarily by ___.”

“The core claim of this position is ___.”

“One piece of evidence we found most convincing is ___.”

“This issue matters to ___ because ___.”

“A common misunderstanding of this position is ___; what it actually argues is ___.”

Active Listening & Paraphrasing

“What I hear you saying is ___.”

“If I'm understanding correctly, your strongest piece of evidence is ___.”

“So your position rests on the assumption that ___ — is that accurate?”

“Before I respond, let me make sure I have this right: ___.”

“I want to check one part of what you said: did you mean ___, or ___?”

Switching Perspectives

“Arguing from this side now, the strongest case is ___.”

“Someone who holds this view would likely respond to our earlier point by saying ___.”

“I initially dismissed this idea, but I now see ___.”

“The people most affected by this position are ___, and their concern is ___.”

“If I had to defend this position in front of an expert, my best evidence would be ___.”

Building Consensus

“Both sides seem to agree that ___.”

“The real disagreement isn't about ___, it's about ___.”

“A consensus statement that respects both concerns could read: ___.”

“We could not reach full agreement, but we did agree that ___.”

“One condition under which we might change our minds is ___.”

“Our group's final position, considering everything discussed, is ___.”