The Art and Science of Democratic Leadership

A Full-Stack PPE Preparatory Curriculum for High School English and Government Teachers PRESENTATION SLIDES

Politics • Philosophy • Economics • Logic • Rhetoric • Reading • Academic Vocabulary

A 16-week, team-taught or single-teacher course for Grades 9–12, built on the Greek Trivium, the Oxford PPE tradition, Oxford-style debate, and the Structured Academic Controversy. Companion to The Great Economic Debate and The Politics of Argument.

A **comprehensive educational curriculum** for high school students designed to critically examine **free-market capitalism, corporate power, and democratic governance**. It contrasts various **global economic models**, including the mixed economy of the **United States**, the social democracy of **Sweden**, and the oligarchic capitalism of **Russia**. The material utilizes **historical case studies**, such as the **2008 financial crisis** and modern **trade tariffs**, to investigate issues like **regulatory capture** and **financial bailouts**. Furthermore, the framework integrates **philosophical inquiry** and a **Structured Academic Controversy** debate format to encourage students to analyze institutional incentives rather than accept ideological labels. Ultimately, the curriculum aims to teach students **how to think critically** about economic systems, follow financial influence, and evaluate who truly benefits from established rules.

Part 1. Overview

1.1 Why this course exists

We teach students to read, write, and calculate. We rarely teach them how to disagree well, investigate a claim, listen to the strongest version of an opposing view, and change their minds for good reasons. This course does exactly that.

It rests on one distinction: educating someone to win an argument, to understand an argument, and to govern through argument are three different skills. Oxford's Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) degree, begun in 1920 as "Modern Greats," was designed to combine three lenses on public problems. American legal education builds powerful adversarial skills. Neither is perfect, and the course does not claim Britain has a flawless system and America has none. It borrows the strongest educational practices from each: tutorial-style questioning, formal debate with an evaluating audience, rigorous reading of primary sources, and structured deliberation.

Honest framing for teachers. The Oxford Union is a debating society, not a degree program, and PPE is not required of British politicians. The research does not show that PPE graduates govern better or that lawyers legislate worse. The course teaches habits of mind, not a verdict on any institution. Verify current figures (for example, the Congressional Research Service share of members with legal backgrounds, about 31% of the House and 47% of the Senate in the 119th Congress) before presenting them.

1.2 Course title and big idea

Resolved: A democracy should educate its citizens in the art of reasoned argument before expecting them to participate meaningfully in the art of government.

Students debate this proposition in Week 1 and again in Week 16. The change in their thinking is the course's central data point.

1.3 Who it is for

• High school English teachers (ELA) who want authentic, content-rich argument, reading, and vocabulary work.

• Government, civics, economics, and social studies teachers who want structured discussion, primary sources, and writing.

• Counselors, debate coaches, and gifted/AP/IB/dual-enrollment programs preparing students for PPE, Politics, Law, Economics, History, or Philosophy at university.

It works as a stand-alone semester elective, a co-taught ELA/Government block, or a year-long program stretched to 32 weeks.

1.4 Four levels of political argument

Every unit moves students up this ladder.

Level	Name	Guiding question
1	Rhetorical persuasion	Can I persuade you to support my position?
2	Adversarial argument	Can I show your argument is weaker than mine?
3	Critical examination	Can we expose the assumptions, evidence, and flaws in both positions?
4	Collaborative problem-solving	Can we build something better than either original position?

A healthy democracy needs all four. Political incentives often reward Levels 1 and 2 most visibly, so school must deliberately teach Levels 3 and 4.

1.5 Five principles of the course

1. Know the subject before arguing about it.

2. Understand the strongest opposing argument.

3. Follow evidence even when it contradicts your beliefs.

4. Listen to understand, not merely to prepare a rebuttal.

5. Measure success by the quality of the solution, not by whether you defeated an opponent.

1.6 The Trivium as the course engine

Stage	Motto	What students master	Where it lives in the course
Grammar	Know	Definitions, facts, primary sources, academic vocabulary, close reading	Weeks 1–5, and every Monday
Logic	Understand	Argument structure, evidence, fallacies, steel-manning, causal reasoning	Weeks 3–9, and every Wednesday
Rhetoric	Communicate	Ethos/logos/pathos, organization, rebuttal, concession, synthesis	Weeks 10–13, and every Thursday
Deliberation	Improve	Negotiation, policy design, revising one's position	Weeks 13–16, and every Friday

1.7 PPE as the content spine

Discipline	Asks	Core skills in this course
Philosophy	What should government do? Is it just?	Ethical reasoning, conceptual analysis, Socratic dialogue
Politics	Who decides, and why? Which institutions have power?	Constitutional analysis, comparative institutions, incentives
Economics	What happens when a policy is implemented?	Incentives, trade-offs, data literacy, comparative systems

Students analyze every case from all three directions. The recurring case is the automobile tariff: Do consumers have a right to affordable transportation (philosophy)? Who made the decision and which interests influenced it (politics)? What are the effects on prices, jobs, competition, and trade (economics)?

Part 2. Course Architecture

2.1 Weekly rhythm (five 50-minute periods, adaptable to block scheduling)

Day	Strand	Routine
Monday	Grammar: vocabulary and knowledge	Tier 3 concept introduction, Frayer model, word-family work, retrieval quiz on last week's words
Tuesday	Reading comprehension	Close reading of a primary or secondary text with annotation, keyword outline, and text-dependent questions
Wednesday	Logic: Socratic seminar and argument analysis	Argument mapping, fallacy lab, Socratic questioning
Thursday	Rhetoric: speaking and writing workshop	Mini-lesson, drafting, peer feedback, short debate round
Friday	Deliberation: Structured Academic Controversy, assessment, or reflection	SAC rounds, quizzes, Democratic Reasoning scoring, journal

2.2 Sixteen-week map

Wk	Unit	Focus	Culminating task
1	Foundations	Greek philosophy and the origins of democracy	Pre-assessment and Socratic seminar
2	Grammar of politics	Definitions and primary sources	Political and economic vocabulary portfolio
3	Logic I	Argument construction	Argument map
4	Logic II	Fallacies and misinformation	Fallacy lab and lateral reading report
5	Logic III	Straw man versus steel man	Reconstruction exercise
6	PPE: Politics	Forms of government and institutions	Comparative institution scorecard
7	PPE: Philosophy	Justice, liberty, equality, legitimacy	Philosophical dialogue
8	PPE: Economics	Comparative economic systems	Economic audit of three countries
9	American constitutional government	Founding documents and landmark cases	Constitutional case analysis
10	Rhetoric	Ethos, logos, pathos, organization	Public argument draft
11	Oxford Union debating	Formal proposition debate	Oxford-style debate
12	Evidence-based rebuttal	Cross-examination and points of information	Cross-examination round
13	Listening and deliberation	Structured Academic Controversy	Written SAC synthesis
14	Policy design	The Student Policy Design Challenge	Five-reform policy dossier
15	Legislative simulation	Mock Congress, part 1	Committee work and amendments
16	Final defense	Mock Congress, part 2, and final debate	Public intellectual defense and post-assessment

2.3 Standards alignment (summary)

• Common Core ELA (Grades 9–12): Reading Informational Text and Reading History/Social Studies (RI/RH 1–10: cite evidence, trace arguments, evaluate reasoning, integrate sources); Writing (W.1 argument, W.7–9 research and evidence); Speaking and Listening (SL.1 collaborative discussion, SL.3 evaluate a speaker's reasoning, SL.4 present claims); Language (L.4–6 academic and domain-specific vocabulary).

• C3 Framework for Social Studies: Dimension 2 (civics, economics, geography, history), Dimension 3 (evaluating sources and using evidence), Dimension 4 (communicating conclusions and taking informed action).

• AP/IB alignment: AP U.S. Government and Politics, AP Comparative Government, AP Seminar/Research, IB Theory of Knowledge and Individuals and Societies.

Always map to your own state standards before publishing a scope and sequence.

2.4 Assessment system

Strand	Tool	Frequency
Reasoning growth	Democratic Reasoning Assessment (8 skills, 1–5 each, total 40), scored before and after the course	Week 1 and Week 16, plus mid-course checks
Vocabulary	Weekly Tier 2/Tier 3 quizzes, cumulative retrieval, vocabulary portfolio	Weekly
Reading	Annotation checks, keyword outlines, text-dependent question sets, one timed cold read	Weekly
Writing	Claim–evidence–reasoning paragraphs, steel-man essay, policy dossier	Biweekly
Speaking	Debate scoresheet, SAC participation rubric, cross-examination rubric	Weeks 5–16
Intellectual humility	Position-change journal	Weekly

A student is never penalized for changing a position because of evidence. Documented, well-reasoned change earns credit under Intellectual Humility.

2.5 Teacher neutrality and classroom norms

This course discusses contested issues. Teachers should:

1. Present each position in its strongest form, using the people who hold it as sources.

2. Assign positions randomly or by lottery at first so that students argue sides they may not hold.

3. Share evidence and sources, not personal votes or party identification.

4. Use the norm: attack arguments, never persons.

5. Hold the line on facts: neutrality on contested values does not mean treating a well-supported claim and an unsupported one as equal (avoid false balance).

6. Offer a no-penalty opt-out role (for example, evaluator, timekeeper, or fact-checker) for students for whom a topic is personal.

Part 3. Week-by-Week Plans

Each week lists an essential question, objectives, vocabulary, texts, and daily plans. Tier 3 = domain-specific terms; Tier 2 = high-utility academic words that travel across subjects.

Week 1. Foundations: Greek Philosophy and the Origins of Democracy

Essential question: What is the difference between confidence and knowledge?

Objectives

• Explain how Athenian democracy and Socratic questioning shaped Western political thought.

• Take the pre-assessment and set a baseline on the Democratic Reasoning rubric.

• Participate in a first Socratic seminar.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: democracy, demos, polis, citizen, sophist, dialectic, rhetoric, elenchus (Socratic questioning), tyranny, oligarchy

• Tier 2: assume, claim, justify, premise, inquire, contend, legitimate, deliberate

Texts

• Plato, Apology (selected passages on the examined life; teacher-chosen excerpt)

• Thucydides, Pericles' Funeral Oration (short excerpt on Athenian citizenship)

• Teacher-written one-page summary of the Sophists versus Socrates

Daily plan

• Mon: Introduce the course proposition. Frayer models for democracy, oligarchy, tyranny. Pre-assessment (Democratic Reasoning rubric, scored by the teacher).

• Tue: Close read of a Pericles excerpt. Annotation key: underline claims, circle key terms, bracket evidence. Students write a three-sentence Franklin-style keyword outline (key words only, then rebuild the sentences from the keywords).

• Wed: Socratic seminar. Seed question: "Can someone govern well without being able to explain what justice is?" Teacher models Socratic follow-ups: What do you mean by...? How do you know? What would change your mind?

• Thu: Mini-lesson on the difference between persuading and understanding. Two-minute impromptu speeches on the proposition, drawn at random as affirmative or opposition.

• Fri: Students write a Position Journal entry: "My opening position on the course proposition and why." This is later compared with Week 16.

Assessment: Pre-assessment score, Socratic seminar participation, Position Journal.

Week 2. Grammar of Politics: Definitions and Primary Sources

Essential question: Why must we agree on what words mean before we argue?

Objectives

• Define ten political and economic systems accurately and distinguish them.

• Tell a primary source from a secondary source and trace a claim to its origin.

• Build a personal vocabulary portfolio.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: capitalism, socialism, social democracy, communism, oligarchy, authoritarianism, liberal democracy, constitutional republic, mixed economy, regulatory capture

• Tier 2: define, distinguish, term, ambiguity, equivocate, context, source, verify

Texts

• Short excerpts from Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, division of labor and the "invisible hand"), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (The Communist Manifesto, opening section), and a modern neutral textbook definition set

• Constitution of the United States, Preamble and Article I (first read)

Daily plan

• Mon: Vocabulary Wall. Students sort ten system names against definitions, then argue over borderline examples ("Is Sweden socialist?" This sets up Week 8).

• Tue: Close reading of paired Smith and Marx excerpts. Students identify each author's key terms and what each would call the other's claims.

• Wed: Equivocation hunt. Teacher presents sentences that use "socialism" to mean four different things; students rewrite each with precise terms.

• Thu: Writing workshop: a 150-word "Define Before You Debate" paragraph.

• Fri: Vocabulary quiz and portfolio check.

Assessment: Vocabulary portfolio, definitions quiz, primary-source tracing exercise.

Week 3. Logic I: Argument Construction

Essential question: What makes an argument sound rather than merely persuasive?

Objectives

• Identify claim, premise, evidence, assumption, and conclusion in a text.

• Draw an argument map.

• Distinguish deductive from inductive reasoning and validity from truth.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: syllogism, deductive, inductive, premise, conclusion, validity, soundness, warrant, counterexample

• Tier 2: infer, imply, evidence, assumption, valid, bias, correlate, cause

Texts

• Aristotle, Rhetoric (teacher summary of logos, ethos, pathos)

• A short opinion column from two perspectives on the same policy (teacher selected)

• Federalist No. 10 (excerpt on the causes of faction)

Daily plan

• Mon: Vocabulary sets for logic. Students build a concept ladder from claim to conclusion.

• Tue: Close read of Federalist No. 10, excerpt. Students identify Madison's central claim and two premises.

• Wed: Argument mapping workshop. Map the Madison excerpt, then map a column. Compare maps with a partner and settle disagreements by citing the text.

• Thu: Write a claim–evidence–reasoning (CER) paragraph on a low-stakes question.

• Fri: Argument map quiz and journal entry.

Assessment: Two argument maps, CER paragraph, vocabulary quiz.

Week 4. Logic II: Fallacies and Misinformation

Essential question: How do we recognize reasoning errors in ourselves and others?

Objectives

• Recognize and name fifteen fallacies in realistic political examples.

• Practice lateral reading to evaluate sources.

• Identify when a political claim relies on cherry-picked data.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: fallacy, straw man, ad hominem, false dilemma, hasty generalization, false cause, circular reasoning, slippery slope, cherry-picking, red herring, tu quoque, equivocation, motte-and-bailey, false balance, confirmation bias

• Tier 2: mislead, distort, credible, bias, verify, manipulate, imply, exaggerate

The fallacy laboratory. Students keep a Fallacy Field Guide (one card per fallacy: name, definition, political example, how to respond). A sample card:

Straw man. Misrepresenting an opponent's position so it is easier to defeat. Example: "Social democracy means the government owns everything." Response: "That is not the claim. Here is what the position actually says."

Daily plan

• Mon: Introduce 15 fallacies in three groups of five. Frayer model for each with a student-written example drawn from advertising, social media, or sports.

• Tue: Read two short, neutral-sourced articles on the same event. Annotate where each uses emotional language, selective facts, or loaded terms.

• Wed: Fallacy lab: short political clips and transcripts. Students work in teams to identify fallacies, then check each other's labels.

• Thu: Lateral reading practice: students leave a source, open new tabs, and ask who is behind it, what the evidence is, and what other sources say. Students write a one-page source verdict.

• Fri: Fallacy quiz and a journal entry: "A fallacy I have committed."

Assessment: Fallacy Field Guide, lateral reading verdict, quiz.

Week 5. Logic III: Straw Man versus Steel Man

Essential question: Can I state your argument so well that you would say, "Yes, that is exactly what I believe"?

Objectives

• Distinguish a straw-man from a steel-man restatement.

• Complete the six-step Listening Exercise: before you rebut, reconstruct.

• Write a steel-man paragraph on a position the student disagrees with.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: steel man, straw man, concession, rebuttal, counterargument, synthesis, burden of proof

• Tier 2: represent, paraphrase, summarize, charitable, objection, acknowledge, qualify, nuance

Model proposition: Sweden's social-democratic economic model provides a better balance between market competition and social protection than the American model.

• Straw man: "Socialism means the government owns everything, so Sweden will run out of money."

• Steel man: "Sweden shows a competitive private economy can coexist with universal public services and strong social insurance. Before concluding the model transfers to the United States, we must examine taxation, labor institutions, demographics, and public-sector efficiency."

The Listening Exercise (six steps)

1. Listen without interrupting.

2. Take notes on the actual claim.

3. Restate the argument in neutral language.

4. Ask the speaker, "Is that what you mean?"

5. Identify the strongest supporting evidence.

6. Present your counterargument.

Daily plan

• Mon: Vocabulary and Frayer models. Introduce the ten debate skills (Define, Research, Steel man, Identify fallacies, Listen, Question, Rebut, Concede, Synthesize, Revise).

• Tue: Read two opposing short texts on a tariff. Students write a keyword outline for each side.

• Wed: Reconstruction pairs. Partner A argues; Partner B restates until A certifies accuracy. Swap.

• Thu: Write a 250-word steel-man paragraph on a position the writer opposes.

• Fri: Mid-course Democratic Reasoning check (steel-manning and listening scored). Position Journal.

Assessment: Steel-man paragraph, reconstruction observation sheet, vocabulary quiz.

Week 6. PPE: Politics. Forms of Government and Institutions

Essential question: Who makes the decisions, and how do the rules shape the results?

Objectives

• Compare presidential, parliamentary, and authoritarian systems.

• Explain separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances, and party discipline.

• Compare how debate happens in the Oxford Union, the House of Commons, and the U.S. Congress.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: sovereignty, constitution, federalism, separation of powers, parliamentary system, presidential system, cloture, filibuster, committee system, party discipline, legitimacy

• Tier 2: authority, institution, incentive, constrain, enforce, delegate, accountable, hierarchy

Texts

• U.S. Constitution, Articles I–III (excerpts); Federalist No. 51 (excerpt on checks and balances)

• Short neutral summaries of how Prime Minister's Questions and a House special rule work (Congressional Research Service reports are good teacher sources)

• Locke, Second Treatise and Hobbes, Leviathan (short excerpts on why governments exist)

Daily plan

• Mon: Vocabulary and government typology graphic organizer.

• Tue: Close read of Federalist No. 51 with a keyword outline.

• Wed: Institutions as incentives. Case study: the same policy proposal moves through a parliamentary and a presidential system. Where can it stall? Who has a veto?

• Thu: Workshop: write a one-page explanation, "How a bill becomes a law, and why debate time is short."

• Fri: Comparative Institution Scorecard (Oxford Union, House of Commons, U.S. House, U.S. Senate: purpose, rules of debate, who can speak, how decisions are made).

Teaching note. The Union is a training ground, not a legislature. Congress must also appropriate funds, oversee agencies, and represent geographically diverse constituencies. The aim is to borrow educational practices, not to make Congress a debate club.

Assessment: Scorecard, vocabulary quiz, one-page explanation.

Week 7. PPE: Philosophy. Justice, Liberty, Equality, Legitimacy

Essential question: What should government do, and by what right?

Objectives

• Compare major philosophical frameworks (social contract, utilitarianism, liberalism, libertarianism, egalitarianism, republicanism, communitarianism) at an introductory level.

• Apply each framework to a single public problem.

• Conduct a philosophical dialogue.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: social contract, natural rights, utilitarianism, liberty (negative and positive), equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, distributive justice, consent, legitimacy, common good

• Tier 2: principle, obligation, entitlement, moral, ethical, dilemma, justify, rational

Texts (teacher-selected excerpts)

• John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (the harm principle)

• Declaration of Independence; Frederick Douglass, "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?" (excerpt)

• Martin Luther King Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail" (excerpt on just and unjust laws)

• Hayek or Friedman on liberty and markets; Rawls on justice (teacher summary or short excerpt)

Daily plan

• Mon: Vocabulary and philosopher quick-cards.

• Tue: Close read of Mill and King. Key question: when is a law legitimate?

• Wed: Seminar on the trolley-and-tariff problem. Same tariff, five philosophical lenses. Which values conflict?

• Thu: Write a 300-word philosophical analysis: "The strongest argument against my own view of liberty."

• Fri: Philosophical dialogue (written Socratic dialogue between two thinkers, 1–2 pages).

Assessment: Philosophical analysis, dialogue, vocabulary quiz.

Week 8. PPE: Economics. Comparative Economic Systems

Essential question: What happens when a policy is actually implemented, and who benefits?

Objectives

• Compare the U.S., Sweden, and Russia using an economic audit.

• Read basic economic data (inflation, unemployment, inequality, taxes, trade).

• Distinguish what an economy produces from how it distributes.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: GDP, median income, inflation, incentive, opportunity cost, monopoly, antitrust, tariff, subsidy, externality, moral hazard, bailout, gini coefficient, collective bargaining

• Tier 2: allocate, distribute, efficiency, productivity, consequence, trade-off, scarcity, incentive

Source model (from The Great Economic Debate)

• United States: a predominantly private-enterprise mixed capitalist economy with extensive regulation, subsidies, tariffs, and emergency intervention; high productivity and innovation alongside concerns about concentration, lobbying, and inequality.

• Sweden: a social-democratic market economy that relies on private enterprise and open trade while funding universal public services through comparatively high taxation.

• Russia: a state-influenced capitalist economy after 1991, with substantial state ownership, 1990s privatizations that concentrated wealth, and tightly linked political and economic power.

The 8-part Economic Audit (adapt to your needs): ownership, resource allocation, role of government, wealth distribution, political influence, trade openness, social insurance, and accountability mechanisms.

Daily plan

• Mon: Vocabulary and economics concept ladders.

• Tue: Read a short data-rich passage; students create a data table and write one claim supported by data.

• Wed: Case: the 2008 financial crisis and bailouts. Students list arguments for and against intervention and ask, What if government does nothing? Who bears the losses? Can we protect depositors without protecting shareholders?

• Thu: Economic audit of one country (team assignment).

• Fri: Gallery walk comparing audits; quiz.

Teaching note. Check every figure against a current source (World Bank, IMF, OECD, national statistics offices, Congressional Budget Office) before it enters a handout. Treat the source documents' country summaries as starting hypotheses to test, not conclusions.

Assessment: Economic audit, data paragraph, vocabulary quiz.

Week 9. American Constitutional Government

Essential question: What is legally permissible, and is it also wise, efficient, and just?

Objectives

• Analyze a constitutional case using issue, rule, application, and conclusion.

• Show how a legal ruling settles permissibility without settling economic efficiency, ethical justification, or democratic desirability.

• Apply four lenses (law, economics, philosophy, political science) to one case.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: amendment, judicial review, precedent, majority opinion, dissent, First Amendment, due process, equal protection, enumerated powers, commerce clause

• Tier 2: interpret, rule, uphold, overturn, constrain, applicable, standard, ruling

Case set (choose one as anchor):

• Marbury v. Madison (judicial review)

• McCulloch v. Maryland (federal power)

• A campaign-finance case, such as Buckley v. Valeo or Citizens United v. FEC, teaching the majority and dissent side by side

The four-lens worksheet (applied to campaign finance as the model):

Lens	Question
Law	Does the First Amendment protect independent political expenditures? What counts as corruption?
Economics	What is the link between spending, access, and policy outcomes? Who benefits financially?
Philosophy	What does political equality require? Should wealth determine the reach of speech?
Political science	Which institutions write the rules? What incentives shape coalitions and legislators?

Daily plan

• Mon: Vocabulary; timeline of constitutional development.

• Tue: Read the syllabus and key passages from the anchor case (majority and dissent); keyword outlines for each.

• Wed: Issue-rule-application-conclusion analysis in teams, then four-lens worksheet.

• Thu: Write a 400-word case brief and a one-paragraph "beyond the law" reflection.

• Fri: Mini-debate on a case question; quiz.

Assessment: Case brief, four-lens worksheet, vocabulary quiz.

Week 10. Rhetoric: Ethos, Logos, Pathos, and Organization

Essential question: How do I persuade responsibly?

Objectives

• Analyze historic speeches for rhetorical appeals and structure.

• Build a public argument with an introduction, claims, evidence, counterargument, and conclusion.

• Use concession and synthesis as rhetorical strengths.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: ethos, logos, pathos, kairos, exordium, narratio, refutatio, peroration, anaphora, antithesis, rhetorical question

• Tier 2: appeal, emphasize, tone, audience, purpose, persuade, credibility, resonate

Texts

• Pericles' Funeral Oration (re-read for rhetoric); Lincoln, Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural; Douglass; King, "I Have a Dream" (excerpt)

• Orwell, "Politics and the English Language" (excerpt on vague and dishonest political language; verify permissions)

Daily plan

• Mon: Vocabulary; rhetorical devices catalog.

• Tue: Annotate a speech for appeals and structure with a color code (ethos, logos, pathos).

• Wed: Seminar: When is emotional appeal legitimate, and when does it manipulate?

• Thu: Draft a 3-minute public argument with a concession paragraph.

• Fri: Peer feedback and revision plan.

Assessment: Rhetorical analysis, argument draft, vocabulary quiz.

Week 11. Oxford Union Debating

Essential question: What does it take to argue before an audience that is genuinely deciding?

Objectives

• Learn the format: announced proposition, alternating speeches, points of information, audience participation, and a public vote.

• Debate in a formal round.

• Evaluate arguments as an adjudicator.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: proposition, motion, point of information, floor speech, division (vote), adjudicator, government and opposition benches

• Tier 2: address, yield, concede, challenge, evaluate, adjudicate, decorum, sustain

Daily plan

• Mon: Teach the format; review the debate script template (see Appendix C).

• Tue: Research the assigned motion: students gather three pieces of evidence per side.

• Wed: Practice rounds in triads with an adjudicator.

• Thu: Oxford-style debate: opening speeches, points of information, floor speeches, closing speeches, vote.

• Fri: Adjudicator feedback and debrief. Journal: Which point changed my mind?

Suggested motions: This house believes a democracy must teach its citizens logic before expecting them to vote; This house would replace tariffs with direct support for displaced workers; This house believes public funding of campaigns improves democracy.

Assessment: Debate scoresheet, adjudication, reflection.

Week 12. Evidence-Based Rebuttal and Cross-Examination

Essential question: How do I test a claim without attacking a caricature?

Objectives

• Ask questions that expose assumptions.

• Rebut the actual argument.

• Concede legitimate weaknesses.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: cross-examination, leading question, rebuttal, burden of proof, falsifiable, impeach (a source), stipulate, rebuttal chain

• Tier 2: contradict, probe, challenge, undermine, clarify, refute, qualify, assess

Model tutorial questions (from the Oxford tutorial tradition). For the claim "Free-market capitalism produces the greatest prosperity," ask: Define prosperity. Are you measuring GDP or median disposable income? What period? What happens when markets become monopolies? Can a market function without government institutions? What evidence would falsify your claim? Have you examined countries that combine markets with universal social services?

Daily plan

• Mon: Vocabulary; question types (clarifying, probing assumptions, probing evidence, probing implications).

• Tue: Read a short economic or political claim with evidence; students write ten tutorial questions.

• Wed: Tutorial simulation. One student defends an essay; two question it for ten minutes.

• Thu: Cross-examination rounds with scoring.

• Fri: Quiz and journal entry on a concession the student made.

Assessment: Cross-examination rubric, ten-question set, vocabulary quiz.

Week 13. Listening and Deliberation: Structured Academic Controversy

Essential question: Can two sides reach a better answer together?

Objectives

• Complete a full Structured Academic Controversy (SAC).

• Write a consensus statement that includes valid insights from both sides.

• Reflect on how positions changed.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: deliberation, consensus, deliberative polling, structured controversy, compromise, synthesis

• Tier 2: reconcile, integrate, accommodate, common ground, prioritize, revise, reasoned, mutual

SAC protocol (summary; full steps in Appendix D):

1. Pairs prepare assigned sides.

2. Pair A presents; pair B restates and asks questions.

3. Pair B presents; pair A restates and asks questions.

4. Free discussion with switching sides.

5. Pairs drop assigned roles, write a synthesis, and report out.

Research connection. James Fishkin's deliberative polling gives balanced briefing materials, facilitates discussion across viewpoints, and measures opinions before and after. The principle: informed discussion can improve public reasoning. It does not erase political identity, media incentives, or material interests.

Daily plan

• Mon: Vocabulary; read the SAC briefing packet.

• Tue: Close read of two opposing source packets; keyword outlines.

• Wed: SAC steps 1–3.

• Thu: SAC steps 4–5 and written synthesis.

• Fri: Mid-unit assessment and Position Journal.

Suggested controversy: Should the United States reform campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of concentrated wealth in elections? (This question also seeds Weeks 14–16.)

Assessment: SAC participation rubric, written synthesis, Position Journal.

Week 14. Policy Design: The Student Policy Design Challenge

Essential question: Can we design practical reforms rather than slogans?

The challenge (from The Great Economic Debate): Each research team designs five specific institutional reforms. Sweeping proposals such as abolishing capitalism, eliminating government, raising all taxes, or nationalizing every corporation are not allowed. Teams choose across areas such as:

• Campaign finance (public financing, transparency, independent enforcement)

• Banking and systemic risk (resolution requirements, reducing moral hazard)

• Market competition (antitrust enforcement, lowering barriers to entry)

• Lobbying (revolving-door limits, disclosure)

• Taxation, labor, and healthcare (tax simplification, bargaining models, coverage comparisons)

• Environmental policy and infrastructure (pricing pollution, clean-energy incentives, vehicle imports)

Every reform must answer four questions: How does it work in practice? How is it funded? Who will oppose it, and what interests do they represent? What unintended consequences might follow?

The synthesis question: Can a system combine the entrepreneurial incentives of capitalism, the competitive safeguards of antitrust law, the social protections of Swedish social democracy, the constitutional protections of American democracy, and the accountability necessary to prevent oligarchic control?

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: regulatory capture, revolving door, public financing, systemic risk, resolution authority, antitrust, externality, fiscal note

• Tier 2: propose, implement, feasible, enforce, unintended, stakeholder, mitigate, sustainable

Daily plan

• Mon: Vocabulary; team formation and topic selection.

• Tue: Research day using a source log (author, date, bias, reliability, key data).

• Wed: Draft the first two reforms with the four-question template.

• Thu: Draft the remaining reforms; peer review using the policy rubric (Appendix F).

• Fri: Dossier checkpoint and teacher conference.

Assessment: 100-point policy dossier rubric (Appendix F).

Week 15. Legislative Simulation, Part 1

Essential question: How does deliberation change a bill?

Setup. The class becomes a mock legislature with two chambers or one chamber plus committees. Roles: members, committee chairs, parliamentarian, clerk, press, and fact-checking staff. Each team's dossier becomes a bill.

Vocabulary

• Tier 3: bill, committee, markup, amendment, quorum, floor debate, motion to table, roll-call vote, conference committee, veto

• Tier 2: negotiate, compromise, sponsor, oppose, amend, revise, majority, minority

Daily plan

• Mon: Rules of procedure and role assignments.

• Tue: Committee hearings with cross-examination of bill sponsors and expert witnesses (outside guests, teachers, or students in role).

• Wed: Markup and amendments.

• Thu: Cross-party negotiations; the press publishes short articles.

• Fri: Bill revision and reflection.

Assessment: Committee participation rubric, revised bill, press article.

Week 16. Legislative Simulation, Part 2, and Final Intellectual Defense

Essential question: What did we learn about reasoning together?

Daily plan

• Mon: Floor debate on the bills.

• Tue: Final votes and a short post-vote explanation by each student.

• Wed: Final debate on the course proposition. Students argue a side assigned by lot; then write what they actually think.

• Thu: Final intellectual defense: each student presents a 5-minute defense of one reform or position and answers three questions from a panel.

• Fri: Post-assessment (same Democratic Reasoning rubric as Week 1), Position Journal comparison, and an end-of-course reflection letter.

Assessment: Defense rubric, pre/post Democratic Reasoning scores, reflection letter.

The Student Policy Design Challenge is the culminating assignment of the curriculum, challenging students to move beyond criticizing existing economic and political systems to actively design concrete institutional reforms^[1].

1. Core Rules & Guidelines

Specific Institutional Changes: Students are not allowed to rely on simplistic or sweeping proposals—such as completely abolishing capitalism, eliminating government, raising all taxes, or nationalizing every corporation^[1]. Instead, they must design practical policy mechanisms^[1].
Five Target Proposals: Each research team must present five specific reforms selected across key policy areas, including:
- Campaign Finance: Public financing models, transparency, and independent enforcement^[1].
- Banking & Systemic Risk: Stronger resolution requirements and reducing moral hazard^[1].
- Market Competition: Enhanced antitrust enforcement and lowering barriers to entry^[1].
- Lobbying: Revolving-door restrictions, disclosure, and transparency^[1].
- Taxation, Labor & Healthcare: Tax simplification, collective bargaining/worker ownership, and comparative healthcare coverage models^[1].
- Environmental Policy & Infrastructure: Internalizing pollution costs, clean-energy incentives, and competitive vehicle imports^[1].

2. Practical Feasibility & Impact Analysis

To ensure proposals are rigorous and realistic, every team must explicitly detail:

How the proposed system functions in practice^[2].
How it will be funded^[2].
Who would oppose it and what interests they represent^[2].
What unintended consequences the reform might generate^[2].

3. The Core Synthesis Challenge

The ultimate goal of the assignment is to solve a central design question: whether it is possible to build a system that combines the entrepreneurial incentives of capitalism, the competitive safeguards of antitrust law, the social protections of Swedish social democracy, the constitutional protections of American democracy, and the accountability necessary to prevent oligarchic control^[2].