Unit 7: Weapons of Mass Persuasion
Unit 7: Weapons of Mass Persuasion
The Logic of Argument
The Logic of Argument
In this dynamic, integrated unit, students move through the full arc of argumentation. Students begin with foundational logic and fallacy detection, to ethical reasoning and moral frameworks, then finish with the structured craft of evidence-based debate. Rather than treating these as separate disciplines, this unit builds them as interconnected layers of a single skill: the ability to think, reason, and argue with clarity, precision, and intellectual honesty.
Students begin by learning to recognize flawed reasoning from the inside out, intentionally constructing bad arguments before having them dismantled by peers. From there, they step into the role of both propagandist and critic, building credible arguments on assigned topics and subjecting them to a rigorous three-round peer "assassination": fallacy identification, Socratic questioning, and written rebuttal. Socratic questioning is grounded in the framework of Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder's The Art of Socratic Questioning, equipping students with a disciplined method for probing assumptions and exposing weak reasoning. The unit culminates in formal academic debate, where students apply the Toulmin Model (with particular emphasis on warrants and underlying assumptions) within a hybrid debate format drawing from Oxford-style debate and the American legal system. Research methodology is deepened through The Craft of Research, 5th edition, as students learn not just what makes a strong argument, but what makes a strong topic worth arguing.
Throughout the unit, students encounter ethical frameworks and moral reasoning not as isolated content, but as a lens woven into the arguments they analyze, construct, and defend. The goal is not memorization of models. Instead, it is their application under pressure, in dialogue, and in writing.
Construct and deconstruct arguments using deductive and inductive reasoning, identifying logical strengths and fallacies.
Apply the Socratic questioning framework (Paul & Elder) to interrogate assumptions, evidence, and conclusions in written and spoken arguments.
Build credible, evidence-based arguments on assigned topics and evaluate them across multiple rounds of peer critique.
Analyze ethical dimensions of arguments using major moral frameworks, including deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics.
Apply the Toulmin Model to real arguments, with emphasis on identifying and articulating warrants and underlying assumptions.
Evaluate what makes a debate topic substantive, arguable, and intellectually generative; distinguishing reasoned disagreement from opinion or rhetoric.
Collaborate within assigned debate roles (leader, researcher, contrarian, and Socratic questioner)to construct and deliver structured arguments.
Develop public speaking, rapid rebuttal, and critical listening skills within a formal debate context.
Fallacy This! Students write an intentionally flawed argument, engineered with logical fallacies, weak reasoning, and faulty evidence. A classmate then "assassinates" the argument by identifying and explaining the logical errors embedded within it. This introductory assignment builds familiarity with fallacy types, deductive and inductive reasoning structures, and the anatomy of argument from the ground up.
FART (Factual Authority for Repurposing Trust): Inspired by the mechanics of troll farms and influence operations, students construct a well-researched, credible-seeming argument on an assigned topic. The argument is then subjected to three rounds of peer assassination: fallacy and logic identification, Socratic questioning (grounded in the Paul & Elder framework), and a formal written rebuttal. This project challenges students to build arguments that hold up under serious scrutiny, and to develop the critical tools to dismantle those that don't.
Debate: Students participate in one or two formal debates (depending on available time), working in instructor-assigned groups. Before any argument is built, students must propose and justify their debate topic. This key part of the unit forces students to distinguish a genuinely arguable question from a rant, a vent, or a false dilemma. Debates follow a hybrid format drawing from Oxford-style debate and the American legal system. Each group assigns internal roles (leader, researcher, contrarian, and Socratic questioner) to ensure every member contributes to both strategy and execution. Arguments are constructed using the Toulmin Model, with particular focus on warrants and assumptions, supported by research methods drawn from The Craft of Research, 5th edition.
In this dynamic, integrated unit, students move through the full arc of argumentation. Students begin with foundational logic and fallacy detection, to ethical reasoning and moral frameworks, then finish with the structured craft of evidence-based debate. Rather than treating these as separate disciplines, this unit builds them as interconnected layers of a single skill: the ability to think, reason, and argue with clarity, precision, and intellectual honesty.
Students begin by learning to recognize flawed reasoning from the inside out, intentionally constructing bad arguments before having them dismantled by peers. From there, they step into the role of both propagandist and critic, building credible arguments on assigned topics and subjecting them to a rigorous three-round peer "assassination": fallacy identification, Socratic questioning, and written rebuttal. Socratic questioning is grounded in the framework of Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder's The Art of Socratic Questioning, equipping students with a disciplined method for probing assumptions and exposing weak reasoning. The unit culminates in formal academic debate, where students apply the Toulmin Model (with particular emphasis on warrants and underlying assumptions) within a hybrid debate format drawing from Oxford-style debate and the American legal system. Research methodology is deepened through The Craft of Research, 5th edition, as students learn not just what makes a strong argument, but what makes a strong topic worth arguing.
Throughout the unit, students encounter ethical frameworks and moral reasoning not as isolated content, but as a lens woven into the arguments they analyze, construct, and defend. The goal is not memorization of models. Instead, it is their application under pressure, in dialogue, and in writing.
Construct and deconstruct arguments using deductive and inductive reasoning, identifying logical strengths and fallacies.
Apply the Socratic questioning framework (Paul & Elder) to interrogate assumptions, evidence, and conclusions in written and spoken arguments.
Build credible, evidence-based arguments on assigned topics and evaluate them across multiple rounds of peer critique.
Analyze ethical dimensions of arguments using major moral frameworks, including deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics.
Apply the Toulmin Model to real arguments, with emphasis on identifying and articulating warrants and underlying assumptions.
Evaluate what makes a debate topic substantive, arguable, and intellectually generative; distinguishing reasoned disagreement from opinion or rhetoric.
Collaborate within assigned debate roles (leader, researcher, contrarian, and Socratic questioner)to construct and deliver structured arguments.
Develop public speaking, rapid rebuttal, and critical listening skills within a formal debate context.
Fallacy This! Students write an intentionally flawed argument, engineered with logical fallacies, weak reasoning, and faulty evidence. A classmate then "assassinates" the argument by identifying and explaining the logical errors embedded within it. This introductory assignment builds familiarity with fallacy types, deductive and inductive reasoning structures, and the anatomy of argument from the ground up.
FART (Factual Authority for Repurposing Trust): Inspired by the mechanics of troll farms and influence operations, students construct a well-researched, credible-seeming argument on an assigned topic. The argument is then subjected to three rounds of peer assassination: fallacy and logic identification, Socratic questioning (grounded in the Paul & Elder framework), and a formal written rebuttal. This project challenges students to build arguments that hold up under serious scrutiny, and to develop the critical tools to dismantle those that don't.
Debate: Students participate in one or two formal debates (depending on available time), working in instructor-assigned groups. Before any argument is built, students must propose and justify their debate topic. This key part of the unit forces students to distinguish a genuinely arguable question from a rant, a vent, or a false dilemma. Debates follow a hybrid format drawing from Oxford-style debate and the American legal system. Each group assigns internal roles (leader, researcher, contrarian, and Socratic questioner) to ensure every member contributes to both strategy and execution. Arguments are constructed using the Toulmin Model, with particular focus on warrants and assumptions, supported by research methods drawn from The Craft of Research, 5th edition.
Intro to Toulmin Argument Model by Purdue OWL (Link)
Warrants Explained by David Hitchcock from McMaster University (Link)
The Craft of Research Chapters 5-9 (Textbook in Class)
Special Emphasis on Chapter 8: "Warrants" (Pages 137-153)
Ethos, Logos, and Pathos Applied to Toulmin Warrants (Link)
Types of Warrants Cheat Sheet (Link)
Why Assumptions Matter from UC Davis Open Textbook Project (Link)
"Love is a Fallacy" by Max Shulman (Link)
Divisive Positions Poll (Link)
Discourse Kitchen: A Debate Menu (Link)
List of Key Logical Fallacies; Ones I Focus On (Link)
Fallacy This! A Task (Link)
A Cognitive Audit (Link) (Fancy Version)
How to get on a Watchlist (S2, E12): How to run a troll farm (Link)
Disinformation Warfare, Part 1 and 2 (Link for 1, Link for 2)
Tactics of Disinformation from the CIA (Link)
I investigated millions of tweets from the Kremlin’s ‘troll factory’ and... (Link)
The X factor: How Trump ally Elon Musk is using social media to prime voter mistrust ahead of 2024 election (Link)
FART Explained for Teachers, Admin, and Parents (Link)
Onboarding (Link)
FART Toolkit (Link)
Serious Topics List (Link)
Assassination 1: Fallacies and Logic (Link)
Logical Fallacy List (Tretyak's Top 20) (Link)
Assassination 2: Socratic Question (Link)
Excerpt from The Art of Socratic Questioning by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder (Link)
Question Toolkit (Link)
Final Assassination: Rebuttal (Link)
You Are Not So Smart (Link)
Skeptoid (Link)
How to Argue - Philosophical Reasoning: Crash Course Philosophy #2 (Link)
Wireless Philosophy: Introduction to Logic (Link)
Kialo Debate Mapping Platform (Link)
Your Logical Fallacy Is... (link)
"The Inclusion Problem in Critical Thinking: Case of Indian Philosophy" — Anand Jayprakash Vaidya (Link)
"Cognitive Bias Cheat Sheet" — Buster Benson (Medium/Better Humans) (Link)
"How to recognize and tame your cognitive distortions" by Peter Grinspoon (Link)
"Democracy in Troubled Times: Democracy in Ancient Athens" by Saint Leo University (Link)