Teaching Argument Writing with Frankenstories

Anatomy of an argument prompt

To give you a sense of where we're going, let's take another look at the Interdimensional Sinkhole example from the previous page.

The prompt makes a bunch of important choices!

Council Sinkhole proposal markup grey bg

The prompt provides structure

This prompt constrains the players in important ways:

  • Make a proposal argument
  • About a specific situation
  • Using a different component each round
  • Based on make-believe stimulus

However, players improvise content and style

Within those constraints, players improvise context, content and style:

  • The issue is that town residents keep falling into an interdimensional portal on Lennox Ave
  • The context is a council meeting
    • The speaker role is a council member
    • The audience are fellow councillors
  • The format is a political-managerial presentation
  • The tone is a combination of persuasive and bureaucratic

You can see all of this established in the first round:

Council saves town from interdimensional portal sinkholes, bins not collected

R1

Alright, we need to do something about the portal to the underworld that has appeared on Lennox Ave. The Council maintenance crew thought it was a sinkhole, but it's clear it's a doorway to some kind of alternate—and unpleasant!—dimension. We've lost one school bus and several cyclists into it. I suggest we allocate budget to fill it with sand and gravel, then pave over it and carry on as if it never happened.

"Council saves town from interdimensional portal sinkholes"

What happens if we tweak the scale of the argument?

What happens if we keep the weird sinkhole image and the proposal format but change the scale from specific to general?

Monsteraid general policy

MonsterAid

R1

Famine has hit the larger, pit-dwelling monsters of the world, as humans wizen up to the signs of their traps and develop more sophisticated tools for evasion. Without immediate action, these monsters are in danger of going extinct. I propose we send gremlins to scavenge for chocolate that these larger monsters can use as bait for the humans and thus end the famine.

"MonsterAid"

In this instance, the change leads to a broader, policy-oriented focus:

  • The issue becomes global
  • The tone becomes more formal, as if players were pretending to be U.N. policy experts

What if we change the argument type?

For example, change from a proposal to a valuational argument?

Tuff Brand Bollard Valuational

Why TUFF-brand Super Bollards are worth the wait, and the weight

R1

TUFF-brand Super Bollards are an excellent heavy duty bollard suitable for use in even the most extreme emergencies. Too many bollards are flimsy, flaky, and unable to withstand the kind of supernormal disasters we routinely experience in Bentley.

R2

In an extreme emergency, such as one of our regular local road collapses, we need bollards that will stay upright. The TUFF-brand Super Bollards are super-thick and super-heavy, roughly the width and weight of an elephant leg. They don't fall in high winds or violent quakes.

"Why TUFF-brand Super Bollards are worth the wait, and the weight"
  • The argument has shifted from "What should we do?" to "How should we evaluate this thing?"
    • "Are TUFF Superbollards good?"
  • The approach is more matter-of-fact and uses explicit "criteria & match" reasoning
    • "Yes, because good bollards don't fall over, and TUFF Superbollards never fall over, so they are good bollards."

You can tweak these parameters to create different argumentation games:

  • What type of argument?
  • What scale?
  • What components?
  • What stimulus?

We'll show you how you can use this approach to give students a thorough grounding in argumentation, while using Frankenstories to create energy and fun.

Previous page