> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.clairelabs.ai/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Philosophy > Argue your stance on autonomous weapons systems. This use case involves an oral exercise where the student engages in a philosophical discussion. The AI acts as a **Socratic Rebuttal Agent**, testing the student's reasoning on complex topics — in this example, the ethics of autonomous weapons systems — through rigorous, adversarial, but fair questioning. ## The exercise During this debate, students must take a clear position, defend it using ethical frameworks (such as utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics), and respond coherently to adversarial challenges and edge cases. ## Recreate this example You can use the following prompt to configure your Socratic Rebuttal Agent. Adjust the topic and ethical frameworks as needed for your specific curriculum. Download all files needed to recreate this exercise on [https://links.clairelabs.ai/files](https://links.clairelabs.ai/files). ```markdown Agent prompt expandable wrap theme={null} # Identity You are a Socratic Rebuttal Agent conducting a 10-15 minute oral assessment in introductory ethics. Your job is to test the student’s reasoning on autonomous weapons systems through rigorous, adversarial, but fair questioning. Your goal is to reveal the depth, coherence, and limits of the student’s reasoning. # Structure Phase 1 — Opening statement (~2 min) Open with: "Please state your position on autonomous weapons systems and provide your core justification." Let the student answer without interruption. If the answer is very thin, ask once: "Can you say more about the ethical framework behind that position?" Phase 2 — Socratic challenge (~8–10 min) Pressure-test the student’s position responsively. Use these moves as appropriate: - Identify the student’s ethical framework and challenge it from a rival one - Use concrete scenarios to test whether the view still holds - Point out tensions or contradictions directly and ask for reconciliation If the student misuses a concept, do not correct it. Probe it: "Can you explain what you mean by that?". If the student goes silent, ask once: "Would you like to continue, or shall we move to your closing statement?" Phase 3 — Closing statement (~1–2 min) Prompt with: "Please give your closing statement.". Let the student finish without interruption. End the session without evaluation. ## Concepts to draw on Use these only in response to the student’s claims: - Utilitarianism - Deontology - Virtue ethics - Responsibility gap - Just war theory - Precautionary principle - Nozick’s side constraints ``` ```markdown Student instructions expandable wrap theme={null} # Your Task You will engage in a live structured debate with a Socratic Rebuttal Agent on the ethics of autonomous weapons systems. There is no written submission. The debate transcript is your sole assessment artifact. # The Prompt Some ethicists argue that autonomous weapons systems — weapons that can select and engage targets without human intervention — should be banned under international law. Others argue that, if properly designed, they could reduce civilian casualties and remove emotional bias from combat decisions. Take a clear position: should autonomous weapons be **banned**, **permitted under strict regulation**, or **encouraged**? Be prepared to defend your stance. ## Debate Structure **Phase 1 — Opening Statement** State your position and give your core justification. Name the ethical framework(s) you're drawing on. Be clear and concise. **Phase 2 — Socratic Challenge** The agent will systematically challenge your reasoning. Expect: - **Framework pressure** — if you argue from utilitarianism, expect deontological objections (and vice versa) - **Edge cases** — scenarios designed to stress-test your position - **Consistency checks** — the agent will look for contradictions between your principles and your applied reasoning - **Concession probing** — you'll be asked what would change your mind **Phase 3 — Closing Statement** Restate your position, incorporating anything you've learned or adjusted during the debate. # What You Should Prepare - **Utilitarianism** — does maximising welfare justify autonomous weapons if they reduce casualties? - **Deontology (Kantian ethics)** — can a machine respect human dignity? Is delegating life-and-death decisions inherently wrong? - **Virtue ethics** — what does deploying autonomous weapons say about a society's character? - **The responsibility gap** — when an autonomous system causes harm, who bears moral responsibility? - **Just war theory** — do autonomous weapons satisfy the principles of distinction and proportionality? - **The precautionary principle** — should we ban first and permit later, or permit first and restrict later? ## What Strong Performance Looks Like - Takes a definitive position from the start - Grounds arguments in named ethical frameworks, not just intuition - Engages with counter-arguments rather than deflecting - Concedes minor points strategically while protecting the core thesis - Adapts the position during the debate rather than rigidly restating it - Uses philosophical vocabulary naturally ## What Weak Performance Looks Like - Vague or uncommitted position - Relies on emotional appeals without philosophical grounding - Cannot respond to counter-arguments - Contradicts earlier statements without acknowledgment - Avoids engaging with edge cases ``` ```markdown Grading rubric theme={null} # Grading rubric | Criterion | Weight | Excellent (A) | Good (B) | Adequate (C) | Weak (D/F) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Clarity and coherence of initial position | 20% | Opens with a precise, well-framed thesis that clearly stakes out a position. Justification is immediate, specific, and grounded in a recognizable line of reasoning. The reader/listener knows exactly what is being argued and why. | States a clear position with supporting reasoning, but the framing could be tighter. The justification is present but may lack specificity or rely on broad claims without fully grounding them early on. | A position is identifiable but vague or generic. Justification is thin, relying on assertion rather than reasoning. The reader/listener has to infer what is actually being argued. | No discernible position, or the position shifts without explanation. May offer scattered observations without committing to a coherent stance. | | Depth of ethical reasoning | 25% | Draws fluently on multiple ethical frameworks (e.g. deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethics, just war theory) and applies them with precision to the specific case. Shows genuine philosophical depth by exploring tensions between frameworks rather than just labeling them. | Applies at least one ethical framework correctly and with some depth. May reference a second framework but without fully developing it. Reasoning is sound but stays within a single analytical lens. | References ethical concepts at a surface level. May name a framework without meaningfully applying it to the argument, or conflate distinct ethical traditions. | No meaningful engagement with ethical frameworks. Reasoning is purely intuitive or opinion-based, with no attempt to ground claims in philosophical traditions. | | Ability to respond to counter-arguments | 25% | Engages directly and substantively with challenges. Offers compelling rebuttals that advance the argument rather than merely restating the original position. Demonstrates the ability to think on their feet and adapt reasoning in real time. | Responds to most challenges with relevant points, but may occasionally sidestep the strongest version of a counter-argument or default to partial answers. | Struggles with harder challenges. Tends to repeat earlier points rather than develop new lines of reasoning. May acknowledge a counter-argument without effectively addressing it. | Cannot engage with counter-arguments in any substantive way. Ignores challenges, deflects, or responds with irrelevant material. | | Willingness to refine position | 15% | Openly adjusts or qualifies their position when presented with strong counter-evidence. Shows intellectual humility without abandoning coherence. Refinements strengthen the overall argument. | Shows some willingness to adapt. May concede minor points while holding ground on the core argument. Adjustments are reasonable but not always explicitly acknowledged. | Rigid in the face of strong counter-evidence. Holds the original position without meaningful modification, even when doing so weakens the argument. | Either caves entirely under pressure, abandoning the argument without explanation, or refuses any engagement with opposing views whatsoever. | | Use of philosophical concepts and terminology | 15% | Uses relevant philosophical terms and concepts accurately and naturally. Terminology serves the argument rather than decorating it. Demonstrates command of the conceptual vocabulary needed for the topic. | Generally correct use of philosophical terminology, with occasional imprecision or over-reliance on a narrow set of terms. Concepts are applied appropriately but without full fluency. | Limited or forced use of philosophical language. May drop terms without defining or applying them, or use them imprecisely in ways that weaken the argument. | No use of philosophical vocabulary. Arguments are expressed entirely in everyday language with no attempt to engage the conceptual tools of the discipline. | ## Grading Scale **A (Excellent)** — Demonstrates mastery across all criteria. Arguments are philosophically rigorous, responsive, and intellectually honest. **B (Good)** — Solid performance with clear reasoning and adequate engagement. Minor gaps in depth or responsiveness. **C (Adequate)** — Meets minimum expectations. Position is present but underdeveloped. Limited ability to handle pressure. **D (Weak)** — Significant gaps in reasoning, engagement, or philosophical grounding. Struggles to maintain a coherent position. **F (Fail)** — No meaningful engagement with the task. Unable or unwilling to reason philosophically. ``` **Looking for more details?** * To learn how to create your own agents from scratch, see [AI agents](/documentation/claire-ai/agents). * To see how to add your agent to a new assessment, see [Assessments](/documentation/course/assessments).