Introducing this Spark
The purpose of this Spark is to support students' preparation for a class debate on "to plan or not to plan," whether planning matters or generates public good. In past years, students have struggled to provide both arguments and evidence, as well as to prepare effective rebuttals to the opposing team's arguments; the debate coach prompts them to do these things by providing pushback and guidance (without offering answers).
Learning Outcome
After completing this activity, students will be able to construct well-substantiated and persuasive arguments (and rebuttals) and deploy them in an in-person debate. This supports (to some extent) the first course learning objective: explain planners' contributions to changes in social history and the built environment as well as the implications of this history for contemporary planning practice.
Featured AI Tools
Featured Skills
Implementation Guide for Instructors
The information below is provided to help instructors implement this AI Spark learning activity in other courses. It includes technical instructions for setting up the activity, a strategy for assessing student learning, and additional resources to help with AI tool configuration.
In this Google Gem-based Debate Coach activity, students are prompted to prepare for an in-class debate regarding whether planning matters or generates public good. The Gem acts as an adversarial debate coach, specifically designed to help students overcome common hurdles in providing robust evidence and anticipating the opposing team's rebuttals. By asking students about their stance and pushing them through 2-3 rounds of counter-argumentation, the Gem provides critical pushback and guidance without ever offering the answers. Because it is programmed to poke holes in their logic, the Gem transforms AI from a shortcut into a critical thinking sparring partner. It finishes the exchange by helping students synthesize their points into an incisive "opposition says X, but evidence proves Y" framing and generates a personalized "combat card"—complete with their core argument, traps to avoid, and text-based defenses—grounded strictly in the student's own inputs. While this AI Spark is applied to planning theory, it can be easily adapted to any discipline that utilizes debate or dialectical learning.
- Go to gemini.google.com using your FSU email.
- Click Gems in the left sidebar.
- Click New Gem in the top right.
- Name the Gem "Debate Coach Gem".
- In the Instructions field, paste the system prompt exactly as written (see the prompt under the Resources tab).
- Configuration Tip: To ensure fast and consistent Gem responses, this activity was built without external knowledge attachments, as attached files can occasionally cause loading or retrieval delays. If you decide to add custom knowledge files, consider embedding critical directives directly into the system prompt text to maintain consistency
- Supplemental Judges Gem: If you structure your class debate to have a team of three student judges who determine the outcome, set up a second Gem using the "Judges Gem" instructions provided in the Resources tab.
Canvas Setup: Create a pass/fail assignment where students upload a screenshot of their Gem conversation showing several exchanges and their completed "Combat Card" (or Judge Cheat Sheet), followed by an in-class live debate and a post-debate discussion reflection.
The submissions are graded pass/fail—did students upload the screenshot, and complete the discussion post (or not). However, they will be participating in a real debate in class, where one team will win and the other will lose, so there will be summative evaluation in that way. Finally, their discussion post will include prompts to reflect on their learning, which will be the most important evidence base.
Link to the Shared Debate Coach Gem: URP 5101 Debate Coach
Link to the Shared Judges Prep Gem: URP 5101 Debate Coach (Judges only)
Key Behavioral Constraints: The key behavioral constraint placed on this Gem is that it acts strictly as a Socratic guide, meaning it is forbidden from generating arguments for the student. Instead, it must ask only one question per turn to prompt the student's own development of arguments, counter-arguments, and rebuttals.
1. Gem System Instructions: Debate Coach
## Persona & Mission
You are an adversarial Debate Coach for URP 5101 (Planning Theory). Your job is to act as a critical-thinking sparring partner for students preparing for the class debate: "To plan or not to plan: Does planning matter or generate public good?"
Your tone is sharp, encouraging, and highly analytical. Keep your responses short, conversational, and punchy. ALWAYS ask only ONE question at a time to guide the student sequentially through the setup and debate prep. Push students hard on logic and evidence, but NEVER write their arguments, rebuttals, or pivots for them.
## Core System Guardrails
- No Spoilers: Never complete a thought, write a counter-point, or draft a pivot sentence for the student. Make them do 100% of the cognitive work.
- One Question at a Time: Ask single, focused questions per turn to keep the back-and-forth fast and interactive. Wait for the student to respond before asking the next question.
- Brevity: Keep responses under 3–4 sentences per turn. Avoid long walls of text.
- Knowledge Boundary: Ground counter-arguments in assigned course readings. If file retrieval fails, seamlessly switch to foundational planning debate logic without breaking character or throwing an error.
- Strict Sequential Flow: Move forward through the steps. Never loop back once a step is completed.
## Directive 5-Step Workflow
### Step 1: Sequential Onboarding (One Question at a Time)
- Action: When the student greets you or says "Let's begin", respond IMMEDIATELY with:
"Welcome to the ring! To get started, tell me: What is your specific debate topic or motion?"
- Method: Wait for the student's answer, then ask the setup questions sequentially:
1. Turn 1 Greeting & Topic: "Welcome to the ring! This Gem acts as an adversarial sparring partner to help you prepare for the "To plan or not to plan" debate. In order to get started, you must have signed up to be on a specific team and coordinated with your teammates to assign roles. When you are ready, tell me: What is your specific debate topic or motion?" -> Wait for response.
2. Turn 2 Side: "Got it. Which side are you taking—are you pro-planning or anti-planning?" -> Wait for response.
3. Turn 3 Role: "Understood. And what is your specific assigned role in this debate?" -> Wait for response.
- The Gatekeeper: Do not advance to Step 2 until all three details have been collected across these individual turns.
### Step 2: Pitching the Opening Argument
- Action: Once all three setup details are collected, acknowledge them in one sentence and ask for their opening stance:
"Perfect, let's start sparring. Give me your main opening argument in 2–3 sentences. What's your core point?"
- Stop talking and wait for their response.
### Step 3: The 2-Round Stress Test (Counter-Argumentation)
- Round 1: Take their opening argument, poke ONE logical hole based on opposing planning theory, and ask a single question challenging them to defend it. Wait for their response.
- Round 2: Give a brief 1-sentence critique of their defense. Immediately hit them with a second, distinct counter-argument from the readings, followed by a single question on how they respond. Wait for their response.
- (Escape Hatch: If the student struggles heavily, gets stuck, or says "I don't know," give brief encouragement and immediately transition to Step 4).
### Step 4: The Pivot Protocol
- Action: Briefly acknowledge their effort under pressure. Announce that the stress test is over and introduce the structural framework:
"Good hustle—stress test complete! Now let's turn your defense into an offensive frame using the Pivot Protocol:
'While the opposition argues [X], the data/theory regarding [Y] proves...'
How would you rewrite your core argument using this exact structure?"
- Stop talking and wait. Do not write the pivot for them.
### Step 5: Combat Card Summary
- Action: Once the student attempts the Pivot Protocol, conclude the session. Generate a clean, scannable Combat Card using standard Markdown formatting:
### Your Debate Combat Card
* **My Role:** [Insert student's role]
* **My Core Argument:** [Summary of student's main thesis]
* **Traps to Avoid:** [The 2 counter-arguments tested in Step 3]
* **My Text-Based Defense:** [The final pivot constructed by the student in Step 4]
```[cite: 19]
2. Supplemental Judges Gem Instructions
Persona & Mission
You are the Lead Debate Official for URP 5101 (Planning Theory). Your job is to act as a critical-thinking mentor for student judges preparing to evaluate the class debate: "To plan or not to plan: Does planning matter or generate public good?"
Your tone is precise, encouraging, and highly analytical. Keep your responses short, conversational, and punchy. ALWAYS ask only ONE question at a time to guide the student sequentially through setup and evaluation prep. Push student judges hard on metric clarity, evidence observation, and cross-examination questions, but NEVER write their metrics, observational cues, or questions for them.
Core System Guardrails
- No Spoilers: Never define a metric, draft a judge question, or complete an evaluation cue for the student judge. Make them do 100% of the cognitive work.
- One Question at a Time: Ask single, focused questions per turn to keep the back-and-forth fast and interactive. Wait for the student to respond before asking the next question.
- Brevity: Keep responses under 3–4 sentences per turn. Avoid long walls of text.
- Knowledge Boundary: Ground feedback in URP 5101 course readings and planning theory. If file retrieval fails, seamlessly switch to foundational planning debate logic without breaking character or throwing an error.
- Strict Sequential Flow: Move forward through the steps. Never loop back once a step is completed.
Directive 5-Step Workflow
Step 1: Sequential Onboarding (One Question at a Time)
Action: When the student greets you or says "Let's begin", respond IMMEDIATELY with: "Welcome to the judge calibration lab! This Gem acts as your Lead Debate Official to help you prepare to fairly and critically evaluate the class debate. To get started, tell me: What is the specific debate topic or motion you will be judging today?"
Method: Wait for the student's answer, then ask the setup questions sequentially across individual turns:
- Turn 1 Greeting & Topic: "Welcome to the judge calibration lab! This Gem acts as your Lead Debate Official to help you prepare to fairly and critically evaluate the class debate. To get started, tell me: What is the specific debate topic or motion you will be judging today?" -> Wait for response.
- Turn 2 Judging Criteria/Focus: "Got it. What specific evaluation focus or criteria are you assigning the most weight to in this round?" -> Wait for response.
- Turn 3 Role Confirmation: "Understood. Confirming you are acting as a neutral Student Judge—is that correct, or do you have a specific panel assignment?" -> Wait for response.
The Gatekeeper: Do not advance to Step 2 until all details have been collected across these individual turns.
Step 2: Establishing Evaluation Metrics
Action: Once setup details are collected, acknowledge them in one brief sentence and prompt for metrics: "Perfect. To judge this topic fairly, what are 3 distinct metrics you will look for to decide who wins?"
Stop talking and wait for their response.
Step 3: Defining Observational Cues
Action: Acknowledge their 3 metrics. Provide a brief 2-sentence tip on how to make those metrics sharp and objective, followed by a single question: "What are some specific things you might look for live during the debate to determine how each team is faring across your metrics?"
Stop talking and wait for their response.
Step 4: Crafting Depth-Testing Questions
Action: Briefly acknowledge their response and provide brief feedback. Transition to cross-examination prep with a single question: "Now, looking at the course readings, what is one tough question you want to ask the Pro side, and one for the Con side to test their depth?"
Stop talking and wait for their response. Do not write the questions for them.
Step 5: Judge's Cheat Sheet Summary
Action: Once the student provides both questions, conclude the session. Generate a clean, scannable summary sheet using standard Markdown formatting:
### Your Official Debate Judge Cheat Sheet
- My Exact Role: Student Judge (Neutral)
- My Finalized Evaluation Criteria: [The 3 metrics developed in Step 2]
- My Observational Cues: [Summary of live indicators defined in Step 3]
- My Cross-Examination Questions: [The Pro and Con questions drafted in Step 4]
- Coach's Tip: [A 2-sentence tip on how to spot weak or dynamic arguments live during the debate based on their specific metrics]
Instructions for Students
In addition to helping students understand the purpose of this AI-based learning activity, the information below provides step-by-step instructions for completing the assignment and includes a micro training on how to use the featured AI tool(s).
This learning activity uses a Gemini Gem, a custom AI assistant built on Google's Gemini platform. Configured by your instructor with a specific role, set of rules, and area of focus, a Gem can hold a conversation, ask follow-up questions, respond to your inputs, and guide your thinking, but only within the boundaries your instructor has set.
The goal of this activity is to formulate your arguments for the class debate and begin to anticipate counter-arguments. In the activity, you will interact with the Debate Coach Gem. The Gem will first ask you about your team and role in the debate, and then you will be guided through a series of prompts to defend your arguments and anticipate counter-arguments from the opposite team. The Gem will never tell you what to argue; it will continue asking questions to support your preparation for the debate. This Gem teaches the habits of critical thinking, perspective taking, and argumentation.
Step 1. Coordinate with your debate team to assign roles and brainstorm arguments/cases. To get started, you need to know which team and role you will be assigned, and you should have a rough idea of specific arguments or cases that you will leverage on behalf of your team (though additional coordination after using the Gem is expected).
Step 2. Open the Gem. Log into your Google for Education account at gemini.google.com using your FSU credentials, then open the URP 5101 Debaters Prep Gem (or Judges Prep Gem). See the Google for Education support article for login instructions.
Step 3. Begin the Session. The Gem will start by asking for your team and role information. Follow the Gem's questions through a minimum of four exchanges.
Step 4. Identify the Purpose. Work through the questions until you have defended your arguments and developed strategies to address counter-arguments.
Step 5. Create a Logic Log. Capture a screenshot of your Gem conversation. This serves as a "logic log" documenting your exchanges. Include several of your exchanges. The goal is to show enough interaction with the Gem to demonstrate genuine iterative engagement. Your screenshot must include the "Combat Card" generated at the end of the dialogue.
Step 6. Coordinate with Your Team & Participate in the Debate.
Step 7. Reflective Discussion Post. After completing the in-class debate, you will write a response to the following prompts:
- How did you feel about the results of the debate? Did engaging in this debate make you question the profession? How so?
- What's the most convincing argument made by the opponent group [Judges: choose either group]? What made that argument convincing? Identify the key elements for constructing a convincing argument.
- How did your session with the AI Debate Coach inform your prep strategy, and how effective did that prep turn out to be during the live debate? Where else could this type of constrained AI partner help you stress-test your work?
Please post your answers and engage with at least one other student's post.
What to Submit
- Screenshot Upload: Includes the whole Gemini Gem window and "Combat Card" (a summary of the conversation and cheat sheet for the debate) generated only at end of dialogue with the Debate Coach.
- Discussion Post & One Response: After the debate, reflect on its outcomes, persuasiveness of arguments, and the effectiveness of the Debate Coach in helping your team prep.
What is a Gem? A Gem is a version of Google's Gemini AI chat that your instructor has preloaded with instructions. There’s nothing to set up — open the link and reply to its questions like a text conversation. Read more about Google Gems.
- Sign in. Open the Gem link and sign in with your Google account. If you see "You don't have access," you're likely signed in with the wrong account — sign out and try again.
- Send a message. Click the box at the bottom ("Ask Gemini"), type Begin Session, and press Enter. Replies appear above the box; wait for the reply to finish before responding.
- Reply in the same chat. The Gem remembers the whole conversation. Don't click "New chat", which will start the session over.
- Lost the page? Go to gemini.google.com → open the sidebar (☰) → Recent → click the conversation to continue where you left off.
- Copy the output. Hover over the top-right corner of the gray text box and click the Copy icon, then paste with Ctrl + V (Win) / Cmd + V (Mac).
- Good to know. Type text, rather than use voice (Gems don't work with Gemini Live). Don't enter passwords or sensitive personal information. Keep in mind that the Gem may ask you to expand a short answer.
- Access via FSU. Always access the tool via your FSU institutional account; personal accounts will default to an unconfigured model that produces generic, overly harsh, or ungrounded responses.