Category: Education in the AI Age

The Blurred Line Between Mental Illness and Evil (college essay prompt)

When people encounter shocking acts of cruelty, manipulation, or obsessive behavior, they often reach for two explanations. One explanation is psychological: the person must be mentally ill. The other explanation is moral: the person is evil. These explanations offer a kind of comfort because they simplify the problem. If destructive behavior is the result of mental illness, it can be understood through psychology and possibly treated. If the behavior is evil, it can be condemned and punished. However, many real-life cases resist these simple categories. Some individuals appear both irrational and calculating at the same time. Their actions may show signs of psychological instability while also involving deliberate choices that harm others.

The documentaries The Perfect Neighbor and High School Catfish explore this unsettling territory. In both films, individuals behave in ways that disturb viewers because their actions seem both obsessive and intentional. Conflicts escalate beyond reason. Deception and manipulation play central roles. At the same time, the people involved often feel deeply wronged, isolated, or misunderstood. Their sense of grievance becomes a powerful narrative that justifies their behavior in their own minds. As the stories unfold, viewers are left asking a difficult question: Are these individuals primarily suffering from mental illness, or are they morally responsible for destructive actions that reveal something darker about human nature?

These documentaries also highlight the role of loneliness, resentment, and social alienation. Individuals who feel rejected or humiliated may develop a deep sense of grievance toward others. Without meaningful relationships or healthy outlets for frustration, those grievances can intensify over time. Emotional pain can slowly transform into anger, suspicion, and obsession. In some cases, people begin to see themselves as victims of a hostile world. When this happens, harmful behavior may feel justified to them—even when it appears shocking or cruel to outsiders.

At the same time, manipulation and deception complicate the psychological explanation. In High School Catfish, elaborate lies and fabricated identities are used to control and emotionally manipulate others. In The Perfect Neighbor, conflicts escalate through a pattern of hostility and retaliation. These behaviors often appear strategic rather than purely irrational. This raises an important question: when someone carefully constructs deception or escalates conflict, does that suggest deliberate moral wrongdoing rather than mental illness? Or can manipulation itself be a symptom of deeper psychological disturbance, such as narcissism, obsession, or a need for validation?

Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay that explores the blurred line between mental illness and evil as it appears in The Perfect Neighbor and High School Catfish. Your essay should develop a clear thesis that explains how these documentaries challenge the simple distinction between psychological disturbance and moral responsibility.

Your introduction must include a thesis with mapping components. This means your thesis should clearly state your main argument and identify the key reasons that will organize your body paragraphs.

Example thesis with mapping:

The disturbing behavior portrayed in The Perfect Neighbor and High School Catfish demonstrates that the boundary between mental illness and evil is often blurred because intense loneliness can distort perception, personal grievances can justify cruelty, and deliberate manipulation allows individuals to transform emotional pain into calculated harm.

In this example, the mapping components are:

● loneliness and social isolation

● grievance and resentment

● manipulation and deception

Each of these would become a body paragraph in the essay.

Your essay should include the following elements:

• A clear thesis with mapping components
• Analysis of both documentaries
• Specific examples from the films that support your argument
• A counterargument that challenges your thesis
• A rebuttal defending your position
• A concluding paragraph that reflects on what these cases reveal about human behavior and modern society

Possible directions for your argument include:

• destructive behavior may emerge from both psychological disturbance and moral choice
• loneliness and grievance can transform emotional pain into cruelty
• manipulation and deception suggest deliberate moral responsibility
• society sometimes labels disturbing behavior as mental illness in order to avoid confronting the reality of evil
• disturbing actions may result from a complex mixture of psychological vulnerability, social isolation, and moral failure

Your goal is not simply to summarize the documentaries but to analyze what they reveal about the complicated relationship between mental illness, moral responsibility, and destructive human behavior. In your conclusion, reflect on what these stories suggest about how society should understand and respond to actions that appear both psychologically disturbed and morally troubling.

Helpful Definition: “The Hero Delusion.”

It’s the phenomenon in which people commit harmful acts while believing they are the protagonist in a moral drama. Both documentaries actually illustrate that pattern remarkably well.

Personal Engagement Building Block 3

For your first paragraph, write a 200-300-word profile of someone you know—or a friend of a friend—whose behavior could reasonably be described as morally troubling, destructive, or reprehensible. Begin by vividly describing the person’s actions and their impact on others. While it may be tempting to condemn the behavior outright, the purpose of this paragraph is not simply to judge the individual but to explore the difficulty of explaining why they behave as they do.

As you develop the profile, consider competing interpretations of the person’s conduct. Some observers might view the individual as fundamentally immoral or “evil,” arguing that their actions reflect selfishness, cruelty, or a conscious disregard for others. Others might suggest that the behavior is rooted in psychological disorders, trauma, personality pathology, or mental illness. Use specific details to illustrate why the person’s actions resist simple explanations and raise difficult questions about moral responsibility, free will, and human behavior.

Your paragraph should ultimately establish the central tension of your essay: whether certain forms of harmful behavior are better understood as evidence of moral corruption, psychological dysfunction, or some combination of both. The goal is not to resolve the debate but to introduce a complex case that invites further analysis.

Argumentative Engagement Building Block 3

Write two paragraphs: a thesis paragraph and a counterargument-rebuttal paragraph.

Your thesis paragraph should present a clear, arguable, and defensible claim that answers the central question of your essay. The paragraph should not merely announce a topic but establish a position that reasonable people could debate. After stating your thesis, include mapping components that identify the major points your body paragraphs will use to support your argument. These mapping components should provide readers with a clear roadmap of your essay’s structure and reasoning. Your thesis paragraph should be approximately 200 words.

Your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph should address a legitimate objection to your thesis. Begin by clearly and fairly explaining a viewpoint that challenges your argument. Demonstrate why thoughtful readers might disagree with your position and how their concerns complicate your claim. After presenting the counterargument, write a rebuttal that responds to those objections. A strong rebuttal may concede valid points made by the opposing side while demonstrating that, on balance, your argument remains more persuasive. It may also alleviate concerns by clarifying misconceptions, introducing additional evidence, or identifying important information that the opposing side overlooks. The goal is not to dismiss opposing viewpoints but to engage them thoughtfully and strengthen your overall argument. Your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph should be between 200 and 250 words.

June 25, 2026
The Performance Trap: Online Identity, Narcissism, and the Collapse of the Real Self (college essay prompt)

In the Netflix documentary The Crash and the Black Mirror episode “Joan Is Awful,” audiences witness characters whose lives become consumed by spectacle, performance, surveillance, and the relentless pressure of online visibility. While the two works differ in genre—one a real-life tragedy and the other a satirical dystopian drama—both raise disturbing questions about how modern digital culture reshapes identity, distorts reality, and erodes the boundary between authentic selfhood and online performance.

In The Crash, the documentary suggests that Mackenzie Shirilla’s compulsive online self-curation reflected a deeper psychological unraveling in which image management, attention-seeking, and social media validation became inseparable from her sense of identity. Meanwhile, in “Joan Is Awful,” Joan discovers that her life has been transformed into a grotesque entertainment product streamed to millions of viewers, forcing her to confront the horrifying possibility that her real self has become secondary to a digitally manufactured persona designed for mass consumption. In both works, online visibility functions less as a tool for communication and more as a vortex that pulls individuals toward narcissism, performative behavior, emotional instability, and estrangement from reality itself.

Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay in which you compare The Crash and “Joan Is Awful” to examine the claim that maintaining a constant online presence can suck people into a vortex of unhinged narcissism and madness that makes them unrecognizable from their authentic selves.

Your essay should analyze how both works depict:

● the transformation of identity into performance;

● the addictive pursuit of attention, relevance, and validation;

● the psychological consequences of constant self-curation and surveillance;

● the collapse of the boundary between private life and public spectacle;

● and the dangers of confusing online visibility with genuine human worth.

You should also address the broader cultural implications of these works. What do these texts suggest about the modern relationship between technology and identity? Do social media platforms merely reveal narcissism already present in human nature, or do they actively manufacture and intensify it? At what point does self-expression become self-erasure?

A strong essay will move beyond summary and develop a clear argumentative thesis that makes an original claim about the psychological and cultural dangers presented in both works. Your thesis should be supported by detailed analysis of scenes, dialogue, imagery, characterization, and thematic parallels between the documentary and the episode.

You must include:

● a clear and debatable thesis;

● detailed comparison of both works;

● at least one counterargument and rebuttal;

● analysis of specific scenes and examples;

● and thoughtful commentary about the relationship between technology, identity, and modern culture.

Possible directions for argument include:

● Social media transforms ordinary narcissism into pathological self-obsession.

● Constant online performance erodes authentic identity and emotional stability.

● Digital culture rewards outrage, exhibitionism, and emotional extremity.

● Online validation creates a dopamine-driven cycle that destabilizes mental health.

● Surveillance culture turns human beings into entertainment products.

● The internet encourages people to construct marketable personas rather than genuine selves.

You may agree, disagree, or complicate the prompt’s central argument, but your essay must directly engage the idea that online self-curation can psychologically deform individuals and distance them from reality.

Requirements:

● Approximately 1,200 words

● MLA format

● Clear introduction, body paragraphs, counterargument-rebuttal section, and conclusion

● Use evidence from both The Crash and “Joan Is Awful”

● Include a Works Cited page

The strongest essays will avoid simplistic “technology bad” arguments and instead explore the more unsettling possibility that modern digital culture rewards the most performative, narcissistic, and emotionally unstable versions of ourselves until the performance eventually consumes the person behind it.

Personal Building Block 2

For your first body paragraph, write a vivid profile of someone you know—or a friend of a friend—whose constant online presence has placed significant strain on their mental and emotional well-being. Describe how this person became absorbed in documenting, sharing, and curating nearly every aspect of their life for an online audience. How much time do they spend on social media? What kinds of content do they post, and what motivates them to seek attention, approval, or validation online?

Analyze how this behavior has affected other areas of their life, including school, work, family relationships, friendships, or romantic relationships. Have they experienced anxiety, insecurity, loneliness, or an unhealthy dependence on likes, comments, and online engagement? Did they eventually recognize the negative effects of their behavior and take steps to change, or do they remain trapped in the cycle of constant self-presentation and digital validation?

Your profile should include vivid details that capture the person’s personality, habits, and social environment. More importantly, it should illustrate how algorithm-driven platforms can influence behavior by rewarding attention-seeking, emotional intensity, and perpetual self-disclosure. Use the individual’s experience to show how a life increasingly organized around online performance can distort identity, damage relationships, and contribute to feelings of unhappiness, alienation, or loss of self. Your paragraph should be between 200 and 300 words.

Argumentative Building Block 2

You will turn in two paragraphs, your thesis and conclusion.

Your thesis paragraph should present a clear, arguable, and defensible claim that answers the central question of your essay. The paragraph should not merely announce a topic but establish a position that reasonable people could debate. After stating your thesis, include mapping components that identify the major points your body paragraphs will use to support your argument. These mapping components should provide readers with a clear roadmap of your essay’s structure and reasoning. Your thesis paragraph should be approximately 200 words.

Your conclusion paragraph should move beyond the specific events of The Crash and “Joan Is Awful” to explore the broader cultural significance of your comparison. What do these texts reveal about the relationship between technology, identity, and human behavior in the digital age? Do social media platforms merely expose narcissistic tendencies that have always existed, or do they actively encourage and amplify them? At what point does self-expression cease to be authentic and become a performance shaped by algorithms, audiences, and the pursuit of attention? Consider whether modern technology has blurred the distinction between reality and representation to such an extent that people increasingly struggle to distinguish genuine experiences from curated personas. A strong conclusion should not simply summarize your argument but explain why it matters. Ultimately, your paragraph should demonstrate how The Crash and “Joan Is Awful” illuminate larger concerns about identity, authenticity, technology, and the future of human relationships in a world increasingly shaped by digital platforms. Your conclusion should be approximately 150 words.

June 25, 2026
The Addictive Power of Sports Betting (college essay prompt)
Length

1,200 words minimum

Sources

At least 4 credible sources

Assignment

Sports betting has become one of the fastest-growing industries in American culture. Once confined largely to casinos and illegal bookmakers, gambling is now integrated into professional sports broadcasts, podcasts, social media feeds, smartphone apps, and influencer culture. Millions of young men can place bets within seconds while receiving a constant stream of betting advice, predictions, and promotional offers.

Many defenders argue that sports betting is simply another form of entertainment. Most participants gamble casually without developing serious problems. However, critics argue that the current sports-betting ecosystem possesses an unprecedented ability to exploit psychological vulnerabilities, especially among young men struggling with loneliness, identity, status anxiety, and the search for belonging.

For this essay, analyze the causes of sports betting’s addictive power. Your goal is not merely to describe gambling addiction but to explain why sports betting has become so psychologically compelling in contemporary culture.

In your analysis, consider some of the following questions:
- How do sports-betting apps use psychological rewards, dopamine stimulation, and intermittent reinforcement to encourage repeated gambling?
- Why might young men be particularly susceptible to sports-betting culture?
- How does sports betting appeal to desires for competition, mastery, expertise, status, and recognition?
- What role do loneliness and declining social connection play in the appeal of betting communities, podcasts, influencers, and online group chats?
- How do social media algorithms amplify gambling content and normalize sports betting?
- In what ways has sports betting become intertwined with broader forms of masculine performance and identity?
- How do sports leagues, media companies, influencers, and betting companies contribute to the normalization of gambling?
- To what extent does sports betting function as a substitute for older sources of meaning, community, achievement, and belonging?
Your paper should move beyond the simplistic claim that gambling is addictive because people want money. Instead, investigate the deeper psychological, social, technological, and cultural forces that make sports betting attractive to millions of people.

Counterargument Requirement

Address the argument that sports betting is merely a harmless form of entertainment and that most participants gamble responsibly without developing addictive behaviors.

After presenting this counterargument, explain why critics remain concerned about the current sports-betting ecosystem. Consider whether the scale, accessibility, sophistication, and constant availability of modern betting platforms create risks that differ from traditional forms of gambling.

Suggested Organizational Structure

Introduction
- Introduce the rise of sports betting.
- Present your thesis explaining why sports betting has become so addictive.
Body Section 1: Psychological Factors
- Dopamine, reward systems, risk-taking, intermittent reinforcement, and behavioral psychology.
Body Section 2: Social and Cultural Factors
- Loneliness, declining community, online identity, status-seeking, and belonging.
Body Section 3: Technology and Media
- Smartphones, social media algorithms, influencer culture, betting apps, and sports broadcasting.
Body Section 4: Counterargument and Rebuttal
- Address the claim that sports betting is harmless entertainment.
- Explain why critics believe modern sports betting presents unique dangers.
Conclusion
- Evaluate whether the addictive power of sports betting is primarily financial, psychological, cultural, technological, or some combination of these factors.
Sample Thesis Statements

Thesis 1
Sports betting has become highly addictive because it combines powerful psychological reward mechanisms with social media algorithms, digital convenience, and young men’s desire for status, belonging, and identity.

Thesis 2
While sports betting appears to be a harmless form of entertainment, its addictive power stems from its ability to transform loneliness, masculine insecurity, and risk-taking impulses into a profitable digital marketplace.

Thesis 3
The rapid growth of sports betting reflects more than a desire for money; it reveals how technology, social isolation, and modern identity formation have created ideal conditions for gambling addiction among young men.

***

Personal Engagement Building Block 1

For your first body paragraph, present a personal account that explores the psychological appeal of sports betting, including its attractions, risks, and financial consequences. Interview someone who regularly engages in sports betting and use the interview as the foundation of your paragraph. How did this person first become interested in sports betting? How much time and attention does it consume? How has it affected their finances, productivity, relationships, or emotional well-being? Do they have regrets about their gambling habits, or do they view sports betting as harmless entertainment? Have they ever worried that it was becoming addictive or taking control of their behavior? Do they hope to continue betting indefinitely, cut back, or quit altogether?

Your paragraph should move beyond simple description and provide insight into the person’s motivations, habits, and mindset. Include vivid details that help readers understand the individual’s personality, social environment, and relationship with sports betting. The goal is to humanize the issue by showing how sports betting functions in the life of a real person. Your paragraph should be between 200 and 300 words.

Argumentative Engagement Building Block 1

Write two paragraphs: a thesis paragraph and a counterargument-rebuttal paragraph.

Your thesis paragraph should present a clear, arguable, and defensible claim that answers the central question of your essay. The paragraph should not merely announce a topic but establish a position that reasonable people could debate. After stating your thesis, include mapping components that identify the major points your body paragraphs will use to support your argument. These mapping components should provide readers with a clear roadmap of your essay’s structure and reasoning. Your thesis paragraph should be approximately 200 words.

Your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph should address a legitimate objection to your thesis. Begin by clearly and fairly explaining a viewpoint that challenges your argument. Demonstrate why thoughtful readers might disagree with your position and how their concerns complicate your claim. After presenting the counterargument, write a rebuttal that responds to those objections. A strong rebuttal may concede valid points made by the opposing side while demonstrating that, on balance, your argument remains more persuasive. It may also alleviate concerns by clarifying misconceptions, introducing additional evidence, or identifying important information that the opposing side overlooks. The goal is not to dismiss opposing viewpoints but to engage them thoughtfully and strengthen your overall argument. Your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph should be between 200 and 250 words.
June 24, 2026
Why Communities Prefer Scapegoats to Self-Examination (college essay prompt)
Sources

Use Weapons, Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery,” and at least two outside sources.

Length

1,200 words minimum

Assignment

Both Weapons and Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” depict communities confronted by fear, uncertainty, and social dysfunction. In both works, people search for explanations when confronted with suffering. Yet rather than critically examine themselves, their values, or the systems they inhabit, they often seek simpler solutions: preserving familiar assumptions, defending established customs, and identifying convenient targets for blame.

As a result, innocent individuals become scapegoats while deeper problems remain unresolved.

At the center of both works are characters who appear to reinforce the beliefs and behaviors of their communities. Old Man Warner in “The Lottery” fiercely defends tradition, while Aunt Gladys in Weapons exercises influence through manipulation, vanity, and control. However, neither character acts alone. Their power depends upon a community willing to accept their assumptions and participate in harmful social rituals.

In a well-developed essay, analyze how Weapons and “The Lottery” explore the relationship between conformity, scapegoating, and self-deception. Consider whether both works suggest that communities often prefer familiar lies to uncomfortable truths. Ultimately, evaluate what these works reveal about the human tendency to preserve harmful systems rather than confront the deeper causes of social problems.

Questions for Consideration

You do not need to answer every question, but they may help guide your analysis:
- Why do communities often seek scapegoats during periods of fear or uncertainty?
- What psychological comfort do traditions and social rituals provide?
- When does tradition become an obstacle to justice or truth?
- How do ordinary people become complicit in harmful systems?
- What roles do Old Man Warner and Aunt Gladys play in sustaining the beliefs of their communities?
- How do fear, tribal loyalty, and groupthink influence decision-making?
- What do both works suggest about the dangers of refusing self-examination?
- Why are innocent people often sacrificed to preserve social stability?
Counterargument Requirement

Some readers might argue that traditions, social norms, and communal rituals are necessary because they provide stability, identity, and social cohesion. Without shared customs, communities can become fragmented and directionless.

Address this argument.

Then evaluate how Weapons and “The Lottery” distinguish between traditions that strengthen communities and traditions that perpetuate injustice, cruelty, or self-deception.

Sample Thesis Statements

Thesis 1
Although Weapons and “The Lottery” take place in very different settings, both argue that communities often protect familiar beliefs and social rituals even when those practices produce injustice and suffering.

Thesis 2
Both works suggest that scapegoating is attractive because it allows communities to avoid confronting deeper problems within themselves.

Thesis 3
Through their portrayals of conformity, fear, and collective self-deception, Weapons and “The Lottery” reveal that the greatest threat to a community is often its unwillingness to examine its own assumptions.

Thesis 4
Old Man Warner and Aunt Gladys are influential not because they possess

Why Weapons and “The Lottery” Work So Well

Both works are fundamentally about:
- Collective guilt
- Scapegoating
- Social conformity
- Moral cowardice
- Communities protecting themselves from self-examination
- The weaponization of consensus
In both stories, the community desperately wants an explanation for its suffering.

The explanation must:
- Be simple.
- Be emotionally satisfying.
- Preserve the group’s self-image.
The real enemy is not a monster.

The real enemy is a community’s refusal to confront itself.

That is exactly why Old Man Warner and Aunt Gladys feel comparable. Both are defenders of a diseased social order. They differ in personality, but they perform similar functions.

What Makes the Comparison Rich

One of the most interesting comparisons is that both works ask:

What happens when a community becomes more invested in maintaining a narrative than discovering the truth?

That question can sustain an entire essay.

In fact, I think the strongest thesis isn’t about tradition.

It’s about narrative preservation.

Both communities preserve comforting narratives even when those narratives require innocent people to suffer.
June 24, 2026
From Family Table to Food Lab: Competing Visions of Eating: Example of an AI-Resistant Writing Prompt

As more students turn to AI to generate research papers, I have begun requiring what I call a Personal Engagement Building Block at the beginning of every major assignment. This opening section consists of one or two paragraphs in which students draw upon a personal experience—or the experience of someone they know—to frame the issue they will later investigate. The purpose is not merely autobiographical. It is to create a sample of the student’s authentic voice and thinking before they begin working with outside sources.

These assignments are designed to be resistant to AI-generated responses because they require specific observations, concrete details, and personal knowledge that cannot easily be outsourced. At the same time, they must remain intellectually rigorous and directly connected to the larger argument of the essay. The challenge is to create prompts that move beyond simple storytelling and instead use personal experience as a lens through which students can examine complex social, cultural, or ethical questions.

For example, in a research paper exploring how ultra-processed foods, food technology, and GLP-1 drugs may transform our relationship with eating, students begin by writing two contrasting personal-experience paragraphs. These paragraphs are intended to illuminate competing ways of thinking about food, pleasure, convenience, family, technology, and consumption before students engage with the broader research and debate surrounding the topic. The assignment begins with the following AI-resistant prompt:

For the opening of your essay, write two contrasting personal-experience paragraphs that explore different relationships to food.

In the first paragraph, describe yourself—or someone you know—sharing a memorable meal in a family setting. Focus on food as an expression of love, tradition, connection, and celebration. Use vivid details to capture the atmosphere, the people gathered around the table, the preparation of the food, and the emotions associated with the experience. Show how the meal becomes more than nourishment; it serves as a vehicle for family identity, cultural heritage, memory, and human connection. The food should be savored not only for its taste but also for what it represents.

In the second paragraph, create a sharp contrast by describing an experience centered on hyperpalatable processed foods. You may focus on the compulsive nature of eating foods engineered to maximize cravings, appetite, and consumption. Describe the anxiety of never quite feeling satisfied, the urge to keep eating despite fullness, and the sense of helplessness that can accompany such behavior. Alternatively, if that experience does not apply to you, describe eating as an act of convenience and optimization rather than pleasure. Perhaps meals consist of protein bars, shakes, or packaged snacks consumed not because they are enjoyable but because they help you “hit your macros” or meet a nutritional goal.

The purpose of these two paragraphs is to explore how modern technology is transforming both food and our relationship to food. Together, they should frame your essay’s argument about the cultural, psychological, and social consequences of ultra-processed foods.

June 24, 2026
Misogyny or Masculine Displacement? The Fight to Explain Gender Conflict (a college essay prompt)
Using Helen Lewis’ essay “The Men Who Don’t Want Women to Be Quiet” and Helen Andrews’ essay “The Great Feminization” as your central texts, write a 1,200-word argumentative essay analyzing the conflicting narratives each author presents about gender, power, communication, and modern society. Your essay should examine how Lewis and Andrews offer sharply different interpretations of the changing relationship between men and women in contemporary culture and argue which writer presents the more persuasive argument.

In “The Men Who Don’t Want Women to Be Quiet,” Helen Lewis argues that many online male personalities and communities resent women who possess public voices, authority, independence, or intellectual influence. Lewis examines how social media, influencer culture, and reactionary online movements weaponize misogyny, harassment, and humiliation against outspoken women. She suggests that many men experience female autonomy and public visibility as threats to traditional gender hierarchies and male identity.

In “The Great Feminization,” Helen Andrews argues that modern institutions increasingly reward traits culturally associated with women—emotional sensitivity, verbal fluency, caution, bureaucratic cooperation, therapeutic language, and social conformity—while marginalizing traits traditionally associated with men such as aggression, risk-taking, stoicism, competitiveness, and physicality. Andrews contends that many men feel alienated in institutions shaped by what she sees as a feminized social order.

As you develop your essay, analyze the competing narratives presented by Lewis and Andrews. To what extent do these writers fundamentally disagree about the causes of gender tension in modern society? Does Lewis present a convincing argument that misogyny and resentment toward female independence drive much of today’s online hostility toward women? Or does Andrews more persuasively argue that modern institutions have become hostile toward traditionally masculine traits, creating frustration and displacement among men?

You should also consider the possibility that both writers identify legitimate social problems while emphasizing different causes, victims, and solutions. Are these essays truly contradictory, or do they describe different aspects of the same cultural crisis? Does modern society simultaneously produce hostility toward women and alienation among men? If so, how?

As part of your argument, analyze the rhetorical strategies used by both writers. Consider how tone, examples, emotional appeals, cultural assumptions, historical references, and definitions of masculinity and femininity shape the persuasiveness of each essay. Which author provides stronger evidence, more nuanced reasoning, or a more convincing understanding of contemporary gender dynamics?

You must include at least one counterargument and rebuttal. For example, you may consider whether Lewis overstates the influence of online misogyny or whether Andrews romanticizes traditional masculinity while overlooking its destructive aspects. You may also address whether both essays risk reducing men and women to broad psychological or cultural categories.

As you conclude your essay, consider the larger implications of these conflicting narratives. What do these essays reveal about modern anxieties surrounding gender, identity, status, work, communication, and belonging? Why has the battle over masculinity and femininity become such a central cultural conflict in the digital age?

Requirements:
- 1,200 words minimum
- MLA format
- Use evidence from both essays
- Include a clear thesis with mapping components
- Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
- Analyze specific passages and examples rather than merely summarizing
- Develop a focused argument about the competing narratives surrounding gender and modern culture
June 23, 2026
Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism in the Age of OnlyFans (college essay prompt)

The subscription platform OnlyFans has become one of the most controversial features of the digital economy. Supporters argue that it gives creators greater control over their labor, income, and personal brand while allowing consumers to purchase content from consenting adults. Critics argue that the platform commodifies intimacy, encourages emotional manipulation, weakens traditional moral norms, and profits from loneliness and social dysfunction.

One way to understand this debate is through the conflict between moral absolutism and moral relativism. Moral absolutists argue that some actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of circumstances, consequences, or cultural changes. From this perspective, OnlyFans is morally problematic because it encourages the commercialization of sexuality, undermines values such as fidelity and honesty, and profits from emotional and relational vulnerabilities. Moral relativists, however, argue that moral judgments must be understood within specific social, economic, and cultural contexts. From this perspective, creators and subscribers are autonomous adults making voluntary choices in response to changing economic realities, technological developments, and evolving social norms.

In a 1,200-word argumentative essay, develop a thesis that evaluates whether the moral absolutist or moral relativist perspective provides the more convincing interpretation of OnlyFans. You may defend one position, critique one position, or argue that the reality is more complex than either framework fully captures.

As you develop your argument, consider questions such as: Is OnlyFans primarily a form of exploitation or a form of economic empowerment? Does the platform provide meaningful opportunities for autonomy and entrepreneurship, or does it encourage the commodification of intimacy and human relationships? To what extent are creators and subscribers exercising free choice, and to what extent are their decisions shaped by loneliness, economic pressures, social isolation, or broader cultural forces? Should morality be grounded in timeless principles, or should moral judgments adapt to changing social and economic conditions?

Your essay should present a clear thesis, analyze the assumptions behind both moral absolutism and moral relativism, address at least one counterargument, and explain why your interpretation offers the most persuasive understanding of the ethical questions raised by OnlyFans and the modern digital economy.

June 6, 2026
The Death of the Sacred Bond Between Writer and Reader

Fiction instructor Walt Hunt’s essay “The Death of the Reader” begins with a development that would have sounded absurd only a few years ago: an AI-assisted short story winning a major literary prize. The winning story, Jamir Nazir’s “The Serpent in the Grove,” took home the Granta Commonwealth Short Story Prize, prompting the now-familiar debate about authenticity. Was the story really written by a human? How much AI was involved? Can anyone tell the difference anymore? Hunt acknowledges that AI-generated prose often leaves fingerprints—certain stylistic tics, tonal smoothness, and suspiciously frictionless sentences that alert attentive readers. But he argues that critics are fixated on the wrong problem. The true casualty of AI fiction is not the writer. It is the reader.

Before the arrival of AI-generated literature, reading rested on a fragile but meaningful act of trust. A reader entered a private room where another consciousness was waiting. Across centuries, continents, and cultures, readers formed intimate relationships with authors they would never meet. The writer offered a distinctive voice, a recognizable sensibility, a particular way of seeing the world. Sometimes the writer was a provocateur. Sometimes a companion. Sometimes a guide carrying a lantern through the darker corridors of human experience. Whatever form the relationship took, readers believed there was another person on the other side of the page.

Now there is Claude.

Claude is not a novelist struggling with heartbreak, obsession, grief, jealousy, or longing. Claude has never stared at a hospital ceiling at three in the morning. Claude has never fallen in love, buried a parent, betrayed a friend, or sat alone with regret. Claude is not a presence. It is a process. And because readers know this, a corrosive uncertainty enters the reading experience.

What am I reading?

Who wrote this?

Did anyone write this?

Does it matter?

The machine turns every page into a cross-examination.

Hunt argues that this uncertainty damages the reader more profoundly than it damages the author. The old covenant between writer and reader begins to dissolve. In its place emerges suspicion. Instead of surrendering to a voice, readers interrogate it. Instead of entering solitude, they become detectives hunting for evidence of fraud. Every elegant sentence becomes a potential counterfeit. Every emotional insight becomes grounds for skepticism.

As Hunt observes, readers increasingly adopt a style of reading that is “self-conscious, hyperaware, restless, and anxiety-driven.” The reading experience becomes less like entering a cathedral and more like passing through airport security. We no longer relax into the rhythm of a trusted voice. We remain on guard, scanning for contraband signs of machine authorship.

This defensive posture may prove fatal to the deepest pleasures of literature. Great reading requires vulnerability. It requires a willingness to let another mind rearrange your own. It requires trust. If every text becomes a potential deception, then reading loses its sense of encounter and becomes an exercise in verification. The reader ceases to ask, “What is this work trying to tell me?” and begins asking, “Who—or what—wrote this?”

That shift may be the most consequential literary event of the AI age. The danger is not merely that machines will write books. The danger is that they will transform readers into skeptics incapable of the very surrender that literature requires. Long after the arguments about authorship fade, the deeper loss may remain: the disappearance of the sacred bond between a solitary reader and a solitary voice.

June 4, 2026
Who Controls the Story Controls the People (college essay prompt)
The documentary We Beat the Dream Team suggests that history is not merely a collection of facts but a contest over narrative power. The film explores how individuals and groups compete to shape public memory, define legitimacy, claim symbolic victory, and control the stories that future generations will remember. Although the documentary focuses on sports, it demonstrates that struggles over narrative ownership extend far beyond athletics into race, education, art, film, and cultural identity.

Using this idea as your conceptual framework, write a 1,200-word argumentative essay comparing two of the following works:
- Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass
- “Learning in the Shadow of Race and Class” by bell hooks
- Summer of Soul directed by Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson
- Is That Black Enough for You?!? directed by Elvis Mitchell
In your essay, analyze the claim that controlling narrative, memory, and representation is one of the most powerful ways dominant groups maintain authority and one of the most important ways marginalized groups resist erasure.

As you develop your argument, examine how the works portray struggles over literacy, education, historical memory, cultural visibility, artistic representation, and identity. How do powerful institutions shape public understanding of reality? How do marginalized individuals and communities reclaim the right to tell their own stories? To what extent do autobiography, education, music, film, and art function as tools of resistance against cultural invisibility?

You should also analyze the rhetorical and artistic methods used by the creators. Consider how autobiography, storytelling, archival footage, music, imagery, editing, voice, and narrative structure influence audience perception and challenge dominant narratives.

As part of your essay, address at least one counterargument. For example, some critics may argue that representation and cultural visibility are insufficient forms of resistance because they do not necessarily produce economic equality, political power, or institutional change. Others may argue that dominant cultures eventually absorb and commodify resistance movements, transforming them into marketable products. Evaluate these criticisms and explain the strengths and limitations of cultural expression as a form of resistance.

As you conclude, consider the broader implications of narrative control. Why do individuals, institutions, and societies fight so fiercely over memory, legitimacy, and representation? What happens when people lose the ability to preserve and narrate their own histories? Finally, consider how social media, AI, and algorithm-driven platforms continue to shape who gets to tell the story and whose stories are forgotten.

Requirements:
- 1,200 words minimum
- MLA format
- Compare two of the four works
- Include a clear thesis with mapping components
- Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
- Analyze specific scenes, passages, or examples rather than merely summarizing
- Develop a focused argument about narrative ownership, cultural memory, identity, and power
June 4, 2026
Can Philosophers Keep Their Souls in Silicon Valley?

In “Someone Finally Wants to Hire Philosophers,” Lila Shroff reports what would have sounded like a punchline only a decade ago: philosophy majors may finally be getting the last laugh. For years, philosophy occupied an awkward place in the public imagination—a discipline associated with coffee-shop debates, existential handwringing, and the noble art of explaining to relatives why you were unemployed. At best, the philosopher was a thoughtful gadfly. At worst, a professional overthinker. But the rise of artificial intelligence has suddenly transformed philosophy from an intellectual curiosity into a marketable skill. Major technology companies are hiring philosophers. Universities are recruiting scholars who specialize in both AI and philosophy. The old joke about philosophy leading nowhere is beginning to age badly.

As Shroff notes, this development should not surprise us. Philosophers have been wrestling with questions about intelligence, consciousness, morality, and the possibility of artificial minds for centuries. Long before Silicon Valley executives promised to change the world, philosophers were already asking whether a machine could think, reason, or possess something resembling a mind. Today, thinkers such as Nick Bostrom have become influential voices in the AI conversation. His book Superintelligence warned more than a decade ago that humanity might create machines whose capabilities outstrip our ability to control them. What once sounded like speculative science fiction now reads more like a boardroom agenda.

The marriage between AI and philosophy arises from a practical concern. Technology companies want their products to appear ethical, trustworthy, and safe. A machine that accidentally promotes fraud, discrimination, or social chaos is difficult to market. Consumers are more likely to embrace AI systems that project wisdom, fairness, and restraint. In the increasingly crowded AI marketplace, virtue has become a product feature. Safety, ethics, and responsibility are not merely moral concerns; they are branding opportunities.

Yet Shroff’s essay leaves several uncomfortable questions lingering in the air.

First, philosophers disagree about nearly everything. That is practically the job description. If ethical questions routinely produce competing schools of thought, which philosophers do AI companies choose to hire? A utilitarian, a virtue ethicist, a libertarian, and a nihilist might evaluate the same problem and arrive at wildly different conclusions. When an AI company claims to be guided by philosophy, whose philosophy is it talking about?

Second, corporations do not operate in a vacuum. They pursue growth, market share, influence, and profit. Given those incentives, it seems unlikely that technology companies will eagerly recruit philosophers whose views fundamentally conflict with corporate objectives. The philosopher who questions the legitimacy of the enterprise may not receive the same warm welcome as the philosopher who helps polish its public image.

Third, what happens to philosophy itself when it becomes a lucrative career path? If technology firms reward certain ethical frameworks and ignore others, philosophers may gradually adapt their views to become more employable. Intellectual independence has always been easier to defend when no one is writing the check. Once prestige, influence, and six-figure salaries enter the picture, even the most principled thinkers may find themselves sanding off inconvenient beliefs.

This is why I remain skeptical of any celebration of philosophy’s new status in the AI economy. There is no such thing as pure philosophy floating above human ambition. There are only human beings, complete with incentives, blind spots, loyalties, and self-interest. The partnership between AI and philosophy may produce genuinely useful ethical guidance. Or it may become an elaborate exercise in corporate virtue theater—a dazzling display of moral concern performed beneath bright lights while the machinery of profit hums steadily backstage. Whether philosophers become the conscience of artificial intelligence or merely its public relations department remains an open question.

June 4, 2026