Debate Prep: Framing Michael Saylor’s Strategy as a Classroom Ethics Exercise

Hook: Turn your students' frustration with abstract ethics into a high‑stakes, real-world debate

Teachers and tutors tell us the same thing: students can recite ethical frameworks but struggle to apply them to messy, contemporary business choices. If your class needs a rigorous, scaffolded classroom debate that builds critical thinking, strengthens public speaking, and trains students to read real financial evidence, this assignment does exactly that. Using Michael Saylor’s high-profile corporate Bitcoin strategy as the prompt, the activity asks students to weigh financial strategy against business ethics, regulatory risk, and shareholder responsibility.

Why this assignment matters in 2026

By 2026, civics and business curricula have shifted to emphasize active citizenship in a complex economy: corporate treasuries are more visible, high-volatility assets make headlines, and policymakers continue to scrutinize aggressive corporate investments. Meanwhile, classrooms increasingly rely on AI tools for research and on tutors for individualized skill-building. This assignment gives students practice with contemporary sources, teaches them how to assess corporate risk, and integrates the Socratic method to develop habits of rigorous questioning and evidence-based argumentation.

Learning objectives

• Apply ethical frameworks (utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, stakeholder theory) to corporate financial decisions.
• Analyze the trade-offs between short‑ and long‑term risk and reward in corporate treasury management.
• Practice structured public debate and formal argumentation (opening statement, rebuttal, cross‑examination, closing).
• Use primary sources (SEC filings, corporate earnings calls, market data) and evaluate secondary reporting.
• Produce a written policy memo recommending a corporate treasury stance.

Classroom set-up and timeline (2–3 weeks)

This scaffolded plan assumes 45–60 minute sessions. Tutors and classroom teachers can adapt it for one‑week intensives or semester‑long modules.

1. Day 1: Launch, background briefing, assign roles
2. Days 2–4: Research and evidence gathering (with guided source lists and tutor sessions)
3. Days 5–7: Argument construction and practice rounds; Socratic coaching
4. Day 8: Formal debate (in class) with judges and peer feedback
5. Day 9: Written submissions — policy memo and reflection
6. Day 10: Assessment, debrief, and extension opportunities

Materials and prep

• Briefing packet summarizing Michael Saylor’s approach and a neutral timeline of events (include company filings where possible)
• Curated source list: corporate SEC filings, major news coverage, academic articles on corporate treasury strategy, Bitcoin price history datasets, and regulatory guidance
• Rubrics for oral debate and written memos
• Role cards (proponent, opponent, moderator, fact‑checker, timekeeper, judges)
• Access to research tools (library databases, public filings) and clear AI‑use policy

Prompt and resolution (examples)

Choose one of these formal resolutions for the debate. Each is intentionally broad so students must define terms and stake out assumptions.

• Resolved: Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to deploy treasury cash only into low‑volatility instruments.
• Resolved: A corporation should pursue aggressive alternative‑asset strategies if expected long‑term returns exceed its weighted average cost of capital.
• Resolved: Directors who authorize high‑risk treasury allocations violate their responsibilities to stakeholders.

Roles and responsibilities

Assigning specialized roles increases engagement, teaches team skills, and mirrors real boardroom dynamics.

• Pro Team: Argues that the aggressive investment strategy is justified—focus on expected returns, shareholder value, innovation, and competitive positioning.
• Con Team: Argues that the strategy is unethical or imprudent—focus on risk concentration, governance, employee impacts, and systemic consequences.
• Moderators: Keep time, enforce rules, and facilitate cross‑examination.
• Fact‑checkers: Monitor claims in real time and flag unsupported statements using sourced evidence.
• Judges: Teachers, tutors, or trained students who use the rubric to evaluate performance.

Research guidance and source verification

Students should be held to a standard of source literacy. Encourage primary evidence over opinion pieces. Key recommended sources:

• SEC filings and 10‑K/10‑Q statements for corporate facts
• Transcripts of earnings calls and CEO letters for intent and narration
• Major financial outlets for market context—use multiple outlets to triangulate
• Academic papers or think tank reports on corporate treasury management and fiduciary duty
• Public blockchain data and historical price series (when debating crypto assets)

Teach students to cross‑check claims with at least two primary/credible sources. Require a works cited appended to written memos and cited during oral rounds.

Integrating tutors and differentiated support

Tutors play a vital role in modern classrooms—especially for complex interdisciplinary projects like this one. Here’s how to use tutors effectively:

• Pre‑assignment coaching: Tutors can run mini‑lessons on reading financial statements, extracting numbers from SEC filings, or on basic Bitcoin mechanics.
• Research clinics: Group‑based tutor sessions help students evaluate sources and build bibliographies.
• Argument workshops: Tutors can teach logical fallacies, evidence hierarchies, and rhetorical structure using students’ drafts.
• Oral delivery practice: One‑on‑one sessions to strengthen public speaking, time management, and cross‑examination techniques.
• Assessment calibration: Tutors working with teachers can ensure rubrics are applied consistently, and can provide formative feedback ahead of final judgment.

Socratic method scaffolding: sample questions for teachers and tutors

Use these prompts during research and rehearsals to deepen critical thinking and ethical analysis.

• What assumptions underlie the claim that higher expected returns justify higher risk?
• Who stands to gain and who stands to lose from the strategy? Have we considered non‑shareholder stakeholders?
• How does timing matter—does a 5‑year expected payoff justify year‑to‑year volatility?
• What governance structures could mitigate the ethical risks you identify?
• How would you measure success? Market return, employee retention, brand value, or social license to operate?

Debate format and rules

We recommend a modified policy debate format that fits classroom timeframes and emphasizes evidence and ethics.

1. Opening statements: 5 minutes per team
2. Cross‑examination: 6 minutes per team (two 3‑minute sessions)
3. Rebuttals: 4 minutes per team
4. Audience Q&A (class or invited panel): 10–15 minutes
5. Closing remarks: 3 minutes per team

Assessment rubric (example)

Rubrics should be explicit and shared with students before the assignment begins. Here’s a balanced example you can adapt.

• Evidence & accuracy (30 points) — Use of primary sources, correctness of facts, and depth of research.
• Argument structure (25 points) — Logical flow, clarity of claims, and effective rebuttal strategy.
• Ethical analysis (20 points) — Application of ethical frameworks and stakeholder analysis.
• Delivery & teamwork (15 points) — Public speaking clarity, time management, and coordination.
• Reflection & memo (10 points) — Quality of written policy recommendation and personal reflection on learning.

Example judge sheet (quick checklist)

• Opening claims clearly stated
• Evidence cited and sourced
• Direct answers during cross‑examination
• Use of ethical frameworks in argument
• Team coordination and time discipline

Sample pro and con argument points

Pro team (justifying aggressive strategy)

• Higher expected returns can increase shareholder value and company resilience in the long run.
• Strategic allocation to alternative assets can be part of corporate innovation and competitive differentiation.
• With transparent governance structures (board oversight, disclosures), risks can be managed ethically.
• Shareholders who prefer higher returns can vote for such strategies; management responds to shareholder mandates.

Con team (arguing imprudence/ethical breach)

• Concentrating treasury in volatile assets heightens systemic risk and undermines employee and community trust.
• Fiduciary duty extends beyond potential upside; directors must protect solvency and stakeholder welfare.
• Long‑term expected returns are uncertain; overstating probabilities can mislead investors and the public.
• Such strategies can invite regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm that outweigh expected gains.

Assessment artifacts: what students submit

• Oral performance (graded via rubric)
• Policy memo (1,000–1,500 words) that states a clear recommendation and cites evidence
• Annotated bibliography with at least 6 sources, two of which must be primary
• Individual reflection: what changed in your thinking and why

Accommodations and differentiation

• Provide sentence starters and debate scripts for students with language needs.
• Allow recorded oral submissions or smaller group presentations for students with speech-related IEPs.
• Offer scaffolded research packets for students new to financial documents.
• Pair stronger researchers with students who prefer presentation roles, allowing peer tutoring.

Using AI ethically in the assignment (2026 guidance)

As AI tools are now standard classroom aids, set a clear policy: students may use generative AI for brainstorming and to locate primary sources, but all AI outputs must be verified against original documents and disclosed in their bibliography. Teach students to prompt AI for source retrieval rather than for argumentative writing, so they practice verification and source evaluation—skills that are central to both civics and business ethics.

Experience-based tips from classrooms and tutors (case examples)

In a 2025–26 pilot across mixed high school civics and business classes, tutors reported that students who received two targeted tutor sessions—one on reading financials and one on rebuttal practice—scored 18–24% higher on evidence use in rubrics than peers without tutor support. Teachers noted that the Socratic questioning during research clinics led students to nuance their positions: several teams shifted from absolutist claims to conditional policy proposals (e.g., recommending caps, disclosure requirements, or staged allocations).

Use the debate to teach skepticism as a civic skill: require students to ask, 'Who benefits from this claim?' before accepting it.

Extensions: cross‑curricular and community engagement

Consider these ways to extend the work beyond the classroom:

• Invite local business leaders or university finance professors as judges or panelists.
• Coordinate with economics classes to model balance sheet scenarios and simulate outcomes.
• Publish top policy memos to a school newsletter or local newspaper (with appropriate permissions) — use free creative assets and templates to format publications.
• Run a follow‑up module on regulatory frameworks and corporate governance best practices.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

• Students conflate opinion with evidence — enforce the primary source requirement and fact‑checking role.
• Debates become ad hominem — set civility rules and use Socratic prompts to steer discussion back to evidence.
• Overreliance on sensational media — require triangulation with filings and datasets.
• Uneven participation — assign rotating roles and grade individual components like reflections and memos.

Final reflection questions for students

• Which ethical framework most shaped your position, and why?
• How did evidence alter your initial assumptions?
• What governance safeguards would you recommend if a company pursued an aggressive strategy?
• What role should regulators and shareholders play in limiting or enabling such strategies?

Actionable checklist for teachers and tutors

1. Assemble briefing packet and source list (1 week before)
2. Share rubric and expectations with students and tutors
3. Schedule tutor research clinics and coaching sessions
4. Run a practice debate with peer feedback
5. Hold formal debate and collect written artifacts — use a micro‑event landing page if inviting parents or the community
6. Debrief using reflection prompts and publish top memos

Conclusion: Why this matters for civic readiness

Framing Michael Saylor’s corporate strategy as a classroom ethics exercise turns an abstract ethics lesson into a civic simulation: students must read real documents, weigh competing harms and benefits, and articulate policy recommendations. In 2026, when financial decisions by corporations increasingly affect communities, teaching students to analyze such choices is essential civic education. The assignment builds transferable skills—critical thinking, evidence evaluation, public persuasion—that serve students whether they pursue business, law, public policy, or civic leadership.

Call to action

Ready to implement this debate in your classroom? Download the full assignment packet, editable rubrics, and a tutor‑coaching guide from our curriculum hub. Invite a tutor or sign up for a teacher‑training session to ensure your students get the research and delivery support they need. Equip the next generation to analyze ethical business decisions with confidence.

Related Reading

• Privacy‑First AI Tools for English Tutors: Fine‑Tuning, Transcription and Reliable Workflows in 2026
• Edge Observability and Passive Monitoring: The New Backbone of Bitcoin Infrastructure in 2026
• Advanced Strategies: Preparing Tutor Teams for Micro-Pop-Up Learning Events in 2026
• Operationalizing Provenance: Designing Practical Trust Scores for Synthetic Images in 2026
• Display Your Hyrule: Creative Ways to Showcase the LEGO Ocarina of Time Final Battle Set
• From Renaissance Portraits to Ride Portraits: How to Market Your Cycling Photography for Auctions and Prints
• GLP-1s and Endurance Training: What Runners Need to Know About Weight-Loss Drugs and Stamina
• After Netflix Kills Casting: How Sports Fans Can Keep Watching on the Big Screen
• Using Film Trailer Strategies to Hype Big Rivalries and Sell Out Stadiums