Ask a class whether Edmond Dantès is a hero or a villain and you will get an argument in about ten seconds. That energy is useful. The challenge is turning it into writing that goes beyond "I think he is a hero because he was treated unfairly."

A position essay on a moral question needs criteria for what makes a judgment well supported. Students have to define their terms, apply them to evidence, and face the strongest objection. Without that structure, essays become a list of reactions.

The first thing to check is whether the student defined the word they are arguing about. What does "hero" mean in their essay? A hero who suffers unjustly is different from a hero who acts with courage, and different again from one who protects others.

Requiring a working definition in the introduction improves most drafts right away. It forces a criterion the student can then test against the novel.

Grade the reasoning, not the verdict

Make it clear in advance that either position can earn full credit. What earns points is the quality of the case. An essay condemning Dantès for the harm to Villefort's family can be as strong as one defending him because of the injustice he suffered.

• A working definition of the key term, such as hero or villain, that the essay applies consistently
• Evidence from more than one stage of Dantès's life, not only the years of imprisonment
• Acknowledgment of the strongest opposing view and a real response to it
• Attention to how the novel frames events, not just what the student thinks of them
• A conclusion that stays consistent with the criteria set out at the start

The counterargument problem

Students often bolt a counterargument on at the end and dismiss it. A more honest approach lets the opposing view change the shape of the argument. For example, a student defending Dantès might concede that his methods harm innocent people, then argue that the novel itself seems troubled by this.

Comment on this directly. A note such as "You mention Édouard, but your claim does not change. Could your definition of hero handle that?" pushes the student to think harder.

Keeping your own view out of the grade

Teachers have opinions about Dantès too, and they can leak into scoring. A useful discipline is to grade the essay you were given, not the essay you would have written. Reading a few papers on the side you disagree with, and scoring them by the rubric alone, is good practice.

Using a rubric-based AI tool as a second reader can also surface this kind of drift. If your scores consistently favor one position, the comparison shows it.

Extend the discussion into revision

After a first draft, have students trade with someone who took the opposite side and write a one-paragraph response. Returning to their own draft with that response in hand, they often sharpen or even change their claim. That willingness to revise a position is worth rewarding.

Grade the change if it happens. An essay that shifts because of evidence shows real thinking, and students should know that counts.