In this article, the author describes a technique she uses to achieve an autonomous student discussion. The technique involves setting up highly structured debates, whose content is informed by coherent sets of primary sources and whose form models one aspect of how professional historians work. Students are required to read about twenty to twenty-five pages of primary documents whose authors disagree on an important question, and then debate with each other which interpretation the documents best support. This teaching tool has a number of advantages. First, whereas in the open-ended research paper a student might immerse himself more fully in other scholars' interpretations of history, these debates force the student to focus on primary sources. This gives students direct experience with making history out of its raw materials. Second, by independently discussing interpretations with other class members, students come to see themselves as co-producers of a historical knowledge that is never final--in other words, a process that always needs their input, whether or not they become professional historians themselves. When assigned a traditional research paper, students typically think of the professor as their only audience, and--because they need to develop a coherent thesis--hope they manage to hit on the "right" argument. By contrast, debates emphasize the open-ended quality of historical scholarship and the importance of discussion with colleagues in formulating more sophisticated understandings of history. (Contains 2 notes.)