E.G.

Some philosophical views are supported by reasons which, when made explicit, can be strung into a valid argument, of finite length, from premises which are comprehensible to people with no prior philosophical training.  (In fact, I think these are the most interesting kinds of philosophical views.)  The intro course I’m imagining would be devoted to analyzing the argument supporting just one such view.  The view would be sincerely held by the instructor, and the argument would be composed of the reasons the instructor herself would give for holding that view.

The premises of the argument would, ideally, be drawn from most or all of the major sub-areas of philosophy.  So, for instance, you might have some epistemic claims in there, some moral claims in there, some metaphysical claims in there, etc.  The reason you want this sort of diversity is because it’s supposed to be an intro course, so you want to acquaint students with the sorts of claims made in answer to a lot of different philosophical questions.  You might think this diversity of premises would be hard to come by, but I’m not sure that’s the case.  When you finally get down to the most "fundamental" reasons for holding a given view, I think much of the time those reasons are drawn from across philosophy.  I’m not sure of this point, though.

Also, the argument would need to be of a certain length.  That is, it would need to be long enough that a detailed analysis of it would take exactly one semester.

A class like this would serve a few purposes.  First, it would give the instructor a chance to really spell out for herself, and in detail, the reasons she has for holding her view.  I think that, despite the amount of time philosophers spend thinking about their views, many philosophers never really do this.  So planning and teaching a class like this would be a real philosophical exercise; unlike most intro courses, a class like this would be directly relevant to the philosopher’s "real work."  Second, it would give students a chance to see what philosophy is really like by going deeply into the thinking of just one philosopher, i.e. the instructor.  So many intro courses just dip into classic texts at random spots, making a few comments on each selected passage before moving on.  That kind of class acquaints students with the "big philosophical questions," but it leaves students without a clear idea of why those questions are asked or what those questions have in common. 

Obviously, there are cons as well as pros to a class like this.  Probably, a class like this would be unsuitable for most undergrads at most institutions, but it might be a good experiment somewhere.  For all I know, somebody’s already done something like this.