This House believes Artificial Intelligence research should be banned.
Congratumalations all round to the four debaters who managed to make what the judging panel worried would be a pretty turgid affair actually interesting. As we said in our closing comments today, the proposition were fairly clear-cut winners of this clash, due to their excellent command of the facts and an unfortunate loss of notes for their opponents.
Willem was warned to make his very intelligent insight more accessible to the lay person, but his definition of the motion, stuck to admirably by Ben and himself, was spot on. They could have brought the fundamental ethical dilemma of Artificial Intelligence more to the forefront of their arguments, rather than getting bogged down in the nitty-gritty, abstract and technical theories of the science of the topic, which, though important, saw them score an own goal by quoting I, Robot and The Incredibles as authoritative works of science.
Obviously, Hafsa’s lack of notes meant she was ill-equipped to make a four-minute speech, so the message for all debaters is just to have a hard copy, keep it safe, but also have it saved to your school user area. Rosa came out with some great points, but got lost at times in the proposition’s bombardment of points of information and rebuttal. Well done to the opposition, and it is quite clear there is a lot of potential among all four of today’s participants.
In other news... James passed his driving test today while we were considering the merits of Artificial Intelligence. So an additional “congratumalations” to him.
And don’t forget... it is election week next week, so please come to the sixth form vs. lower school debate in E6, at 2:45 on Tuesday and the political panel at the usual time and place on Wednesday. See you then.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
The briefest of blogs...
...To say how wonderful it was to have a touch of class at this afternoon's proceedings in the form of the wonderful Saza Neibig. She won the debate in the judges' eyes and it's a shame we don't have that three-time finalist with us more often nowadays. Well done to Keir, Sahan and Mohammad - a good debate, I felt, and the military knowledge demonstrated by the opposition almost swung it for them. I'd remind everyone to address the audience with confidence and conviction when debating.
Oh, and, since I suspect very few people read this any more (comment if you do!) I'll reveal exclusively that there are plans for a few election surprises in the pipelines and we'll have more on those soon.
Well done again to today's debaters and the non-Year 7s will be flip-flopping next week, so don't miss that!
Oh, and, since I suspect very few people read this any more (comment if you do!) I'll reveal exclusively that there are plans for a few election surprises in the pipelines and we'll have more on those soon.
Well done again to today's debaters and the non-Year 7s will be flip-flopping next week, so don't miss that!
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
A divisive debate, for all the right reasons
This House believes climate change is a conspiracy.
Today's debate went very well, and, as I said during the judges' comments today, it's not often that we disagree about the outcome. I won't be revealing which of us was instinctively drawn to the opposition, but suffice to say that we discussed it at length and reached a very amicable agreement.
Ben kicked off with all the right ingredients: a fabulously structured speech, with two clearly laid out main points, following an accurate and appropriate definition of the motion. His debate was weighed down in (questionable) scientific jargon, and it was felt that this contradicted his second point somewhat, that the science of climate change wasn't proven.
David shone in terms of structure, with three key arguments and good rebuttal. He delivered his speech well, but his points weren't the strongest, and he could have done with expanding on them. His claims about politicians and companies benefiting from climate change weren't backed up well enough for my liking, but we saw where he was going with them.
Thomas gave a great performance, once again proving his credentials as a skilled aurator. His points were good, and backed up with statistics: the scientific concensus on climate change, "climate denial" and the obviousness of the changes. He was emotive and faired well under questioning. His structure left the judges at a bit of a loss, and this is something he should work on in future.
Jonny took to the floor for his second denate, and did well. He did, however, start with a dictionary definition that would have been far more at home at the very beginning of Thomas's speech. His points were left undeveloped somewhat by a problem he had with Points of Information. This was something we were looking out for in particular after last week's workshop, and, overall, this was a contribution to our eventual decision to award the bonus to the proposition.
It was nice to see summaries improving still, with points of clash used well. Both Thomas and David latched onto the same arguments, showing that they were highlighting the correct aspects of the debate to focus on. Well done, all.
Today's debate went very well, and, as I said during the judges' comments today, it's not often that we disagree about the outcome. I won't be revealing which of us was instinctively drawn to the opposition, but suffice to say that we discussed it at length and reached a very amicable agreement.
Ben kicked off with all the right ingredients: a fabulously structured speech, with two clearly laid out main points, following an accurate and appropriate definition of the motion. His debate was weighed down in (questionable) scientific jargon, and it was felt that this contradicted his second point somewhat, that the science of climate change wasn't proven.
David shone in terms of structure, with three key arguments and good rebuttal. He delivered his speech well, but his points weren't the strongest, and he could have done with expanding on them. His claims about politicians and companies benefiting from climate change weren't backed up well enough for my liking, but we saw where he was going with them.
Thomas gave a great performance, once again proving his credentials as a skilled aurator. His points were good, and backed up with statistics: the scientific concensus on climate change, "climate denial" and the obviousness of the changes. He was emotive and faired well under questioning. His structure left the judges at a bit of a loss, and this is something he should work on in future.
Jonny took to the floor for his second denate, and did well. He did, however, start with a dictionary definition that would have been far more at home at the very beginning of Thomas's speech. His points were left undeveloped somewhat by a problem he had with Points of Information. This was something we were looking out for in particular after last week's workshop, and, overall, this was a contribution to our eventual decision to award the bonus to the proposition.
It was nice to see summaries improving still, with points of clash used well. Both Thomas and David latched onto the same arguments, showing that they were highlighting the correct aspects of the debate to focus on. Well done, all.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Society rejects veil ban
As James said in his closing comments today, this debate was not one of the best we've seen, but it was nonetheless an insightful and emotional clash about a very tricky subject. Although they were defeated by a landslide victory for the opposition, Keir and Thomas presented their arguments well, with Qur'an evidence and a clear definition. All speakers were fairly elliquent, but structure was lacking in most of the speeches.
Sam and Willem were criticised for having overlapping arguments, but - with some help from a fierce reaction to the motion from the floor - they managed to rebuke the proposition's arguments with zeal and accuracy.
Keir and Thomas found their arguments unwrap with a lengthy Point of Information, which will be worked on with the non-Year 7 debaters next week in the fortnightly workshop (I shall be hosting that in L8, as James gallivants to the capital), and their controversial comments about veil-wearers being bullied.
Well done to all of the debaters today, and I hope they'll join me next week, when we'll go over in more detail exactly what won the debate for the opposition, and what all members can work on for the next whole-Society debate, about climate change on 03 February.
League table: The league has shifted dramatically, with Ben Wallace losing the first-place position he has occupied since November. Willem Evans now dominates the competition on a mammoth 12 points. Today's chair Milo Dibdin remains with James Green at third place.
Previously: Miss Murphy presided over a Year 7 dinners debate, which saw a similar opposition landslide.
Sam and Willem were criticised for having overlapping arguments, but - with some help from a fierce reaction to the motion from the floor - they managed to rebuke the proposition's arguments with zeal and accuracy.
Keir and Thomas found their arguments unwrap with a lengthy Point of Information, which will be worked on with the non-Year 7 debaters next week in the fortnightly workshop (I shall be hosting that in L8, as James gallivants to the capital), and their controversial comments about veil-wearers being bullied.
Well done to all of the debaters today, and I hope they'll join me next week, when we'll go over in more detail exactly what won the debate for the opposition, and what all members can work on for the next whole-Society debate, about climate change on 03 February.
League table: The league has shifted dramatically, with Ben Wallace losing the first-place position he has occupied since November. Willem Evans now dominates the competition on a mammoth 12 points. Today's chair Milo Dibdin remains with James Green at third place.
Previously: Miss Murphy presided over a Year 7 dinners debate, which saw a similar opposition landslide.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
No debating this week
Happy New Year! I hope everyone had a fun and enjoyable holiday, despite the bad weather.
There will be no debates this week at Heaton Manor Union Society in order to allow everyone to settle in to the new term. Debating will resume next week Wednesday 13th January 2009 with a debate on the motion 'This House believes students should be allowed unhealthy choices for school dinners'. This will be a Year 7 debate.
Year 8s and above will be taking part in a workshop ahead of the debate on the Burkha the following week.
We look forward to seeing everyone next Wednesday.
There will be no debates this week at Heaton Manor Union Society in order to allow everyone to settle in to the new term. Debating will resume next week Wednesday 13th January 2009 with a debate on the motion 'This House believes students should be allowed unhealthy choices for school dinners'. This will be a Year 7 debate.
Year 8s and above will be taking part in a workshop ahead of the debate on the Burkha the following week.
We look forward to seeing everyone next Wednesday.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Wow. Just wow.
As James and I made clear in our closing comments today, the debate on bankers' bonuses was really brilliant. Of course, there is always room for improvement and we identified keeping everybody involved throughout the debate, and avoiding overlap as some of the things that Rosa, David, Ben and Willem can work on.
However, these problems are easily resolved, and what the debaters should be proud of is the clarity and considered approach with which they debated today. No one was left in a muddle at the end of the debate, and the arguments on either side were very persuasive.
In the end, we decided to give the bonus to Willem and Ben, and the floor agreed with us by a massive majority. This majority did not reflect just how close the debate was, and it was by a small margin that David and Rosa lost out today.
Last week, some brilliant performances were put in by the Year 7s, who for the last time for a while, debated in front of the whole team. Jordan and Ellie stole the audience vote by a sliver, and also bagged our bonus. On 18 November, I was not available, but have heard that there was a brilliant debate, the only one so far this year to split the judges and the popular vote.
What's new? As I have alluded to, the society has a new system. Year 7s and other members now debate on alternative weeks. During Year 7 debates, students from Years 8 – 11 work on their next showdown; James and I watching over proceedings and holding workshops.
However, these problems are easily resolved, and what the debaters should be proud of is the clarity and considered approach with which they debated today. No one was left in a muddle at the end of the debate, and the arguments on either side were very persuasive.
In the end, we decided to give the bonus to Willem and Ben, and the floor agreed with us by a massive majority. This majority did not reflect just how close the debate was, and it was by a small margin that David and Rosa lost out today.
Last week, some brilliant performances were put in by the Year 7s, who for the last time for a while, debated in front of the whole team. Jordan and Ellie stole the audience vote by a sliver, and also bagged our bonus. On 18 November, I was not available, but have heard that there was a brilliant debate, the only one so far this year to split the judges and the popular vote.
What's new? As I have alluded to, the society has a new system. Year 7s and other members now debate on alternative weeks. During Year 7 debates, students from Years 8 – 11 work on their next showdown; James and I watching over proceedings and holding workshops.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
The month in debating
My on/off relationship with the Union Society over the last month has led to something of a hole in the updates on this site. Sincerest apologies and let's recall the debates of the year so far.
Wednesday, 07 October 2009
This House believes footballers get paid too much.
Proposition: Eleanor Bohill and Willem Evans
Opposition: Rosa Cole and Keir Mochrie
Speaker: Thomas Knight
Judges: James Bartle MYP and Miss M. Murphy
The winners of this debate were the proposition, with 23 votes to 13, and they also bagged the judges' bonus. They made the case that "playing a game" was not as valuable to society as the work of doctors, nurses and teachers. The opposition rebuked this claim with the arguments that footballers deserve the money they receive and that it comes from ticket revenue.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
This House believes zoos are cruel.
Proposition: Ruben Cole and Louis Conroy
Opposition: Owen Ramsey and Robbie Tomson
Speaker: David Larke
Judges: Mrs M. Robinson and Laurie Dudley
The opposition won this with a 17-8 victory, plus the judges' bonuses. This was a great debate with an all-new line-up. The idea that zoos exploit animals as they are miserable and poorly cared for was well countered with arguments concerning the protection offered by zoos and the example of San Diego Zoo.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
This House believes all police should carry guns.
Proposition: Levi Croom and Harry Mackenzie
Opposition: Declan Farey and James Walton
Speaker: Jake Robinson
Judges: Miss M. Murphy and Mrs M. Robinson
The proposition bagged the judges' respect as well as the floor vote with a margin of 23 to 5, having massively convinced those present by talking about protecting the public. The opposition were worried about people's safety.
Wednesday, 04 November 2009
This House believes that smoking should be illegal in the UK.
Proposition: William Gammack and James Magambo
Opposition: Jonny Pease and Ben Wallace
Speaker: Willem Evans
Judges: James Bartle MYP and Miss M. Murphy
This fourth and final debate inspired a similarly solid response from both floor and judges: a 21-13 win for the opposition, and the judges' point. Ben Wallace was highly credited, especially for working with new debaters. The debate hinged on balancing health with freedom.
It should also be noted that the NJDC team unfortunately could not make the competition, as reported would happen in the last issue of the Conversation.
Wednesday, 07 October 2009
This House believes footballers get paid too much.
Proposition: Eleanor Bohill and Willem Evans
Opposition: Rosa Cole and Keir Mochrie
Speaker: Thomas Knight
Judges: James Bartle MYP and Miss M. Murphy
The winners of this debate were the proposition, with 23 votes to 13, and they also bagged the judges' bonus. They made the case that "playing a game" was not as valuable to society as the work of doctors, nurses and teachers. The opposition rebuked this claim with the arguments that footballers deserve the money they receive and that it comes from ticket revenue.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
This House believes zoos are cruel.
Proposition: Ruben Cole and Louis Conroy
Opposition: Owen Ramsey and Robbie Tomson
Speaker: David Larke
Judges: Mrs M. Robinson and Laurie Dudley
The opposition won this with a 17-8 victory, plus the judges' bonuses. This was a great debate with an all-new line-up. The idea that zoos exploit animals as they are miserable and poorly cared for was well countered with arguments concerning the protection offered by zoos and the example of San Diego Zoo.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
This House believes all police should carry guns.
Proposition: Levi Croom and Harry Mackenzie
Opposition: Declan Farey and James Walton
Speaker: Jake Robinson
Judges: Miss M. Murphy and Mrs M. Robinson
The proposition bagged the judges' respect as well as the floor vote with a margin of 23 to 5, having massively convinced those present by talking about protecting the public. The opposition were worried about people's safety.
Wednesday, 04 November 2009
This House believes that smoking should be illegal in the UK.
Proposition: William Gammack and James Magambo
Opposition: Jonny Pease and Ben Wallace
Speaker: Willem Evans
Judges: James Bartle MYP and Miss M. Murphy
This fourth and final debate inspired a similarly solid response from both floor and judges: a 21-13 win for the opposition, and the judges' point. Ben Wallace was highly credited, especially for working with new debaters. The debate hinged on balancing health with freedom.
It should also be noted that the NJDC team unfortunately could not make the competition, as reported would happen in the last issue of the Conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)