Debates
- The field of Robotics has certain philosophical aspects to
it. We will learn about this by means of class debates, which will
occur at the end of the term. A list of debate topics is included in
your syllabus. You will be asked to sign up for a topic and for the
"pro" or "con" position for that topic. You will have to prepare a
15-minute argument for the idea you signed up for. You will deliver
this argument orally in groups in front of the class.
A. RSS Debate
A robotics debate team consists of two groups of students debating
on a resolution chosen in advance. Most teams will be 2-person
teams.
Debaters should prepare presentation materials (powerpoint slides
would be appropriate). Before you do this, read the following
suggestions from Prof. Bruce Donald on giving a good talk. Remember that your
time is extremely limited - don't prepare 30 minutes of great
material, since we won't see most of it!
Some links to other debates that you might find interesting:
- Oy, Robot!,
Fast Company Magazine, Issue
104, April 2006, Page 112. Debate between Henrik Hautop Lund
(Professor at the University of Southern Denmark's Maersk Institute
and former head of the LEGO Lab) and Rodney Brooks (Director of MIT's
Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and cofounder
of iRobot Corp).
- Why the future
doesn't need us., Wired
Magazine, Issue 8.04, April 2000, by Bill Joy. "Our most
powerful 21st-century technologies - robotics, genetic engineering,
and nanotech - are threatening to make humans an endangered
species."
General Debate Rules
B. RSS Debate Rules - subject to (slight) change
Some basic material about the debates will be covered in class.
However, to do well in the debate, each debater will
have to do outside reading and research on the topic in order
to have sufficient mastery to argue and rebut. This is especially
true for the rebuttal speaker, who should be able to respond
effectively to points made by the other team. We encourage you to talk
to the course staff about your debate and to get stared on this
exercise early. This is not the sort of thing that can be put
together well the night before the presentation.
- Debates shall be organized as follows:
-
Constructive Speeches:
- Affirmative: 15 minutes
- Negative: 15 minutes
-
Rebuttal Speeches:
- Affirmative: 5 minutes
- Negative: 5 minutes
- Rules of Evidence
In debate, source citations of evidence must be stated the first
time a source is used.
- Rules of Evidence Authenticity
- Evidence must not be fabricated or distorted.
- Fabrication means falsely representing a cited fact or
statement of opinion as evidence; or intentional omission/addition of
information within quoted material.
- Distortion means misrepresentation of evidence or of
citation which significantly alters meaning.
How to argue effectively
In order to do well you have to do some research that will help you
structure your argument and support it with evidence. Please allow
plenty of time to do a literature search (googling on the Web, browsing
through journals in the library, asking course staff for pointers, etc.)
Your goal should be to make the most convincing
technical arguments in favor of your assigned position (pro or
con). For example, you could argue that while a particular theory of
AI claims to work on certain search problems, you have
proven that, for these problems, the search space is so constrained
that any search technique (including random) will perform
well! Or you could perform a careful complexity, soundness, or
completeness analysis to demonstrate your point. Or you could try
implementing the algorithm and show it performs well (or poorly).
Arguments by authority ("Rodney Brooks claims that X, and I believe
him"; ) should not be used.
However, precise technical arguments ("Cybenko [give ref]
has proven that any continuous function can be modelled using a neural
network -- this means they have great expressive power") and technical
rebuttals ("Yes, but Cybenko's construction requires an exponential
number of hidden units -- great expressive power at great expense is
not useful!") are excellent debating points.
You must argue aggressively and convincingly
for your assigned position (pro or
con). Never say "Well, I've been assigned pro, but I really
agree more with con."
Finally, don't forget that the way you handle yourself during the
debate will influence your audience! Even the most coherent and
strong arguments can be undermined with poor presentation. This is
perhaps unfortunate (and less problematic with a "well-educated"
audience), but true. Be well-prepared, professional, respectful of
your opponent, and courteous to your questioners.
Effective slides
- Slides are *visual*.
Think about visually stimulating slides you have seen. Chances
are good that they were not a bunch of text. Think about how to
use pictures, images, diagrams, scenarios, photos, icons, symbols,
references from history or film or tv, etc. Visuals can convey
information or emotion.
- Too much text, though, is ... too much text.
Don't put your audience in a position where they think they have
to read slides at the same time that they're trying to listen to
your talking; it's terribly frustrating, and they probably won't
get the best of you or your slides. In general, your slides
should support your information, not provide it. (On the other
hand, visuals can do a good job of providing non-verbal emotional
appeal.)
- How many? Depends.
As you think about slides, a common rule of thumb (especially when
you'll need to think on your feet) is one slide a minute. So 15
slides is a reasonable target. Your material, of course, may call
for more or less. Just make sure your slides are (a) readable
(text, color, image can be *understood* from the back of the
room); (b) necessary, relevant, well focused, essential; and (c)
sufficient to make your argument's key points.
During your rebuttal, you'll need to be thinking rather than
searching for slides. So you may want to have one or two *vivid,*
striking slides that capture the essence of your message to show
while you rebut. But don't plan on changing slides during this 5
minutes; you probably won't be able to.
Grading of Debates
- All debaters will be given a grade based on their
performance.
- Debaters who do not show up for their assigned debate or come
unprepared to debate will
receive an F.
- The jury (the class) will discuss the debate afterwards.
During this discussion, the jury may cross-examine the debaters, and
the debaters may cross-examine each other. That is, during this time,
the debaters can (and should) continue to press their points.
- Your grade will be based on your argument, oral presentation,
and written presentation as evaluated by the course staff.
Debate Topics
The resolutions chosen for the debates do not reflect a
judgement on the research. They are merely chosen to be controversial
and to stimulate discussion.
-
Resolved, that deliberative robot architectures are marvelously clever search techniques whose running time and storage requirements make them completely inpractical for real-time performance, unlike reactive robot architectures that will always give the needed robot action in the required time.
(For guidance, please contact Prof. Roy.)
Pro: Kyle Bowman & Adam Clayton
Con: Felipe Dominguez & Sebastian Sovero
-
Resolved, that building many sensors into our robots as a way of robustly solving problems is a habit that should be kicked. Instead, "just say know" (Matt Mason): use task-specific knowledge to solve the problem.
(For guidance, please contact Prof. Teller or Prof. Rus.)
Pro: Henry Hallam & Matthew Peddie
Con: Sam Dyar & Kenny Donahue
-
Resolved, robots - even those that can pass a Turing test - should not have the rights of human beings. For example, robots should not have the right to free speech, it is ethical to destroy a robot that you own, the Geneva conventions do not apply to robots, etc.
(For guidance, please contact Prof. Teller.)
Pro: Brad Stronger & Samuel Gross
Con: Adrienne Bolger & Luke Urban
-
Resolved, that in the near future we will be able to build robots that are as intelligent and powerful as humans, and will therefore have the ability to take over from humans. We should therefore stop conducting research into robotic intelligence.
(For guidance, please contact Prof. Rus.)
Pro: Dan Lopez & Tyler Williams
Con: John Marrero & Olivier Chatot
- Resolved, in order to best protect the US population, military robots should be armed and able to discharge their weapons autonomously.
(For guidance, please contact Prof. Rus.)
Pro: Jordan Sorensen & Guy-Richard Kayombya
Con: Mario Bollini & Edgar Twigg & Anton de Winter
-
Resolved, that robotic manipulation is prerequisite to human-scale robotic intelligence. As Bronowski said, the hand is the cutting edge of the mind.
(For guidance, please contact Prof. Roy or Prof. Rus.)
Pro: Lauren White & Luke Johnson
Con: Rodrigo Ipince & Julian Hernandez
-
Resolved, that in order to integrate robots effectively into their environments we should develop monolithic, all-knowledgeable and all-powerful robots, rather than to build swarms of many simple robots.
(For guidance, please contact Prof. Teller or Prof. Rus.)
Pro: Thomas Snider & Tarak Upadhyaya
Con: Melissa Tanner & Vinayak Ranade
-
Resolved, that robots are complex programming systems. Since most of computer failures are due to buggy software, we will arrive at robust robot behavior by developing robust robot software environments.
Pro: Jim Huan Liu & Kevin Quigley
Con: Rachel Chaney & Hanna Mendes Levitin
|
