further down this page. These slides must be provided to
the course staff (via the class wiki) before your debate session
so that they can be loaded onto a single machine for display.
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, which should
anticipate points made by the other team to the extent possible in order
to rebut them effectively. We encourage you to talk to the course staff
about your debate and to get started 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: 7 minutes
- Negative: 7 minutes
-
Rebuttal Speeches:
- Affirmative: 3 minutes
- Negative: 3 minutes
-
Discussion and Cross-Examination (4 minutes).
- When debating in teams, the constructive and rebuttal
presentations may be shared by the team members.
- Time will be kept using the briefing timer.
- 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
possible in favor of your 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 from authority ("Rodney Brooks claims that X, and I believe
him"; ) should not be used.
However, precise technical arguments ("Cybenko [give cite]
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 effective debating tactics.
You must argue aggressively and convincingly for your 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 by poor presentation. This is perhaps
unfortunate (and less of an issue with a "well-educated" audience), but
true. Be well-prepared, professional, respectful of your opponents, and
courteous to your questioners.
How to prepare effective slides
Before you prepare your slides, you should 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!
Here are 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."
Here are some other tips from the course staff on making effective slides:
- Slides are visual.
Think about visually effective
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
your slides at the same time that they're trying to listen to you
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 slides? It depends.
As you think about slides, a
common rule of thumb (especially when you'll need to think on your
feet) is one slide per minute. So 7-10 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 the
rebuttal portion; you won't be able to.
Grading of Debates
- The debates will be graded (students who do not show up for
an assigned debate will receive a failing grade).
- 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 presentation materials as evaluated by the course staff.
Debate Topics
These debate topics do not reflect the staff's judgment or opinions
about which research directions should (or should not) be followed; rather,
they have been chosen solely in order to provoke controversy and stimulate
thoughtful discussion.
- Robots should be developed to replace humans in the performance of
dull, dirty and dangerous jobs, even if this means that humans will
lose those jobs.
Pro: Matt Greyson & Tomas Vianna
Con: Bruno Alvisio & Juan Rodriguez
- For use in military or police actions, robots should have the
ability to autonomously discharge deadly weapons against people.
Pro: Tanmay Kumar & Travis Tucker
Con: Jeremy Flores & Dave Fernholz
- Robots should employ task-specific knowledge in order to minimize
the number and variety of sensors required for a given task.
Pro: Zeke Flaton & Maciej Pacula
Con: Fred Baba & Naomi Hinchen
- Roboticists should, and eventually will, converge on deliberative
rather than reactive architectures for reliable performance of
real-world tasks.
Pro: Aleksandr Tamarkin &
Con: Megan Kercher & Jenny Li
- As robots become anthropomorphized (or even animal-like) to
ever-greater degrees, humans will eventually come to regard them as
capable of feeling pain, and will institute laws for their protection
analogous to laws forbidding cruelty to animals.
Pro: Clark Davenport & Jessie Mueller
Con: Steve Levine & Ben Johnson
- Roboticists should explicitly curtail their activities, in order
to prevent the emergence of robots that are as intelligent and powerful
as humans.
Pro: Keja Rowe & Ryan Schoen
Con: Victor J Wang & Stephanie Lin
- Experience manipulating the world is required in order to develop
or exhibit human-scale robotic intelligence.
Pro: Stanislav Nikolov & Anna Shcherbina
Con: DeRon Brown & Sylvester Osagbemi
- Robust robot behaviors will become achievable only when large,
complex software systems can be verified as bug-free.
Pro: Matt Udomphol & Kevin Jenks
Con: Kelsey Von Tish & Jacky Chang
- Health service robots for the elderly and infirm will never be able
to replace human caregivers in all of their tangible and social
dimensions.
Pro: Parinita Nene & Tobe Nwanna
Con: Ryan Hodgson & Yunlu Yang
- People will not accept robots in their midst until they feel that
the robots can be trusted.
Pro: Grant Kadokura & Daniel Jared Dominguez
Con: Joseph Mugisha & Ted Blackman
