Course Information [RSS home] Course Staff Course Details Resources Syllabus & Lecture Handouts Wiki Acknowledgements Challenge and Debate Info Grand Challenge Course Debates Lab Information Lab Handouts Lab Staffing Schedule Lab Announcements Staff Staff only pages (short list)

6.141/16.405J - RSS Debate Information 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 Discussion and Cross-Examination (about 5-10 minutes). When debating in teams, the constructive speeches and the rebuttal speeches will be given by different team members. A timekeeper selected from the class will keep time. 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 roboticists should, and will, eventually adopt deliberative robot architectures for most tasks, due to their superiority to reactive robot architectures. (For guidance, please contact Prof. Roy) Pro: Joshua M Karges & Javier Garcia Con: Aaron Rucker & Raymond Ma Resolved, that roboticists should use task-specific knowledge to minimize the number of sensors needed for a given task. (For guidance, please contact Prof. Rus) Pro: Robert A. Flores & Zuzana Trnovcova Con: Karen Sun & Kim Jackson Resolved, that the rights of robots should be fewer than the rights of humans; robots should not have the right to continue existence (analogous to the right of a human to life), or of free speech. (For guidance, please contact Prof. Teller.) Pro: Damon Henry& Brent McLaughlin Con: Marvin Arnold & Adam Mustafa Resolved, that robotics researchers should limit their activity to prevent the emergence of robots that are as intelligent and powerful as humans. (For guidance, please contact Prof. Rus.) Pro: Eletha Flores & Aaron Ramirez Con: Steven Dickerson & Basant V Sagar Resolved, that armed military robots should have the ability to discharge their weapons autonomously. (For guidance, please contact Prof. Rus.) Pro: Evan Iwerks & David Stein Con: Nathan Serrano & Hemagiri Arumugam Resolved, that experience manipulating the world is required in order to develop or exhibit human-scale robotic intelligence. (For guidance, please contact Prof. Rus.) Pro: Dave Butler & Andrew Sugaya Con: Andrew Wang & Dominik Kmita Resolved, that roboticists should focus on developing powerful, monolithic robots rather than swarms of simpler, less powerful robots. (For guidance, please contact Prof. Teller or Prof. Rus.) Pro: Simon Calcutt & Harrison Bralower Con: Thomas Franklin & Jason Wallace Resolved, that robust robot behaviors will emerge only when nearly bug-free robot software can be achieved. Pro: Paul Miyazaki & Con: Paige Phillips & Tony Valderrama