2023外研社英语辩论挑战赛裁判评分表

FLTRP Debate Challenge Judge Ballot

PRO CON

Point Ran
Team Code: 27 s k
Team Code: 19 Points Rank

Speaker 1 Speaker 1
Name:
Qiyue 27 3 Name:
Li Jiayue 27 2
Speaker 2 Speaker 2
Name:
Jack Zhang 26 4 Name:
Ni Ruixi 28 1

Circle the
Winning Winning Team: CON Judge Signature: Gabrielle
Team

20-23 Below average

Speakers would be marked according to their delivery, 24-26 Average
logic, evidence, linkage, and manner. 27-28 Above Average
Each speaker would be marked in the range of 20-30. 29 Excellent
0.5 point is allowed in marks. 30 The speech changes
your life

PRO CON

● Avoid just listing down your
arguments, you have to prove it
heavily
● Moreover, when asked for an
evidence, you have to give it and don’t
just say it is logic. It makes the case
more vulnerable to attacks
● Explain the necessity of AI in different
aspects that you listed and prove why
this is exclusive and unique to AI
● We can try to engage the best case of
our opponents, what if AI is
accessible? How does that change
the perceived harms?
○ Moreover, if AI is accessible,
does that mean it is good?
● What mechanisms are we likely to
employ to improve worker’s rights in
our side?
 Please write your reason for decision:
(Cite exact evidence heard)

The main clash of this debate is on utility (good outcomes) vs. safety concerns (negative
outcomes)

First, on security issues, CON argued 3 different levels of security (1) national security
with AI security breaches in the national government and how this could put our data at
risk (2) on racial and prejudicial discrimination against POC that continously threatens
their safety (3) and on privacy leaks in general that endangers people. I think the lack of
response towards this from PRO kills the urgency of their case, because even if they
were able to argue utilitarian benefits such as the improvement of different industries,
the question always comes at the cost of people’s safety at the hands of AI. Moreover, I
think both teams are missing out on exclusivity, what CON was able to posit better is why
the benefits couldn’t simply be ignored especially against the mechanism provided on
technology being inaccessible.

Moreover, even if the debate isn’t about accessibility, PRO had to try harder by
mechanizing their responses, saying that AI is helpful couldn’t stand if the direction
raised to this is unhelpful. Given this and other unresponded concerns from CON, PRO
had a hard time exploring why this could be good.