Return to site

Fall 2017 Guangzhou Regional Tournament

· Results

Congratulations to all students who competed in the first tournament of the 2017 season. The competition this weekend in Guangzhou has been fierce.


We had many excellent teams from across southern China, each of whom were among the very best teams from their school. The nearly 140 attending students came from a huge variety of backgrounds. Every round proved that the robots are not smarter than debaters just yet.

These students made incredible progress and have bright debate futures ahead.

You can find HS ballots here, and MS Ballots here.

The results of the tournament will be listed below.

Please get in touch at if you have any questions.

Congratulations to all students who competed in the first tournament of the 2017 season. The competition this weekend in Guangzhou has been fierce.



962 - 陕灵梓 - 广州市真光中学 & 963 - 何璟洋 - 广州市真光中学

362 - 林海澄 - 广东碧桂园学校 & 363 - 邓斯源 - 广东碧桂园学校

246 - 宗昕宇 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部 & 247 - 关淳曦 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部

304 - 刘颖欣 - 广州外国语学校 & 305 - 汤雅茜 - 广州外国语学校

814 - 施普瑞 - 上海光华剑桥国际课程中心 & 815 - 俞宙 - 上海光华剑桥国际课程中心

910 - 唐照 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部 & 911 - 刘行健 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部

602 - 蒋蕙君 - 广东碧桂园学校 & 603 - 胡一 - 广东碧桂园学校

944 - 罗海予 - NCPA美式高中 & 945 - 洪乐潼 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部

972 - 尹俊杰 - 广东碧桂园学校 & 973 - 张熙庭 - 广东碧桂园学校

766 - 林奕康 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部 & 767 - 张芸涤 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部

206 - 刘芳琪 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部 & 207 - 郭星欣 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部

434 - 董翰祺 - 广东碧桂园学校 & 435 - 周文韬 - 广东碧桂园学校

678 - 张乐 - 广东碧桂园学校 & 679 - 赖而乐 - 广东碧桂园学校

890 - 王耀业 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部 & 891 - 周炜 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部

864 - 严竟之 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部 & 865 - 张楚悦 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部

562 - 付羿轩 - 广东碧桂园学校 & 563 - 陈柏霖 - 广东碧桂园学校


128 - 陈畅远 - 上海光华剑桥国际课程中心 & 129 - 刘思妍 - 上海光华剑桥国际课程中心

204 - 张力 - 广东碧桂园学校 & 205 - 周奕 - 广东碧桂园学校

366 - 刘蓉诺 - 广东碧桂园学校 & 367 - 田潇懿 - 广东碧桂园学校

124 - 陈诗文 - NCPA美式高中 & 125 - 袁子翀 - NCPA美式高中

510 - 李宇翔 - NCPA美式高中 & 511 - 邱楚杰 - NCPA美式高中

832 - 杨源嘉 - 广州华美中加高中 & 833 - 周颖竹 - 广州华美中加高中

462 - 赵柯 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部 & 463 - 李瑞哲 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部

674 - 刘行健 - 深圳市耀华实验学校 & 675 - 刘静言 - 深圳市耀华实验学校


354 - 崔文婧 - 上海光华剑桥国际课程中心 & 355 - 程章清 - 上海光华剑桥国际课程中心

892 - 康蓝予 - 嘉祥中学 & 893 - 曹兆雄 - 协和

330 - 郭一诺 - 上海光华剑桥国际课程中心 & 331 - 余潇潇 - 上海光华剑桥国际课程中心

792 - 张礼崟 - 西南位育中学 & 793 - 梁璐 - 西南位育中学


996 - 廖敏宽 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部 & 997 - 刘昱彤 - 华南师范大学附属中学国际部

346 - 顾思颖 - 上海光华剑桥国际课程中心 & 347 - 刘湘煜 - 上海光华剑桥国际课程中心


358 - 杨令仪 - 深圳中学 & 359 - 易佳欣 - 深圳中学


258 - 薛豫宁 - 上海光华剑桥国际课程中心 & 259 - 周卫赟 - 上海光华剑桥国际课程中心



974 - 谢宁蕴 - 广东碧桂园学校 & 975 - 蒙艾玲 - 广东碧桂园学校

648 - 蔡雅靖 - 广州市西关外国语学校 & 649 - 唐崇邺 - 广州市西关外国语学校


394 - 林艺杰 - 广东碧桂园学校 & 395 - 杨若曦 - 广东碧桂园学校


586 - 杨晓悦 - 广东碧桂园学校 & 587 - 孙茜希 - 广东碧桂园学校



The decision was in favor of the CON.

Judges begin by looking at the frameworks given in each team’s constructive speech. In this debate the frameworks between the PRO and CON overlap a lot. The CON argues for a utilitarian framework. This framework argues the costs and benefits of AI should be compared. The PRO argues it’s important to understand the comforts and pleasures of a world with AI. All contentions in this debate fit under either framework. A judge can use either one to decide this round without changing the result.

The economy contentions are the most important in this debate. Both teams spend most of their summaries and final focuses here. The PRO’s main argument is that AI’s efficiency would increase productivity. The CON argues AI efficiency is actually bad because it would increase unemployment. They specify 47% over the next 20 years in the US. They suggest this would be common around the world. The CON constructive gives a couple of examples of job loss. The first is self-driving cars replacing driving jobs. The second is AI’s ability in medical diagnoses hurting doctors.

The CON wins this by impacting out unemployment’s impact on consumer purchasing power. Consumer purchasing power is the amount of products people are able to buy. This money goes to businesses, helping the economy grow. Without jobs people would have less money and therefore would buy less. They compare this to productivity gains from AI. If 47% of people lost their jobs it wouldn’t matter if productivity was higher. Even if companies produce more people can’t buy them without money. Therefore, unemployment being low is the most important for economic growth for this debate.

The PRO answers the unemployment argument in many ways. They have five responses in the rebuttal. These arguments are good in different ways. However, most do not have an effective connection to consumer purchasing power.

The PRO final focus extends two arguments about the economy. First, that AI efficiency would cause cheaper prices that helps everyone. This argument is indirectly connected to consumer purchasing power. Decreased prices would help consumers buy more. However, this analysis is not given by the PRO. The 47% unemployment figure is still more important anyway. It doesn’t matter if prices are cheap if many people do not have money to spend.

Second, the PRO shows a graph. This graph states that rich countries will increase foreign aid donations to poorer countries. It is unclear what amount of money from richer countries could make up for such mass unemployment. The graph is difficult for the judges to evaluate because we are only told that it shows us that rich countries are more likely to help poor countries, not why it says that. Without that explanation the graph is just a graphic with two lines on it, and doesn't really factor into the debate.

The CON inequality contention and the PRO education and healthcare arguments are not well impacted out by either team in comparison to the economy. The CON impacts out the economy contention with mass social impacts in regards to health, death and crime. Therefore, the CON wins by winning the economy contentions.

The Major Lessons from this Debate​

Here are a couple of tips that could have improved some of them. Perhaps these tips could help you win your next debate!

1. Direct and specific responses are better than responses that would apply in any round. The con side argues that 47% of people will lose their job,The PRO should have challenged it directly. Cross-fire would have been a great time to do so.
• What study says 47% of people (in the US) will lose their jobs within 20 years? What was its methodology, or process and rules that the study used?
• What are these numbers broken down by specific parts of the economy? 47% is so large that there should be some specific numbers across different parts of the economy.
• How did the study define AI? It’s possible that the figure includes non-AI automation. AI is defined narrowly in debates in ways the study may disagree. This is one way the definitions matter in a debate.
Direct challenges to the 47% figure is important in this debate. It would have been better to do that instead of having more general answers on the economy flow.

2. Evidence is a trampoline for arguments, not a replacement. It is better to have a complete argument (Claim – Warrant – Impact) without evidence than to have evidence without an argument. In this debate the graph showing rates of foreign aid lost to a complete argument about the importance of consumer purchasing power. Reading evidence isn’t enough. It’s the job of the debaters to communicate and impact out their evidence to make it meaningful in the round.

With that said, both teams did a wonderful job. Both deserved their finalist and championship trophies. Great debate and best of luck to both teams for the rest of the season!

All Posts

Almost done…

We just sent you an email. Please click the link in the email to confirm your subscription!