Return to site

Fall 2017 Xiamen Regional Tournament

· Results

The Fall 2017 Xiamen Regional Tournament, hosted by NHSDLC at the No. 1 High School of Xiamen, attracted some of the top high school students from across southern China.

Click here for the team tab, speaker tab, and preliminary and elimination round ballots.

Octofinalists - 祝贺所有进入16强的团队:

192 - 黄双偎 - Xiamen Foreign Language School & 193 - 倪心怡 - Xiamen Foreign Language School

518 - 郑彧 - Jinhua No.1 High School,Zhejiang & 519 - 赵昊然 - Maple Leaf International School-Zhengjiang

712 - 江训喆 - Xiamen No.1 Hign School of Fujian & 713 - 蔡语铎 - Xiamen No.1 Hign School of Fujian

718 - 吴瑞凡 - Xiamen Foreign Language School & 719 - 施赫婧 - Xiamen Foreign Language School

776 - 吴思凡 - Xiamen Foreign Language School & 777 - 林叒绮 - Xiamen Foreign Language School

912 - 王婧瑜 - Xiamen No.1 Hign School of Fujian & 913 - 孙含曦 - Xiamen No.1 Hign School of Fujian

984 - 林雨弦 - Xiamen No.1 Hign School of Fujian & 985 - 陈思褀 - Xiamen No.1 Hign School of Fujian

992 - 纪丰采 - Xiamen Foreign Language School & 993 - 苏仁心 - Xiamen Foreign Language School

Quarterfinalists - 祝贺所有进入8强的团队:

742 - 赵李添一 - Jimei Middle School,Xiamen,Fujian & 743 - 陈婷婷 - Jimei Middle School,Xiamen,Fujian

790 - 徐萌宏 - Xiamen Foreign Language School & 791 - 傅泓宇 - Xiamen Foreign Language School

880 - 蔡练达 - Xiamen Foreign Language School & 881 - 韩东 - Xiamen Foreign Language School

976 - 石听雨 - Jinhua No.1 High School,Zhejiang & 977 - 舒文雯 - Jinhua No.1 High School,Zhejiang

Semifinalists - 祝贺所有进入半决赛的团队:

286 - 杨珺萌 - Shanghai Starriver Bilingual School & 287 - 吴予凡 - Shanghai Starriver Bilingual School

836 - 陈屿璠 - Xiamen Foreign Language School & 837 - 刘英杰 - Xiamen Foreign Language School

Finalists - 祝贺亚军团队:

654 - 袁泽清 - Xiamen No.1 Hign School of Fujian & 655 - 林芊芊 - Xiamen No.1 Hign School of Fujian

Champions - 祝贺冠军团队:

810 - 林泓芃 - Xiamen No.1 Hign School of Fujian & 811 - 徐闻 - Xiamen No.1 Hign School of Fujian

Top speakers - 祝贺最佳辩手:

1 - 810 - 林泓芃 - Xiamen No.1 Hign School of Fujian

2 - 777 - 林叒绮 - Xiamen Foreign Language School

3 - 654 - 袁泽清 - Xiamen No.1 Hign School of Fujian

4 - 719 - 施赫婧 - Xiamen Foreign Language School

5 - 791 - 傅泓宇 - Xiamen Foreign Language School

6 - 286 - 杨珺萌 - Shanghai Starriver Bilingual School

7 - 718 - 吴瑞凡 - Xiamen Foreign Language School

8 - 742 - 赵李添一 - Jimei Middle School,Xiamen,Fujian

9 - 193 - 倪心怡 - Xiamen Foreign Language School

10 - 518 - 郑彧 - Jinhua No.1 High School,Zhejiang

来自导师的RFD

The judging panel unanimously awarded the championship round to the PRO team.

The judges began the deliberation by looking at framework. The teams in this debate introduced similar utilitarian frameworks. They argued that AI should be evaluated based on how AI affects human society in the near-term. The judges used this framework to adjudicate each team’s arguments.

The judges believed that the debate centred on two main issues. The first was the economy. CON argued that AI would cause high unemployment, but they did not provide sufficient evidence, or introduce examples, to convince the judges that this outcome was likely.

PRO provided more detailed analysis about how AI would impact the economy. First, they defeated CON’s argument by showing that AI is primarily a tool used by workers—not a replacement for workers. Second, PRO argued that AI would make workers’ more productive. For example, they explained how farmers use AI to increase their yield and eliminate food waste. Finally, PRO argued that AI would expand access to services, especially for poor people. If law firms and hospitals use AI to perform routine tasks, for example, they can service more people at a lower cost. Based on this analysis, the judges were convinced that AI would not seriously affect employment, and would have net-positive impacts on the economy.

The second issue of the debate was the psychological impact of AI. CON had a very creative argument on this issue: that some forms of AI, like chatbots, will cause a decrease in human-human interactions. However, they did not clearly explain why human-human interactions are important. PRO’s response was even more creative, using an impact turn to defeat CON’s contention. PRO argued that AI is beneficial if it can can satisfy some people’s emotional needs.

Major Lessons:

  1. Use the claim-warrant-impact contention structure. For example, CON’s argument about the psychological effects of AI lacked a clear impact. It may seem obvious that human-human interactions are a good thing, but debaters need to be explicit. 
  2. Use examples to support your contentions. PRO referenced many different industries to explain the economic benefits of AI. 
  3. Use specific refutation—and target your opponent’s strongest contentions. CON did not launch a direct attack at PRO’s multi-pronged economic analysis. But PRO targeted CON’s psychology contention, which was central to the CON case.
All Posts
×

Almost done…

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

OK