These past few months – the final of 24/25 school year – have been quite eventful and exciting, filled with many successes and room for improvement. Nearly a dozen of our students are participating in topic-based debate events such as Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas. Here is a brief rundown of the topics that have been explored and debated by them:
Public Forum: “Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its investment in domestic nuclear energy.”
This Public Forum topic brings to the forefront the ongoing debate over the future of energy policy in the United States, focusing specifically on the role of nuclear power. Debaters are tasked with evaluating whether a significant boost in federal investment in domestic nuclear energy is warranted. Affirmative teams may contend that increased funding would advance energy security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and foster technological innovation, positioning nuclear as a key solution to climate change and energy independence. On the other hand, negative teams could argue that such investment poses unacceptable risks, including safety concerns, high costs, and unresolved issues surrounding nuclear waste disposal. Students must analyze a complex web of scientific, economic, and environmental factors, weighing the potential benefits of nuclear expansion against the challenges and uncertainties inherent in scaling up this controversial energy source.
Lincoln-Douglas: “Resolved: The development of Artificial General Intelligence is immoral.”
The current Lincoln-Douglas topic delves into the profound ethical questions raised by the pursuit of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)-machines capable of performing any intellectual task a human can. This resolution challenges debaters to grapple with the moral status of creating entities with potentially autonomous reasoning and decision-making abilities. Affirmative cases might argue that developing AGI is inherently unethical due to risks of existential harm, loss of human control, or the possibility of widespread social disruption. They may also draw on philosophical frameworks that emphasize precaution or the intrinsic value of human agency. Negative arguments could assert that the development of AGI is not only morally permissible but potentially obligatory, citing the promise of solving complex global problems, advancing knowledge, or improving quality of life. Students must navigate intricate philosophical terrain, addressing questions of rights, responsibilities, and the long-term consequences of technological progress on humanity.
Leave a Reply