Inter-House Debating Round 2 - Artificial Intelligence is a threat to human jobs and privacy, doing more harm than good...

Priory vs Blackford

Priory and Blackford contested a keenly fought debate in the Fitzjames Theatre on the threat of AI on jobs and privacy. Both teams had researched well, and the older pupils were understandably more confident to debate with less reference to written notes. The tactical use of Points of Information was interesting from both teams and with Alexina and Sunny sparring sensibly throughout. There were some interesting questions from the floor with the final result ending in a 32 point draw.

Ian Wilmshurst - Headmaster

Lyon vs Arion

This morning’s debate between Lyon and Arion showed great development from the preliminary round. Lyon were proposing the motion that artificial intelligence was a threat to human jobs and privacy, doing more harm than good, with Arion opposing it. Both teams spoke very well on the topic, using a range of arguments for or against the benefits of AI, which were substantial and supported by examples and evidence, including various statistics. Arion relied on arguing that, with solid regulation, AI could be used as a tool for good, mitigating threats to the workplace, and that privacy and data leak concerns would be less likely due to the lack of human error involved in processing data. Lyon used arguments such as the fact that AI would decimate the job market for the working classes, who would not be able to develop skills needed for higher-skilled jobs, and that the potential for misinformation and privacy breaches was just too great to believe that regulation would remove this risk. Both teams spoke well and are showing signs of improving their teamwork, tone and ability to think on the spot. Overall, Mrs Simper and I determined that Lyon should win this debate, with a score of 37 points to Arion's 35. We look forward to the next one!  

Caroline Garland - Head of Classics

Wellesley vs New

Wellesley and New excelled in their debating of the wide-ranging motion on AI. They particularly impressed with their consistent and fact-based arguments and composed, clear speaking. On the Wellesley side, Nella (impressing on her first debate), Winnie and Emily, presented clear, high and well-justified arguments in favour of the motion. The formidable opposition of New House’s James, Rupert and Griff gave equally credible speeches to argue against the motion. Following the outstanding debating skills displayed, the adjudicators spent some time discussing their verdict, this being one of the tightest decisions that either had made in their time as debate judges. In the end, New House prevailed by a single point (out of 50). If the rounds continue to be at this standard from all sides, then we have some excellent debates to come.

Will Daws - Deputy Head, 6^th Form

#KSBDebating #KSBArion #KSBBlackford #KSBLyon #KSBNew #KSBPriory #KSBWellesley