T3. Debates

Debates.

This is Katy and FeeBee ‘debating tooth and nail‘ the possession and ownership rights relating to one of my socks! …. Notice my wife took the picture rather than rescuing my sock!

Debate N°1. ‘Real’ Relationships?

We get lost in all the technology (social media…websites..hash tags… Android etc etc), BUT:

• Do we really communicate any better with it? 
• Do communications’ technologies actually bring us into closer relationships?  

In 2003, Frederick Newell  published a book with the title: ‘Why CRM doesn’t Work’,  with the thesis that relationship is not something that one individual/entity (especially an inanimate corporation) can control or manage, it ‘Takes two to Tango‘, if you like.  If anyone is capable of considering ‘relationship’ it is not a marketing manager, not a website, not a social media presence, but the customer himself: surely if he thinks/considers/believes there is a real relationship, then there is: de facto. If he doesn’t think so, then there isn’t.  So what is going on…. do we really have ‘relationships’ with websites, social networks, products and the companies who maintain them?  If we do – then to what degree?

Team1.   You are in support of the following proposition.  Websites and social media can create genuine, viable, two-way, profitable relationships (‘profitable’ in financial and/or emotional terms).

Team2. You are against the above proposition. Your perception is that there is no hard evidence that customers /clients see themselves as entering into a real ‘relationship’ with a website or with social media: genuine, fulfilling relationships are reserved for human beings and technological devices are simply not capable of producing stimulating or enriching relationships with websites, their owners or their products and services.  Marketeers are deluding themselves if they think otherwise.

Wherein lies the truth?  We’ll see!

Debate N°2. A.I. Blessing or Blight?

In this title I am thinking of a book written in 1973 and entitled ‘Tourism: Blessing or Blight?’  I think we know the answer – it could be both, but it is often the latter, especially for local, host communities.  Here I am applying the question to the almost instantaneous impact of A.I. in our lives since the arrival in late 2022 of Open AI, Chat GPT, GPT4, Dall-E, BARD etc .  That said, this could just be the tip of the proverbial ‘impact iceberg‘.  A report in early 2023 by Goldman Sachs suggested that AI might well cost 300 million jobs overall (even counting the jobs it will create).  There are also grave concerns in the academic world that it may become near nigh impossible (despite tools like Zero GPT) to detect work produced by A.I. and not the student, putting qualifications and certificates into question – and perhaps even the future roles, functions and practices (and even existence?) of universities themselves.  Then there is the art world in uproar: as early as 2018 AI artwork was selling via major auction houses for nearly 500,000 Euros….and that figure is much higher now.  What value remains to the ‘original‘ the ‘authentic‘ when Dall-E can produce anything in the style of Dali (or anything and anybody else you can imagine)?!?  The ability to ‘fake’ almost anything now becomes irresistable and instant (the Pope in a Puffer – case in point).

So, is this a dream come true: creation without effort, without work and without need of a human creative spark, or is it a bleak, Brave New World in which humanity is effectively  devalued, displaced or even replaced?

Team1. You are in support of the following  proposition.  A.I. is a ‘blight’ – a real and very present danger for humanity.

Team 2.  you are supporting the following proposition. Advances in AI technologies & tools and their availability to all represents a major quantum leap in the capabilities of mankind and should be celebrated and embraced.

INSTRUCTIONS.

1. organise yourselves into four EQUALLY-SIZED teams (as close as possible anyway) – probably mostly teams of 5 or 6 (dependant upon the size of the group).
2. choose a debate and proposition which you prefer and negotiate with the other teams such that all the propositions are covered: one equal-sized team each.
3. read the propositions and be sure you understand them (ask me if not!)
4. brainstorm your initial thoughts on the subject, share them with each other (and with me)
5. research using your PCs or the open access PCs in the salle infos.
6. bring back your research, case studies, links etc etc and share them with your team.
7. prepare to develop  your ideas, arguments and examples and consider how you may best deliver them in a debate.
8. identify roles for each team member  and  the content which he / she will deliver.
9. get ready for the Debate (see details below)

DEBATE FORMAT.

1. each team will have opportunity to put its case (WITHOUT INTERRUPTION from the opposing team).  up to 15 minutes per team.
2. each team member will play an equal part in the proceedings.
3. you may use notes, cue cards or PCs to help you present your case, but reading material verbatim is NOT permitted and will be heavily penalised – if you understand something well, you should be able to speak about it for a few minutes.
4. there will then be 15 mins in which each team may interrogate the other (moderated by myself!)
5. this then leaves 10 or 15 minutes for the audience to discuss with us their feelings and maybe vote in favour of the most compelling proposition!

MARKING.  Although there will be a team ‘base’ mark it will be moderated individually in accordance with evidence of participation,  compelling and creative contributions, force of argument, quality use of English etc.