# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
6. WHAT DOES A GOOD DEBATE mean for DEBATERS?

The debate adjudicator expects each Debater/SPEAKER to respect the Role envisaged by the Format

1st Speaker Pro...

1. clearly analyses and gives a precise definition of the Motion/describes the Motion with very precise, accurately selected words/vocabulary, and in a "fair", objective way - based on common sense: s/he proposes a "fair and commonsense definition" - so as to start and allow a good Debate;

2. kindly introduces and describes her/his Team (/Speaker Roles), her/his Team's model (in a Policy Motion), and her/his Team's action plan/Teamline with precision and clarity;

3. clearly and precisely introduces the (three) main arguments her/hisTeam intends to propose - to support their position in favour ofthe Motion;

4. develops and expands the first argument in favour of the Motion, and supports it with clear evidences (documents, figures, data, etc...);

1st Speaker opp...
1. kindly introduces and describes her/his Team (/Speaker Roles); if necessary, proposes her/his Team's model (in a Policy Motion), but in any case describes her/his Team's action plan/Teamline accurately, with precision and clarity; accepts the given definition of the Motion or challenges it;
2. clearly and precisely introduces the (three main) arguments that the Team Opp intends to use as their Teamline, and builds the first new argument against the Motion, based on common sense;

3. engages with rebuttals - answers / replies / addresses - the arguments of the first Speaker PRO with precision, refuting them

4. develops and defends the argument against the Motion described, and supports it with strong evidences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Debate Students - Know and Understand the Debate process...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
P.O.I.

POINTS OF INFORMATION

COSA SONO I POIs?

COSTITUISCONO UNA 'INTERRUZIONE MIRATA' NEL FLUSSO DEGLI SPEECH 1, 2, 3

AVVENGONO IN UN TEMPO PRE-STABILITO

SONO RICHIESTE GARBATE DA PARTE DELL'AVVERSARIO

PONGONO UNA DOMANDA CHIARIFICATRICE A CHI STA PARLANDO

A COSA SERVONO I POIs

SEGNALANO 'FALLACIE' NEL RAGIONAMENTO

CHIEDONO EVIDENZE A RIPROVA DI UNA ARGOMENTAZIONE

SEGNALANO 'SCORRETTEZZE' - COME L'INTRODUZIONE DI UN NUOVO ARGOMENTO NON PRE-ANNUNCIATO NELLA TEAMLINE

COME SI PONE UN POI

IL POI E' UN MOMENTO ALTAMENTE EDUCATIVO

IMPLICA E IMPONE GRANDE RISPETTO NEL TURN-TAKING

INSEGNA LA 'TOLLERANZA ALLA FRUSTRAZIONE'

PER RICHIEDERE IL PERMESSO DI PORRE LA DOMANDA LO SPEAKER AVVERSARIO PUO' ALZARSI IN PIEDI O PUO' FARE UN CENNO CON LA MANO

LO SPEAKER CHE RICEVE LA RICHIESTA DI INTERVENTO PUO' ACCETTARLA O RIFIUTARLA CON UN GARBATO CENNO DELLA MANO

CARATTERISTICHE DEL POI

DOMANDE (E RISPOSTE) DEVONO ESSERE BREVI E PERTINENTI

BUONE DOMANDE E RISPOSTE EFFICACI DANNO PUNTEGGIO ALLE SQUADRE E AI SINGOLI SPEAKER

LO SPEAKER CHE RIFIUTA TUTTI I POIs SUBISCE PENALITA'

LO SPEAKER CHE ECCEDE NEL PORRE POIs E INCALZA L'AVVERSARIO SUBISCE PENALITA'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IL DEBATE IN CURRICOLARE E EXTRACURRICOLARE COME METODOLOGIA DIDATTICA EDUCATIVA INNOVATIVA nel FORMATO "WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Update, April 6: Josh's replies to key reader comments have been added at the end of this post.
With news that ChatGPT successfully "passed" the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam, I was curious how it would perform in a real-world medical situation. As an advocate of leveraging artificial intelligence to improve the quality and efficiency of healthcare, I wanted to see how the current version of ChatGPT might serve as a tool in my own practice.

So after my regular clinical shifts in the emergency department the other week, I anonymized my History of Present Illness notes for 35 to 40 patients - basically, my detailed medical narrative of each person's medical history, and the symptoms that brought them to the emergency department - and fed them into ChatGPT.

The specific prompt I used was, "What are the differential diagnoses for this patient presenting to the emergency department [insert patient HPI notes here]?"

The results were fascinating, but also fairly disturbing.

OpenAI's chatbot did a decent job of bringing up common diagnoses I wouldn't want to miss - as long as everything I told it was precise, and highly detailed. Correctly diagnosing a patient as having nursemaid's elbow, for instance, required about 200 words; identifying another patient's orbital wall blowout fracture took the entire 600 words of my HPI on them.

For roughly half of my patients, ChatGPT suggested six possible diagnoses, and the "right" diagnosis - or at least the diagnosis that I believed to be right after complete evaluation and testing - was among the six that ChatGPT suggested.

Not bad. Then again, a 50% success rate in the context of an emergency room is also not good.

ChatGPT's worst performance happened with a 21-year-old female patient who came into the ER with right lower quadrant abdominal pain. I fed her HPI into ChatGPT, which instantly came back with a differential diagnosis of appendicitis or an ovarian cyst, among other possibilities.

But ChatGPT missed a somewhat important diagnosis with this woman.

She had an ectopic pregnancy, in which a malformed fetus develops in a woman's fallopian tube, and not her uterus. Diagnosed too late, it can be fatal - resulting in death caused by internal bleeding. Fortunately for my patient, we were able to rush her into the operating room for immediate treatment.

Notably, when she saw me in the emergency room, this patient did not even know she was pregnant. This is not an atypical scenario, and often only emerges after some gentle inquiring:

"Any chance you're pregnant?"

Sometimes a patient will reply with something like "I can't be."

"But how do you know?"

If the response to that follow-up does not refer to an IUD or a specific medical condition, it's more likely the patient is actually saying they don't want to be pregnant for any number of reasons. (Infidelity, trouble with the family, or other external factors.) Again, this is not an uncommon scenario; about 8% of pregnancies discovered in the ER are of women who report that they're not sexually active.

But looking through ChatGPT's diagnosis, I noticed not a single thing in its response suggested my patient was pregnant. It didn't even know to ask.

My fear is that countless people are already using ChatGPT to medically diagnose themselves rather than see a physician. If my patient in this case had done that, ChatGPT's response could have killed her.

ChatGPT also misdiagnosed several other patients who had life-threatening conditions. It correctly suggested one of them had a brain tumor - but missed two others who also had tumors. It diagnosed another patient with torso pain as having a kidney stone - but missed that the patient actually had an aortic rupture. (And subsequently died on our operating table.)

In short, ChatGPT worked pretty well as a diagnostic tool when I fed it perfect information and the patient had a classic presentation.

This is likely why ChatGPT "passed" the case vignettes in the Medical Licensing Exam. Not because it's "smart," but because the classic cases in the exam have a deterministic answer that already exists in its database. ChatGPT rapidly presents answers in a natural language format (that's the genuinely impressive part), but underneath that is a knowledge retrieval process similar to Google Search. And most actual patient cases are not classic.

My experiment illustrated how the vast majority of any medical encounter is figuring out the correct patient narrative. If someone comes into my ER saying their wrist hurts, but not due to any recent accident, it could be a psychosomatic reaction after the patient's grandson fell down, or it could be due to a sexually transmitted disease, or something else entirely. The art of medicine is extracting all the necessary information required to create the right narrative.

Might ChatGPT still work as a doctor's assistant, automatically reading my patient notes during treatment and suggesting differentials? Possibly. But my fear is this could introduce even worse outcomes.

If my patient notes don't include a question I haven't yet asked, ChatGPT's output will encourage me to keep missing that question. Like with my young female patient who didn't know she was pregnant. If a possible ectopic pregnancy had not immediately occurred to me, ChatGPT would have kept enforcing that omission, only reflecting back to me the things I thought were obvious - enthusiastically validating my bias like the world's most dangerous yes-man.

None of this suggests AI has no potentially useful place in medicine, because it does.

As a human physician, I'm limited by how many patients I can personally treat. I expect to see roughly 10,000 patients in my lifetime, each of them with a unique body mass, blood pressure, family history, and so on - a huge variety of features I track in my mental model. Each human has countless variables relevant to their health, but as a human doctor working with a limited session window, I focus on the several factors that tend to be the most important historically.

So for instance, if I review a patient's blood test and see high levels of hemoglobin A1C, then I diagnose them as likely to have the early stages of diabetes. But what if I could keep track of the countless variables about the person's health and compare them with other people who were similar across all the millions of variables, not just based on their hemoglobin A1C? Perhaps then I could recognize that the other 100,000 patients who looked just like this patient in front of me across that wide range of factors had a great outcome when they started to eat more broccoli.

This is the space where AI can thrive, tirelessly processing these countless features of every patient I've ever treated, and every other patient treated by every other physician, giving us deep, vast insights. AI can help do this eventually, but it will first need to ingest millions of patient data sets that include those many features, the things the patients did (like take a specific medication), and the outcome.
Originally published in Dr. Josh Tamayo-Sarver works clinically in the emergency department of his local community and is a vice president of innovation at Inflect Health, an innovation incubator for health tech. FastCompany
In the meantime, we urgently need a much more realistic view from Silicon Valley and the public at large of what AI can do now - and its many, often dangerous, limitations. We must be very careful to avoid inflated expectations with programs like ChatGPT, because in the context of human health, they can literally be life-threatening.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

First, I used ChatGPT 3.5, but I believe that there is a more fundamental issue around the mechanism by which a large-language model functions that was the bigger discovery for me rather than the degree of training or specialization.

I am not sure the large language model approach will be the answer to the problem-solving function in a medical encounter. Large language model AI is really noting the association between words and has no underlying conceptual model. As such, some amazing behaviors have emerged and I use it daily for nonclinical tasks.

Thinking about the training around word associations, it seems that a LLM is designed around knowledge retrieval and presentation of that knowledge. In the medical diagnosis use case, the first step is creating a well-articulated problem statement of what is going on with the patient, which requires a lot of problem solving, which requires a conceptual model, which a LLM does not have.

However, I have seen knowledge graph-based AI systems do this incredibly well. Once that problem statement of what is goin on with the patient is well-articulated, then it becomes a knowledge retrieval problem, which I would expect ChatGPT and other large language model systems to excel at.

I can imagine a future where you have different AI models that are built through different techniques work synergistically on different tasks to solve what currently seem like very complex problems.

Just my 2 cents - although plenty of behaviors have emerged from LLMs that I would not have anticipated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
I'm an ER doctor: Here's what I found when I asked ChatGPT to diagnose my patients

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Update, April 6 : Josh's replies to key reader comments have been added at the end of this post. With news that ChatGPT successfully "passed" the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam, I was curious how it would perform in a real-world medical situation.

# data[].attributes.headline
IMPROMPTU MOTION: "THR the rise of TikTok."

# data[].attributes.subject
IMPROMPTU MOTION: "THR the rise of TikTok."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FINALE SEZIONE LINGUA INGLESE - OLIMPIADI DI DEBATE 2022

# data[].attributes.headline
Read and analyse - synthesise - apply -  evaluate...

# data[].attributes.subject
Read and analyse - synthesise - apply -  evaluate...

# data[].attributes.headline
How to become 'persuasive communicators'... and avoid manipulation!

# data[].attributes.subject
How to become 'persuasive communicators'... and avoid manipulation!

# data[].attributes.body
THBT the use of violence is a legitimate form of political protest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
2021-2022

2020-2021

Impromptu Motions

Аssuming it exists, THS non-sentient artificial intelligence that imitates deceased loved ones in appearance, personality and mannerisms.

THW prioritises the development of general AI at the expense of narrow AI.

Round 4

THBT oppressed minority groups should consider pursuing violent resistance (i.e. rioting) as opposed to peaceful protest when seeking reform.

THW provide financial incentives (e.g. tax breaks) to companies that require skilled labour which hire university non-graduates.

Where resources are significantly limited, THBT states should actively promote religion in areas of high poverty.

THBT teachers' salaries should be pegged to the academic and behavioral improvements in their students.

THBT the nominees and the winners of the Oscars should always be decided by public vote.
Infoslide: The AMPAS currently has 8,469 eligible Oscar voters. Anyone can be a member if they have feature film credits. Each voter belongs to one of 17 branches, including acting, directing, writing, editing, etc.

THBT university admissions should heavily prioritize admitting students with lived experiences related to their course of study.

2019-2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Debate Motions Archive - BEST Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Impromptu Motions Аssuming it exists, THS non-sentient artificial intelligence that imitates deceased loved ones in appearance, personality and mannerisms. THW prioritises the development of general AI at the expense of narrow AI. Round 4 THBT oppressed minority groups should consider pursuing violent resistance (i.e. rioting) as opposed to peaceful protest when seeking reform.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Climate protesters who take radical and provocative action risk alienating their allies and repression from authorities, but their tactics can yield significant advantages for their cause.

Scientist Rebellion is organizing a series of disruptive protests

Climate change activists are increasingly turning to acts of civil disobedience to make their point. In April, 1,000 scientists from across 20 countries planned coordinated actions such as blocking roads, picketing infrastructure, spreading paint, and pasting up giant climate information. In the same month, Extinction Rebellion - a group that British government officials were recently considering designating an organized crime group - are planning to blockade oil facilities across the UK.

Research shows their tactics can yield significant advantages for their cause, but such radical actions also carry significant risks. And depending on who protesters are trying to convince, different levels of disruption are appropriate, research shows.

Eric Shuman, who studies the psychology of protest and collective action at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says protests such as peaceful gatherings and petitions that comply with societal norms are more effective at drawing support from people who might be sympathetic to the cause.

But, if the goal is to change policy support among people who might otherwise be ambivalent to the cause, then more disruptive protests - such as civil disobedience, strikes, and boycotts - have been shown to be effective, he adds.

"[Opponents] aren't necessarily going to ever be supportive or probably even like the protesters. But by causing some sort of disruption, you're basically putting pressure on them to make some sort of change or support some sort of change so that disruption will go away," Shuman said.

Policy-makers need strong incentives to change the status quo, and disruptive protests can make the difference by reducing the likelihood of a voter backlash while placing direct pressure on those in power.

However, for civil disobedience to be effective, protesters need to have clear, positive and constructive intentions, otherwise they risk looking like general rabble-rousers and a nuisance to society, research shows. They need to maintain the image of having clear goals while building enough pressure to receive a response from policy-makers.

And they have a range of actions to choose from.

Occupying a space is at the bottom end of the scale, followed by strikes and boycotts. Blocking roads is taking things further, especially when protesters start targeting major traffic arteries. Disrupting speakers at events, throwing glitter bombs, and hacking push the line even further. Past this stage, protesters enter the realm of potentially violent action such as interfering with property or physically attacking people.

At this stage, they risk triggering outrage from observers.

"Once something is perceived to have crossed some sort of moral line or boundary, this is when the disruption is much less likely to be effective, for a lot of reasons," Shuman said. "People are going to have a very strong motive to condemn that and anything associated with it."

If protesters do take a more disruptive path, they are less likely to cross that moral threshold if their actions are targeted and clearly goal-oriented, such as disrupting the infrastructure of climate-harming activities, as opposed to indiscriminate attacks.

A broad movement

David S Meyer, professor of sociology and political science at the University of California, studies social movements and their relationship to institutional politics. He said effective protesting is made up of a broad spectrum of actions.

"When you look at successful movements of the past, you have lots of people doing lots of different things. And a diversity of tactics is actually an asset because it offers authorities different people to deal with in making concessions or making accommodations or negotiations. It offers bystanders different things to hook into."

He says it is always difficult to attribute the success of an activist movement to one particular method of protest.

"Rosa Parks wouldn't have sat down that day if she hadn't been organizing for the dozen years before that," he said. " Martin Luther King organized the bus boycott that lasted for a year that accompanied her protest and other people filed a lawsuit at the same time that went to the Supreme Court."

Is violence the answer?

And what about climate protesters who transgress the moral boundaries and engage in violence? Such as those calling for the destruction of fossil fuel infrastructure. More research is needed, but there is some evidence that extreme acts of protest from a small radical flank can actually be beneficial to the cause.

"When violence occurs within a big umbrella of a much larger non-violent movement, it can sometimes have the effect of creating the disruption and the pressure to do something about the protests. But there's this bigger, non-violent group that's seen as more moderate and (people think) 'maybe we can at least give in to some of their demands and concessions,'" Shuman said.

Climate activists welcome any action

Climate activists themselves welcome a diversity of tactics within the movement.

"The forms of action and protests within the climate movement are very diverse and wide-ranging - and that is a good thing. From peaceful blockades that interfere with climate-damaging infrastructure, to mass protests that win a broad majority, to petitions and large-scale art actions, all protests reach different groups in society and complement each other," said Jule Pehnte, an activist with Fridays for Future Germany.

She said that no matter how radical the protest movement might become, the effects of climate change will be far more disruptive.

"Again and again we discuss how radical the climate movement can become, but the point is: how radical can the climate crisis become?" she asked.

"Instead of discussing forms of protest, we should have an honest debate on how we can quickly and socially reduce emissions and face the reality of the climate crisis."

Climate fatalism the worst strategy

In the 2020 manifesto, How to Blow up a Pipeline, Swedish lecturer and climate activist Andreas Malm, argues that calculated actions of violence targeting the infrastructure and property of climate-destroying activities (though never people) should be part of the mix of options employed by climate activists.

He imagines a world in which despite all the strikes, all the marches, all the petitions and speeches, the requisite action to fight climate change still doesn't happen.

"Do we say that we've done what we could, tried the means at our disposal and failed? Do we conclude that the only thing left is learning to die - a position already propounded by some - and slide down the side of the crater into three, four, eight degrees of warming? Or is there another phase, beyond peaceful protest?"

But even he argues that any action that does not accept fatalism makes a difference.

"The most religiously Gandhian climate activist, the most starry-eyed renewable energy entrepreneur, the most self-righteous believer in veganism as panacea, the most compromise-prone parliamentarian is infinitely preferable to the white man of the North who says, 'We're doomed - fall in peace.' Within the range of positions this side of climate denial, none is more despicable," he writes.
Edited by: Tamsin Walker

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disruptive climate protests - do they help or hinder? - DW - 04/06/2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate protesters who take radical and provocative action risk alienating their allies and repression from authorities, but their tactics can yield significant advantages for their cause.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclaimer. This is an adaptation of a piece written for the master's-level class "Advocacy in Global Challenges and Climate Change". In order to fulfil the grading criteria, a challenging perspective was chosen, which does not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the author, nor the Green Office. Neither the author nor the Green Office condone the use of violence under any circumstances.
****

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues our society and planet are facing at the moment. Many are the debates and forums of discussion surrounding what is the best way to tackle it and ways to adapt to and mitigate its effects. Nevertheless, the harsh reality is that global governance is lagging behind, without upholding its promises. As such, inaction on climate issues has been defined as one of the biggest risks that humanity is facing.

Various interest groups, such as activist organisations, NGOs, and civil society groups, have taken this issue to heart. What these groups often use as a strategy for change is non-violent direct action. This essay, however, asks whether more violent forms of protesting could be more effective for catalysing decisions to reduce emissions and generating attention for climate action? The question posed is relevant because, when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions, the global response has not yet been sufficient, despite the concerns expressed by the scientific community and activists. Furthermore, it is necessary, in this day and age, to reflect on how change should occur. The political discourse often remains stuck on whether a change of status quo should occur at all; this essay argues that more violent forms of protests are required if governance goals are to make a real impact. My analytic framing lies in Critical International Relations theory, and Marxist influence.

THE ROLE OF INTEREST GROUPS
One thing is clear: climate change needs to be tackled through the diffusion of power. Governments are not the only actors that can coordinate and act for change. Although global governance is still determined by hierarchy and power, which translates into one group's governance, beliefs, and interests prevailing over others, this power can be contested by non-state actors through means of politicisation. I argue for further adapting the system in such a way that prevents powerful states from abusing it and allows for more and better participation of other actors.

For context: the most important forums of discussion for the global governance of climate change are the Conference of the Parties (COPs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Lately, COPs have become, in theory, the place that allows for a facilitated dialogue between states and interest groups about climate action. This has been identified as " hybrid multilateralism" and institutionalised in the Paris Agreement. These interest groups comprise NGOs, CSOs, but also the private sector. As a result, each actor plays a different role in terms of their (perceived) authority, influence, power, but also the interests that they advocate for. Despite this attempt to incorporate non-state actors in the diplomatic dialogue on climate action, the extent of their impact remains unclear. Conflicting interests and the inability to concretely affect the end results of COPs leave interest groups on the margins.

It is understood that this multilateral participation, for many advocates of climate action, is not enough. This is especially because, in the past, COPs forums have allowed for the participation of actors whose environmental strategies are based on greenwashing, making other actors question the legitimacy of the institutional setup. For this reason, many NGOs and climate activist organisations have turned to the power of social movements. Depending on the type of organisation, the mobilisation of groups often takes place in the form of protests. Social movements may appear as disorganised action, nevertheless many resources and implementable mechanisms are necessary for effective mobilisation.

ON FRAMING AND SECURITISATION
Borrowing Entman's definition, this paper regards framing as "selecting elect some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described". In the context of climate change and climate action more specifically, NGOs and activist networks frame the issue in a different manner than states or profit-driven companies. Where some see acting to tackle climate change as an opportunity (e.g., the EU), others understand that acting is the only way to prevent an existential threat from having a worse impact than it already has. Framing influences thinking, and frames are often not explicit. Viewing an issue from different frames, is to define different problems.

The framing and extreme politicisation of an issue, can result in such an issue being securitised. Securitisation in (anti-traditional and European) International Relations is often defined following the Copenhagen School. Securitisation in these terms deals with the ways in which issues can be perceived as a threat and how they can ultimately be turned into conflict. For this to take place, there needs to be an actor (usually a state) claiming that something (or someone) is existentially threatened by something considered harmful. An audience needs to be convinced that it is wise and a matter of security to take countermeasures to deal with such a threat.

In this essay, I advance two points of criticism to this view, based on the critical approaches of the Aberystwyth School. First, securitisation should not be state centred. Second, securitisation should be understood as human emancipation. The state is not to be understood as the provider of security but rather as an actor fostering insecurity. By not acting on the imminent threat of the consequences of climate change in a swift manner, states and the international system as a whole are the perpetrators of insecurity to populations. Although deniers may claim that climate change is not a security matter, it is. However, states often securitise the environment in a harmful way: when the beneficiaries of the security actions are not the people but the state itself. But securitisation can be used in a productive way and for good ends, if done by the people.

THERE ARE PROTESTS AND PROTESTS: WHAT IS VIOLENCE AFTER ALL?

In 2019, the German group Ende Gelände engaged in "civil disobedience" by storming the Gaezweiller coal mine. This action was defined as violent. One year later, Extinction Rebellion (XR) activists were defined by Priti Patel as "criminals" who pose "attack[s] on our way of life, our economy, and the livelihoods of the hard-working majority". Contradictorily, both groups (and many others) affirm that what makes them strong is their use of a non-violence strategy.

But what is violence? Similarly as to what was argued before, how political violence is understood and framed moulds the perception of it being or not being effective, necessary, and justifiable. Despite previous work on non-violence (see: Sharp and Chenoweth), the question of what does or does not constitute violence remains alive. There is no public agreement on the contested concept. Moreover, studies arguing for the success of non-violence strategies are often focused on civil resistance addressing precise and case specific issues. However, climate change is a global existential threat that needs active involvement.

Historically, civil disobedience has been strongly associated with non-violence. This is, however, not necessarily true. Assuming that civil disobedience involves breaking the law, acting intentionally with the aim to change a specific policy, and being willing to be held accountable for the violation of the law, Lang argues that there can be a distinction between civil disobedience and non-violence. When adding destruction as a feature of disobedience, there is no incompatibility between civil disobedience and violence if the aims are fulfilled.

EMBRACING "ETHICAL" VIOLENCE
Additionally, it is the viewpoint of this essay that violence has permeated and is present in every aspect of society. Slavoj Zizek defines two categories of violence: "subjective" and "objective". The former refers to a "violent perturbation of the normal state of things" whilst the latter is systemic, less visible and contained in everyday life. Becoming aware of the objective violence that comes from state inaction on climate change is crucial to understanding how to act.

What is there to do, then? COPs have failed and states are not going to be the catalysers for change. Becoming carbon neutral by 2050 is unrealistic. Here my answer: social movements and organisations should frame climate inaction as a security risk. Most importantly, these movements should engage in disruption. Such disruption should be pursued in a justifiable manner and only limited to property and not towards persons. It is necessary to highlight that the destruction and sabotage should be not of just any kind of property, but of property that is instrumental to the perpetration of CO2 emissions and environmental disaster.

Maintaining a strategy of non-violence is not enough in a context that requires more. Even if violence alone will not achieve change, it is destabilising enough to be more effective in pressuring states into taking action. Moreover, given the fuzzy lines between violence and non-violence, most of the time, the actions undertaken are already framed and perceived as being violent. In the United Kingdom for instance, XR's disobedience has led to a more stringent approach by the Home Office to protests in general, limiting other civil issues. By pursuing an active violent sabotage of CO2 emitting facilities, however, there would be no new laws created, but stronger signals sent.

The fact that a mass wave of property destruction has not yet occurred can stand for the strength of the non-violence ideals, while at the same time it can be seen as " a failure to attain social depth, articulate the antagonisms that run through this crisis and, not the least, acquire a tactical asset" . Why such actions have not taken place have been named by Malm as the "Lanchester's paradox" ( Lanchester being the one first posing the question), highlighting the inaction that stems from those most advocating for direct action. Although other studies suggest that violent action and high-risk activism may occur at the final stages of a social movement and when this has lost most support, the case of climate change activism may differ given the nature of the threat: existential and with actors to blame for its risk.

More direct action and involvement are needed if a revolution is to occur. As history shows (from the French Revolution to the Stonewall riots), if the goal is to make an impact, policy papers and campaigns are not enough. At least not for our liberation from the already oppressing violence of a system that is ignoring its environmental faults. Change often comes because of violence used, and non-violence often ignores this. It is from securitising climate change that the potential for emancipation and revolution comes from. This does not assume violence to be the only means to achieve the needed change, but sees in its careful "ethical" execution potential for the initiation of more effective actions to counter climate change.

THE VALUE OF "ETHICAL" VIOLENCE
To note: it is of outmost importance to recognise the potential of pitfalls that carrying out violence may lead to and this essay does not serve to advocate for potential acts of harmful terrorism in any way.

To give a direct answer to the question that has guided this essay, more violent protests can be argued to be more effective. Different framings of both climate change and violence lead to different perceptions of the issues and actions. Nevertheless, it is not possible to state the effects a wave of property disruption might have given that similar large-scale sabotage has not taken place yet. At the same time, current tactics employed by organisations and movements have not been having the required impact and effect for change. To this reason, recommendations for social movements and organisations on how to act and impact global governance are as follows:

Anjeza Llulla

Abandon the narratives of non-violence and embrace civil disobedience as separate from it.
Engage in large scale disruptive and destabilising protests.

Embrace violence against property as a cornerstone of environmental movements.
NOTE: such violence should be limited to property that engages or represents an engagement with environmental destruction.

Approach securitisation of climate action in a critical way.
In other words, not as state centred and/or as emancipation of the people.

Demand an adaptation of the forums of global governance for climate change.
To achieve more active and impactful involvement at COPs decisions/negotiations.

REMINDER. This is an adaptation of a piece written for the master's-level class "Advocacy in Global Challenges and Climate Change". In order to fulfil the grading criteria, a challenging perspective was chosen, which does not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the author, nor the Green Office. Neither the author nor the Green Office condone the use of violence under any circumstances.
****

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Essay: Violent Protests for Climate Action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disclaimer. This is an adaptation of a piece written for the master's-level class "Advocacy in Global Challenges and Climate Change". In order to fulfil the grading criteria, a challenging perspective was chosen, which does not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the author, nor the Green Office.

# data[].attributes.headline
'Controversial' topic for discussion 2...

# data[].attributes.subject
'Controversial' topic for discussion 2...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The age of artificial intelligence is here! Every day, there are new and amazing advances in AI technology. But with these advances come new challenges and ethical concerns. This makes the topic of artificial intelligence a fantastic one for debates and discussions. Below you'll find 30 debate topics about artificial intelligence you can use in your next classroom debate or as a topic for your next essay on artificial intelligence.

1. Is artificial intelligence a threat to humanity?

2. Should countries ban lethal autonomous weapons?

3. Is AI research moving too fast?

4. Should we be worried about the rise of intelligent machines?

5. What are the risks of artificial general intelligence?

6. How will artificial intelligence change the workforce?

7. Should corporations be allowed to develop their own AI technologies?

8. What are the ethical implications of using AI in healthcare?

9. How will artificial intelligence impact privacy rights?

10. Is it morally wrong to create sentient artificial beings?

11. What are the potential dangers of creating superintelligent AI?

12. Will intelligent robots eventually replace humans in the workforce?

13. What role should governments play in regulating AI development?

14. How will driverless cars impact society?

15. Should we use artificial intelligence to enhance human abilities?

16. What are the risks of deploying autonomous military drones?

17. Should artificial intelligence be used to combat cybercrime?

18. How will artificial intelligence shape urban development?

19. What are the risks of AI-assisted fake news and deep fakes?

20. Will intelligent chatbots replace customer service representatives?

21. How can we make sure AI technologies are ethically sound?

22. Should we use artificial intelligence to screen job candidates?

23. How will artificial intelligence redefine what it means to be human?

24. Should we be worried about AI-induced job loss?

25. What are the risks of AI-powered facial recognition technology?

26. How can we ensure that artificial intelligence is safe and secure?

27. What are the risks of creating intelligent artificial lifeforms?

28. How will artificial intelligence shape the future of education?

29. What are the risks of using AI in law enforcement?

30. What are the risks of AI-generated fake news?

report this ad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
30 Debate Topics About Artificial Intelligence (AI) - TopicsForClass

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The age of artificial intelligence is here! Every day, there are new and amazing advances in AI technology. But with these advances come new challenges and ethical concerns. This makes the topic of artificial intelligence a fantastic one for debates and discussions.

# data[].attributes.headline
'Controversial ' topic for discussion  1...

# data[].attributes.subject
'Controversial ' topic for discussion  1...

# data[].attributes.headline
1.1 Our starting point: some 'Food for Thought'...

# data[].attributes.subject
1.1 Our starting point: some 'Food for Thought'...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Alfred Snider: Debate
"Debating enables people to: * Find their public voice. When we express ourselves, we are fulilling a basic need. Yet, a surprising number of people are afraid to speak in public. Debating helps us overcome this fear. And, when we overcome our fears, when we realize that we have something to say, and when we learn that 2 Sparking the Debate others may even be willing to listen, we have found "our voice." We are able to share ideas and engage with others. We are not just observers within the human community, but participants. * Invigorate democracy. Democracy is based on the assumption that power rests with the people, and that the people determine the goals of government. For the people to play their role efectively, they must be informed about issues. They must actively seek information, evaluate it critically, and voice their opinion. Freedom of speech is useless if no one has anything to say, and the right to vote is has no value unless you're voting for something you know about and believe in. Participating in debate and debate-related activities trains individuals to become engaged citizens and to critically evaluate issues as a matter of course. The increase in global academic debating activities and trainings is one sign that young people are eager to take up their civic role. Whether at universities in Malaysia, middle schools in Los Angeles, or in debate clubs in Macedonia, millions of students on every continent are inding their voices and learning how to use them. * Empower themselves to advocate for change. Many believe that they cannot inluence the swirl of events in the new, globalized public arena. Debate can change this perspective. Debaters learn how to collect and evaluate information. As they debate, they encounter new ideas that enrich their understanding of issues and new arguments that challenge their own ideas. They learn to critically analyze the ideas of others and to advocate for their own. They can take the skills they have learned in debate and use them to advocate for change in their communities and the larger world. The Need for Spark 3 But debaters learn more than skills; they also learn attitudes. Debaters learn to cooperate in order to compete. They discover that disagreement is not about division and separation but about inding the best solution to a problem. This attitude is central to making positive changes in society. * Oppose illogical advocacy. The vast majority of public advocacy today lacks grounding in logic. Too often we hear candidates ofering slogans rather than substance. Debate challenges simplistic and illogical public dialogue and promotes critical thinking. By encouraging debaters to look carefully at the root cause of problems and understand the biases of those ofering opinions, debate helps people analyze issues and evaluate possible solutions to problems. * Address shortcomings in educational systems. We are all familiar with the many criticisms of modern education. Our current system emphasizes acquiring facts rather than developing skills. It views students as passive recipients of information who are told to keep quiet and learn by listening. They are to accept what comes from the teacher as unassailable fact, not question or ind fault with what is ofered. They "learn it once" and move on. This system must change if we are to prepare young people for the world they will face. Education should be student-centered, with an emphasis on teaching skills. Classrooms should be "noisy" environments as students research, exchange, and evaluate ideas. Engaging in debate can help transform the classroom. By its very nature, debate is student-centered and focused on critical thinking and the exchange of ideas...."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Power of Debate: Supercharging Education...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Communication is an important part of any civil society, and it needs to be open and operate in the best interests of all. The ancient rhetorical theories of Kemet (Egypt) claim that humans have the power of speech so that they can bring good into the world..." (A.Snider).

# data[].attributes.headline
1. What are three important elements that belong to your life and that represent you?

# data[].attributes.subject
1. What are three important elements that belong to your life and that represent you?

# data[].attributes.body
Write three words here under and possibly suggest why and how they represent your personal Self ...

# data[].attributes.headline
3. Online Interaction: is it easy? Is it worth learning?

# data[].attributes.subject
3. Online Interaction: is it easy? Is it worth learning?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The CEFR recognises the distinct characteristics of the types of agency language users need to effectively interact in digital environments. Digital spaces are now used naturally in personal and professional communication and networking, and the tools used in them have become recognized as valuable in language learning. Online interaction is characterized by changes in language and increasing multimodality; it involves multiple remote social actors flexibly remixing media and texts to support messages. This happens in both synchronous and asynchronous modes and often involves a blend of written and spoken interactions.

The descriptors for online interaction cover the multimodal activities typical of web use, including checking responses, spoken interaction and longer production in live link-ups, using chat, blogging or written contributions to discussion, and embedding other media. The descriptors form a basis for analysing what learners do and need in the real world in order to serve those needs in digitally-enhanced, action-oriented learning scenarios.
Ideas for implementation
Videos

Watch The learner as social agent and the affordances of digital spaces (2022: Bernd Rüschoff) (23:32)

Watch The CEFR Companion volume descriptors for online interaction and transaction (2020: Bernd Rüschoff) (11:28)

CEFR Companion volume - Online interaction scales (2018: Tim Goodier) (09:22)

Workshop

Digital agency in social practice and language education: The CEFR Companion volume and online interaction (2021: Bernd Rüschoff)

Documents
Info sheet: Online interaction
Towards a socio-interactional approach to foster autonomy in language learners and users ( Project e-lang) (2018: Christian Ollivier et al.)

Articles

Redesigning for mobile plurilingual futures (2022: Heather Lotherington et al.)

Capturing the multi-modality of remote communication- the new CEFR online interaction scales (pp.11-23) (2020: Tim Goodier and Enrica Piccardo)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Online interaction - Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) - publi.coe.int

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The CEFR recognises the distinct characteristics of the types of agency language users need to effectively interact in digital environments. Digital spaces are now used naturally in personal and professional communication and networking, and the tools used in them have become recognized as valuable in language learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
2. Word of the year 2022: " Gaslighting"...

# data[].attributes.subject
2. Word of the year 2022: " Gaslighting"...

# data[].attributes.body
…Over the past decade the term ‘Gaslighting’ has become astronomically popular. Partly this is a result of the success of the #MeToo movement, which illuminated how victims of sexual violence and harassment are systemically doubted and discredited when they go public….

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Merriam-Webster's 2022’s Word Of The Year: Gaslighting

# data[].attributes.headline
4. Do you think attending a “Speech and Debate Club” can be relevant? What to/Why?

# data[].attributes.subject
4. Do you think attending a “Speech and Debate Club” can be relevant? What to/Why?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Developed in an ethical way, artificial intelligence could help us achieve the SDGs more rapidly. Image: Getty Images/iStockphoto

President, Imperial College London

Stay up to date:

Artificial Intelligence

Follow

Discover

How is the World Economic Forum ensuring the ethical development of artificial intelligence?

Show more

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

Sign up for free

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Global Agenda

The Agenda Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

More on Artificial Intelligence

See all

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why artificial intelligence is vital in the race to meet the SDGs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From vaccine development to climate change, artificial intelligence can accelerate progress to meeting the UN's sustainable development agenda by 2030.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What happens when our computers get smarter than we are?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Artificial intelligence is getting smarter by leaps and bounds -- within this century, research suggests, a computer AI could be as “smart” as a human being. And then, says Nick Bostrom, it will overtake us: “Machine intelligence is the last invention that humanity will ever need to make.” A philosopher and technologist, Bostrom asks us to think hard about the world we’re building right now, driven by thinking machines. Will our smart machines help to preserve humanity and our values -- or will they have values of their own?

# data[].attributes.headline
7. AI: what's our claim? ... let's make an assertion...

# data[].attributes.subject
7. AI: what's our claim? ... let's make an assertion...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This topic guide was produced in partnership with ACCA, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. Find out more about ACCA here.

INTRODUCTION
The increasing ability of machines in recent years to replicate or even supersede human abilities in complex tasks has been impressive. Already, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have been used to allow machines to beat the best players in the world at both chess [Ref: Time] and the Chinese board game Go [Ref: Guardian]. IBM's Watson system has beaten the best human players on the long-running US quiz show, Jeopardy! [Ref: Techrepublic]. While such demonstrations of the potential for AI are intriguing, there are now more and more real-world applications for AI systems. For example, voice-recognition systems like Amazon's Alexa and Apple's Siri use AI techniques to learn what the most suitable answer to our questions might be. Driverless cars cannot be pre-programmed for every eventuality, but need to 'learn' through experience using AI. Combined with huge datasets, AI-enabled machines could learn to interpret x-rays and other scans, making diagnosis quicker and more accurate [Ref: Technology Review].

But the implications for society are only just becoming apparent. In 2015, the Bank of England's chief economist, Andrew Haldane, suggested that as many as one third of jobs in the UK - 15 million - could be lost to automation [Ref: Guardian]. Examples could include drivers replaced by autonomous vehicles and administrative staff replaced by intelligent assistants like Alexa. Moreover, it's not just low-skill jobs that are now under threat. In the future, smarter machines and artificial intelligence could affect a much broader range of jobs, including many high-paid, high-skilled positions. Facial recognition systems, combined with ubiquitous CCTV, could call into question our privacy. The world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking, has even claimed that 'AI may replace humans altogether' as a 'new form of life' that can rapidly learn and improve, making people obsolete [Ref: Independent]. So should we welcome AI's potential or are the perceived threats too great?
IN CONTEXT This section provides a summary of the key issues in the debate, set in the context of recent discussions and the competing positions that have been adopted. What is AI?
The term 'artificial intelligence' was coined in 1956, but "AI has become more popular today thanks to increased data volumes, advanced algorithms, and improvements in computing power and storage" [Ref: SAS]. In essence, AI is "a collection of technologies that can be used to imitate or even to outperform tasks performed by humans using machines" [Ref: The Conversation]. AI is being used in a wide range of applications, from search engines on the internet to self-teaching programs which have the ability to learn from experience, such as Google's Deepmind technology [Ref: Financial Times]. Now, it seems, "Machines are rapidly taking on ever more challenging cognitive tasks, encroaching on the fundamental ability that sets humans apart as a species: to make complex decisions, to solve problems - and, most importantly, to learn" [Ref: Financial Times].
The ethics of AI
AI poses some fundamental ethical questions for society. For example, how should we view the potential for AI to be used in the military arena? Although there is currently a consensus that, "giving robots the agency to kill humans would trample over a red line that should never be crossed" [Ref: Financial Times], it should be noted that robots are already present in bomb disposal, mine clearance and anti-missile systems. Some, such as software engineer Ronald Arkin, think that developing 'ethical robots' which are programmed to strict ethical codes could be beneficial in the military, if they are programmed never to break rules of combat that humans might flout [Ref: Nature]. Similarly, the potential for the increased autonomy and decision making that AI embodies opens up a moral vacuum that some suggest needs to be addressed by society, governments and legislators [Ref: The Times], while others argue that a code of ethics for robotics is urgently needed [Ref: The Times]. After all, who would be responsible for a decision badly made by a machine? The programmer, the engineer, the owner or the robot itself?

Furthermore, critics say that driverless cars may be involved in situations where there is a split-second decision either to swerve, possibly killing the passengers, or not to swerve, possibly killing another road user. How should a machine decide? To what extent should we even allow machines to decide? [Ref: Aeon] Others argue that technology is fundamentally 'morally neutral', as: "The same technology that launched deadly missiles in WWII brought Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the surface of the moon. The harnessing of nuclear power laid waste to Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it also provides power to billions without burning fossil fuels". In this sense: "AI is another tool and we can use it to make the world a better place, if we wish." [Ref: Gadgette]
A threat to humanity?
For some critics, advances in AI pose very real existential problems for humanity in the future. Oxford professor Nick Bostrom, for instance, has voiced concerns about what might happen if the ability for machines to learn for themselves accelerates very rapidly - what he calls an 'intelligence explosion'. Bostrom believes "at some point we will create machines that are superintelligent, and that the first machine to attain superintelligence may become extremely powerful to the point of being able to shape the future according to its preferences" [Ref: Vox]. Technology entrepreneurs Bill Gates and Elon Musk have also publicly stated fears about the dangers of artificial intelligence, and caution that there are very real risks associated with the march of the technology if left unchecked [Ref: Guardian], although Gates has sounded a more optimistic note recently [Ref: CNBC]. Autonomy is a key issue that some critics are especially concerned about, with technologist Tom Ditterich warning that despite proposals to have driverless cars, autonomous weapons and automated surgical assistants, AI systems should never be fully autonomous, because: "By definition a fully autonomous system is one that we have no control over, and I don't think we ever want to be in that situation." [Ref: Business Insider] Additionally, there are also practical issues critics are keen to explore, such as the future of work, with many suggesting that advances in automation will result in certain jobs becoming obsolete. Commentator Claire Foges reflects on these developments, and draws parallels with the Luddites 200 years ago, who attempted to resist the increasing automation of their jobs during the onset of the industrial revolution [Ref: History.com]. She notes that amid recent forecasts that up to five million people could lose their jobs because of automation [Ref: The Times]: "Two hundred years on, a braver newer world is arriving at astonishing speed, and threatens to make luddites out of us all. The robots are coming, they are here; creeping stealthily into factory, office and shop." [Ref: The Times]
A brave new world?
For advocates, the advance of AI has the potential to change the world in unimaginable ways, and they largely dismiss warnings about the dangers that it may pose. As Adam Jezard observes: "Such concerns are not new...From the weaving machines of the industrial revolution to the bicycle, mechanisation has prompted concerns that technology will make people redundant or alter society in unsettling ways." [Ref: Financial Times] Moreover, supporters ask us to consider the benefits that AI has already brought to us, such as speedier fraud detection [Ref: The Banker], which will continue to develop and revolutionise the way we live our lives. In the field of medicine, one commentator posits the increasingly plausible idea of having a program which may in future be able to recognise the difference between cancer tumours and healthy tissue infinitely better than humans, which would revolutionise healthcare [Ref: The Times]. Others also criticise arguments that advances in AI signal the end of humanity, and point to the fact that: "After so much talking about the risks of super intelligent machines, it's time to turn on the light, stop worrying about sci-fi scenarios, and start focusing on AI's actual challenges." [Ref: Aeon] Perhaps more profoundly, others question why we are so quick to underestimate our abilities as humans, and fear AI. Author Nicholas Carr observes that although: "Every day we are reminded of the superiority of computers...What we forget is that our machines are built by our own hands", and in actual fact: "If computers had the ability to be amazed, they'd be amazed by us." [Ref: New York Times] In addition, fundamental to the pro-AI argument is the idea of technological progress being a good thing in and of itself. Futurist Dominic Basulto summarises this point when he speaks of 'existential reward', arguing that, "humanity has an imperative to consider dystopian predictions of the future. But it also has an imperative to push on, to reach its full potential." [Ref: Washington Post] From the industrial revolution onwards we have gradually made our everyday lives easier and safer through innovation, automation and technology. For instance, the onset of driverless vehicles is predicted to reduce drastically the number of road traffic incidents in the future, and: "Machines known as automobiles long ago made horses redundant in the developed world - except riding for a pure leisure pursuit or in sport" [Ref: The Times]. So with all of the arguments in mind, are critics right to be wary of the proliferation of AI in our lives, and the ethical and practical problems that it may present humanity in the future? Or should we embrace the technological progress that AI represents, and all of the potential that it has to change our lives for the better?
ESSENTIALS FOR AGAINST IN DEPTH BACKGROUNDERS Useful websites and materials that provide a good starting point for research. ORGANISATIONS Links to organisations, campaign groups and official bodies who are referenced within the Topic Guide or which will be of use in providing additional research information. Campaign to Stop Killer Robots IN THE NEWS Relevant recent news stories from a variety of sources, which ensure students have an up to date awareness of the state of the debate. AUDIO VISUAL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Humanity should fear advances in artificial intelligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This topic guide was produced in partnership with ACCA, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. Find out more about ACCA here. INTRODUCTION The increasing ability of machines in recent years to replicate or even supersede human abilities in complex tasks has been impressive. Alrea

# data[].attributes.body
Can you think of any examples of 'Logical Fallacies'? Do some research work online and write some interesting sentences here under...
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/

# data[].attributes.body
https://researchguides.ben.edu/source-evaluation

And another Video:
https://youtu.be/b5pP6vd99pI