From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Apr 15 18:11:24 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3FMBO9R001150 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3FMBMFS083685 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:11:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 27941 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2007 22:11:22 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 Apr 2007 22:11:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 836 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2007 22:11:22 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 Apr 2007 22:11:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 1865 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2007 22:11:21 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 Apr 2007 22:11:21 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4716511 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:11:21 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 27371 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2007 22:11:20 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 Apr 2007 22:11:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 9348 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2007 22:11:19 -0000 Received: from hadar.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.1) by smtp4.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 Apr 2007 22:11:19 -0000 Received: from hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (ag33@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3FMBJml005636 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:11:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from ag33@localhost) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l3FMBJjp005635; Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:11:19 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UB-Relay: (hadar.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:11:19 -0400 Reply-To: Albert Goldfain Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: Albert Goldfain Subject: DEBATE ANNOUNCEMENT AND PARTICIPANT LIST FOR FINAL RECITATION To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (hadar.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3095/Sun Apr 15 15:27:16 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 4089 I have finished reading the debate surveys that you filled out in recitation last week. First and foremost, I want to thank you all for participating so enthusiastically (and, in general, for participating enthusiastically throughout the year in recitation)!!! We will be debating only one topic in each recitation (don't worry, that will keep us plenty busy) with teams of 3 for Monday and teams of 4 for Wednesday...everyone else will be a judge (see below). In case any of you are wondering, debate participants were chosen as follows: 1. Participants indicated that they would be willing to debate on the survey AND 2. Participants took a side on a question for which there were enough other participants taking the opposite side OR 3. Participants indicated that they could take either side on a question I promise my decision regarding the questions and debaters was as ethical as humanly possible (and hopefully as ethical as computationally possible :-)). If you are not among the participants and really, REALLY, want to join either side of the debate for your recitation, please send me an email. Also, if you had a change of heart and want off of one the teams, please send me email ASAP. This debate will only count towards recitation participation and everyone who attends (judge or participant) will get equal "credit". Thus, participants should make sure they focus on PP5 revisions and just make this a secondary activity. Ok...here are the teams: Monday April 23 Recitation Debate Question: If artificial life is life, then is it ethical to build? TEAM A: Arguing for YES, it is ethical to build: Nicolas Jackson (nhj@buffalo.edu) Mark Jensen (mpjensen@buffalo.edu) Andrew Reling (ajreling@buffalo.edu) TEAM B: Arguing for NO, it is unethical to build: Zachary Todtenhagen (znt@buffalo.edu) Michael Kozelsky (kozelsky@buffalo.edu) Romanch Mistry (rhmistry@buffalo.edu) Wednesday April 25 Recitation Debate Question: Are there decisions a computer should never (be allowed to) make? TEAM C: Arguing for YES, there are such decisions: Bill Duncan (wdduncan@buffalo.edu) John Greeney (jgreeney@buffalo.edu) Vince Spinelli (vfs@buffalo.edu) Jonathan Bona (jpbona@buffalo.edu) TEAM D: Arguing for NO, there are no such decisions: Bhargavi Parthasarathy (bp25@buffalo.edu) Mike Prentice (mjp44@buffalo.edu) Justin Schaber (jschaber@buffalo.edu) Gregory Torbenson (gjt4@buffalo.edu) DEBATE FORMAT AND TEAM INSTRUCTIONS: Each team will meet (either via email or in person, I listed the emails above) in the coming week to form a logical argument for their position: Team A: Premise 1, Premise 2, ..., Therefore, artificial life is ethical to build Team B: Premise 1, Premise 2, ...,Therefore, artificial life is unethical to build Team C: Premise 1, Premise 2, ..., Therefore, there are some decisions computers should never make. Team D: Premise 1, Premise 2, ..., Therefore, there are no decisions computers should never make. Each team will have 10-12 minutes (max) to present their argument (I would strongly suggest writing some or all of it on the board). I don't care what team member presents the argument or if you take turns presenting/discussing each premise (perhaps let someone speak up who hasn't gotten much of a chance to do so in recitation). Try to make the arguments as cogent as possible (you guys remember cogent right...cogent = valid + sound + soundness is apparent to the audience). While each team is presenting: 1. the opposing team should take notes on what they disagree with 2. the judges should write down any questions they have for the presenting team 5-10 mins: The team that went first will then criticize/rebut the second team's argument. 5-10 mins: The team that went second will then criticize/rebut the first team's argument. Remaining time: Questions from judges + vote on who "won" the debate (just for fun and to provide some incentive) I reserve the right to invite some judges who are not in the course :-) More details to come throughout next week, but please send me email if you have any questions. Albert