Students express views on various topics—from EVs and AI to pollution and term limits for politicos—at inter-college event
The intercollegiate debate at M L Dahanukar College of Commerce ay Vile Parle East. Pic/Nimesh Dave
An intercollegiate debate organised at M L Dahanukar College of Commerce in Vile Parle East on Tuesday saw participation from multiple colleges across the city. ‘Drustikon’ as the organisers named the competition, saw discussions on various topics related to current issues in society, including a debate on whether the government should introduce laws to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) to address ethical and security concerns, and about electric vehicles being a sustainable solution for the future. Gen Z delved into some of the most pressing issues facing society today. From environmental concerns to the ethics of AI, young debaters tackled diverse topics with a mix of passion and critical thinking.
ADVERTISEMENT
Air pollution: A divisive issue
The debate on air pollution shed light on its multifaceted causes. Proponents of stringent measures highlighted the devastating effects of pollution. The team appearing for one side said, “Burning waste contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, and health crises like cancer and heart disease.” They argued that electric vehicles (EVs) could serve as a sustainable alternative to reduce pollution. On the other hand, opponents pointed out: “Vehicular and industrial emissions contribute to 85 per cent of air pollution, according to WHO data.” They emphasised that unregulated garbage burning is a localised issue and advocated for recycling initiatives and public transport improvements instead.
Regulating AI
The rapid evolution of AI led to discussions on whether governments should step in with regulations. Supporters argued that regulations could address security concerns, reduce fraud, and enhance societal progress. “The government, if it has a machinery in place, can curb multiple issues like the creation of deep fakes and morphing images using AI,” the team said. However, critics contended that government intervention could act as a hindrance due to a lack of expertise and the constantly evolving nature of AI. They questioned “the accuracy of data provided by private AI companies” and raised concerns about the “government’s preparedness to handle such a dynamic sector”.
Global collaboration
Debaters also discussed whether international organisations should hold authority during global crises. Advocates stressed “the importance of unity cannot be denied during global crisis”. Citing examples like the Ukraine-Russia war and the COVID-19 pandemic, where global resources were crucial for solutions, they called for fairness and equality, regardless of a nation’s wealth. Conversely, opponents criticised the veto power wielded by major nations in organisations like the UN, arguing that “it undermines the sovereignty of smaller countries… each nation should retain the right to self-govern”. They also pointed to cases where international interference has been counterproductive.
Lowering driving age
On the contentious topic of reducing the driving age to 16, proponents highlighted, “There are benefits of increased independence and efficiency for students with busy schedules. Countries like the US, Australia, and Canada, have such reforms and which have been successful.” Opponents raised concerns about safety, saying, “The potential risks of inexperienced drivers and the possibility of increased addiction to vehicles in teenagers can prove to be counterproductive.” They suggested encouraging the use of electric vehicles instead of expanding eligibility.
Freedom of speech
Freedom of speech was hailed as the cornerstone of a functional society by many debaters, who argued that “open discussions foster diversity of ideas and reduce conflicts. A free voice builds free society. Diversity in ideas is created by free speech and discussion”. However, critics warned of the dangers arguing that “misinformation and hate speech can lead to many issues in society”, advocating for a “balance between freedom and responsibility to prevent societal harm which is much more important”.
Term limits for politicians
The discussion on term limits for politicians drew sharp contrasts between the need for change and the value of stability. Advocates for term limits argued that power, when concentrated for too long, could lead to corruption and complacency. They emphasised the “importance of giving opportunities to new leaders with fresh ideas and perspectives that could align better with the changing needs of the nation and the evolving economy”. Proponents also suggested making politicians’ assets public to ensure transparency and prevent misuse of power. They also argued that the rotation of leadership fosters innovation and prevents stagnation. “A mandate for change should be a part of governance.”
Critics, however, highlighted the potential downsides of term limits. “The disruption of long-term policies and governance is a major issue we have witnessed in the past,” they said. They argued that trust in leaders who have consistently delivered results should outweigh the need for change. Frequent leadership changes might lead to instability, with policies being overturned by each new administration,” they said, stresseding, “The ideology of some leaders might resonate deeply with citizens, making their continued governance beneficial.” They questioned the logic of enforcing limits when voters still support a particular leader or party, arguing that continuity often promotes development and growth.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
