Congratulations to all the organizations and debaters who participated! Each debater gave an outstanding performance and proved that engineers do have extraordinary oratory skills!
When:
Thursday, February 23, 2006; 7:00pm
Where:
Burdine Hall, Room 108
Debate Results:
| 1st |
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) |
| 2nd |
Eta Kappa Nu (HKN) |
| 3rd |
Texas Society of Professional Engineers (TSPE) |
Participating Organizations:
Thanks to all the amazing debaters!
| • |
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) |
| • |
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) |
| • |
Texas Society of Professional Engineers (TSPE) |
| • |
Society of Women Engineers (SWE) |
| • |
Eta Kappa Nu (HKN) |
Event Timeline:
| • |
FREE FOOD served. |
| • |
Introduction by Dr. Randi Voss, Ph.D.
Topic: Communication in Engineering. |
| • |
Participants paired off and debating begins. |
| • |
Conclusion of Debates.
Winners Announced. |
Debate Round Format:
Basic Rules:
Some basic rules must be addressed to ensure a courteous, responsible demeanor is kept by all participants.
| 1. |
While one speaker is speaking, the others must be silent to show respect and to allow the judges and audience to hear the speaker. |
| 2. |
No personal verbal attacks of any kind should be made.
Debaters may not have a choice as to what side of a question they must defend.
Therefore, no one should assume that what is said is the debater's personal opinion. |
| 3. |
Profanity or vulgar language of any kind is unacceptable.
Please refrain from anything of this nature. |
| 4. |
The judges have all volunteered their time to be a part of this event.
Therefore, all participants should be respectful of the judges' criticisms and final decisions. |
Topic Summaries:
| • |
Moore’s Law and the explosion of computing power |
| • |
America’s competitive edge in engineering |
| • |
Need for professional engineering licensing |
| • |
Revamping of America’s education system (particularly in engineering) |
| • |
Learning disabilities and their need in schools vs. real world |
| • |
Faculty research vs. teaching |
| • |
Profit vs. moral obligation to society |
| • |
American engineering overseas (salary differences) |
| • |
Infrastructure maintenance and the need for growth |
| • |
Medical ethics and the responsibility of the engineer |
| • |
The future of space travel and the role of private vs. public industry |
| • |
Responsibility of engineers to the community and history |
| • |
Urban sprawl and the effect on the community |
| • |
Curriculum Reform in the University of Texas’ college of engineering |
Note: Each debater should be prepared to defend both sides of an argument!
Judges:
| • |
Dr. Randi Voss, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering |
| • |
Dr. Richard Corsi, Ph.D., E. C. H. Bantel Professor For Professional Practice, Department of Civil, Architectural & Environmental Engineering |
| • |
Jacob Cordova, A Roden Scholar |
Special thanks to our faculty judges for their valuable time, insightful opinions, and wonderful feedback!
Feedback/Comments:
Please send any feedback pertaining to the debates to Richard Plowes. All feedback will be greatly appreciated!
Sponsored by the Chair of Free Enterprise and the Roden Leadership Program at the UT College of Engineering
back to Archive
