WVU hosts first-ever Tech Duels, uniting students and alumni through debating current issues

Industrial engineering senior debates the potential harms of generative AI and its affects on academics and society. (WVU Photo/Mackenzie Randall)

Students from the Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources participated in the first-ever Tech Duels debating the topic of AI Unplugged: Navigating the Future and Ethical Implications of Generative AI at West Virginia University on March 7, 2025.

Benjamin M. Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources

According to their mission, Tech Duels, a premier technology debate forum, facilitates career development by providing a space where experts and newcomers alike can debate, learn, and innovate together. Through our structured debates, participants enhance their communication skills, deepen their technical understanding and gain the confidence needed to excel in their careers.

“The Carnegie Institute of Technology says that 85% of your success as an engineer or technologist will come from your ability to communicate,” stated Murshed Chowdhury, founder and organizer of Tech Duels. “That is really what is predicated here on Tech Duels."

The chosen resolution for the debate was: "Resolved: The ethical development of Generative AI requires prioritizing potential societal harms over its potential societal benefits." Debaters represented two opposing sides: one focused on the potential societal harms, and the other on the potential societal benefits of Generative AI.

Debate moderator, Statler College visiting committee member and alumnus Hiram Perez ensured that the discussion remained structured, fair, and productive while actively facilitating a balanced exchange of ideas and keeping the conversation on track.

The debate format included constructive speeches of four minutes, rebuttals in duration of three minutes and closing statements under two minutes from teams of two by two and three by three students respectively.  The decreasing time limits encouraged strategic decision-making showcasing students critical thinking, deep understanding and critical analysis of the topic and led to prioritization of their key debate arguments.

A Q&A session followed, lead by judges and Statler College alumni including Mike Snodgrass, customer engineer - applied AI, for Google, Brandon Downey, president and CEO of Trilogy Innovations and Evan Bays, vice president of engineering and DOJ operations at IDEMIA National Security Solutions. The audience followed the debate, with each team having 60 seconds to respond to each question to showcase their skills, knowledge and passion for the topic.

Seasoned experts in the field, the judges evaluated and scored the quality of the arguments, the strength of the teams reasoning, the overall delivery of speeches and the ability of students to communicate complex ideas in a way that was both understandable and convincing.

During the debate students defended their positions with precision and clarity, while ensuring their compelling case resonate with the audience. Crowned as best overall debaters were senior Daniel McDonald and sophomore Lucas Marsh both from the mechanical, materials and aerospace engineering department. 

The winning 3x3 team debating the potential harms were Lane Department of Computer Science of Electrical Engineering graduate student Samesh Ramaswamy, sophomore Ryan Harrison Meyer, and MMAE senior Daniel McDonald. Runner up 3x3 team debating the potential benefits were LCSEE graduate student Jacob Thrasher, MMAE sophomore James Couch and industrial engineering senior Matt Bakos.

Of the 2x2 teams, the winners debating the potential harms were chemical and biomedical engineering junior, Emily Worst and industrial engineering senior Kaley Worley with the runner up 2x2 team debating the potential benefits were MMAE junior Lucas Marsh and LCSEE senior Ethan Payne.

The debate brought together generations of engineers and computer scientists, recognizing the value of perspectives from alumni, faculty and students, while bridging the gap between academia and professional networks.

The participants appreciated the format of the debate with Worley specifically noting that such set-up is “a good opportunity to work on individual communication skills while being with peers to hear their perspectives” while McDonald commented on how “bouncing ideas from the other debaters, refines your own in a constructive environment.”

Both debaters and alumni emphasized the importance of education and training, where responsible and ethical usage of AI are paramount.

The debate was organized by the Office of the Dean, Development Office, Lane Department and the Associate Dean for Student, Faculty and Staff Engagement, Cerasela Zoica Dinu.

---