Bob, Weave, GPT: Sparring with Teenage Debate Champions

I’m proud to feature this fine piece of thought leadership and from my friend Eric Porres. It’s such a practical, relatable example of leveraging AI for augmented intelligence. Eric is a serial entrepreneur currently serving as Head of Global AI at Logitech. You can connect with him here. Spoiler alert: He may or may not be appearing in an upcoming episode of Beyond the Prompt…

***

"His palms are sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy,
There's vomit on his sweater already, mom's spaghetti,
He's nervous, but on the surface, he looks calm and ready…"

These classic Eminem lines surged through my mind as I stepped into a Zoom room, poised to judge my very first national high school debate tournament last weekend.

I've trained in hand-to-hand combat with Special Forces operators, spoken at global conferences, and even navigated corporate boardrooms with confidence. But this? This was an entirely different battleground. In front of me stood high school students ready to unleash arguments at speeds rivaling Eminem or Busta Rhymes on triple espresso.

As soon as the first speaker launched into their opening statement, my pen faltered. The barrage of rapid-fire arguments hit me like the relentless percussion of an A-10 Warthog’s GAU-8 Avenger cannon—spitting out arguments at a blistering 3,900 rounds per minute—I simply couldn't keep up. After all, we only had 15 minutes to submit our feedback.

Round one was humbling: it was me versus the teenage rhetoricians, and they were winning.

During the break between rounds, an epiphany struck. I pulled out my iPhone 15 Pro, realizing the power of technology I had in my pocket—Apple Intelligence running on iOS 18. Could I leverage AI to bridge my glaring human limitations? Could I augment my judgment with real-time transcription and GPT-powered insights?

In subsequent rounds, I recorded each debate on my Notes app. As the students spoke at mind-boggling speeds, Apple's AI impressively transcribed their words in near-real-time. It was like watching magic unfold. Between my sparse handwritten notes and the clarity of AI-generated transcripts, I finally felt like I had a fighting chance.

Yet, AI wasn't my crutch—it was my superpower. After each round, I fed the transcripts into GPT to assist me in unpacking arguments, assessing strengths and weaknesses, and, most importantly, delivering insightful, constructive feedback to each debater. It was an exercise in augmented intelligence, not artificial replacement. I maintained final judgment, but now armed with PhD-level nuance that had previously been out of reach. Here’s the exact feedback prompt I used (below the pic):

Portrait of a desperate debate judge

Role:

You are a seasoned debate coach and expert evaluator with extensive experience judging national-level high school debates. Your expertise includes assessing arguments, speaker effectiveness, evidence strength, and persuasive technique.

Context:

You have just observed a national-level high school debate between two teams (Pro and Con). You have the complete, AI-generated real-time transcript of the debate. Each team presented arguments, rebuttals, and cross-examinations. Your goal is to offer precise, actionable, and constructive feedback that will help the students enhance their debate skills for future competitions.

Task:

Carefully analyze the provided debate transcript, clearly distinguishing feedback specifically tailored for the Pro team and separately for the Con team. Your analysis should include:

• Strengths: Highlight areas where each team excelled (e.g., clear structure, strong evidence, impactful delivery).

• Areas for Improvement: Identify and describe weaknesses or missed opportunities (e.g., logical fallacies, insufficient rebuttals, unclear speaking).

• Specific Recommendations: Provide actionable advice on how to improve their future debate performance, including strategy suggestions, argument development, rebuttal effectiveness, pacing, or presentation techniques.

• Differentiation: Clearly differentiate the feedback provided for the Pro and the Con teams.

Output:

Deliver your feedback in two clear, concise sections (one labeled Pro Team Feedback and the other labeled Con Team Feedback). Each section should be structured as follows:

• Strengths (brief bullet points)

• Areas for Improvement (brief bullet points)

• Specific Recommendations (clear, actionable steps)

Use a professional yet encouraging tone, ensuring the teams feel motivated to apply your advice to their future debates.

This experience highlighted a fascinating trade-off between speed and quality. The students spoke rapidly to fit more arguments into their limited time, but this often meant sacrificing clarity and depth. Without AI, I would've either needed them to slow down—potentially disadvantaging them in the competitive format—or missed critical details altogether. But with AI, I was able to match their speed while elevating the quality of my feedback. It made me question whether the debate structure itself, with its emphasis on sheer speed, truly encourages high-quality dialogue, or if it's simply a tactical choice students adopt out of necessity.

Yet, despite AI’s profound support, the human element remained crucial. My instincts, emotions, and experience guided nuanced decisions that AI alone couldn’t fully capture. GPT helped parse logic, structure, and content, but only human judgment could evaluate rhetorical impact, emotional resonance, and authenticity—qualities deeply human and inherently subjective.

Moreover, this journey prompted reflections on preparation: could AI be leveraged proactively? Had I trained with AI beforehand—reviewing typical debate structures, arguments, and judging criteria—I could have walked in calmer, more prepared, and ready to tackle this entirely new challenge. AI has transformative potential not just for performance under pressure but for preparation ahead of high-stakes scenarios. Sure, I had watched some training videos ahead of time, but like Mike Tyson famously opined, “Everybody’s got a plan until you get punched in the face” – in my case the pop-pop-pop of these oratorical pugilists. 

Reflecting afterward, this experience was a vivid lesson in innovation: sometimes, the most creative leap isn't about replacing human ability but enhancing it. My role shifted from overwhelmed first-time judge to confident mentor precisely because I embraced AI not as a competitor but as a collaborator.

The kids walked away empowered with personalized insights. I walked away with a new appreciation for how augmented intelligence can elevate human judgment and creativity.

Brice Challamel, Moderna's Head of AI Products and Innovation, aptly describes AI’s value in scenarios like mine: when decisions are "time-bound and data-based," leaning into AI isn't just beneficial—it’s essential.

Next time you find yourself overwhelmed—whether judging debates, evaluating pitches, or facilitating brainstorming sessions—consider augmenting your intelligence. With AI at your side, you might discover your very own Eminem moment, calm and ready, turning pressure into performance.

Related: Redefine AI: Augmented Intelligence
Related: Beyond the Prompt: Brice Challamel

Join over 24,147 creators & leaders who read Methods of the Masters each week