The Great PDT Debate was an activity completed in pairs, where we were given the opportunity to choose a classmate to work with and select a motion to debate from a list of design‑related topics. The motion my teammate and I chose was “Analogue is best: The use of technology limits creativity in the design process.” We were given several weeks to research the topic, develop our arguments, and practise our speaking points in preparation for the debate.
On the day, each pair was given a limited amount of time to present their arguments before an opposing pair had the opportunity to respond and rebut their points. This activity was particularly engaging, as it encouraged open discussion and allowed students to consider viewpoints on design issues that may not typically be explored in depth.
My teammate and I ultimately won our debate, with the result decided through an anonymous voting system. We presented three arguments each opposing the motion, focusing on how digital tools can enhance rather than restrict creativity. We discussed topics such as the ways digital software can expand design possibilities and the advantages of adopting hybrid workflows that combine both analogue and digital methods. Below are excerpts from two of our key arguments.
Argument One: Digital tools expand ideas beyond what is physically in front of the designer
Digital tools such as Blender and SolidWorks offer extensive possibilities in terms of material exploration, colour variation, and form development, all while adhering to real‑world constraints. These programs can identify structural or functional flaws that may not be immediately apparent through analogue methods alone. Additionally, digital software allows for animation and exploded views, which can accurately demonstrate movement, functionality, and internal components. This not only enhances the designer’s understanding of the product but also helps clients visualise how a design functions rather than judging it solely on aesthetic appeal.
Argument Two: Hybrid workflows prevent creative limitation
The use of digital tools to automate certain aspects of the design process should not be viewed negatively. Automating repetitive or technical tasks can significantly reduce frustration and save time, allowing designers to focus more fully on creative problem‑solving and conceptual development. By embracing a hybrid workflow that combines analogue and digital approaches, designers are not limiting themselves to one method but instead making full use of the tools available to them. This ultimately supports a more thoughtful and efficient design process, where greater time and care can be invested in creativity.
