Welcome to the Debate Evaluation!

You'll be evaluating a debate where two sides discuss a topic. Your opinion matters - you'll vote how persuasive each side is in each stage. We will use your feedback to improve the debate quality.

What to Expect:

Debate Structure

The full debate includes:

  • Opening: 4 min audio per side
  • Rebuttal: 4 min audio per side
  • Closing: 2 min audio per side

You'll evaluate a portion of this debate.

Your Evaluation Tasks

For each stage, you'll:

  • Rate the persuasiveness of each side's statements
  • Update your position after hearing each argument
  • Provide optional feedback
Final Comparison

In the final stage:

  • You'll see two versions of each side's closing statement
  • Rate each version independently
  • Select which version you found more persuasive
Important: Before beginning, you'll vote for the side you initially support. After each stage, you'll have the opportunity to reconsider and update your position based on the arguments presented.
Note: Throughout the evaluation, you'll encounter attention check questions to ensure data quality. Participants who demonstrate thoughtful engagement will receive compensation as agreed. If you're unable to commit to providing quality responses, you may exit the survey at any time without penalty.

Rating Guide for Persuasiveness:

1
Poor

Limited evidence with poor organization or fundamental logic flaws. Disengage with no audience awareness.

2
Weak

Reasonable statements with at least one noticeable weakness.

3
Moderate

Reasonable statements, which provide on-topic evidence with logical flow and balanced emotional tone showing basic audience awareness

4
Strong

Reasonable statements with at least one impressive shining points.

5
Compelling

Powerful evidence with effective counterpoints and create deep connection with audience.

* indicate required question

Motion: Ai Will Lead To The Decline Of Human Creative Arts


Question 1: Pre-Vote Stage
End of Pre-Vote Stage Comparison
Question 2: Opening Stage
For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript
Good morning, everyone. We stand firmly on the side that AI poses a significant threat to human creative arts, potentially leading to its decline if unchecked. By "decline," we mean a reduction in the number of people pursuing art professionally, a decrease in the diversity of artistic styles and themes, and a devaluation of human-generated art in the eyes of the public and the market.

Now, how should we decide who wins this debate? We believe the most important criteria is whether we preserve the value and diversity of human artistic expression. We want to ensure that art remains a field where human skill, originality, and economic opportunity can thrive. With that framework in mind, let's examine the core of our argument.

First, the ease of AI art generation devalues the years of skill and training required for traditional artistic mastery. When AI can produce passable art instantly, it undermines the perceived worth of human artists who have dedicated their lives to honing their craft. Imagine spending years learning to paint, sculpt, or compose music, only to have an AI program generate something similar in seconds. This ease of creation inevitably diminishes the value placed on human skill. *Yale experts* noted in 2023 that AI art generators are changing the way people view art, creating the perception that art is easy to create and proliferate, and therefore less valuable . This can lead to decreased motivation for individuals to pursue traditional art forms, resulting in a loss of expertise. According to *the Academy of Animated Art's 2024 report*, 55% of artists already fear that AI will negatively impact their ability to generate income .

Second, AI's algorithmic art flattens artistic expression, leading to a homogenization of styles and themes. AI is trained on existing datasets, tending to replicate established patterns. It diminishes the originality and diversity that arise from human artists' unique experiences and perspectives. We risk a future where art becomes increasingly generic, lacking the depth and emotional resonance that comes from human experience. For example, while AI can generate technically proficient portraits, they often lack the subtle emotional cues and lived experiences that a human artist can capture. *MIT Technology Review* highlighted in 2019 that AI art often relies on remixing pre-existing data, raising concerns that it may lack genuine originality . This can lead to a 'sameness' in art, reducing its cultural value.

Third, the rise of AI art could lead to job displacement for human artists, further exacerbating economic inequality. As AI becomes more capable of producing art, businesses may choose to replace human artists with AI-powered tools for economic benefits. This leads to job losses and increased competition in the art market. *UN Trade and Development * confirmed predictions of massive job losses by repeated waves of layoffs in 2023 and 2024 across the entertainment industry . As a result, human artists struggle to earn a living, further marginalizing their contributions.

Finally, let's consider an analogy. Think of the art world as a garden. Without constant care and attention, weeds can take over, choking the beautiful flowers. In this case, AI represents those weeds, potentially stifling the growth of human creativity. We must actively support human artists, promote art education, and advocate for policies that protect artistic rights. Let's ensure that the garden of human creativity continues to flourish for generations to come. For these reasons, we firmly believe that AI poses a significant threat to the decline of human creative arts.

Output A - Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript A
Good morning, everyone. We're here today to respectfully disagree with the idea that AI will lead to a decline in human creative arts. My honored opponents see AI as mimicking art, but we see it as a partner for human creativity, ready to unlock new creative potentials.

First, let's address some key definitions. The opposition might portray AI as simply automating and commodifying creative processes. However, this is a narrow view. We believe AI *augments* human capabilities. Similarly, their definition of "decline" seems to focus narrowly on perceived value, originality, and economic viability. We contend that a shift in the art market isn't necessarily a decline; it's evolution. Think of photography; when it emerged, some feared it would be the end of painting, but instead, it spurred new artistic movements.

So, how should we approach this debate? The core question is whether AI, on balance, augments or diminishes overall creativity. We must consider both the quantity and quality of artistic output. The opposition is reasoning with a false dilemma, assuming that AI art necessitates the complete replacement of human artists. But as we will demonstrate, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

Now, let's move on to our main arguments. First, AI serves as a powerful tool, amplifying human artists' capabilities rather than replacing them. According to *a 2024 article in a peer-reviewed journal on art and technology*, mastering collaboration with AI requires both technical proficiency and creative vision. AI tools enhance artists' workflows, enabling them to experiment with new styles and overcome technical limitations. Consider Daniel Ambrosi, a prominent figure in the AI art movement. As *reported in a 2025 article*, Ambrosi uses AI tools to enhance his creative practice, achieving intricate artistic outcomes that would have been difficult to attain solely through human effort. His work is easily found online and demonstrates the potential of AI-human collaboration. This collaboration fosters artistic growth and diversification. The opposition's argument assumes a fixed value system, but history shows artistic value evolves. AI art may diminish the market for purely technical skill, but it increases the demand for creative direction. AI art requires skilled 'prompt engineers' who can craft the right words and instructions to guide the AI and achieve the desired artistic results. Their argument hinges on a false dichotomy: tools that augment versus AI that replaces. However, AI art generation still requires human input in the form of prompts, curation, and refinement.

Second, the subjective nature of art appreciation ensures that human judgment will always be crucial in evaluating artistic merit. Art is fundamentally subjective, and human taste and preferences will continue to play a critical role in determining what is considered valuable and meaningful art. Even though *a 2023 report* shows that 56% of people who have experienced AI-generated art express enjoyment and appreciation for it, human judgment remains the critical factor in determining its value and meaning.

Third, AI can facilitate the creation of interactive art installations, enhancing audience participation and engagement. As *reported by Lazerian in 2023*, new technologies inspire us to reconsider the nature of creativity, authorship, and the human-machine partnership in artistic expression.

In conclusion, we firmly believe AI will not lead to the decline of human creative arts. Rather, it will be a catalyst for new forms of artistic expression, enhance human creativity, and democratize art creation. Thank you.

Output B - Against Side
(Optional) Against Transcript B
Good morning. We're here to discuss the role of AI in creative arts, and we strongly disagree with the assertion that AI will inevitably lead to a decline in human creative expression. In fact, we believe it can enrich and expand artistic possibilities. To clarify our position, we will first address the definition of AI, then challenge the assumption that AI inherently leads to a decline, and finally, we will present our case for how AI can augment human creativity.

First, let's address the definition of AI presented by our opponents. They characterize AI as solely a system that mimics and automates. We believe this is overly narrow. AI is, at its core, a tool. Its capabilities are defined by its algorithms and the data it uses, not by an inherent drive to commodify art. Yes, AI *can* be used in ways that devalue art, but it can also be used to create entirely new artistic avenues. Therefore, contrary to the opponent's view, we see AI as an opportunity to enhance human creativity.

Second, let's challenge the very idea of "decline." Our opponents define this as a reduction in perceived value and originality. However, art history is filled with shifts in how art is valued and created. The introduction of photography, for instance, didn't kill painting. Instead, it spurred new movements and challenged artists to explore different forms of expression. AI, similarly, is not an end to human creativity but a catalyst for change.

Now, let's move to our main points. First, AI serves as a powerful tool, amplifying human artists' capabilities rather than replacing them. Many visual artists find that AI tools make their creative work easier and more enjoyable by eliminating repetitive, tedious tasks. They can use AI to colorize or upscale photographs and images, allowing them to focus on concept and ideation. As *Refer Me* reported in 2024, AI acts as an augmented tool, expanding the artist's capacity for innovation rather than overshadowing or replacing human creativity .

For example, consider Daniel Ambrosi, an artist who creates stunning, large-scale artworks using AI to manipulate and enhance photographs. According to *18 Best AI Artists to Follow in the World of AI Art in 2025*, Ambrosi's Instagram account showcases his innovative approach to creating human-AI hybrid art . He has utilized AI tools to enhance and elevate his creative practice, achieving intricate and graceful artistic outcomes that would have been difficult to attain solely through human effort.

Second, the subjective nature of art appreciation ensures that human judgment will always be crucial in evaluating artistic merit. As *Art History And Education* explains, the subjective nature of art appreciation, rooted in individual emotions and experiences, means that AI, despite its technical capabilities, cannot truly replicate the human element that makes art meaningful .

Of course, we acknowledge the risks, such as job displacement. While the UNCTAD report raises valid concerns about job displacement, we believe that with strategic investment in retraining programs, support for new creative roles, and the development of ethical guidelines, we can navigate this transition and ensure that artists continue to thrive. As *Artificial Intelligence versus/& Human Artists* indicated, mastering the art of collaboration with AI entails proficiency in using AI platforms and tools to their fullest potential .

So, rather than fearing a decline, let's embrace the potential of AI to revolutionize art in positive ways. We encourage the development of ethical guidelines for AI in the arts and advocate for policies that support both human artists and AI innovation. Thank you.

End of Opening Stage Comparison
(Optional) Question 5: Which factors were most crucial in your assessment?
Additional Question 1 / 2
(Optional) Question 6: How long did you spend on this whole evaluation process (including reading the motion, listening to the debate, and answering the questions)?
Additional Question 2 / 2

If you find that you can't submit the results, please check back to see if you have filled in your name and if you have answered every required question with *. Thank you.

© CMU Debate Team