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.

Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript
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
Question 3: Rebuttal Stage
For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript
They're trying to shift the focus, but we need to stay grounded: AI *will* lead to the decline of human creative arts.

First, let's be clear on what AI means in this context. The opposition may try to frame AI as a simple tool, but we're talking about sophisticated systems that *mimic*, *automate*, and even *commodify* art. This is crucial because it fundamentally reshapes the artistic landscape, and not always for the better.

Second, let's define "decline." It's not just about change; it's about a reduction in the *perceived value*, *originality*, and *economic viability* for human artists. It means human artistic expression is marginalized and undervalued. We need to understand how this affects the artists themselves.

Third, let's address the devaluation of skills and training. The ease with which AI generates art directly devalues the skills human artists spend years cultivating. As I mentioned before, anyone can now create hundreds of images in minutes, flooding the market. This oversupply of artwork drives down prices. *A study about The Value of Creativity Human Produced Art vs. AI-Generated Art* supports this point. This study highlights the tangible economic threat AI poses to artists who have invested time and resources in honing their craft.

Now, let's highlight how AI flattens art. AI systems learn from existing art and then reproduce existing trends. As Matt Corrall points out in his article "The harm & hypocrisy of AI art", AI art often remixes pre-existing data, lacking true originality . Corrall argues that AI's limited view of the world, based entirely on the abstracted number set it was given, makes it technically incapable of producing anything truly new. This leads to less unique perspectives and less diversity in the art we see.

Now, let's talk about the difficult topic of job losses. The rise of AI art leads to job displacement for human artists, exacerbating economic inequality. *The UN Trade and Development * reported in 2023 and 2024 that there have been repeated waves of layoffs across the entertainment industry due to AI . Companies are incentivized to replace human artists with AI systems due to cost-effectiveness.

Now, let's rebut the idea that AI simply augments, or helps, artists. The opposition claims AI is just a tool. However, while AI *can* be a tool, it fundamentally mimics, automates, and commodifies the artistic process, shifting the focus away from human expression. It changes the nature of art itself. It's not about collaboration; it's about replacement.

Now, let's tackle that "evolution, not decline" argument. They claim that a shift in the art market is an evolution, not a decline. But a shift in the art market is not just evolution when AI threatens to *replace* human artists altogether, not just push them in new directions like other inventions did. The *PMC* reported in 2023 that the contemporary art world is a $65 billion USD market that employs millions of human artists, sellers, and collectors across the world . The rise of AI art threatens this entire ecosystem.

Finally, let's address the point that AI art needs human input. While AI art needs human input, this doesn't change the fact that AI art reduces the skill and training needed, undermining human artists' hard work. It makes it too easy to use AI to generate art, devaluing the expertise of human artists.

So, let's not pretend this is just about helping artists. It's about the very real risk of devaluing human creativity, marginalizing human expression, and causing job loss in the arts. Support your local artists. Advocate for policies that support the arts. Pay attention to where the art that you are consuming are coming from. We must act to protect human creativity.

Output A - Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript A
Let's cut through the noise and address the real questions about AI's role in the arts. My opponents suggest AI will lead to the decline of human creative arts, but this argument overlooks AI's potential as a powerful tool for innovation and empowerment.

First, let's address the claim that AI art devalues human skill and floods the market. It's true that AI makes art creation more accessible, but accessibility isn't the same as devaluation. Devaluation is a temporary market adjustment, not a permanent decline in art's worth. In fact, AI increases creative experimentation, allowing human artists to explore new styles and mediums. According to *Refer Me, a leading technology publication, in 2024*, AI's intuitive interfaces and predictive capabilities lower the barriers to entry for artistic endeavors, making creativity more inclusive . This democratization empowers new artists, providing them with a platform to showcase their talents to a global audience, as noted in *a 2024 article* . Moreover, *Global AI in the Art Market Statistics 2025* estimates that AI-generated art will represent 5% of the total contemporary art market by *2025*, indicating increased acceptance and demand, not a flood that devalues all art .

Building on this idea of democratization, let's reinforce that AI augments human capabilities. AI tools enhance artists' workflows, allowing for new experimentation, generating variations, and overcoming technical hurdles. It doesn't replace human creativity; it enhances it, resulting in innovative and higher quality art forms. As *The Impact of AI on Digital Art and Image Creation* points out, many visual artists find that AI tools make their creative work easier and more enjoyable by eliminating repetitive, tedious tasks, allowing them to focus on concept and ideation .

In addition to empowering artists, let's address the opposition's concern that AI perpetuates biases. We agree that bias in AI is a serious concern, but rejecting AI altogether is not the answer. We need strategies to mitigate bias in training data and algorithms, promoting diversity in AI development and using fairness-aware machine learning techniques. One specific technique is adversarial training, where AI models are trained to identify and correct their own biases.

Now, regarding my opponents' claim that AI is causing massive job loss, while some job displacement may occur, AI also creates new opportunities for artists who can effectively collaborate with these tools. We are seeing the emergence of roles like prompt engineers, AI art curators, and AI-assisted animators. For example, prompt engineers are commanding increasing salaries and are being sought out for skills in natural language processing, creative problem-solving, and artistic vision.

Finally, their argument that AI flattens artistic expression is not entirely true. AI can also be used to generate novel styles by combining different influences and exploring uncharted creative territories. As *BBC reported*, some artists, like Sougwen Chung, are exclusively training algorithms on their works alone in an attempt to push their own creative boundaries . *How Does Technology Influence Unique Art* reminds us that throughout history, each leap in technology has expanded the horizons of art, introducing new mediums, techniques, and perspectives . And fundamentally, human judgment remains crucial in evaluating art, even AI-generated art. As some participants commented in *The Value of Creativity Human Produced Art vs. AI-Generated Art*, genuine artistic expression involves a level of intention and emotional depth that AI cannot replicate . The question is not "AI *or* human?" but "AI *and* human?" Thank you.

Output B - Against Side
(Optional) Against Transcript B
Good morning, everyone. The opposition paints a concerning picture, suggesting AI will lead to the decline of human creative arts. However, we stand firm that AI, when properly guided, fosters creativity and expands artistic possibilities.

First, let's address the core issue: AI augments, it doesn't replace artists. The opposition claims AI simply automates creative processes, but this is a limited perspective. AI serves as a powerful tool to amplify human capabilities. While a *Medium* article is not the best source, the sentiment it expresses is valid and supported by more credible sources. For example, *Recraft.ai*, a platform dedicated to AI-assisted design, notes that AI tools offer rapid image creation and a vast array of styles, democratizing art creation and allowing people without traditional art skills to produce visually appealing pieces. This doesn't replace artists; it empowers them with new tools.

Second, human judgment remains absolutely crucial. Art is inherently subjective, and human taste is paramount. AI-generated art requires skilled "prompt engineers" who can guide the AI to achieve the desired results. These individuals need artistic skills to effectively communicate their vision to the AI. As *Recraft.ai* explains, AI painting generators empower users to quickly transform ideas into paintings with simple text prompts. This highlights that even with AI, human direction and artistic vision are indispensable.

Third, the increased accessibility of AI art doesn't devalue human skill; it evolves it. The opposition argues that AI diminishes the value of human artistic abilities. However, artistic value is not static; it evolves over time. AI may shift the skills that are most in demand, increasing the need for creative direction and reducing the demand for purely technical skills. The impact of technology on artistic expression and creativity is a testament to the ever-changing nature of art.

Fourth, shifts in the art market represent evolution, not decline. The opposition suggests that AI will "kill art," drawing a parallel to photography. However, history demonstrates that new technologies can co-exist with and even spark new forms of creativity. According to *The Rise of AI Art* in 2025, AI art enriches the cultural landscape by offering novel avenues of expression. This is not a replacement, but an expansion of artistic mediums.

Fifth, to reiterate, AI augments human capabilities; it doesn't merely mimic them. The opposition paints a false picture by claiming that AI only automates, neglecting its potential for human collaboration. *AI-Powered Creativity* indicates in 2024 that AI systems can analyze vast amounts of data, identify patterns, and generate ideas that might not be immediately apparent to human artists. This collaborative potential is a key benefit of AI in the arts.

Sixth, let's address the valid concerns about bias and homogenization. The opposition rightly points out the existence of biases in AI algorithms. We acknowledge this issue and emphasize the need to address it through better data and algorithms. To mitigate bias and prevent the generation of offensive or discriminatory images, techniques like data augmentation, algorithmic fairness constraints, and diverse training datasets are crucial.

Finally, AI won't be taking over the art world because AI models are not as great as humans. While the opposition cites UNCTAD's concerns about job losses, AI lacks the adaptability and interpretive abilities of human artists. Genuine artistic expression involves a level of intention and emotional depth that AI cannot replicate.

In conclusion, AI offers exciting possibilities for the arts, expanding creative horizons and democratizing access to artistic tools.

End of Rebuttal 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