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
We're here today to address a crucial question: will AI lead to the decline of human creative arts? To ensure we're on the same page, let's define what we mean. We're not talking about minor ups and downs in the art market. We're arguing that AI, through its increasing ability to mimic, automate, and commodify creative work, will fundamentally reduce the perceived value, originality, and economic viability of human-created art across all mediums. This will result in a cultural shift where human artistic expression is marginalized and undervalued. Our concern is the long-term impact on how we perceive, create, and support art.

To properly evaluate this, we propose the most important criteria is whether AI negatively impacts the value, originality, and economic opportunity for human artists in the long run. By "value," we mean the perceived worth of art in society. By "economic opportunity," we mean the ability of artists to make a living. Are we fostering a world where human creativity is cherished and supported, or one where it's increasingly overshadowed by algorithms?

First, let's consider the value of human art. The ease with which AI can generate art devalues the years of dedicated skill and training required for traditional artistic mastery. As *researchers at the University of Oxford* noted in their 2023 study on the impact of AI on creative industries, the act of AI replicating a skilled artist’s work creates the perception that art is easy to create and proliferate, and therefore less valuable. Imagine someone typing a simple prompt and instantly generating an image that mimics the style of a master painter. This ease of creation cheapens the perceived value of human artistic skill, making it harder to appreciate the dedication and effort that goes into creating art by hand.

Second, let's examine originality. AI’s algorithmic approach to art flattens artistic expression, leading to a homogenization of styles and themes. Diversity and originality are vital to a thriving art scene. AI art, in this sense, is like a library where every book is written using the same set of phrases. While technically impressive, the result is a lack of unique voices and perspectives. Just as a garden needs diverse plants to flourish, the art world needs a variety of styles and approaches to truly thrive. According to *MIT Technology Review in 2019*, AI art often relies on remixing pre-existing data, prompting concerns that it may lack genuine originality. This ultimately leads to a less vibrant and engaging cultural landscape.

Third, let's address economic opportunity. The rise of AI art poses a significant threat of job displacement for human artists, further exacerbating economic inequality within the creative sector. If companies can leverage AI to create art for commercial purposes, they are less likely to hire human artists. *Statista's 2024 AI Art Statistics* reports that 55% of artists believe that AI will negatively impact their ability to generate income. This could lead to a decline in income and opportunities for artists, making it even harder for them to pursue their passion.

In conclusion, we firmly believe that AI poses a significant threat to the future of human creative arts by devaluing skills, homogenizing styles, and threatening jobs. Therefore, we must act. I urge you to support human artists by actively seeking out and valuing their work, advocating for policies that protect artists' rights, and being mindful of the art you consume. Let's ensure a future where human creativity continues to flourish.

Output A - Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript A
We appreciate the opposition clearly laying out their concerns today. To ensure we're all on the same page, let's acknowledge their definition. However, one important clarification: the presence of AI in the human creative arts does not automatically mean a decline. The evolution and development of any industry involves adaptation, and ultimately, a shift in how things operate. It's not necessarily a downward spiral.

Now, let's talk about how we should judge this situation. Focusing solely on economic opportunity for artists, while important, gives us an incomplete view. Are we really saying that any change to the artistic landscape that doesn’t guarantee the exact same income streams is automatically a bad thing? History teaches us that art evolves. New mediums emerge, challenging old norms and creating space for new forms of expression. This evolution is a value in itself, and we should consider it when evaluating AI's role in the arts.

Let's directly address the arguments presented. First, the claim that AI devalues human art. This argument echoes concerns from the past. Think about the history of photography. When photography emerged, many painters feared it would be the end of their art form. But what happened? Photography became its own art, and painting evolved. AI will likely do the same for art. It's a tool that expands what’s possible, allowing artists to create in new ways and reaching new audiences. Instead of decreasing the value, it can increase it by augmenting human capabilities.

Second, the argument about originality. The opposition suggests AI art lacks true originality because it remixes existing data. But so do human artists! Inspiration often comes from existing works. Moreover, AI can be a tool to *enhance* originality. For example, artists are experimenting with combining styles that a human artist might never juxtapose. Some artists, such as Sougwen Chung, are even exclusively training algorithms on their own works in an attempt to push their own creative boundaries, as reported by the *BBC*.

Third, the concern about economic opportunity. Yes, some jobs may change, but new opportunities will also emerge. Think about the rise of digital art and design. It created entirely new career paths for artists. AI will likely do the same, creating new roles. We're already seeing the emergence of roles like AI prompt engineers, AI art curators, and developers of AI art tools. While some artists initially express concern, as the Statista poll highlights, history shows adaptation often leads to new avenues for success. The rise of digital art, initially met with similar anxieties, ultimately created entirely new career paths. As the article "Artificial Intelligence versus/& Human Artists: AI as a Creative..." mentions, mastering the art of collaboration with AI entails proficiency in using AI platforms and tools to their fullest potential. This *2024* article highlights that artists need to develop skills in using AI platforms, fine-tuning parameters, and editing AI-generated content.

Ultimately, fearing AI's impact on art is like fearing the invention of the printing press would destroy oral storytelling. It changed things, yes, but it also opened doors to wider access, new forms of storytelling, and ultimately, a richer cultural landscape. Let's support initiatives that help artists learn and adapt to AI tools, and explore the exciting possibilities of AI-assisted art. Let's embrace the evolution and work to ensure a future where human creativity and AI can thrive together.

Output B - Against Side
(Optional) Against Transcript B
We appreciate the opponent laying out their stance on this complex issue. To avoid getting bogged down in semantics, let’s clarify one point. When we say AI will *not* lead to the decline of human creative arts, we are not saying there will be no changes or challenges. Rather, we are stating that human creativity will continue to thrive, evolve, and find new avenues for expression, even with the rise of AI.

Now, about the judging criteria. For the sake of argument, we concede that the debate should be evaluated based on AI's long-term impact on the value, originality, and economic opportunity for human artists. However, we believe that focusing solely on negative impacts presents a skewed picture.

With this out of the way, we want to propose three arguments. First, AI serves as a powerful tool, amplifying human artists' capabilities rather than replacing them. AI tools enhance artists' workflows, enabling them to experiment with new styles, generate variations, and overcome technical limitations. This collaboration fosters artistic growth and diversification. The opponent's 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. The AI is a tool that artists can use to explore new creative avenues. AI acts as an augmented tool, expanding the artist's capacity for innovation rather than overshadowing human creativity. This collaboration sparks a debate surrounding the essence of creativity and originality. The opponent's argument assumes a fixed value system, but history shows artistic value evolves. Photography didn't destroy painting; it spurred new movements. AI art may diminish the market for purely technical skill, but it increases the demand for creative direction. In fact, mastering the art of collaboration with AI requires a multifaceted skill set encompassing some level of technical proficiency and creative vision. Furthermore, artists are already using AI to enhance their creative process.

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. As *Art History And Education* explains, each viewer interprets a painting through their own emotions, experiences, and memories. This personal connection is what makes traditional painted art such a powerful emotional medium.

Third, AI can help preserve and restore historical artworks, ensuring their accessibility for future generations. AI-powered tools can analyze and reconstruct damaged or fragmented artworks, allowing for accurate digital restoration and wider dissemination of cultural heritage. As *Ultralytics* reported in 2024, AI is reshaping the restoration and conservation of artworks by employing new technologies such as computer vision and machine learning. These tools can enhance the precision and effectiveness of preserving cultural artifacts. This also allows artists to learn from and build upon the traditions of the past, fostering new forms of creative expression.

Finally, the opponent claims that AI will devalue, flatten, and threaten jobs in the art world. We believe this paints an incomplete picture. Their argument assumes quantity equates to impact, ignoring the enduring power of human-created art to resonate on a deeper, more meaningful level. The opponent also presents a false dilemma by assuming that AI art necessitates the complete replacement of human artists. In fact, AI is breaking down barriers by making art creation more accessible and affordable.

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