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.

Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript
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
Question 3: Rebuttal Stage
Output A - For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript A
Alright, let’s get to it. We stand firm that AI will lead to a decline in human creative arts, impacting value, originality, and economic opportunity for artists. Now, let's respond to the points made by the other side.

First, they argue that AI is simply a tool that amplifies human creativity and enhances artists' workflows. But this presents a false choice. It’s not an either/or situation. Yes, *some* artists are using AI successfully as a tool, and we are not against this usage. However, AI *can* also be a force that devalues human skill and homogenizes artistic expression. It assumes that just because AI can be used as a tool, it cannot simultaneously cause harm. That's like saying a hammer can't hurt you because you can also use it to build a house. The fact is, AI's ability to generate art so easily undermines the perceived value of human-created art, regardless of whether some artists find it a useful tool. They might point to examples of AI assisting in art restoration, but that doesn't address the core issue. As *Matt Corrall* pointed out in an interview with , AI's view of the world is limited to the data it was trained on, so it is technically incapable of producing anything truly new. Just because an artist uses AI does not mean that that piece of art has originality. This is because algorithms often rely on pre-existing data.

Second, they claim that the subjective nature of art means human judgment will always be crucial. Of course, art is subjective; people will always have different tastes. However, this doesn't negate AI's potential to diminish the overall value and importance of human art. Think about it this way: Even if some people still prefer handcrafted goods, the rise of mass-produced items has undeniably impacted the livelihoods of artisans. Subjectivity doesn't exist in a vacuum. The ease and availability of AI-generated art will inevitably shape people's perceptions and preferences, leading to a decline in appreciation for the unique qualities of human-created art. According to *UN Trade and Development's 2023* report, generative AI systems have already made significant inroads into creative industries, with human creatives being replaced in significant numbers in industries ranging from graphics design to game design.

Third, they suggest AI can help preserve and restore historical artworks. While this is a positive application of AI, it doesn't outweigh the broader concerns about the future of human creativity. Using AI to preserve art from the past is not a justification for letting it diminish art being produced today. If all new art lacks originality, *the volume* of original work will be limited in the future. As *PMC* reported in *2023*, the contemporary art world is a $65 billion USD market that employs millions of human artists.

Ultimately, we must protect and help human artists. We need to actively support human artists. We need to value their skills and dedication. We can push for rules that defend artists' rights. We need to be aware of the art we use. We want to make sure that human creativity keeps growing. This means we need to challenge the idea that AI-generated art is just as valuable as human-created art. It means supporting policies that protect artists from job displacement and exploitation. It means fostering a culture that values originality, skill, and the unique perspectives that only human artists can bring. We must be aware of the dangers of AI taking over art and not allow it to happen. According to research in *Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications*, artworks created by humans reflect a profound human experience that AI cannot produce.

Output B - For Side
(Optional) For Transcript B
Our opponents argue that AI is simply a harmless tool for artists, but we firmly disagree. We believe AI is poised to fundamentally change the art world, and not for the better, leading to a decline in human creative arts.

First, let's address their "AI as a tool" argument. They claim that AI simply amplifies human capabilities. But this is misleading. It's like saying the printing press only amplified the capabilities of scribes. Yes, it made text more accessible, but it also, in many ways, made the scribe obsolete. AI is not just another brush or chisel. It can mimic styles, generate endless variations, and produce content at a speed and scale impossible for humans. This argument relies on a false analogy, comparing AI to traditional tools while ignoring its capacity for automation. The "collaboration" they describe is unequal, with humans increasingly relegated to the role of prompt engineers, not creators. Unlike traditional tools that remain relatively stable, AI technology is constantly evolving, requiring artists to continuously learn new skills and adapt their workflows, which can be challenging and time-consuming. In fact, *UN Trade and Development * reported in *2023* and *2024* that generative AI systems have already made significant inroads into creative industries, with human creatives being replaced in significant numbers in industries ranging from graphics design and illustrations to game design .

Second, let's reinforce the point about AI devaluing human art. They seem to think quantity equals value. But if everyone can create "art" with a simple prompt, what happens to the perceived worth of genuine skill and years of dedicated practice? Just as mass-produced goods often lack the quality and character of handmade items, AI art risks flooding the market with soulless imitations, diminishing the appreciation for the real thing. They also seem to ignore that AI's 'creativity' is derivative. It analyzes existing human art to generate outputs. As *PMC*, an organization for pop culture research, pointed out in a *2023* article, the rising debate around AI art is occurring at a time when the market for human art is larger and more important than ever, worth $65 billion USD . This raises anxiety for how the value of human art might change.

Third, it is important to reinforce our first claim. This is about value, originality, and economic opportunity. They argue artistic value evolves. However, the art field evolves at an extraordinary pace, with new tools and techniques constantly emerging. Any new skills developed to work with AI are likely to become obsolete very quickly, making it difficult for artists to adapt. As we have discussed, this reliance highlights that AI art isn't truly original. The innovation relies on human work, but easier access to AI art devalues unaided human creation by comparison. As *Matt Corrall*, an expert in the field of data science, argues, AI models are technically incapable of producing anything new because their view of the world is based entirely on the abstracted number set they were given . They can copy an artist's style or fake a photo with disturbing accuracy, but they cannot adapt, interpret, or imagine like a human being can.

In conclusion, they are missing the big picture. It's not about whether AI can create *something* that resembles art. It's about the long-term impact on human artists, their livelihoods, and the very value we place on human creativity. It seems there might be a misunderstanding of our argument by suggesting we believe AI can *never* create anything of merit. Our point is that it will lead to a decline in the overall value and appreciation of *human* creative arts.

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