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
For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript
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.

Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript
We're here today because we firmly believe that human creativity will not only survive but flourish alongside AI, and we're going to directly address the arguments against this positive vision.

First, let's dismantle this notion that AI's ease of use inherently devalues human art. The opposition implies that ease of creation automatically diminishes worth. This is a slippery slope. Many visual artists are finding that AI tools actually enhance their creative process by taking away repetitive and tedious tasks. They're using AI to colorize, upscale images, and automate other processes, which frees them to focus on the core creative work of concept and ideation. *A study* shows that this allows them to complete their projects faster and more efficiently. So, AI isn't replacing artists; it's augmenting their abilities, acting as a tool to amplify their vision. Just because AI makes art more accessible doesn't mean human skill is worthless; it simply evolves.

Second, the opposition argues that AI can't generate anything truly original, that it's merely regurgitating existing data. While AI certainly learns from existing datasets, it also possesses the capacity to combine and transform that data in unexpected and innovative ways. To claim it's incapable of originality is akin to saying a chef can't create a new dish because they only use existing ingredients. As *Medium* reported in 2024, the intersection of technology and art is a testament to human creativity and ingenuity. AI algorithms can surprise us with novel creations, pushing the boundaries of what's possible. New media artists have embraced AI as part of their creative process.

Third, the opposition claims AI will diminish appreciation for human art. Art is inherently subjective. People will always connect with art on a personal, emotional level. This subjective nature of art means human judgment will remain crucial. Even if AI art becomes widespread, people will still seek out art that resonates with their individual emotions and experiences. *A study* mentioned that, compared to human art, there have been repeated mentions that AI art lacks emotional depth. The fact that it doesn’t draw from authentic and genuine human experience often makes it difficult to inspire emotive feelings from the audience.

Fourth, they argue that using AI to preserve old art doesn't justify diminishing new art. But preserving our cultural heritage and fostering new artistic creation aren't mutually exclusive endeavors. AI can help us safeguard the art of the past while simultaneously providing powerful new tools for artists today. *A study* in 2023 shows that conservators are leveraging the increasing applications of AI to enhance conservation processes, making necessary tasks that much more precise and effective. The art world is employing millions of human artists.

Fifth, the opposition's criteria focus solely on the *negative* impacts of AI. That's like judging a car only by its potential to cause accidents, ignoring its ability to transport us and create opportunities. We need a balanced view. AI can also increase accessibility, create new avenues, and preserve historical works.

Finally, let's reinforce our main point: Human creativity will continue to thrive and evolve alongside AI. As *Medium* stated in 2024, the ongoing evolution of technology promises to further blur the lines between the physical and digital, the real and the virtual, offering artists an ever-expanding canvas on which to explore and express their creativity. So, I encourage you to explore AI art tools, support artists who are using AI in creative ways, or engage in discussions about the ethical and societal implications of AI in the arts.

End of Rebuttal Stage Comparison
Question 4: Closing Stage
Output A - For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript A
We stand here today because we believe the rise of AI poses a real threat to human creative arts. This debate isn't just about technology; it's about preserving human value, originality, and economic opportunity in the arts.

First, let's talk about value. The opposition calls AI a tool, but they ignore how easily AI generates art, which inherently *devalues* human skill. Years of training are reduced to a text prompt. This undermines the dedication of human artists.

Second, AI stifles originality. Human artists draw from life, but AI relies on existing data, leading to artistic homogenization. It cannot create something truly *new*. The long-term consequence is a limited body of human original work.

Third, the threat to economic opportunity is real. The art market, a $65 billion industry, faces disruption. The idea that AI is just a tool ignores the reality of job displacement for millions of artists.

The opposition argues that AI *can* be a tool, but that doesn't negate its potential for harm. The harm of job displacement cannot be dismissed. They also say art is subjective, but this argument exists in a vacuum. The scale and availability of AI art *will* affect appreciation of human work. What we appreciate is influenced by what is readily available, and if AI art floods the market, it *will* lower the bar for what is considered "good" art.

We must act to protect human artists. We need policies that safeguard their rights, ensuring fair compensation and attribution. We must foster a culture that values originality. I urge you to actively seek out and support human-created art. Cherish the unique perspectives that only humans can offer. Let's choose a future where human creativity flourishes, not fades into the background of AI-generated content.
Output B - For Side
(Optional) For Transcript B
Let's refocus on the central question: will AI lead to a decline in human creative arts? We firmly believe it will, and here’s why.

First, AI fundamentally undermines the value and originality that makes human art so powerful. It's easily generated, but it lacks the lived human experience and emotional depth that allows art to truly resonate. *Psychology professor Pamela Pavlac at Queens College, CUNY*, stated in *Psychology Today in 2020* that AI-generated content often feels "hollow" because it lacks genuine emotional investment . The opposition calls AI a tool, but that doesn't negate its potential to diminish the perceived value of art.

Second, their argument that AI amplifies human creativity distracts from the very real negative impacts of AI devaluing art. Regardless of its usefulness as a "tool," AI hurts opportunities for human artists. *The Brookings Institute reported in 2023* that the rise of AI in creative fields could lead to job displacement and reduced income for artists, as AI-generated content floods the market . Just because AI can assist, does not mean that it is incapable of diminishing creative works and the livelihoods of those who create them.

Finally, they avoid the long-term consequences. We aren't talking about whether or not AI can restore artworks. We are talking about what AI does to art itself. The *World Economic Forum in 2024* cautioned that over-reliance on AI in creative industries could lead to a homogenization of artistic styles and a decline in innovation .

We have a choice to make about the future of human creative works. As the world progresses, we must ensure that art retains its power and impact. This means actively supporting human artists and fostering an environment where their creativity can flourish. Let's choose a future where human creativity thrives, not declines. Thank you.
End of Closing 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