Instigator / Pro
19
1500
rating
6
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#5571

The ability to use ChatGTP has ruined DebateArt

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
1
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

Socrates_had_a_baby
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
2,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1233
rating
403
debates
39.45%
won
Description

Now that just about anyone with a computer both has ChatGTP and uses ChatGTP on a regular basis the real art of debate is waning. Instead of people needing to think critically and do research about what they are going to say in reply to their opponent, they simply copy and paste their opponent's argument into artificial intelligence and ask it to create a reply for them. The result is that instead of two people arguing with each other, you have AI arguing with itself. But the real loss is that no one is actually learning anything!

The rules of this debate are simple, both the pro and con sides must mutually agree not to use ChatGTP at all in their debate. Of course, there is no way to truly regulate this, so it must be the honor system instead!

The Pro side will be arguing that AI is ruining the art of debate and that AI is making humanity stupid in general. And the con side will argue that using AI does not ruin debate, but it enhances it in some respect.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con 'clearly knew what Pro 'meant, and so do I imagine, do most voters.
If this were a Presidential debate, I wouldn't be swayed by one of the debaters saying NBA instead of NRA. Or by someone with an accent saying a word wrong, so long as I knew what they meant.
And Pro 'does give enough context clues in the description, for one to know what they meant.
Still, fair enough, Con can have Legibility, as it is one of the Criteria.

Pro keeps on the debate that I view as mattering more than going for the misplaced letter. So Arguments to Pro.

Conduct, tie, Con has a fair enough tactic, even if I don't care for it much.

Sources, Pro source didn't 'add much to debate, was more descriptive of Chat GPT, and talking about possible concerns.
I 'think sources matter more often as 'proof of statistics or events.
Yes sources said IQs dropping, but said that they've been doing that for a while.

I don't think Chat GPT is or has ruined DART,
I don't use it, and can ideally find others who don't,
Chat GPT just slight obstacle,
Doesn't stop people from learning, same as people don't 'have to use a mobility scooter. Unless they have health problems, but their existence doesn't mean people 'have to use them and lose muscles.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Giving legibility to con, as he made a strong case on that impacting the debate... And I indeed liked the unicorns vs horses analogy... However, as a voter I was not particularly moved by the existence of a minor typo (even in a key location). Plus there seemed to be no attempt to get it fixed prior to accepting the debate (rap vs rape as a debate example; granted good conduct isn't required, but if you're going to make a mountain out of an issue, the ability to say you tried to get it corrected helps).

Pro was also able to point out that any ambiguity in the setup was clarified in the description: "The Pro side will be arguing that AI is ruining the art of debate and that AI is making humanity stupid in general. And the con side will argue that using AI does not ruin debate, but it enhances it in some respect."

Pro also made points about diminished thought, and how the AI tools are just regurgitating existing thought rather than advancing the medium. This was all dropped for the hyper-focus on a typo.

So yes, arguments to pro, legibility to con (kinda as a style point or kudos points, since I did enjoy reading it, and they put their focus there)

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

a 179 day voting period is bad conduct and absolutely insane. Now when I filter for debates to vote on, I have to see this bullshit pop up for the next 6 months, so thanks. However this bad conduct is offset by best korea being a dick about the grammar. Ultimately pro actually made arguments to support his position that AI is ruining debate and despite the arguments being weak, con dropped them all so pro wins by default