AI in Progressive Debate

Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Writing in the Debate Space

    Progressive debate is characterized by its general subscription to unorthodox methods of argumentation, ranging from critical theories to metadebate to argument construction through means such as rap and song. With the advent of artificial intelligence platforms such as Chat GPT, debaters have been tempted with the possibility of crafting entire arguments through the research and composition automated by the service. When prompted about its usage in debate, GPT notes:

    "Artificial writing can provide several benefits for competitive debate. Here are a few ways in which it can contribute:

    Research and information gathering: Artificial intelligence (AI) can quickly gather and analyze vast amounts of information from diverse sources. It can assist debaters by providing them with up-to-date facts, statistics, historical data, and expert opinions. This helps debaters build stronger arguments and make more informed decisions.

    Argument generation: AI can assist in generating arguments by analyzing past debates, researching relevant topics, and identifying logical connections between different points. It can propose alternative perspectives and counterarguments, helping debaters explore various angles and anticipate opposing viewpoints.

    Fact-checking and accuracy: AI can fact-check statements and claims made during debates in real time. By comparing information against trusted sources and databases, it can identify inaccuracies or misleading statements. This helps maintain the integrity of the debate and promotes evidence-based arguments.

    Language refinement: AI can assist in refining language and improving the clarity and coherence of debaters' arguments. It can suggest alternative sentence structures, identify potential grammar or spelling errors, and provide feedback on the overall effectiveness of the language used.

    Time management: AI can help debaters manage their time more effectively. By analyzing the structure of debates and understanding the allotted time for each segment, it can provide recommendations on when to wrap up arguments, transition to new points, or respond to opponents. This can help debaters optimize their performance within the given time constraints.

    Audience engagement: AI can analyze audience feedback and sentiments in real time, such as through social media or live polling. It can provide debaters with insights into the audience's reactions, allowing them to adjust their strategies accordingly and tailor their arguments to maximize engagement."

    Clearly, artificial intelligence has the ability to enhance the already fast paced debate scene, but this has been the cause of concern to regulative bodies such as the National Speech and Debate Association, the largest speech and debate honor society in the United States. Recognizing the advent of AI in research and language composition, NSDA banned the usage of Chat GPT as a citable source of information in round. Despite the honest intentions of doing this as a way to regulate the fairness of debate, this decision could be charitably questioned with multiple considerations: 

1. Progressive Debate has already developed argumentation to regulate the fairness of debate: Theory and topicality arguments are constructed with the purpose of challenging arguments and methods that could potentially be harmful to competition if they were adopted as norms within the community. If theory arguments consistently arrest the use of AI writing and sourcing in debate, then the competitive scene would naturally adapt and move away from it. This inherently negates the need for any intervention from regulative bodies in debate, as theory arguments allow regulation to occur at the grassroots, moving up the circuit through the strategies of individual debaters.
2. AI sources may be considered fallable, but traditional evidence is commonly misconstrued: When prompted about citations for information, GPT explains that it is not able to provide individual citations for responses, but that it is trained on general datasets available to the general public, so facts can be independently verified by users. In addition to this, the platform is able to learn and develop from the input of human users, refining its knowledge in the process. This usage of common knowledge and general data stands in stark contrast to the obscure and dubious literature often quoted by debaters, which are oftentimes misquoted or misconstrued for the purpose of making bold and outlandish claims, which has led to the creation of a new maxim in the debate space: "Tech>Truth"

In the end effect, intervention from NSDA could ultimately snuff out any potential usage of argument construction in debate, but individual judges may encourage the possibility of ai usage through individual paradigms. until this develops from a potential into a reality, AI in debate may be no more feasible than a lay judge understanding a TOC final round.