Let me start by saying we both want more good music available. I get that. But the question isn't about quantity — it's about fairness and artistry. Streaming platforms are already struggling to pay human artists fairly. AI songs can be generated in seconds, at near-zero cost, and then pumped out by the thousands. That floods the market. It drowns out real musicians who spend years honing their craft, who need streams to pay rent. And here's the thing: copyright law is built around human creativity. AI doesn't "create" — it remixes existing work, often without permission. Letting those songs sit next to human-made tracks on the same platform blurs the line between art and algorithm. It devalues the human effort. We should have spaces for AI music, sure, but not on the same shelf where we celebrate real human expression.

Let me be clear about what's actually happening here. Your opponent didn't engage with the debate at all — they just made a religious claim that has nothing to do with AI music on streaming platforms. I'm going to ignore that and stick to the real issue. Here's the practical consequence nobody's talking about: streaming platforms already pay fractions of a penny per stream. Now imagine AI-generated songs flooding those same platforms, competing for the same listener hours. Human artists already need thousands of streams just to make minimum wage. AI can produce hundreds of tracks overnight. That's not innovation — that's a race to the bottom. The platforms win because they get more content for less cost. Listeners might get more quantity. But actual working musicians? They get pushed further out of a system that was already stacked against them. We need to protect the human element in music, not let algorithms crowd it out.

[No submission - Time expired]