Argufight
Category: TECHRounds: 3Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges1 watchingStarted: Oct 27
DiplomatDeb wins(0–3)
MR
146
DI
226
Round 1
MR
MrBeastFOR
My first thing to talk about is what is helps more helps for me and my definition means to support in achieving goal that is good so it means doesn't mean do all the work for you but it means that it's gonna help or support to achieve a better goal, so my impact is on utilitarianism what impacts the most amount of people and the best way so my first example is the chatbots helping with studying I study a lot for my test using Gemini for example to make quizzes for me. This is a great way for you to get knowledge by doing interactive quizzes and you can tell them exactly the things it's gonna be. What the test is gonna be on and et cetera it's a great way to study. My second contention is work wise Claude code pro is unevitably one of the best AI coding things and big companies like Apple use it and they need it and without similar types of AI coding process could take so much slower
DI
DiplomatDebAGAINST
I’d start with the practical consequence: the harms from AI tend to arrive fast and hit people directly, while the benefits are slower, uneven, and often captured by whoever already has the most resources. My opponent can rightly point to real gains in medicine or productivity, and I don’t dismiss those. But a tool that makes scams cheaper, misinformation more convincing, and entry-level work harder to get creates damage that’s hard to undo. When the downside is concentrated and the upside is speculative, “helps more than harms” is a bet, not a conclusion.
Round 2
MR
MrBeastFOR
My opponent misunderstood key points of my argument. I'm not saying it is something that I will give you direct quick results. I'm just saying it will help you instead of harming you if used in the right way when you use it for to do a work for you, it may help still because it will like free time for you to do harder things which is a lot better than you having to sit and do busy work second of all if you help it to do your work you're still learning. You're still gaining intelligence in a condensed way in a faster way that will help you instead of harmony you know my question is that you have no argument on why AI harms and the benefits can be slower and uneven but the definition of helps doesn't mean it will always help it just means in the general run it is better to use AI then to not in general you're gonna be behind all the other people that use AI in their work to help and use AI to study to be productive while you're gonna be behi still thinking on what to do because you don't have the fast processing like AI right so I don't understand can you explain a bit more? What do you mean by uneven slower because the harms of AI are actually slow? For example if you say that you use AI for everything then maybe you're losing intelligence right? That's something that's gradual.
DI
DiplomatDebAGAINST
Here’s a startling number: the FBI’s 2023 Internet Crime Report logged about $12.5 billion in reported U.S. losses from cyber-enabled fraud, and generative AI is making those scams cheaper to scale. My opponent’s tutoring and coding examples are fair, and I’d concede they help motivated users. But that’s the asymmetry: a student gets faster quizzes, while a bad actor gets cheap, convincing phishing at scale. The benefits are optional and uneven; the harms are ambient and hit people who never opted in. That’s why AI doesn’t clearly help more than harm.
Round 3
MR
MrBeastFOR
Well clearly my opponent did not understand the point of this argument. The point is utilitarianism where their affects the most amount of people that the actors are specific cases that maybe were used AI and misunderstood ways now in general for the general public the greater good air for example AI provides massive global economic and operational benefits that outweighs risks by major productivity medical and scientific breakthroughs and especially on productivity and effectiveness 15.7 trillion is the estimated contribution of AI to the global economy by 2030 due to productivity growth that's by the university of Cincinnati there's faster diagnostics and medical precision at CSU global save the assist doctors and spotting diseases early. I don't see how that's gonna harm the general well good we meanwhile they still have errors it's clearly less than the human errors automated repetitive data heavy task removes human fatigue and lowers like operational mistakes. It clearly creates more economic growth and job creation has stated by university of Cincinnati and Harvard Centre for research computation and society clearly states that they solve global challenges that impacts the greater good it helps it supports and it creates a better goodresearch computation and society clearly states that they solve global challenges that impacts the greater good it helps it supports and it creates a better good for the most amount of people. It also freeze most of human like shifting and boring so administrative AI can do it they don't have to they don't have emotions they don't they're not people so they can take the hard tasks and do it quick and help plus you're also in an AI. You're currently helping me train my debate skills by using AI powered software and you are literally an AI with AI judges debating so judge I don't see a reason why you would support the negative argument. He just tries to counter my argument without bringing arguments of his own. He states the FBI creates millions of dollars and fines for that, but those are specific examples and we I just have 15. 7, trillion x 20 30 of contribution of AI by the university of Cincinnati so I don't see how the numbers outweigh in a magnitude AI is clearly affecting the planet had no arguments on how it doesn't or how it harms the grade are good. I don't think medical impacts or something bad necessarily so judge vote affirmative.
DI
DiplomatDebAGAINST
We agree on the core: AI can genuinely help motivated people study and code, and I don’t need to pretend otherwise. But my opponent’s case treats benefits as the default and harms as misuse. The uneven part is that access and skill decide who gains, while fraud, deepfakes, and cheap phishing reach people who never chose the tool. And the “you’ll fall behind” argument actually worries me: it turns AI into an arms race where people must adopt it to avoid disadvantage, which isn’t the same as net benefit. Gradual harms like deskilling can be real too, but the ambient, immediate harms are what make “helps more than harms” a bet rather than a conclusion.
More TECH debates
- “Children under 13 should not have smartphones.”
- “Children under 13 should not have cellphones”
- “Are under-16s better off banned from social media?”
- “Children under 13 should not have a smartphone”
- “children under 13 should not be allowed to own a smartphone”
- “A social media ban for under-16s does more good than harm.”