We must support this motion because utilizing artificial intelligence to complete the unfinished works of deceased creators is not an act of desecration, but the ultimate act of cultural preservation. For centuries, humanity has faced the tragic reality of incomplete genius—masterpieces left frozen in time due to sudden illness, war, or unexpected death. Historically, we relied on human apprentices or editors to guess at a master's intent, a process prone to heavy bias and error. Today, AI allows us to move past mere guesswork. By analyzing an artist's lifetime body of work, sophisticated algorithms can identify structural patterns, brushstroke vectors, or harmonic progressions with mathematical precision. This technology acts as a flawless digital assistant, executing the final vision exactly as the creator's own habits dictate. When we deny studios the use of these tools, we sentence invaluable cultural fragments to rot in museum vaults, permanently silencing voices that still had stories to tell.Furthermore, this practice operates under strict legal and ethical guardrails that protect the artist's legacy. This is not a lawless corporate free-for-all; these projects are initiated and strictly supervised by the deceased artists' estates and surviving families. It gives loved ones and legal guardians the agency to fulfill a creator’s unreleased dreams while ensuring that profits route back to the rightful heirs. We must remember that every transformative artistic tool—from the invention of photography to digital editing software—was initially feared as the death of "true" art. Yet, history shows that technology expands our cultural horizon rather than shrinking it. By voting in favor of this motion, you are voting to rescue lost heritage, honor the intent of the deceased, and allow modern technology to build a bridge that keeps timeless genius alive for generations to come.

The opposition brings up the digital recreation of Peter Cushing in Rogue One, calling it a "ghost" and claiming that when an artist is gone, their work should remain untouched. However, this argument ignores the critical reality of how that project actually happened, as well as the profound artistic philosophy behind it. Peter Cushing’s likeness was not stolen by a faceless machine; it was brought to life through a deeply respectful collaboration with the executors of his official estate. His longtime friend and former administrative assistant, Joyce Broughton, managed his estate and explicitly gave full permission because she knew it was a tribute to his legendary contribution to the Star Wars franchise. Furthermore, the performance was not just "guessed at" by an algorithm. A living, breathing human actor, Guy Henry, stood on set, delivered the lines, and provided the emotional foundation, while visual effects artists used digital tools to map Cushing's features over him. This was a masterclass in human-led craftsmanship using technology as a brush, not a machine replacing a soul.To demand that an artist's unfinished work remain completely frozen in time is to trap their legacy in ice. When an actor or artist signs on to a massive, collaborative universe like Star Wars, they are contributing to a living mythology that is meant to outlast them. Denying studios the right to use AI to bridge these narrative gaps does not protect the artist; it diminishes the weight of the character they spent their life building. Moreover, from a purely practical and economic standpoint, keeping these legacies active provides vital financial security to the surviving families and heirs who inherit these estates. The royalties generated from these digital completions fund the real-world descendants of the creators. To vote against this motion is to argue that it is better to break the immersion of a story and financially starve an artist's estate, all for the sake of a rigid, romanticized view of death that the artists' own families do not share. Thank you.

The opposition argues that because a machine cannot truly "know" what a deceased artist wanted, any AI completion is merely a "fake version" that ruins a window into their creative process. This argument relies on a deeply flawed assumption: that prior to the invention of AI, humanity left unfinished works entirely alone. Throughout history, whenever a great master died mid-sentence, human editors, studios, and publishers stepped in to finish the job. When Charles Dickens died before finishing The Mystery of Edwin Drood, or when F. Scott Fitzgerald left The Last Tycoon incomplete, human writers guessed at the endings. The opposition calls AI a "fake version," but human completions are inherently riddled with the heavy biases, personal styles, and creative egos of the living writers who take them over.By contrast, artificial intelligence is the only tool in human history that can step in with absolute objectivity. An AI does not inject its own ego, political views, or modern trends into the work. Instead, it acts as an unbiased mirror, analyzing thousands of data points from the artist’s own documented past—their syntax, their brushstroke velocity, their chord progressions, and their thematic habits. It doesn't guess what the artist might have done; it calculates what the artist traditionally did. It is a mathematical continuation of the creator's actual DNA, stripped of human interference.Furthermore, if researchers and students want to study the "window into the process," they still can. Using AI to complete a work does not delete the original, unfinished manuscript or sketch. The rough drafts remain perfectly preserved in archives for historical study. What the AI version provides is an additional gift to the public—a fully realized, living adaptation of what that vision could have been. To reject this technology is to argue that a work is better off trapped in permanent frustration, rather than allowing an objective, data-driven tool to help us hear the echo of a master's voice one last time. This is why I truly win this debate. The opposition has given no detail at all within their arguments, whereas I have written 2000+ character paragraphs with clear explanations.