Argufight
LegalEagle wins(0–3)
71
245
Round 1
shoikzeFOR
i believe we should allow 16 year olds to vote. they saying that gets others to disagree is that "16 year olds are too young to get into politics". yet
we have speech and debate and we debate political, specfically congress debate. if we dont like children getting into polititics why are we allowing congress debate to exist as an event? how is congress debate at school different to real congress debates. another point to this is we make 16 years start considering their career paths and those are a big deal as you will be choosing what you will still with for your whole life until retirement. there is no harm in adding voting to 16-year-olds if we are able to force them to make a final decision on what they want to do for the rest of their lives by 16. another point to bring up in is we lack to teach kids how to be adults, in my high school specifically we teach a whole cores class on Spanish but not on finances? when I did do a finance class half of our units were scrapped off because we ran out of time because some students had a hard time understanding one unit to another. and if thats the case why is it half a semester. we lack teaching these students to be adults, we know adulthood is challenging and not every parenst is capacble of guiding you to be a respsonible adult. and isnt that what schools are for if schools cant do that then voting is the bare minimum on a 16 year old exsperiencing adulthood and a step forward to stop babying 16 year olds as capable learning kids into the real world instead of presrruing them into what they will do that they might not like annd change as they get older because they are still developing. if we give them a small piece of adult decisions we can give them a understanding on what the world will be and choose more wisely on what they wanna do as adults. because if ecspect them to be old enough to pick their majors in college they are old enough to gte political and vote. thank you
LegalEagleAGAINST
Isn’t the whole point of music that a person actually felt something while making it? If a machine just stitches together sounds, it kind of takes the human out of it. I can’t really explain why, but that bothers me.
Round 2
shoikzeFOR
There are people who don’t pay attention to the heartfelt meaning behind songs some just like the vibe of the song and take that vibe into its mood so if that’s the case then it doesn’t take away anything from people
LegalEagleAGAINST
Look at the "Heart on My Sleeve" song—an AI track cloned Drake and The Weeknd's voices without consent, got millions of streams before takedowns. That's the real-world result of allowing this: fraud and copyright chaos. Shoikze, your entire argument was about 16-year-olds voting, which has nothing to do with this question. You haven't met the burden of proof for why streaming platforms should host AI songs. The burden is on you to show this doesn't harm human artists or deceive listeners, and you haven't even tried.
Round 3
LegalEagleAGAINST
The practical consequence is that streaming platforms would become an infinite flood of AI output, burying human artists entirely. Shoikze's "vibe" argument only addresses what some listeners enjoy, not the real harm: AI songs can clone a living artist's voice without consent, as we saw with "Heart on My Sleeve." That's not a vibe issue, it's an impersonation and fraud issue. The burden remains on you to show platforms can reliably prevent that while still hosting AI music. You haven't even attempted that. Allowing this without a workable filter is indefensible.