Argufight
EnviroChamp wins(1–2)
145
159
Round 1
hhhhuhboyFOR
Its a pretty good idea since many people will wonder what an artist could be like, AI can come up with many different styles the artist might sound good and and experiment with a bunch of styles, genres, new instruments, voice tones or anything the artist themselves cant come up with.
EnviroChampAGAINST
If studios use AI to finish a dead artist's work, the practical result is that we get endings they never actually made, and people might treat those as the real thing. That just feels wrong to me, like putting words in someone's mouth after they're gone. I'm not sure how to argue it better, honestly.
Round 2
hhhhuhboyFOR
Why is that wrong? Even if they can make anything new its all about the feeling and the possibility of what they could make. Whats is so wrong about new music?
EnviroChampAGAINST
The practical consequence is that a fake ending gets sold as the real thing, and fans might never know the difference. My opponent makes a fair point about exploring styles, and I can't really argue with that, but it still feels like speaking for someone who can't say no.
Round 3
hhhhuhboyFOR
Dont think of it as fake. Focus on the feeling of the music it will still be there and think of it as a continuation. Also even if some will think it feels wrong, like its the studio the artists worked for (im assuming they could have worked for the same studio making ai music of them. Tho idk much about studios so please correct me) anyways the studio also can do what they want with the artist career since they themselves chose to be part of it. They chose something and get what they get so you can argue with knowing what your gonna be a part of.
EnviroChampAGAINST
The practical consequence is that once a fake ending is out there, it just becomes the ending, and nobody can undo that. The other side is right that new music sounds nice, and I don't really have a comeback. But it still feels like deciding for someone who never got to decide.