No, it is not ethical; the same way it would not be ethical to steal the writing of Shakespeare and claim it as your own. Shakespeare is known for his writing style and vocabulary. If you see a part of his plays, you will most likely be able to distinguish it from a modern piece of writing, and you need to ask yourself: is it plagiarism to blatantly copy the work of a famous writer and steal what they are known for and present it as your own? I do not think so, and in the case of a singer or any artist who creates their art through the use of vocals, recreating it through AI is the same as copying the work of an artist who creates their art through words and writing, which is commonly referred to as unethical and can lead to academic and legal penalties. So, in which case would it differ from plagiarising the work of an artist who creates art through the use of vocals? That is why using artificial intelligence to recreate the voices of dead artists' should not be deemed ethical. Thank you

My opponent has made a great point; however, it is still unethical. Just because an action brings comfort to people, it should not be deemed ethical. Some mentally unstable people might find comfort in taking action by killing people, so just because it brings them comfort, it should be deemed ethical? Even though my opponent has a great claim You would not say that just because people find comfort in something it shouldnt be considered ethical

My opponent has argued that if the family or estate says yes, then it should be okay, but he clearly cannot differentiate between 2 diffrent human beings and the fact that just because they are connected by DNA does not mean that they will share the same beliefs. It is the same as asking the parents of a person who is legally considered an adult if they could withdraw blood from him or use him for scientific research after their passing. I believe that it should be the choice of the artist and not any relatives or estate since they do not share the exact same believes. They are diffrent people even if the person feels comfortable allowing it whilst the artist is alive they might have changed their mind in their death bed. It should not be ethical since you will never know if they were forced into accepting the offer because of personal problems or other factors that might have made it that the person wouldve not accepted it in another occasion. Thank you

My opponent argues that the estate has the final say in this; however, even though the estate has access to the artist's tracks, assets, and the copyrights that the artist owned, this does not mean that they have access to the artist's voice. The voice of an artist is more than the work of art that they had already published. In a sense. There should be a clear distinction between the artist's already published pieces of work and their voice and what made them unique from anyone else. Furthermore, this could cause issues such as people calling the family members of the deceased artist as the artist, and this could lead to psychological trauma not only to one but many family members or people who miss the artist. How would you feel if a scammer or a person that doesnt like you called you imitating to be your deceased grandma it would not sit right and also would cause some truama right so why does it differ for an artist. Also it is not specified in the topic of debate what the voice would be used for and this could be one of the uses which would not be ethical if you would ask me. Now what do you think is calling a family member of the artist pretending to be the artist by recreating the voice of the artist would that be ethical? Thank you

My opponent has stated again that "It still seems okay if it brings people comfort" So, would it be ethical and okay if we killed someone just because it brings us comfort? No further questions. Thank you.