I think we need to be honest about what we're really debating here. Streaming platforms already struggle with fair compensation for human artists. Letting AI flood these platforms with unlimited songs would make that problem much worse. Every AI track that gets streamed is taking revenue away from a musician who actually wrote lyrics, composed melodies, and put real creative energy into their work. And that's not even getting into the quality issue. Most AI-generated music lacks the emotional depth and intentionality that makes songs connect with listeners. We're not just talking about a tool that helps artists. We're talking about systems that can churn out thousands of songs without any human input. That cheapens the entire experience of music discovery.

I want to step back and look at what we're actually protecting here. Music isn't just a product. It's a deeply human form of expression. When you strip away the human element, you're left with something that might sound pleasing but lacks the context and intention that gives art its value. My opponent brought up Michael Jackson, and I think that actually helps my case. Think about why Michael Jackson's music resonates so deeply. It's not just the beat or the melody. It's his voice cracking with emotion, the specific choices he made as a performer, the life experience behind every note. An AI can mimic that surface level, but it can't replicate the human story behind it. If we let AI songs flood streaming platforms, we're essentially saying the human element doesn't matter. That seems like a loss worth pushing back on.

[No submission - Time expired]