The art of debating as we know it has been around since the ancient Greek civilisation, when verbal sparring matches would be held between intellectuals in order to make decisions about the world. Fast forward a few hundred years to the eighteenth century, the Age of Enlightenment arrived and official debating societies were formed. These were located in industrial cities such as London, and university cities like Dublin and Cambridge. The topics they debated were a mixture of progressive and relevant to their time; “Was the revolution under Cromwell to be attributed to the tyrannical conduct of Charles, or to the democratic spirit of the time?”, “Is the prevention of public discussion not a violation of a free constitution?” and the age old, “Can friendship subsist between the two sexes, without the passion of love?” The Victorians would be baffled to know that humankind can land on the moon but still can’t find a definitive answer to that one. And while the content has changed considerably since these very early days, Western Debating style has not really changed. Until now.

With the introduction of AI into our society, and the very new release of ChatGPT, debating may be in for a fundamental change. Well-researched, highly competitive arguments no longer need hours in the library or sitting in front of a computer to create. And more junior debaters have the option to make points well beyond their years, which they maybe don’t quite understand. As one of my school’s debating captains next session, I am really worried that the art of debating as we know it is dead. But am I worried unnecessarily? Or do my fears have real, frightening basis?

Some of the topics discussed in school debating are quite complex, especially for the younger debaters who may have less experience and knowledge of world events. For this reason, ChatGPT can be used for good as a learning and teaching tool. For a frequently discussed topic in junior debating such as ‘This House Would Ban Zoos’, ChatGPT can be used to demonstrate that there are two convincing sides to every argument, and that these can be pitted against each other in order to teach rebuttal and formation of counterarguments. This also teaches the basic structure of an argument, which is sometimes lacking for the more junior debaters. Evaluation of sources and their reliability is a vital skill which often goes untaught in our UK schools, so giving this as part of debating makes for better young debaters and more able pupils in subjects like history.

 One point of view that gives me some peace of mind is that an argument has to be persuasive to win against another, and computers aren’t very good at that. Persuasion appeals to human emotions and values and algorithms such as ChatGPT and the like are just not advanced enough yet to create a convincing argument based on emotion rather than fact. I distinctly remember participating in a debate aged twelve or thirteen and just spewing facts at the opposition. Needless to say my partner and I did not win that one. And as I found out when I was given feedback, just giving people information doesn’t really cut it, to convince someone of something you have to appeal to their emotions and explain to them how your argument fits better with their moral compass than that of the opposition. This advice has not only stood me in good stead for the rest of my debating career, but also highlights my point in this article. While facts are convincing, their importance and relevance needs to be highlighted if you want to win your debate. Competitive speeches with emotional relevance can’t be written by a programme.

To consider another perspective, ChatGPT can write a well-researched speech in a fraction of the time a person can, no matter how good the person is at researching. In a debating context, ChatGPT collates all the relevant arguments by scouring the web for all relevant information. ChatGPT doesn’t have to contend with finding exactly the right wording for what it puts in the search bar, unlike a human. ChatGPT doesn’t have to read an entire article to find out the relevant bit was contained the final sentence at the end, in the way a human does. Arguments can be produced quickly and efficiently which most definitely has its benefits. I’ll be honest, researching for some debates is a truly painful experience. If I didn’t love debating as much as I do and I know there are people out there, whom I like to call bonkers, who don’t, then it would be very easy to make debating a stress-free hobby by letting a programme write it for you. For this reason, the introduction of ChatGPT to debating is something I would like to put off and avoid for as long as possible, preferably forever.

On the flip side, ChatGPT does scour the internet for absolutely everything relevant to your motion. This can become difficult when looking at source reliability as the programme doesn’t give source references. On a serious motion such as immigration or other aspects of law, the last thing you want is to be quoting The Sun, the Daily Express or another such tabloid of less reputable status. Even worse, there is always the risk that your source is biased, and you’d never know. Some news outlets are slightly left or right leaning, but others more considerably so. Making an argument based around a biased source is a sure-fire way to discredit all your arguments, despite how valid they in themselves might be. Foreign articles are looked at by ChatGPT too but the journalist writing them might not be an expert in the topic or be using the relevant statistics. A resounding groan goes up around the library in my school whenever anyone at the lectern says ‘in the US’. Their statistics, while valid, are not relevant. The unreliability of ChatGPT to give relevant and unbiased statistics means it really has no place in debating.

In conclusion, for me personally, I think ChatGPT has a place in debating as a learning tool, but not a creative tool. Let’s use it to learn how to debate, then leave it behind and use our knowledge to become better debaters in our own rights. This ensures a strong foundation of debating knowledge but also promotes good debating skills for the future. Debating if just fine the way it is because it develops multiple soft skills, as well as supplementing classroom knowledge by putting it into place in a competitive setting. To finish with the wise words of my granny - ‘If it ain’t broke don’t fix it’.