THIS HOUSE BANS THE USAGE OF CHATGPT.

Speaker 3: Closing Government (FOR BANNING/LIMITING)

Time: 5 minutes
1. Introduction (1 min)
- Briefly acknowledge the opposition's points.
- Reiterate the motion.
2. Rebuttals (2 mins)
- Rebuttal 1: Address misinformation by emphasizing real-world examples of ChatGPT
spreading falsehoods.
- Rebuttal 2: Counter the educational argument by highlighting potential misuse in academic
settings (e.g., cheating).
3. Additional Arguments (1 min)
- Argument 3: Privacy Concerns
- Discuss how using AI can lead to privacy violations and data misuse.
4. Conclusion (1 min)
- Summarize all arguments and reinforce the need for a ban to protect users and society.

Ladies and gentlemen, let’s cut to the chase. The opposition has thrown around some points, but
let’s not be distracted by the smoke and mirrors. The motion we’re debating today is clear: This
house bans the usage of chatgpt in class, but we clearly need to restrict, not outright forbid the
usage of AI technologies like ChatGPT. These tools pose significant risks to our society, and I’m
here to demonstrate why that’s not just necessary but urgent.
First, let’s address the opposition’s claim about the benefits of AI in information dissemination.
They ignore the glaring reality: AI like ChatGPT has been caught spreading misinformation time
and again. In Pakistan, where digital literacy is already a challenge, we cannot afford the luxury
of AI technologies spreading falsehoods. There are real-world examples: ChatGPT has given
incorrect legal and medical advice to users, which could have devastating consequences. Imagine
an individual misdiagnosing themselves or misinterpreting laws — the results could be
catastrophic. The opposition fails to account for the dangerous misinformation these tools are
spreading every day. The fact is, these tools lack accountability and, more importantly, they can't
discern fact from fiction. When people rely on AI for their information, we see a direct threat to
our collective understanding of reality.
Now, let’s tackle the so-called educational benefits the opposition is trying to sell. Sure, AI can
assist in learning, but what have we actually seen? A rise in academic misuse. During online
classes in Pakistan, students used AI to complete assignments and cheat on exams with alarming
ease. In a country where education is already struggling with quality control, this is not a
hypothetical concern—it’s a reality. Students are not learning; they’re simply copying and
pasting answers from AI, robbing themselves of genuine education. Just because they can misuse
it, they will. It's already happening, and it’s going to get worse if we don’t step in. We need to ask
ourselves: are we preparing students for real-world challenges, or are we enabling shortcuts that
undermine the value of education altogether?
Let’s be blunt: people will exploit these technologies. It’s in our nature. Just because they can,
they will. We’ve seen it in every corner of society — from cheating in education to unethical
business practices. Murphy’s Law dictates that if something can go wrong, it will. The more we
normalize the use of AI, the more we open the floodgates for its misuse. From scams to illegal
activities, the potential for exploitation is vast. And we can’t afford to stand idly by while society
becomes a breeding ground for opportunists.
In conclusion, we’ve demonstrated the real and present dangers of unchecked AI like ChatGPT
— from the spread of misinformation to the massive scale of academic exploitation. Let’s be
realistic: people will misuse these tools, and Murphy’s Law guarantees it will spiral out of
control. While we may not call for a complete ban, we must demand strict regulations to prevent
this abuse. This isn’t about hindering progress; it’s about ensuring that AI benefits society
without causing harm. Act now, or face a future where education and truth are undermined by
uncontrolled AI. Thank You.

Speaker 3: Rebuttals and Further Arguments (AGAINST BANNING/LIMITING)

Time: 5 minutes
1. Introduction (1 min)
- Acknowledge the opening government's points.
- Restate your position against the ban.
2. Rebuttals (2 mins)
- Rebuttal 1: Academic Misuse
- While acknowledging concerns about cheating, argue that education systems can adapt by
incorporating AI responsibly, focusing on ethical guidelines rather than a total ban.
- Rebuttal 2: Privacy Concerns
- Highlight existing data protection regulations and the ongoing efforts to ensure user privacy
and data security in AI applications.
3. Additional Arguments (1 min)
- Argument 4: Accessibility and Inclusivity
- Discuss how ChatGPT can bridge knowledge gaps for marginalized communities, providing
access to information and resources that might otherwise be unavailable.
4. Conclusion (1 min)
- summarize key rebuttals and additional arguments.
- Emphasize the need for a balanced approach that encourages responsible AI use rather than
outright prohibition.
Ladies and Genntlemen, let's cut through the noise: The Government’s arguments for banning
ChatGPT are not only weak, but fundamentally out of touch with reality. We reject the primitive
notion that banning technology will solve anything. ChatGPT is a tool for progress, and any
attempt to stifle it is nothing short of intellectual cowardice. Instead of running away from
technological advancements, we must adapt, innovate, and regulate—not ban.
Their claim that ChatGPT will destroy academic integrity is laughable. Cheating? That's their
argument? Guess what: cheating has existed long before AI, and banning ChatGPT will not stop
it. If your entire education system collapses because of a chatbot, then maybe the problem isn't
ChatGPT—maybe it's your education system. Yes, AI can be misused for cheating, but so can
every other technological advancement in history. Have we banned the internet because students
could plagiarize? No. We created systems to detect and prevent it. The same approach can be
applied here—adapting education systems to incorporate AI responsibly, with robust ethical
guidelines.What we need is reform, not retreat.
Privacy concerns? Give me a break. The fear of data privacy is another overblown argument.
The Government acts like ChatGPT is the only technology out there with potential privacy
issues, conveniently forgetting that we already have comprehensive data protection regulations -
GDPR, CCPA, and more. So what’s the solution? Strengthen these frameworks if necessary!
Don’t cripple technological advancements because of outdated fears. ChatGPT and AI are here to
stay, and banning them will solve absolutely nothing. It's a shortsighted response to a challenge
that needs better regulation, not obliteration. Moreover, as technology evolves, so do security
measures. Instead of a ban, we should focus on strengthening these regulations to ensure user
privacy without stifling innovation.
Here’s something the Government clearly doesn’t care about — accessibility. ChatGPT offers
opportunities to marginalized communities, bridging knowledge gaps like never before. We’re
talking about people in underserved areas, those with disabilities, and individuals who lack
access to quality education. Banning ChatGPT would rob millions of the chance to learn, to
grow, and to be part of the global conversation. Banning ChatGPT would be an attack on
inclusivity—it’s essentially a move to widen the knowledge gap and push already marginalized
communities further behind. The Government’s proposal is elitist and exclusionary—an attack
on those who need AI the most. Would they rather keep people ignorant than provide them with
the tools to thrive?
In conclusion, the Government’s case for banning ChatGPT is built on fear, misunderstanding,
and a refusal to adapt to modern realities. We’ve debunked their fears about academic misuse and
shown how privacy concerns can be tackled without killing innovation. We’ve proven that
ChatGPT is a critical tool for inclusivity and accessibility, empowering those most in need. The
notion of banning it is regressive, elitist, and flat-out irrational.
Look at the Amish: a community that refuses to adapt to modern technology. They face
hardships, live in isolation, and suffer the consequences of turning their backs on progress. Do
we want to follow in their footsteps? No! Progress demands risk, and any upside inevitably
comes with a downside—but if we ran from every challenge, we’d still be living in caves.
So let's be clear: Banning ChatGPT is the solution for the fearful and the small-minded. We are
not them. We take risks, we adapt, and we embrace the future.
THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT WEALTH INEQUALITY IS A MAJOR
THREAT TO GLOBAL STABILITY.

Speaker 3: Closing Government (FOR)

Time: 5 minutes
1. Introduction (1 min)
• Briefly acknowledge the opposition's points regarding wealth inequality being a natural
outcome of capitalism or that it drives innovation.
• Reiterate the motion that wealth inequality poses a major threat to global stability,
emphasizing that the increasing gap between the rich and the poor destabilizes societies
and economies.
2. Rebuttals (2 mins)
• Rebuttal 1: Address the opposition’s argument that wealth concentration drives
economic growth by illustrating how extreme wealth inequality leads to social unrest and
weakens democratic institutions.
• Rebuttal 2: Counter the argument that inequality motivates people to work harder by
showcasing examples of how wealth disparity creates unequal opportunities, fostering
resentment and exclusion, particularly in education, healthcare, and employment.
3. Additional Arguments (1 min)
• Argument 3: Impact on Global Security
• Highlight how wealth inequality contributes to global issues like mass migration,
terrorism, and political instability. These threats arise from people feeling
marginalized and disenfranchised due to a lack of resources and opportunities.
4. Conclusion (1 min)
• Summarize the rebuttals and key arguments, reinforcing that wealth inequality
exacerbates global tensions by creating unstable, divided societies. Conclude by
emphasizing the urgent need for international cooperation to reduce inequality and
promote long-term global stability.

Ladies and gentlemen, while the opposition might try to convince you that wealth inequality is
simply the natural outcome of capitalism or a necessary driver of innovation, let’s be clear: this is
a dangerous delusion! We are talking about a system that is tearing apart the fabric of global
society. The motion today is clear: wealth inequality is not just an economic problem—it’s a
ticking time bomb for global stability. Look no further than Pakistan, where the rich get richer,
and the poor drown under inflation and joblessness. How can we claim progress when society is
fracturing under this massive divide?
The opposition insists that concentrated wealth drives economic growth. But let’s face it: this
argument is fundamentally flawed and completely out of touch with reality! Take the protests in
Chile in 2019—what started as a small uproar over a metro fare increase snowballed into a
massive movement against deep-seated social inequality. When the richest 1% hoard wealth, the
rest of society is left struggling for scraps. In Pakistan, landlords and business moguls hoard
assets while the common citizen can’t afford necessities. This isn’t growth; it’s exploitation!
Wealth does not "trickle down"—it stays stuck at the top. And when people have nothing, they
rise. You think this system creates stability? It’s fueling rage, resentment, and chaos. The rich
may think they’re safe in their ivory towers, but history shows us that when the wealth of a few
is prioritized over the needs of the many, revolts are inevitable!
The opposition may try to romanticize inequality, suggesting that it "motivates" people to work
harder. ? What a laughable and naive perspective! This view is not only ignorant, it’s downright
harmful! Motivates who, exactly. The elite who already have everything handed to them? For the
poor, inequality isn’t motivation—it’s a sentence to a life of struggle. In Pakistan, you have
children born into poverty with no access to decent schools, while the wealthy send their kids to
international institutions. Tell me, how can these children compete? How does a system of
privilege, where your future is determined by the wealth of your parents, motivate anyone? It
doesn’t. It only breeds anger, exclusion, and ultimately revolt. And let’s not forget healthcare,
where the rich get top-notch services while millions are left to struggle for basic care. Is this the
future we want? A society that crushes potential and divides us further? I think not!
Let’s talk about the bigger picture—global security. Wealth inequality doesn’t just destroy
nations; it destabilizes entire regions. Take the economic collapse in Haiti—people are fleeing in
droves, desperate to escape extreme poverty and violence. When people have no opportunities,
they turn to dangerous alternatives. And let’s not forget the migrant crises across the world—
driven by inequality, by people desperate to escape poverty. This isn’t just an economic issue; it’s
a ticking time bomb that we ignore at our peril! In this interconnected world, we can no longer
afford to turn a blind eye to the consequences of inequality—it threatens us all!
In conclusion, wealth inequality is more than just a threat—it’s a crisis. It tears apart societies,
fuels extremism and undermines democracy. The opposition wants you to believe that inequality
drives innovation and growth, but all it drives is division and collapse. Just look at Pakistan.
Look at the world. The impact on global security is undeniable, fueling resentment and
extremism. If we don’t take action now, this inequality will burn everything down. Wealth
inequality isn’t just a threat to stability—it’s the enemy of it. Thank you.

Speaker 3: Closing Opposition (AGAINST)

Time: 5 minutes
1. Introduction (1 min)
• Acknowledge the opening government's points about the potential dangers of wealth
inequality to social stability.
• Restate your position that wealth inequality is not a major threat to global stability
and that focusing solely on inequality overlooks other, more significant factors that
contribute to instability.
2. Rebuttals (2 mins)
• Rebuttal 1: Economic Growth and Innovation
• While acknowledging concerns about social unrest, argue that wealth inequality
 can drive economic growth by incentivizing innovation and entrepreneurship. It
provides opportunities for wealth creation, which can ultimately benefit society as
a whole.
• Rebuttal 2: Social Mobility and Opportunity
• Counter the claim that inequality creates social unrest by highlighting examples of
countries where high inequality coexists with political and social stability. Argue
that the focus should be on providing social mobility and access to opportunities,
not reducing inequality through heavy-handed redistribution.
3. Additional Arguments (1 min)
• Argument 4: The Role of Governance
• Discuss how strong governance, stable institutions, and sound economic policies
are the key factors in maintaining global stability, not just addressing wealth
inequality. Countries with effective governance can mitigate inequality's impact
through better education, healthcare, and social welfare systems.
4. Conclusion (1 min)
• Summarize the key rebuttals and additional arguments, emphasizing that wealth
inequality alone does not destabilize nations; rather, it is poor governance and the lack
of opportunity that are the real threats.
• Conclude by arguing for solutions that improve social mobility and governance, instead
of treating inequality as the root cause of instability.

Ladies and gentlemen, let’s be clear: while the opening government is busy painting a picture of
doom and gloom regarding wealth inequality, they conveniently ignore the complexities of the
real world. Yes, there are potential dangers to social stability, but wealth inequality itself is not
the major threat they claim it is! Yes, inequality exists—but to say it’s the major threat to global
stability? That’s an exaggeration at best, and a distraction at worst. The real culprits—poor
governance, corruption, and a failure to provide opportunities—are ignored by this
oversimplified argument. Take Pakistan: inequality exists, yes, but it’s the rampant corruption
and incompetent governance that drive instability, not inequality alone. Wealth inequality doesn’t
destabilize nations—bad systems do.
Let’s dive into the real implications of wealth inequality. The government may fear social unrest
stemming from inequality, but what they fail to recognize is that inequality can be a powerful
engine for economic growth. Consider Silicon Valley, a hotbed of innovation and
entrepreneurship. The wealth created by tech moguls has not only propelled the U.S. economy
but has also led to millions of jobs and significant advancements in technology. Countries like
China have also harnessed wealth inequality to fuel economic expansion, lifting millions out of
poverty in the process. Wealth concentration can incentivize individuals to innovate, create
businesses, and drive growth that benefits society as a whole. This isn’t just theory; it’s the
backbone of successful economies!
Furthermore, the argument that wealth inequality inevitably leads to social unrest is misleading.
Look at countries like Sweden and Switzerland, where high levels of wealth inequality exist
alongside remarkable political and social stability. These nations thrive not because they’ve
eradicated inequality but because they prioritize social mobility and equal access to
opportunities. The real focus should be on empowering individuals through education and job
opportunities rather than heavy-handed redistribution that stifles ambition and innovation.\
Now, let’s talk about governance—the cornerstone of global stability. Strong institutions and
sound economic policies are the keys to maintaining order and prosperity. Countries like
Singapore exemplify this; they have a high level of inequality but are also among the most stable
and prosperous in the world. Why? Because effective governance addresses the root causes of
instability. When governments prioritize quality education, accessible healthcare, and robust
welfare systems, they can mitigate the effects of inequality. The message is clear: wealth
inequality alone doesn’t create chaos; poor governance does.
In conclusion, let’s be clear: wealth inequality is not the monster the government makes it out to
be. It’s a distraction from the real issues: poor governance, corruption, and systems that stifle
opportunity. Pakistan’s problem isn’t inequality—it’s that corrupt leaders and broken institutions
prevent people from moving up. Inequality only destabilizes societies when governments fail. So
instead of crying about inequality, let’s focus on fixing governance. That’s where the real threat
lies, and that’s what we need to address to ensure global stability. Thank you.