Scribd
Upload
5 views2 pages

Re Rebuttal

The First Affirmative Rebuttal argues against the negative's stance on banning AI, emphasizing that teaching students to use AI responsibly is more effective than imposing bans. It highlights successful programs from various universities that have improved academic integrity and equity through AI education. The rebuttal asserts that AI is not the enemy but rather a tool that, when used correctly, can enhance learning and prepare students for a tech-driven future.

Uploaded by

bruceboss521
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views2 pages

Re Rebuttal

The First Affirmative Rebuttal argues against the negative's stance on banning AI, emphasizing that teaching students to use AI responsibly is more effective than imposing bans. It highlights successful programs from various universities that have improved academic integrity and equity through AI education. The rebuttal asserts that AI is not the enemy but rather a tool that, when used correctly, can enhance learning and prepare students for a tech-driven future.

Uploaded by

bruceboss521
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Re-rebuttal

First Affirmative Rebuttal


Alright, judge, let me start by thanking the negative for their arguments. But let’s cut
through the noise and get to the heart of this debate.
Top of Case
The negative keeps screaming about an "academic integrity crisis," pointing to
Turnitin’s 2023 survey like it’s the holy grail. But here’s the thing—bans don’t fix
problems, they hide them. Our plan isn’t about letting AI run wild; it’s about teaching
students to use it right. Take the University of Edinburgh’s "AI Collaborator" program
—plagiarism dropped by 40% once students learned to cite AI and think critically
about its outputs (Times Higher Education, 2023). The negative’s obsession with bans
is like trying to stop cars because some people speed. Instead of punishing everyone,
let’s teach drivers to follow the rules.
Disadvantage: Academic Integrity Collapse
The negative claims guided policies are a fantasy, citing MIT’s citation struggles. But
hold on—MIT’s problem wasn’t the policy, it was the execution. Compare that to the
University of Melbourne’s "AI Literacy Week," where they trained both students and
professors. Result? 88% compliance with citation rules (Times Higher Education,
2023). You don’t blame the recipe when someone burns the cake.
And let’s talk about their "critical thinking decline" panic. The Stanford study they
love so much? It tested students who used AI without any guidance. Meanwhile,
MIT’s 2023 trial proved that when you teach students to partner with AI—not depend
on it—they solve problems 35% faster while still doing original work (EdTech
Journal). The negative’s fearmongering ignores reality: AI isn’t the enemy, ignorance
is.
First Advantage: Preparing for a Tech-Driven Future
[What They Say]: "AI makes students lazy and unemployable!"
[I Say]: Tell that to Google. Their 2023 hiring report literally lists "AI-augmented
creativity" as a top skill. Or ask Flatiron School—their grads trained in AI
collaboration land jobs at a 90% rate (Forbes, 2023). The negative wants students to
live in a bubble, typing essays on typewriters while the rest of the world uses
ChatGPT. That’s not education—it’s sabotage.
Second Advantage: Enhancing Equity
[What They Say]: "AI tools aren’t fair—rich kids get better access!"
[I Say]: Our plan fixes that. The University of Cape Town’s 2023 program gave free
AI tools to 95% of low-income students. Suddenly, ESL learners and kids with
disabilities weren’t left behind (UNESCO Case Study). Banning AI? That’s like
banning calculators because some schools can’t afford them. It doesn’t level the field
—it just hides the inequality under a rug.
And let’s shut down their "AI-widens-gaps" myth. The University of Toronto’s 2023
policy required students to critique every AI-generated sentence. Result? Misuse
dropped by 60%, and disadvantaged students finally got the support they deserved
(Canadian Journal of Education). The negative’s "total ban" would yank that lifeline
away.

You might also like