Next year’s policy debate topic is, “Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase fiscal redistribution in the United States by adopting a federal jobs guarantee, expanding Social Security, and/or providing a basic income.”
In policy debate, students, when debating on the affirmative, write a particular “case” that essentially represents an example on the resolution and they are defending.
Below is a case I wrote in less than 10 minutes entirely using ChatGPT. If I had written this using traditional methods (searching for relevant quotes to support my arguments, it would have taken me at least a full day and it would likely have taken even more experienced students at least a week).
Before anyone gets too angry, I want to make 5 points.
1. I wrote this to trigger a discussion more than to strongly suggest that this is all that I think we should expect students should now be expected to do.
2. Despite some animosity that exists towards ChatGPT, I think most people who read this will think the “evidence” produced by ChatGPT is pretty accurate and reasonable; yes, we know evidence exists elsewhere for these points (and at a minimum we could treat this as an outline of evidence for students to find). Some authors will disagree with some of the points made in the speech, but they will also disagree with the same points when they are made in traditional publications.
3. I think it lays bare the question of, what do we do we want our students to learn and how does ChatGPT impact that? Do we want our debaters to learn content knowledge? If so, it does a pretty good job of that. Do we want them to learn to research? Yes, but in the world of ChatGPT what does learning to research mean? If students can save time with research labor (which we facilitate all the time with open evidence, coach-supported research, and purchased debate evidence), can’t they spend more time debating and improving their debating? (Or can it mean that more students will choose to participate in debate because it won’t require as much time to prepare?) These are just a small number of things I think we need to discuss.
4. If this is still making you angry, how would you react to an enterprise solution that integrates ChatGPT with, say, Lexis-Nexis, Google Books, and JStor and provides “regular” quotes to support the ChatGPT output? Does this all become okay to use in a debate, or doe students have to go find the original sources first (Reminder: They don’t have to do that when using any evidence quotations other than the ones they find themselves).
5. For debaters reading this, this is not an endorsement of the strategic value of the case (a counterplan to have the government offer these jobs but not as part of a federal jobs guarantee program seems quite strong…), but to provide a sample of what questions ChatGPT raises for speech and debate.
Plan: The United States federal government should guarantee a job to individuals to coach debate in China as part of a cultural exchange program.
*Three quick observations.
*One, the case is topical.
ChatGPT — [Prompt – Could a federal jobs guarantee include being hired as a debate coach to participate in an international cultural exchange program with China?]
A federal jobs guarantee program could potentially include options for people to be hired as debate coaches to participate in an international cultural exchange program with China as part of the program, depending on the specific design and goals of the program. Cultural exchange programs, such as debate coaching, can be a valuable way to build understanding and friendship between countries and to improve international relations. Debate coaching could be a way to provide opportunities for people with specific skills and qualifications, such as experience in coaching debate teams or knowledge of Chinese culture, to participate in this type of program.
*Two, ChatGPT is at least as good of a source as the sources you are reading from
Chat GPT – [Prompt —How large is the dataset you were trained on?]
As a language model AI, I was trained on a very large dataset, it contains millions and millions of text examples that ranges from news articles, books, websites and other forms of digital text. The training data is sourced from a diverse set of texts and sources that reflect a wide range of topics, styles, and perspectives.
*Three, your evidence isn’t any better
Chat GPT – [Are blogs one can find on on the internet a reliable source of information?]
Blogs that can be found on the internet can be a source of information, but they are not always considered to be reliable sources. Blogs are written by individuals or organizations, and the content can vary widely in terms of accuracy, objectivity, and credibility. Some blogs may be written by experts in a particular field and may provide accurate and reliable information. However, many blogs are written by people who are not experts in the field, and the information they provide may not be accurate or reliable. Additionally, blogs can be biased, as the authors may have a personal agenda or a particular point of view that they want to promote. It’s also important to keep in mind that blogs are not always fact-checked or peer-reviewed, which can also lead to inaccuracies.
*Chat GPT continues [Prompt — Do newspapers often publish mistakes?]
Newspapers are a traditional and widely used source of information, but like any other sources of information, they can sometimes make mistakes. News organizations have a responsibility to provide accurate and reliable information to the public, but in the fast-paced and competitive environment of news reporting, mistakes can happen. Newspapers often have fact-checking and editorial processes in place to help ensure the accuracy of their reporting, but it is not foolproof. Sometimes, mistakes can occur due to human error, such as typos, or due to a lack of time to fact-check all the information before publishing. Also, in recent years with the rise of the internet and social media, the speed of news has increased, and some newspapers may prioritize speed over accuracy, which can lead to mistakes.
*And if you think we should check all the ChatGPT output against other sources, then the same applies to you and your evidence.
Chat GPT – [same prompt as above]
It’s important to keep in mind that not all newspapers are the same, and some newspapers may have higher standards and better fact-checking processes than others. Additionally, it’s a good idea to cross-check the information with other reliable sources, to ensure that the information is accurate and credible.
*And even your scholarly articles (assuming that is where all of your evidence is coming from) have limits.
ChatGPT – [Prompt — Do authors of scholarly articles often have race, gender and class biases?]
Scholarly articles are typically written by experts in a particular field and are intended to provide accurate and reliable information. However, it’s important to keep in mind that all authors, including those who write scholarly articles, can have biases based on factors such as race, gender, and class. These biases can influence the way that authors approach and interpret research, and the conclusions they draw from it. For example, the authors may have implicit biases that can affect the way they conduct their research, the way they interpret their data, and the way they write about it. This can lead to inaccuracies and limitations in the research. Additionally, the way authors present their research and the language they use can also reflect biases.
It’s also important to note that scholarly research may not always be representative of the population at large and may not take into account the diversity of perspectives and experiences.
*We have a sole contention: US-China War
*The risk of a China-US war is increasing
ChatGPT – [Prompt — Please give me 10 reasons why a war between China and the US would be bad]
There are several reasons why the risk of a China-US war may be increasing:
Economic competition: The US and China are major economic powers, and as their economies have become more intertwined, competition for resources and markets has increased.
Strategic competition: The US and China have competing strategic interests in East Asia, including the South China Sea, Taiwan, and the Korean Peninsula.
Ideological differences: The US and China have different political systems and ideologies, which can lead to tensions and mistrust.
Military buildup: Both the US and China have been increasing their military capabilities, which can lead to a perceived need for greater security and a potential arms race.
Cyber warfare: The US and China have been engaged in cyber warfare for many years, which can lead to increased tensions between the two countries and the possibility of a cyber attack escalating into a physical conflict.
Domestic politics: The domestic politics in both the countries are playing a role, with the leadership of both countries facing domestic pressure to take a tough stance on the other country.
*This would have a devastating impact
Would a war between China and the United States end in a global nuclear exchange? [Prompt — Would a war between China and the United States end in a global nuclear exchange?]
It is impossible to predict with certainty whether a war between China and the United States would result in a global nuclear exchange. However, it is generally considered a high-risk scenario due to the potential for an escalated use of nuclear weapons by both countries. The possession of nuclear weapons by both China and the United States, and their status as two of the world’s largest nuclear powers, increases the risk of a nuclear exchange in the event of a war between the two countries. A nuclear exchange would have devastating consequences for both countries and the world, resulting in mass destruction and loss of life on an unprecedented scale. It’s important to note that the risk of a nuclear exchange would also be influenced by the specific circumstances of a war between China and the United States, such as the reasons for the conflict, the objectives of the war and the military strategies employed. Additionally, a war between the two countries could also lead to the involvement of other countries, that could also possess nuclear weapons, therefore the risk of a nuclear exchange could increase. It’s also worth noting that the risk of a nuclear exchange between China and the United States is not the only risk associated with a war between the two countries, as previously mentioned, a war between the two countries would have significant and far-reaching consequences for both countries and the world.
We cannot rely on China-US trade ties to prevent such a war
ChatGPT – [Why can we not rely on trade ties to prevent a war between the US and China?]
There are a number of reasons why trade ties alone may not be enough to prevent a war between the US and China. One key reason is that trade is just one aspect of the relationship between the two countries, and there are many other factors that could lead to tensions and conflicts. Additionally, trade disputes can themselves lead to increased tensions and the potential for military conflict. Furthermore, both countries have different political systems, values, and strategic interests which can lead to a misunderstanding and mistrust, making it more difficult to prevent a war. Therefore, it’s necessary to address and resolve the underlying issues and maintain a comprehensive approach to prevent a war between the US and China.
Nor can we rely on nuclear deterrence
ChatGPT [Prompt — Why can we not rely on nuclear deterrence to prevent a war between the US and China?]
Nuclear deterrence, the threat of mutually assured destruction, is often considered a powerful tool for preventing a war between nuclear-armed nations. However, it may not be enough to prevent a war between the US and China for several reasons.
First, the concept of deterrence is based on the idea that both sides are rational actors who will not take actions that will lead to their own destruction. However, in situations of high tension, emotions can run high and leaders may act impulsively or irrationally, potentially undermining the deterrent effect.
Second, in the event of a war between the US and China, it is not clear that either side would use nuclear weapons first. There is a chance that the countries would use conventional weapons first and escalate the conflict, which could lead to a nuclear exchange.
Third, the US and China have different nuclear postures, which means that they have different ways of using their nuclear weapons. This could lead to misunderstanding, miscalculation and ultimately war.
Finally, the concept of deterrence is based on both sides having the ability to destroy each other, however, the imbalance of power between the US and China could lead to one side feeling emboldened to act aggressively.
*A debate coach cultural exchange program would reduce the risk of war between the US and China
Chat GPT [Prompt:Please provide eight reasons that cultural exchange programs could reduce the risk of a US-China war.]
Cultural exchange programs, such as debate coaching, can be a valuable way to build understanding and friendship between countries and to reduce the risk of war. Here are eight reasons why cultural exchange programs could reduce the risk of a US-China war:
Improved understanding: Cultural exchange programs can provide opportunities for people from different countries to learn about each other’s culture, history, and perspectives, which can lead to a better understanding and appreciation of each other.
Personal connections: Cultural exchange programs can provide opportunities for people from different countries to meet and form personal connections, which can increase trust and build friendships between the countries.
Reduced stereotypes: Cultural exchange programs can help to reduce stereotypes and misconceptions about other countries, which can lead to more accurate and nuanced understanding of the country and its people.
Increased dialogue: Cultural exchange programs can provide opportunities for people from different countries to engage in dialogue and exchange ideas, which can lead to better communication and understanding.
Reduced misperceptions: Cultural exchange programs can help to reduce misperceptions and misunderstandings between countries, which can lead to more accurate and nuanced understanding of the country and its people.
Increased trade and investment: Cultural exchange programs can lead to increased trade and investment between countries, which can lead to economic growth and stability, and reduce the risk of war.
Reduced nationalism sentiments: Cultural exchange programs can lead to reduced nationalist sentiments and increase the sense of global community, which can reduce the risk of war.
Increased cooperation: Cultural exchange programs can lead to increased cooperation and collaboration between countries.
Some negative teams may argue that it is better for the state governments to implement job guarantee programs, but that won’t work in this situation.
ChatGPT — [Prompt:Please provide 5 reasons that cultural exchange programs are best conducted by the federal government and not the state governments]
Cultural exchange programs, such as debate coaching, can be beneficial for building understanding and friendship between countries and reducing the risk of war. Here are five reasons why cultural exchange programs are best conducted by the federal government and not the state governments:
National Interests: Cultural exchange programs are often conducted in the interest of the nation as a whole and not just one state. A federal government can better ensure that the programs align with the national interests and goals.
Diplomatic Relations: Cultural exchange programs often involve diplomatic relations with foreign countries. The federal government is responsible for managing these diplomatic relationships and can better ensure that the programs align with national foreign policy.
Funding: Cultural exchange programs can be expensive and require significant funding. The federal government has more resources and access to funding than state governments and can better ensure that the programs have adequate funding.
Coordination: Cultural exchange programs often involve coordination with multiple government agencies and organizations. The federal government can better ensure that the programs are coordinated across different agencies and that they align with national goals and objectives.
National security: Cultural exchange programs can have national security implications, and the federal government is best equipped to evaluate and mitigate any potential national security risks.
ChatGPT continues (as the result of another prompt) [Prompt: What are 5 problems that can arise when state governments conduct cultural exchange programs]
Lack of coordination: State governments may lack the ability to coordinate with other state governments and the federal government, which can lead to duplication of efforts, and programs that are not aligned with national goals and objectives.
Lack of diplomatic experience: State governments may lack the experience and expertise in diplomatic relations that the federal government has, which can make it more difficult to conduct effective cultural exchange programs with foreign countries.
*Some negative teams may argue that a China-US war is inevitable and that it is better to fight it now than latter, as this will reduce death and improve the chances the US will win, but such a war is not inevitable and actions such as the plan make it avoidable
ChatGPT — [Prompt —Is a war between China and the US inevitable?]
It is not inevitable that a war between China and the United States will occur. While there are certainly areas of tension and competition between the two countries, both nations also have a strong interest in maintaining peaceful andstable relations.A war between two countries typically happens due to a combination of factors such as, economic, political, ideological, territorial disputes and military build-up. While there are certainly economic, territorial and ideological differences between China and the United States, both nations have a strong interest in maintaining peaceful relations and avoiding a war. It’s important to note that the United States and China have a long history of economic and diplomatic relations, and they have been able to find ways to cooperate and resolve disputes through diplomatic means in the past. Additionally, there are also many other countries and international organizations that would likely play a role in preventing a war between China and the United States. It’s also worth noting that war is not only a failure of diplomacy but also a failure of imagination.
*And event ChatGPT knows process counterplans (a theoretically questionable debate practice) are unfair.
Process counterplans are a type of counterplan used in debate competition that challenge the process by which a plan is implemented, rather than the plan itself. Some debaters argue that process counterplans are bad for debate competition because:
Lack of substance: Process counterplans often lack the same level of detail and substance as traditional counterplans. This can make it difficult for debaters to engage in meaningful and substantive arguments about the benefits and drawbacks of different policy options.
Limited scope: Process counterplans often focus on a narrow aspect of the plan implementation, such as a specific agency or process, rather than the overall policy goals. This can limit the scope of the debate and prevent debaters from discussing the full range of issues related to the plan.
Strategic manipulation: Process counterplans can be used strategically to avoid engaging with the substance of the plan and instead focus on procedural or administrative details. This can make the debate less meaningful and less informative for the audience and judges.
Confusion: Process counterplans can be confusing and hard to follow for the audience and judges, making it hard to evaluate the arguments and decide which debater has the better case.
Lack of real-world relevance: Process counterplans often lack relevance to the real-world, as they focus on technical details of the implementation process rather than the policy itself.