The ideas expressed in city club forums are those of the speakers and not of the City Club of Cleveland Ideastream Public Media or their sponsors Production and distribution of City club forums and ideastream Public Media are made possible by PNC and the United Black, Fond of Greater Cleveland, Inc.. Good afternoon and welcome to the City Club of Cleveland.

The City Club is devoted to conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive.

It's Friday, March 14th, 2025.

My name is Tom Lucchese, and I'm a partner at the law firm of Baker and Hostetler.

And on behalf of my firm and its partners and associates and employees, I'm pleased to introduce the 2025 High School Debate Championship.

This is the final round of competition for the North Coast District of the National Speech and Debate Association.

This event is part of the City Club's continuing commitment to young people in our community.

Baker and Hostetler, the law firm I've been with for 40 years, sponsors.

This event supports this event in the memory of our partner, Pat Jordan.

Pat I worked with Pat in the nineties.

Pat died 30 years ago and my firm has been supporting this event in his honor and his memory for 29 years.

It's quite the accomplishment.

We're joined today by Pat's wife, Sharon.

Pat's sister, Maggie Keeney, and Pat's brother Tom.

And you'll see a picture of Pat up here.

A big Irish guy looks like Tom.

So we're really pleased to remember Pat in this way, along with the high school programing coordinated by the City Club Youth Forum Council.

Baker and Hostetler is also proud to support student attendance and engagement in civil and civic dialog.

We'd like to extend our congratulations and best wishes to our two finalists.

I understand they've already know each other quite well.

They've debated each other already, and we look forward to this debate.

Debates are an important tool to teach us, to train or train us to explore ideas that we may not agree with.

And I think we know from what's going on in society today that the ability to debate rationally and reasonably and without personal, personal invective and vengeance is art that may be being lost.

And you young people are being trained in that, and I hope it serves you well.

Today's competitors will square off in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate which emphasizes logic, ethical values and philosophy.

This style of debate is named after the famous 1858 debates between Senate candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

Joining us as our on air commentators today are Mike MacIntyre, who's the executive director at Ideastream Public Media, and Mallory Kavanagh, a Lincoln Douglas debater herself at Solon High School.

Mallory will now introduce our judges, the competitors and the resolutions.

Mallory, turn it over to you.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Mallory Kavanagh, and I would first like to thank the City Club of Cleveland, as well as the law firm of Baker and Hostetler for supporting today's championship.

The City Club debate is such an incredible opportunity for US high school debaters, and we're endlessly grateful for their support of our activity.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is a one on one debate in which we discuss policies and government actions through the lens of philosophy.

Typically, LDA debates concern themselves with deciding whether or not certain actions or state of affairs are moral or immoral to do so.

Each debater will introduce a value.

What we as a society should value above all else.

Then they will offer a value criterion, a mechanism to achieve that value.

Finally, the debaters will offer contentions, arguments and evidence as to why affirming or negating the resolution can well achieve that value through the value criterion.

Throughout the debate, each debater will offer rebuttals as to why their position is true and their opponents is false in hopes of convincing the judges to vote in favor of them.

Today, our finalists will debate the topic resolved the developments of artificial general intelligence is a moral.

The debaters will be Zaid Ashraf on the affirmative.

A senior at university school coached by James Lewis and Madeline Burke on the negative.

A senior at Hathaway Brown School coached by Jason Haybeck.

Judging today's debate is Rich Wallace, director emeritus of speech and debate at Laurel School in a member of the Ohio Speech and Debate Association Board of Directors.

Secondly, we have Carol Ryan, speech and debate Coach at Gilmo And finally, David Witkowski, City Club board member.

Thank you all for being here today.

And now over to Mike McIntyre.

Thank you, Mallory.

I'm back here in the back of the room to the right, but you don't have to look this direction.

Just keep looking at the stage as Mallory makes her way over to me.

Allow me to note that we're here to witness an intellectual contest on a topic that could shape the future of humanity itself.

Resolved The development of artificial intelligence.

Artificial general intelligence is immoral.

Artificial general intelligence, or AGI, refers to machines that can think, reason and learn just as humans do.

As we stand at the precipice of such technological advancements, questions about the ethics of AGI become more urgent than ever.

I should note that every word I just said was generated by an artificial, narrow intelligence tool just before this speech, and we do live in changing times.

Imagine what what will happen when they become artificial general intelligence.

My job here, along with Mallory, will be to fill the spaces during this debate when the contestant does have time to prepare their arguments and their rebuttals.

And really, it's Mallory's job as she's a Lincoln-Douglas expert from Solon High School.

I'm just here to ask the questions until artificial General intelligence takes my job.

And with that, let's let the debate begin.

In the affirmative.

Zaid will begin.

Are you ready?

Okay.

The podium is yours.

Just for my last confirmation.

I'm Zaid Ashraf, speaking on the affirmative for university school.

Is everybody ready?

Perfect.

We'll begin my first word.

I affirm the resolution resolved.

The development of artificial general intelligence is immoral.

For clarity, I have one definition from IBM.

Artificial general intelligence.

Our AI is an artificial intelligence system that can match or exceed the cognitive abilities of human beings across any task.

Per the wording of the resolution, the value is morality defined as a system of duties applicable to all rational agents that have to do with good and evil.

And the value criterion or the best method to achieve this value is rejecting structural oppression.

An institution that is structurally oppressive is one that systematically violates the intrinsic dignity and worth of humans.

Preferred this value criterion for two reasons.

First, structural oppression is the paramount moral evil.

The basis for morality is the intrinsic dignity of humans, and oppression is the actual violation of that dignity.

Second is the prerequisites.

When we don't consider those who are oppressed first and foremost, they will always be de-emphasizing moral discourse and marginalized in society.

And with that, my first contention is digital redlining.

There are two reasons why AGI would exacerbate inequality.

First, wealth concentration core in Act 24 indicates that global powers like the US and China, who already lead in the air race, look to dominate AGI development as well, leaving poorer nations perpetually behind in a, quote, global intelligence divide.

Second is inequality.

AGI development does not ensure equitable access.

SB 24 confirms that A.I.

makes new gaps in education by disproportionately benefiting wealthier students who can afford it just by the lottery of birth.

Thus, there are two impacts.

First is new age redlining.

Unity 23 explains that education is the foundation of social mobility.

Yet AGI in education would only deepen these existing inequalities.

Dr. Nicole Patterson pointed out on this very stage just months ago that schools serving predominantly minority students receive $23 billion less in funding annually than those serving predominately white students.

As AGI rapidly advances, its benefits will be overwhelmingly favoring the wealthy and powerful, further entrenching this racialized cyclical poverty.

The second impact is international oppression.

The U.N. reports that two thirds of the world school age children have no Internet access at home.

A digital divide that AGI deepens.

Don't let my opponent assert that AGI will be widespread or accessible if two thirds of the world's schoolchildren do not have Internet access.

Then how are they going to have the most cutting edge technology that we've ever seen?

The answer is clear.

They want leaving AGI to amplify global global power imbalances.

Third is brain drain.

Brookings, 23, warns that advancements in A.I.

keep developing nations dependent.

Driving brain drain as skilled workers leave for AGI based education abroad.

Deepening Global inequality.

My second contention is the work sector.

AGI harms the economy and workers in two ways versus small businesses.

However, Act 20 explains that AGI research is monopolized by corporate giants as they are the ones that can afford its overwhelming costs.

So when AGI is developed, it will only be accessible to these big businesses and that skews small businesses out of advanced data analysis and market evaluations.

Second is working conditions.

Look how Amazon already uses A.I.

to humanize workers through tracking bathroom breaks and constant surveillance.

Combine these corporate practices with the exploitative use of AGI, and workers will be subjected to awful conditions in the most efficient way possible.

The impact is twofold.

First is the economy.

When small businesses are pushed out of the AI race, it destroys competition, leading to monopolies and economic stagnation.

Lavaca, 16, finds that reduced competition allows large corporations to raise prices and lower wages, ultimately harming consumers, workers and small businesses, which contribute 44% to domestic GDP.

The second impact is dehumanizing workers by subjecting workers to brutal conditions.

AGI erodes their dignity and quality of life.

Thus, AGI managed world is a world managed inhumanely with AGI, the best case scenario is that workers are put in even worse conditions.

The worst case scenario, they're replaced entirely.

Which brings me to my third contention devouring the will.

AGI destroys will and autonomy, eroding humanity in two ways.

First is ego's internal purpose.

AGI is not merely a tool that in enhances human capacity.

It is designed explicitly to replace human cognition.

Openai itself defines AGI as a, quote, highly autonomous system that outperforms humans and most economically valuable work.

AGI is not intended to assist or empower humans, but to make human work obsolete.

Simply put, human purpose is defined by the endeavor toward certain ends like that of work.

And AGI destroys the possibility of these endeavors.

Second is intellectual agency.

The nature of tools is that they augment human will.

It brings to mind the old adage For someone holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

AGI Unlike traditional tools like languages, ladders or lecterns, does not merely extend human will.

It replaces it historically.

Technologies like the computer and the Internet expanded human potential without removing the human as the central actor.

In contrast, AGI devours human will dominating its user.

With AGI, the tool uses you.

The impact is clear.

The fundamental quality of oppression is that destroys one's will and capacity to act, which is the nature of AGI.

As a tool.

Thus, AGI is intrinsically oppressive and therefore immoral.

And because I cannot stand for that, I affirm.

Unfortunately, I have stamped across.

Is anybody not ready for the cross?

Okay, great.

I'll start the three minute timer.

Now, so I want to start by looking at the resolution sort of grammatically.

So what is the word, a moral being used to describe here?

Artificial and artificial general intelligence.

So the main subject is the act of humans attempting to develop it.

So what about your arguments about digital read mining and job loss?

Address the process that humans will have to go to to develop AGI itself.

We have two responses.

First and foremost, we tell you through the contention.

Three that we prove that AGI is inherently immoral.

Second, and also importantly, we would tell you that if we know that something is bad, the development of that bad thing is also bad.

Okay, so you and I can agree that humans have been inventing and developing new things for a long time now.

Right.

And some technologies may be used for good, but some can be used for bad as well.

But does that make the act of humans trying to develop solutions to societal problems inherently immoral?

Yeah, a few responses to that as well.

First and foremost, we would tell you that AGI is not a solution.

It's the problem.

Second, we would tell you that it's too late to analyze things like the computer and the Internet and how they've affected society.

We are now looking at AGI and how that works.

Is it too late to look back to historical references in which people have developed new things?

Because AGI is a new tool, as you will probably discover that we've ever developed has always been a new tool.

It's been a new tool, but it's never been like AGI.

AGI is uniquely autonomous and ever adapting unlike anything we've ever seen.

So what exactly about the affirmative world?

You're telling us that you're going to address flawed structures in society.

How does the affirmative do anything to address flawed structures?

So if you look at the wording of the value criterion, it's rejecting structural oppression.

That's key, because the first step of rejecting structural oppression is not making it worse.

What AGI does is it makes it worse.

But you're not actually changing any of our status quo structures, correct?

Well, yeah, the affirmative in this resolution isn't a plan.

It's not passing a policy.

It's having us analyze what the morality of an object in the development of the object is.

So you give us this argument about digital redlining, right?

Yes.

So let's assume that AGI is distributed completely, fairly and equitably.

Would it become moral then, if in this argument I would tell you that it's pretty much impossible to win that argument insofar as you would have to adapt the entire landscape of the answer to that question.

Let's assume that it is distributed equitably when it then become moral.

I would just tell you that it's a nonsensical question insofar as that's not going to happen.

Okay.

And by giving us this digital redlining argument, are you telling us that AGI should be given fairly?

It should be, but it's not going to be.

So if we're saying that it should be given fairly, aren't we assuming that there are some benefits to this technology?

We are telling you that even if there are benefits, that's bad because it's only going to the people that have it, not the people that don't.

All right.

So you give us these arguments that the root cause of this redlining argument is lack of Internet access.

How does AGI development make Internet access worse?

It doesn't make Internet access worse.

It perpetuates the inequality that is made by the lack of Internet access.

Great.

That's time.

All right.

I am 100% invested in this conversation.

Mallory Folks, we're going to talk a little here now about about what we've just seen.

And for our radio audience, just so you all know, they're listening and aren't able to.

We don't want dead air is basically what we're saying.

But Mallory, tell me a little bit What we saw here was the affirmative construction and the negative cross-examination.

What else do we expect throughout this?

For those who aren't familiar with debate?

Sure.

So later on in the round, we're going to see our debaters present rebuttals where they refute their opponents cases and also rebuild their own case.

In the next speech, we'll also see the debater, Madalyn, bring her own case to the stands and then she will cross-examine it.

The value resolution has been in effect, this one since the beginning of March.

It'll be through April.

Tell me what it's like when you encounter a new resolution in the year.

This has just been a couple of weeks.

Is there excitement for it or is there some trepidation?

There is definitely a lot of excitement.

So when we're picking a resolution, all debaters have the opportunity to go online and vote for what resolution they would like to see debated.

So there's often a lot of discussion within the debate community about which resolution should be voted for and which one will ultimately win.

And for the debaters, when you're ready, just let us know it's not us driving the clock it to you and we'll stop as soon as you're ready to go.

What did you vote for?

Did you vote for this?

I did vote for this one.

And have you debated this topic?

Yes, I have.

And have you been on both sides?

Yes.

And how was that?

I really like debating both sides in general.

I like the negative side a lot better.

But.

Okay.

And we now are ready for Madeline to offer the negative construction.

Today's negative speech, the order is going to be the negative case.

And then responses to my opponent's case.

Sorry.

Is anybody not ready?

Okay, great.

I'll start that time now.

In the early 1800s before the development of cars, many were afraid that if a car went over 18 miles per hour, the passengers inside would suffocate because every innovative technology humans have ever developed has always begun with fear and ended with progress.

I probably indicate the resolved the development of artificial general intelligence is immoral.

My value is morality defined by Hellenistic philosophy as, quote, the categorization of decisions and actions into those that are proper or right and those that are improper or wrong.

The bad criterion is going to be about ensuring technological development.

Technological development is defined by Tigers 23 as, quote, a process in which the application of new knowledge related to technology has a visible, practical results.

You preferred this valid criterion because all nine emphasizes that development is the most fundamental human activity.

There is this innate drive that pushed the first few humans to rub sticks together to start a fire.

It's what separates humans as a species from animals.

It's a core pillar of our humanity.

And the moment that we begin to deny development as immoral is the moment that we begin to deny something that makes us truly human.

I have one key definition for today's round.

The U.S. defines AGI as, quote, systems that possess autonomous self-control and the ability to learn new skills.

And I have one key observation as well.

By encoding the word development as the main subject in today's resolution, my point has been given the unique burden to prove why the actions of humans being curious and attempting to develop AGI is immoral.

If they can't do that for you and you've an easy negative ballot, the sole contention for today's round is that AGI is the best opportunity we have to regulate misinformation in the media or has our 24 writes that we are facing a severe misinformation crisis in the status quo, specifically on social media.

As fake news continues to go viral, platforms such as Tik Tok and Metta are struggling to flag and report misinformation before it can reach millions of viewers.

We 24 finds that there are three key reasons why AGI is the best possible technology we can use to combat misinformation.

First, each as advanced systems, would be able to analyze misinformation patterns to fact check to detect false information in massive quantities.

Second, EGIS conscious nature would have the unique ability to understand the nuances between false information that has been spread intentionally and false information that has been spread unintentionally and then handle the situation accordingly.

But third, and most importantly, go 15 finds that the autonomous nature of ages would allow them to work against and resist malicious media algorithms that have been designed to promote false information to gain as many viral views as possible.

However, the impact of failing to develop AGI is misinformation threatens our democratic society.

When 24 continues that the most significant threat media misinformation currently poses is the rapid spread of political misinformation.

This misinformation prevents voters from making discerning truth from falsehood and making conscious decisions when voting, and that's going to harm our most core democratic process.

For all these reasons and more, I negate and I will now move on to responding to my opponent's case.

We have the same values of morality.

We're going to differ on the by criterion.

Mine is going to be about technological development.

They tell you theirs is about structural oppression.

And there's two key responses.

First, remember the questioning from cross?

There's not absolutely nothing about the affirmative that actually takes action to address existing oppressive structures.

All of those structures say exactly the same in their world.

Keep that in mind.

But second, even if we assume that the affirmative was doing something to address these problems, we know that the negative criterion of ensuring technological development is always a prerequisite, because the only way that we can address structural problems is if we develop a solution to them.

That means if you want to address problems in society, you're always looking to the negative.

But as to overview responses on their case first, as you evaluate the affirmative case.

Notice the contradictions.

My opponent is both critiquing the status quo by giving us arguments about digital redlining and poverty.

But they're also defending it by claiming that we should continue to live in the world we are currently a part of and not develop a solution for my opponent to pick a side.

Should we stay in the world we're in right now or should we develop a possible solution to it?

But the second key overview response is that these of these responses on unfair distribution and just aren't exactly true for 24 informs us that major tech companies are planning to develop AGI and replace it as an open source software, which basically means that it could be available publicly and freely.

Sure, people may not have access to a full functioning AGI robot, but they would still be able to access the technology in different ways.

That's what's key that my point is missing.

But let's respond more specifically to their arguments on the digital right.

I claim as an overview, we're going to tell you that by claiming that AGI needs to be distributed fairly.

My point in this actually conceding to the fact that the development of this technology would be good and that we should be giving it fairly to everyone.

So in that way they've already indicated the resolution, but then they give you this point saying, well, poor countries or organizations are going to be left behind and we're going to tell you that the opposite is actually true.

Richer, 24, explains that there is a concept known as leapfrogging in development in which lower income countries or lower income organizations can skip intermediate technological systems and go straight to the modern equivalent.

We saw that empirically in countries such as Ghana and Nigeria, in which they skipped landline phones and went directly to mobile telephones.

That's yet another reason why the development of this technology is inherently good, because it's going to give these organizations an opportunity to leapfrog and catch up in their world.

There is no opportunity for that.

But then on their contention, too, about working conditions, first they give us this warrant on small businesses.

We're going to tell you to turn this argument against them first.

We've already proven that this will be an open source technology.

But you look at Elliott, 24, which finds that over half of small business owners feel too overwhelmed to complete daily tasks required to fully function their business.

And I would have the opportunity to relieve them of many of those tedious business tasks that it can't handle on their own.

That's yet another example of how development is the only side that can give us an opportunity to help these businesses.

But then they give you this idea that while corporations are going to abuse their workers through technology, we tell you look to Global Trends 21, which tells you that each AI technology has the capability to open up new, less dangerous jobs for workers.

Empirically, you could tell there would be less mining, dangerous jobs they would have to do and fulfill more fulfilling tasks.

But then they tell you, while AGI is going to replace the human well, first we titled back to our Car anecdote at the beginning of our case.

Cars technically replaced horse drawn carriages, but that doesn't make cars inherently bad because humans are still working alongside them.

But second, we look to Fritz 24, which tells you that while HDI may have human cognitive capabilities, they'll never be able to replace human emotions.

That's going to include jobs like babysitters, therapists, nurses that will never be replaced by humans.

Humans will always have a unique role in the job market.

That's what my opponent misses in today's roode.

We can't let fear hold us back.

Ina gait, I'm ready for cross.

Everyone could cross.

Perfect.

We'll be going to my first word.

Let's turn your value criterion about ensuring technology development.

So is the purpose of this just to advance society?

We're saying that advancement is always beneficial.

Okay.

Is advancement beneficial if it comes at the expense of the oppressed?

Well, we'd say that development itself, that's a very means focused argument.

The means and act of being curious and trying to develop a solution is never inherently immoral.

Okay.

So you're talking about the intent of developing a technology, not the ends of developing.

That's the main subject in today's resolution is the means.

It's about.

Okay, so let's be clear then.

Your value and your case is not actually weighed under any means based argument.

It is opposite any ends based arguments.

All means based on it.

We give you a clear impact on our case to show you why we can prove both the development and the outcomes of that development.

Yeah, but you just said your value criterion is primarily focused on the means, not the well, the recognition is primarily focused on the means.

So we're going to focus on the means.

And that's what I'm trying to figure out.

Sure, we're going to focus on the means primarily in today's round, but we're going to give you reasons why the outcomes are beneficial as well.

Sure.

Let's move on then, specifically the story, your contention, one about misinformation.

Do you know who the people who are developing this AGI are?

Well, it'd be open source technologies.

So it's creation.

What's open source technology?

Right.

So open eyes, one corporation that would be developing AGI and we're not completely open to it is not open source.

Right.

We know that.

Okay.

Let's move on then.

Specifically, you talk about avoiding media algorithms.

Okay.

So these media algorithms, what's going to be programed by, if not the algorithms that already exist?

Well, hold on.

It's a unique technology because it doesn't spend on programing or data.

It's an autonomous technology.

So how is it going to come about?

Well, hold on.

They're being programed and created initially, but afterwards, that's when they become an autonomous one.

They're being programed initially.

What are they being programed by?

What data we're feeding them?

Well, I'm not personally an AGI technologist myself.

We don't I can tell you that we are seeing that they may be programed initially.

What makes it a unique technology is that they become autonomous as defined.

In my case, we don't need to be age, technol technological developers or whatever to understand that the algorithms that are going to be fed to AGI are going to be necessary to create it in the first place.

You and I are autonomous beings and we don't depend on algorithms just that already exist.

Can I finish?

Answered Yes, sure.

We're going to say that autonomous technologies don't depend on algorithms because they're autonomous, just like how we are okay, even though we are autonomous, we are still a programed every day by the experiences we have and be more importantly, humans that exist.

AGI does not exist yet, but let's move on to my case specifically on my content, on my value criterion.

You tell you tell us that structural oppression is a prerequisite because it's also technology is a prerequisite because it solves structural oppression.

So can we create this technology in an oppressive manner?

You're missing the point.

The point is that every time we've ever changed a structural problem is with the development of a solution to that problem.

Yeah, but it's not always the solution.

We know that development is the only way to have an opportunity to make a solution.

Okay.

Development of what, specifically?

Just technology?

Or can we just develop policies?

Specifically, we're focusing on AGI development for our case.

Okay.

That's cross.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Debaters.

Mike MacIntyre here from Ideastream Public Media.

I'm with Mallory.

Folks, we're on the radio now.

If you'll pay a little bit of attention this way to Mallory as we talk about what we've just seen and Mallory, how does it feel to be at a debate and not have to be in the debate?

It's really great.

I love watching it and see what arguments they're going to make.

Obviously, while they're making arguments, I'm thinking of what I would say, but I love just watching it.

And these two debated just last week on this very topic on opposite sides, which shows you the facility with which these young people learn the material and are able to able to debate.

What does it mean to have a rematch, in your view?

Is it an advantage or disadvantage?

Um, I would say I think it's a disadvantage.

I really like being able to debate a bunch of different people and see a lot of new ideas.

And I think when you're debating the same person over and over again, you understand what they're like stylistically and maybe what arguments they're going to make.

One of the key words in the resolution is develop the development of of AGI.

How important do you think that is when you were looking at this to talk about that process, not just the end result of what AGI is?

I would say development is one of the biggest words in the whole resolution.

I know when we first started talking about the topic, my coaches, teammates and I spent like half an hour discussing just the word developing.

And I think it really ties back to the central question of the resolution is asking if we should develop AGI, not just if it's a moral or not.

And let me get into sort of what we're hearing here, which is we described earlier, it's a value debate in policy.

It's completely different.

So tell me about what we're hearing here in terms of getting across values.

Sure.

So we heard our debaters present a value, which is something they believe is an overall good in society.

And then we heard them say a value criterion in which they achieve this.

I would say LG debate is a lot more focused on philosophical ideas than other forms of debates.

Right?

It appears that this aide is ready now to deliver.

This would be the affirmative rebuttal.

Yes.

Okay.

The affirmative rebuttal.

And you can start one.

Ready read.

Perfect.

Just quickly, the order of the speech is going to be starting on the framework debates, then moving on to my case, the affirmative, then finishing off of my opponent's case.

The negative.

Is everybody ready?

I'll be going to my first word.

Let's start the framework debate.

My valley criterion is rejecting structural oppression.

It's the one they should prioritize in this round.

Their first argument is that nothing about the affirmative actually addresses it.

But I tell you in cross-examination that the first step of rejecting structural oppression is not making it worse.

What does Their second response is pretty much just an extension of their value criterion.

So let's head on over said that a few problems.

First, we would tell you that the purpose of ensuring technology development is just to advance society.

But advancing society will always happen at the expense of the marginalized because you're prioritizing the majority.

Second, we would tell you that when you develop certain technological advancements, that is only going to certain people, that only helps those people and doesn't help all of society at that point.

Let's go on to my case on the contention one about digital redlining.

Their first argument is that we are critiquing the status quo and defending it.

I'm not defending the status quo.

I'm dealing with the realities that will perpetuate the problems that we see in the status quo.

Their second argument is about how things are open source.

We saw that across a lot of this stuff is not open source.

But second, and more importantly, two thirds of the world school children do not have Internet access.

How are they going to have open source technology that is based on the Internet?

Third, they tell you that the development is good because we tell you that certain people having it is good for the development.

I tell you that insofar as some people have it and some people don't, that exacerbates actual oppression, which is the direct link to morality today.

Fourth, that they tell you that low income countries have this leapfrog effect.

How are they going to access it if they don't have Internet to explain that on the contention to, they turn it by telling you that small businesses are overwhelmed right now.

I would tell you that even if small businesses are overwhelmed, they're not going to be helped by the 80.

I look at the evidence that was considered in case we tell you that small businesses do are not able to afford the cost or even implement the AG in the first place.

Yeah, they're overwhelmed and they're not going to get the AGI anyways.

Second, they tell you that we are going to open less dangerous jobs.

I would tell you that these jobs are not going to the miners, that they are being replaced.

They are being replaced.

The coal miners, whatever labor jobs that are being replaced, it is going to the high level tech pros out in Silicon Valley on the contention three, They first tell you that cars are being replaced by by carriages is not inherently immoral.

But that's not the same as replacing humans in human well.

Second, they tell you that we are never going to replace emotions, but you can look through the both the definitions that we give you at the top of case.

Both talk about sentience and rationality.

Their entire case is about how AGI can disparate.

We can understand the difference between bad information and good information.

The way they do that is through sympathy and things like this.

At that point, let's actually head on over to that case.

Start at the top on their observation.

They tell you that being curious isn't always bad.

I would tell you that being curious about something that is super damaging for society is on their first contention about misinformation.

I would first turn it against them because I would ask you who has AGI, who is developing AGI in the first place?

It is the big, powerful people who are dominating society already.

These powerful people have powerful interests they want to perpetuate through this AGI.

Second, I would tell you that they've talk about how this is going to be open source technology.

You can at the way that Charity Betty is structured right now.

One, it's not open source.

And two, and more importantly, even if it was, people still have to pay to get higher levels of chatbot.

Third, I would tell you there's nothing specific about their second warrant about why AGI can specifically understand nuances.

That's just word soup.

Fourth, I would tell you on their third warrant that when they talk about how we are trying to avoid media algorithms, that's nonsensical insofar as AGI actually has to be programed by algorithms in the first place.

These algorithms that are existing, like they say are racist, are biased, they're bad.

AGI needs to be programed by something and it's going to take a lot of time for it to discern what is good and bad.

If it's fed 99% of bad information, the fifth and final response is going to tell you that their impact at any point is an ends based argument.

It's about making a democratic society.

They acknowledge that this is a means based resolution.

Insofar as that's true, we are the only side giving you a means based argument at that point.

It's an easy affirmative.

All right.

We have we have to let them go ahead.

We have a little bit of time.

I should note that the debaters get four total minutes of prep time throughout the debate.

They can use it however they like.

This was another spot in which some of that time can be used before the next rebuttal is given.

And I wanted to ask a little bit about what they're doing when they're not talking, writing a lot of stuff down.

There's something called flowing the debate or debate flow.

Tell me a little bit, if you could, Mallory Kavanaugh what that is.

Yeah.

So a flow is basically when you write down your case and your opponent's case, and then you write down everything you're going to say against your opponent's case and what they said against yours, it's basically a way to keep track of what's happening in the debate.

And are you looking at what they said and then what I need to do to refute that?

Yes, You can see that debaters also bring up a lot of evidence.

So they'll usually write that down on their flow so they know to bring that up when they're speaking.

And how do you mark that?

Do you put a little star next to it?

Some people use initials for certain things.

Usually I just write the last name of the piece of evidence I'm going to read, but I know I'll like do stars and exclamation points on like big points I want to bring up.

And that's a key point evidence.

You don't just hear people giving opinion here.

I heard in in both of the constructions that there were references to articles or scholarly journals or those types of things.

So there's a lot of research that goes into this.

Yes, definitely A ton of hours are spent researching and you use this thing called the Internet for that now.

Yeah.

Okay.

Back in my day, we used to have to look through the magazines, cut them out and put them on cards.

But you do basically that same kind of research, making sure, as we just heard, an argument about fake news and stuff that isn't real, making sure that what you're looking at is legitimate sources of information.

Yes.

Yes.

By the way, happy pi day to everybody.

And I hope you're enjoying it.

I wanted to ask to what the judges are going to be looking for.

We've got a group of judges on the front.

I see that they're writing assiduously now as well.

What are they looking for?

Sure.

So a lot of the times the judges want to look at who wins the framework debates to see how they should be voting on the round through a philosophical lens.

And they also want to look to who has the biggest intrinsic impacts and who is winning those impacts throughout the rounds.

So what's interesting about that is it isn't necessarily about the best order when you look at a political debate, which is not quite like this, you might see somebody that gets style points because they're really charismatic.

In this case, it's really just about the stuff.

Yes, we definitely want to be looking at evidence and not just speaking.

Well, okay.

I believe Madeleine appears to be ready and we're going to turn it over to her.

Okay.

So for the final speech of the negative, the order is going to be addressing the affirmative side of the flow and then go over to the negative side and give some key voting issues for why you care about the negative.

At the end of today's round is not ready.

Okay, great.

Then I'll start the six minute timer.

Now, judges, all of my opponent's arguments depend on AGI being distributed unfairly.

But that's not inherent AGI.

It's not inherent at all, which is why you need to be looking to the negative at the end of today's round.

But on a more specific level, my opponent is saying that I only extend my technological value criterion in response to theirs.

But it's not just an extension.

It was a prerequisite that they did not respond to, which tells you that the only time that you have an opportunity to address problems with structures in society is when you develop.

That's a nuance that my opponent misses.

They deny development, which is going to normalize if you're against it in the long term.

But we'll extend that more later.

Then they give you this idea that it's not going to be open source, but they can't give you one piece of evidence to say that it won't.

We give you 1424, which tells you really clearly that developers of CGI specifically mark, they're planning to open source this as a source of technology freely and equitably.

They tell you, well, Chatty Betty is an open source, but they have no evidence.

Our fourth 24 evidence indicates that it is open sourced.

That's going to be key at the end of today's round because it shows you all of their arguments about unfair distribution just aren't true.

But let's keep going down the flow.

They tell us that some people are going to have it, some people aren't because of this lack of Internet access.

But judges, we're going to tell you lock up Internet access is a completely different problem exterior of today's resolution.

They can't bring in outside problems to try and prove their point.

They need to tell you why.

In a perfect world, the development of AGI would be immoral.

And that's what my opponent is missing at the end of today's round, because all they can do is give you exterior problems.

But then they tell you, well, it's not going to help small businesses.

But again, they can't give you a piece of evidence.

Our evidence really clearly indicates that small businesses are overwhelmed and AGI is the best solution to help respond to them, force them to give you a piece of evidence that says it won't be given accessibly to them.

But then they tell you, well, it's not going to replace it's only going replace higher level jobs.

It won't help miners.

But judges, my point tells us it's going to claim that AGI is going to wipe us all out of the workplace.

But then they tell us it's only going to wipe out higher level jobs.

Which one is it?

They haven't really clearly told us that today, but then they tell us in response to their contention, three, that, well, cars are not the same as ideas, but judges, we're going to tell you it's the same story of fear that has been used an overused, again, it's also my second word.

They tell us, while AGI is still conscious so we can still take emotional jobs.

Judges, neither of my opponents definitions have said that AGI can handle and are capable of human emotions, So we're not going to see them replacing emotional jobs either at the end of today's round.

But on the negative side of the flow, all they do is extend their valid criteria and they don't actually tell you why.

The act of developing technology is bad.

We show you that it's not going to harm marginalized communities like they claim it will, but then they tell you, Well, we shouldn't develop technology if we know it's going to be dangerous.

But we tell you to look to autonomous weapons.

Those may have been dangerous, but in the long term, the development of them have actually deterred a majority of the conflicts we could see in the status quo.

And that's going to be key.

But then as some overview responses, we're going to tell you there's no evidence to support a majority of the claims that they make in response to our case.

And judges evidence is really important because if there's no evidence, then my opponent is just making claims specifically going down.

They tell us, well, AGI is going to be controlled by algorithms, which means they can't resist them.

But we're going tell you to extend our IWC evidence, which tells you that each year are in autonomous technology, they're programed.

Initially, but after that, they're not controlled by algorithms, just like how we're not controlled by algorithms as we're autonomous beings.

But then they tell us that I'm only giving you ends based arguments.

We're going to tell you that we're the only that has actually interacted with the decision of whether people should develop ideas, but that we just in Turkey voting issues for today's round judges.

Today's resolution is asking us to really important questions.

First is the act of developing AGI moral and second, are the outcomes of that AGI development moral as well.

And we're going to tell you, you easily sign your ballot negative because we're the only side that's been able to give you an answer to those two questions.

Our first key voting issue was on the first question.

We tell you very clearly that our framework of ensuring technological development in order achieve morality is key and it is moral because all nine shows you that development is the most fundamental human activity there is.

It's what separates humans from animals, and it's our job to develop solutions to societal problems.

The problem with the affirmative is that in their world they label this development as immoral, and that's going to be really problematic in the long term because the moment to the second we decide that development is a moral is the moment that we're normalizing fear and we're preventing it in the long term, that's going to be extremely detrimental for us in the long term.

So you can vote negative on us proving that the development itself is moral because let's face it, my opponent and I could go back and forth all day to technology is used for good technology could be used for bad.

But the one part the resolution we can really resolve is, is it okay for humans to even try and develop this new technology?

And we've shown you that it inherently is does take all their arguments on the flow at the highest ground.

Let's assume that there are job loss, that the technology is used for bad things.

The development not trying to get there is still inherently moral are second key voting issues.

On the second question, our contention on AGI regulating misinformation shows you why the outcomes of AI development are the only possibility we have to combat misinformation.

We show you specifically because of the autonomous nature of AGI, they would be able to resist malicious media algorithms that promote misinformation, the status quo, because the truth is companies do not have the resources that they need right now to regulate misinformation.

And AGI is the best opportunity we have because misinformation becomes stronger.

Democracy is becoming weaker, which means we need to take every action we can right now to respond to that problem.

And the only side that's taking action to respond is the negative.

The affirmative is not, but is.

If you take anything away from the end of today's round, you can let it be this.

My opponent is probably going to stand up in their next speech and they're going to tell you a story.

They're going to tell you a story of fear in which ages take away all of our jobs or story in which ages are not distributed fairly and thus are immoral.

But we're going to remind you judges, that that is just a story.

At the other day.

We've already proven that they will be fairly distributed through open source A.I.

technology.

But on a deeper level, you need to look back to their car anecdote at the beginning where a case every invention have ever created has always begun with fear, but it's always ended with progress.

My opponent wants to tell you a story of fear that's going to hold us back from addressing the core problems of our society, like misinformation, poverty.

We're going to tell you a reality that can help push us forward because cars don't suffer cars when going over 20 miles an hour.

So you have an easy negative ballot.

We're now here on our final prep time break here.

I'm Mike MacIntyre with Ideastream Public Media.

I'm here with Mallory CAVANAUGH.

She is with Solon High School.

And Mallory, what we've had is a report of a rebuttal from the affirmative and then from the negative.

But then the affirmative gets to get back up there again to bite at the apple.

Plus you close the show.

Is that an advantage?

I would say the benefit of the affirmative is definitely getting to speak first and last.

But with the negative, your chunks of speaking are a lot longer.

So it's easier to talk about anything you want to talk about throughout the rounds and when we talk about focusing on what the judges are looking at, we've talked slightly about that, but are they at this point looking for something that could that could change their opinion?

Yes, I would say at this point in the round, they're really just talking about what arguments they know they're going to win so they can hopefully persuade the judge to vote in their favor.

I see our two competitors are with each other.

Is that unusual?

A little bit.

I I think what they're doing up there is exchanging pieces of evidence.

So if you believe that your opponent's evidence might be falsified, you can call for the evidence in which your opponent has to show it to you.

And are you ready for that kind of thing?

Do you kind of already know because you've done it in this case?

It's been a couple of weeks.

You know, what kind of evidence is coming.

So, you know, what kind of evidence might be.

You know, the card you can play that that defeats it.

Yes.

Once you've heard a lot of evidence a bunch of times, you definitely know what's real and what kind of sounds falsified or exaggerated.

And let me ask you a little bit about yourself.

Why did you pursue Lincoln-Douglas debate?

You're a senior now, right?

Yes.

Did this start freshman year?

Did you come in raring to go or did someone just walk by and start arguing with you?

So I actually started doing public forum debate when I was in eighth grade and freshman year because I needed something to do in COVID.

And then I transitioned to Lincoln-Douglas debate just because I found it a little bit more interesting.

All right, folks, with the final thought of the debate in the second affirmative rebuttal, we have, Zaid, quickly, for my last speech of my debate career.

Oof is the orders going to be starting on framer quickly going to their key voting issues than my key voting issues?

Is everybody ready?

I'll be on my first word.

Let's begin with you.

Framework debate.

You don't respond to either of the responses I give to you on theirs.

Let's start on them.

I pretty much tell you that the purpose of ensuring technological development is just to advance society.

Advancing society as a majority will always come at the expense of the minority.

That's why we need to prefer structural oppression.

Then we have two prerequisites going on.

Does structural oppression pre req, technology development or the other way around?

Structural oppression is a prerequisite for the reason that they have conceded.

We tell you that if you allow for technological development just to advance society, that advancement of society is always coming because of the majority.

At that point, you know that a lot of structural oppression can be justified just to quote advanced society at that point.

Let's move on to their key voting issues, because they're not even winning on their own case, strong on their first key voting issue about technology development.

Two responses.

First, there is not an adequate response to the topic of top shelf response that I leave on their case.

Specifically the turn.

The turn indicates to you that when when AGI is developed, it is going to be developed by powerful people with powerful positions that want to further their own interests.

These powerful people are going to want to spread misinformation.

And you know how that's true.

Their only response is an IWC card.

Know what IWC stands for?

Amazon Web Services.

Bezos is literally the one writing this to tell you AGI is good because he wants to develop AGI to oppress his workers.

Like I literally told you in case.

The second thing on misinformation is that they can see the response that we tell you, which is air.

I already can understand the nuances of certain arguments.

We don't have any idea why we need to do this in the first place.

Then let's go on to the top shelf evidence that they read about this Forbes 24 card that tells you that open air is open source.

It's not Look anywhere in the card that they showed you.

Open air is not open source at that point.

They try to tell you that, oh, evidence is better than no evidence.

I would tell you that logic is way better than falsified biased evidence at that point.

Let's go in with our own key voting issues.

The first key voting issue is going to be about inequality.

We tell you that through wealth, concentration and global inequality, AGI reinforces structural inequality at every level, making social mobility an illusion for those already disadvantaged.

Their only defense on this point is that we're not changing anything.

We're not making anything better.

But the if conceded the analysis since the beginning of this round that the first step of rejecting structural oppression is not making it worse.

We don't want to risk this idea of possibly saving it.

We don't want to pour oil on a burning fire just because it's a liquid.

Do not vote for the negative just because there's a chance that all things when there's a far bigger chance that hurts.

The second key voting issue is going to be about the contention three about means.

They already told you that this argument is this entire debate is about in means based arguments.

Their only response to that contention is about how we are going to not replace the emotions of human beings.

But we tell you that that is exactly what AGI does in terms of it being rational and sentient.

Those three words about inequality, workers, intellect, development are the three top words at the top of your ballot when you're voting for the affirmative.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

You've been listening to the high school debate championship at the City Club of Cleveland.

I want to say thank you to Mallory CAVANAUGH for helping to understand us throughout the program.

I'm Mike McIntyre, and now I'd like to welcome the chief executive of the City Club of Cleveland, Dan Mothra.

Thank you so much.

Can we get a round of applause for Mike McIntyre and Mallory?

Great job.

And if you'll also indulge me one more time to congratulate both of our competitors today.

Congratulations.

A few months ago, the City Club was honored to play host to associate Supreme Court Justice Katie Brown Jackson.

And when that happened, we Ariana Smith on our team.

There's Ariana.

Thank you very much.

Ariana had the great idea that we should that we should get a couple of signed copies for the two debaters the championship debate or so.

So we're really Cotati Brown Jackson, as you may know, was also a high school debater.

She talks about it a lot in this memoir, a lovely one.

And so we're delighted to present a copy of this book signed by the Taj Brown Jackson.

To both of you, congratulations.

And while the the judges are are doing their final tallies, I wanted to ask you both a question about debate and and kind of its role in society today.

Are you and Madeline, I'll start with you are you cognizant of the fact that this work that you do of being able to take either side is actually not something that a lot of people know how to do?

Doing both sides of the debate has really helped me outside of the activity to see alternate perspectives, because sometimes when I research the other side, I actually find points that I really like.

And so yeah, that's definitely helped me a ton.

Wonderful.

Zaid How critical is listening in all of this?

We focus a lot on the arguments you're making, but I sense that a lot of the work is actually when you're not talking.

Exactly.

Yeah, that's a great question.

I think listening is the bread and butter of debate.

If you don't listen, you don't know what arguments your opponents are saying because you can be so entrenched in your own mindset that you forget to take the objective view that the judge is taking.

So typically, a lot of folks in the room and a lot of folks listening on the radio are thinking, wow, these are two very talented high school seniors.

I wonder what their plans are next year.

So, Zaid, I'll start with you, because I know you have you've you've made a decision.

You are.

Do you want to do you want to share what you're planning on doing next year?

Yeah, sure.

I'm heading up to New York.

I'm going to be studying at Columbia University with intentions of being a doctor and a physician in the future.

Congratulations.

And.

And, Madeline, I know you haven't quite made up your mind, but you wanted to.

Do you want to tip your cards a little bit?

Yeah.

I'm really looking at the University of Michigan right now.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Tom Lucas is very happy about that.

And Tom's going to join us on stage right now to.

To declare the victor and the.

And the runner up.

Great job by both my both competitors.

Here was a great debate.

There has to be a winner.

And the winner is Madeline.

Congratulations on that.

Madeline.

Congratulations.

Okay.

And if you'll all bear with me for just a second, I'm going to close the forum out.

You have been listening to the City Club Forum, and a big thank you to all of all of you here in the at the city Club and listening on W KSU you for joining us for the 2025 High School Debate Championship presented in partnership with Baker Hostetler and in memory of Patrick Jordan.

Thank you all so much for being a part of this today.

Forums like this one are made possible thanks to generous contributions and support from individuals like all of you.

You can learn more about how to become a guardian of free speech at City Club Dawg.

A very well job well done to both of our competitors, Ashraf and Madeline Burke.

And a special thank you to our judges, Rich KOVALCHIK, Carol Ryan and David WITKOWSKY.

Thank you so much for being with us.

And of course, also thank you to Mallory CAVANAUGH and Mike McIntyre for the play by play and the and the analysis and color commentary.

And we want to thank all of our all the folks who have joined us as well at tables hosted by Aurora High School, Baker Hostetler, Bedford High School, Charles F Brush High School, Cleveland Early College High School, Collinwood High School.

Garfield Heights Middle School.

Gilmore Academy.

Hathaway Brown.

John F Kennedy High School.

Laurel School.

Lincoln West School of Global Studies.

Shaw High School Trio.

University School.

The family of Zaid Ashraf and the family of Madelyn Burke.

You guys rock.

Thank you all so much.

And that brings us to the end of our forum today.

Thank you all for being a part of it.

Please tell people in the rest of your life how wonderful this where this was today and how great these two debaters were.

Have a wonderful weekend.

I'm Dan Waltrip.

Our forum is adjourned for information on upcoming speakers or for podcasts of the City Club.

Go to City Club, dawg.

The ideas expressed in City club forums are those of the speakers and not of the city Club of Cleveland Ideastream Public Media or their sponsors.

Production and distribution of City club forums and ideastream Public media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland, Inc..