Thanks, Horizoz, for instigating this debate. In my opening argument, I will demonstrate, firstly, that my opponent’s argument is plagiarized from Chat-GPT, and secondly, his arguments fail to hold up to scrutiny anyhow.
II. Plagiarism
P1: My opponent has copied arguments from Chat-GPT without attribution.
1. My opponent has already confessed to using Chat-GPT when I asked him about it in DMs. However, since I can’t really prove this without taking a screenshot of DMs (which would be against the Code of Conduct), I’ll move on to some concrete evidence.
2. I will use three programs specifically designed to detect AI Generated text on my opponent’s opening argument. For a “control,” I will use Barney (a debater whose integrity is above question) as a comparison. The interested voter is encouraged to check my conclusions for themselves.
Horizoz: Likely to be AI Generated
Barney: Very Unlikely to be AI Generated
Horizoz: 99.98% chance to be AI Generated
Barney: 0.03% chance to be AI Generated
Horizoz: 100% of text detected to be AI Generated
Barney: 0% of text detected to be AI Generated
d. Conclusion
The results speak for themselves – not even taking into account the unsourced claims, generic language, and “hedging” that are all signs of AI Generated text.
P2: Copying arguments from Chat-GPT without attribution is plagiarism.
Per Oxford’s definition of plagiarism, which is, “the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own,” using an AI to write your arguments for you is clearly plagiarism – especially considering that the AI itself uses sources from all over the Internet, which of course go uncited.
C1: My opponent has committed plagiarism.
Logically follows from the previous two premises.
C2: Voters should vote against my opponent.
Per DebateArt’s Voting Policy, plagiarism is “such an extreme offense, that even if identified outside the debate it may be voted with prejudice against the offender in all categories. While there exist minor cases that do not necessitate such grave sanctions, the determination of the degree of it generally rests with each voter.”
If you agree that plagiarizing an entire argument goes beyond a “minor case,” then you should vote against my opponent.
III. Constructives
Despite my opponent’s entire case being plagiarized, I will nevertheless put a few short arguments in order to affirm my side’s case.
First of all, Ukraine is currently at war with Russia. Therefore, if Ukraine “joined” Russia, it would de facto be an annexation by force, which would violate international law. [1]
Second of all, it would go against the will of the Ukrainian people, thereby defeating the purpose of benefiting them. 70% of Ukrainians support continuing the war until victory. Of the remaining 30%, most want a return to a status quo, and almost none want to be annexed by Russia. [2]
Third of all, Ukraine could gain far more by joining NATO. It would gain security, economic benefits, and improved diplomatic relations, without the cost of losing sovereignty.
IV. Rebuttals
“Security”: Ukraine’s security would hardly benefit from joining a country currently at war with them – not to mention it would risk the safety of the Ukrainians still fighting for their country.
“Economic Integration”: Completely outweighed by other considerations, like the minor detail that Russia has committed various war crimes against Ukraine, and the fact that perhaps lost lives should be weighed over gained jobs.
“Political Alignment”: My opponent continues to assert that being annexed would benefit Ukraine’s sovereignty.
“Cultural Ties”: Apparently cultural ties didn’t stop Russia from deliberately targeting civilians, a breach of international law. [4]
“Energy Dependence”: See my rebuttal to “Economic Integration.”
In summary, my opponent lists a bunch of purported benefits from joining a country currently at war with Ukraine – hardly a great idea.
Never mind.
Hm, I see. I guess I'll try doing devil's advocate.
Yeah, Con is supposed to be arguing why Ukraine should join NATO?
While PRO is arguing why Ukraine should join Russia?
I would just like to be clear,
Con is supposed to be arguing why Ukraine should join NATO?
While PRO is arguing why Ukraine should join Russia?