Um 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 coach's 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 immoral 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 LD debate is a lot more focused on philosophical ideas than other forms of debates.
Right. It appears that Zade is ready now um to deliver. This would be the um uh affirmative rebuttal. Yes. Okay.
The affirmative rebuttal. And you can start when ready. Zade. Perfect. Um just quickly, the order of the speech is going to be starting on the framework debate, then moving on to my case, the affirmative, then finishing off with my opponent's case, the negative.
Is everybody ready? I'll begin on my first word. Let's start on the framework debate. My value 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, which AGI does. Their second response is pretty much just an extension of their value criterion. So let's head on over to that. A few problems.
First, we would tell you that the purpose of ensuring technological 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 redlinining. Their first argument is that we are critiquing the status quo and defending it. I'm not defending the status quo.
I am dealing with the realities that AGI will perpetuate the problems that we see in the status quo. Their second argument is about how things are open source. We saw that in cross. A lot of the stuff is not open source. But second and more importantly, twothirds of the world's 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 in so far as some people have it and some people don't, that exacerbates structural oppression, which is the direct link into morality today. Fourth, they tell you that low-income countries have this leaprog effect. How are they going to access it if they don't have internet? Explain that.
on the contention two. 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 AGI. Look at the hype evidence that was conceded in case. We tell you that small businesses have do are not able to afford the cost to even implement the AGI in the first place.
Yeah, they're overwhelmed. 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 repl that are being replaced, the coal miners, whatever labor jobs that are being replaced. It is going to the highlevel tech bros out in Silicon Valley.
On the contention three, they first tell you that cars are being replaced by uh by carriages is not inherently immoral. But that's not the same as AGI replacing humans and human will. 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 dispers 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 their 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 talk about how this is going to be open source technology. You can look at the way that Chat GBT 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 Chat GBT. 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 in so far as AGI actually has to be programmed 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 programmed 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 endsbased argument. It's about making a democratic society.
They acknowledge that this is a means-based resolution. In so far 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 a little bit of Go ahead. We have a little bit of time.
I I should note that the debaters get four total minutes of prep time throughout the debate. They can use it however they like. This is another spot in which some of that time can be used uh before the next rebuttal is given. And I wanted to ask a little bit about what they're doing when they're not talking. Uh writing a lot of stuff down.
There's something called flowing the debate or debate flow. Tell me a little bit um if you could, Mallerie Kavanaaugh, 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 uh this thing called the internet for that now. Yes. Yes.
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. Uh, by the way, happy Pi Day to everybody. I hope you're enjoying it. Um I I wanted to ask too what the judges are going to be looking for. We've got a group of judges in 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 debate 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 round.
So, what's interesting about that is it isn't necessarily about the best ortor. Um, when you look at a political debate, which is not quite like this, you might see somebody that gets style points because they they're really um 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 Meline 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 anybody 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 to 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 the nuance that my opponent misses. They deny development, which is going to normalize fear 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 Forge 24, which tells you really clearly that developers of AGI, specifically Mark Zuckerberg, they're planning to open source this as a source of technology freely and equitably. They tell you, well, chat GBT isn't open source, but they have no evidence.
Our Forge 24 evidence indicates that it is open sourced. That's going to be key at the end of today's run 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 there 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 lack of 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.
