Resume of The Grand Finals of Malaya Australasian Debating

Championship 2018 (Open Category)

For this round, the adjudicators presented the motion, that, if it existed, we would support
non-sentient artificial intelligence that imitated deceased loved ones in appearance,
personality and mannerisms.

The affirmative team’s Prime Minister, Ms. Stephanie White from the University of Sydney
Union, started her debate with an implication that in the status quo grief could kill people
and the mortality rate of the elderly spikes after they lose a partner. Disclaimers and
addressing for their concerns and supposed burden of prove were also given in the
beginning, in which she stated that they would not be debating and questioning about bans,
black markets, or legalization. The debate is also not about how the affirmative team would
proselytize for or against the policy, according to her. The keyword, ‘support’ in the motion
is the reason on why this debate would only about how the affirmative team hold onto the
provision of how this technology is a benefit and how it will do net good.

As specified by the Prime Minister, the mechanism of this policy would involve consents to
be imitated in the form of A.I from the said person before their death and from the said
person’s parents if they’re underage. Other mechanisms would basically follow the
motion’s fiat. They believe that this policy would work for a varying period of time,
ranging from the imitation of dead elders or children and the frequency of uses for around
two requests a day or week.

The Prime Minister relayed three arguments for the setup, which follows; (a) principal
reasons on the rights for individuals to access this means of grieving, (b) elaboration of
grieving pain and the solution from this policy, and (c) reasons on the superiority of this
policy than other alternatives.

On the first argument elaboration, she stated that grief is incredibly subjective and so are
the coping mechanisms. She believes that this policy would expand the set of possible
options for people experiencing the shock of grief. Therefore, these give the rights for every
individual to access this form of grieving because they know what’s best for them. On the
second argument elaboration, she implied again that grief is subjective, so not everyone
would be coerced to get into this means of grieving. Some form of grief might be harmful
to a person due to their inability to recollect their deceased loved one properly, the sense of
reliving painful memories, and how it is a reminder of the guilt for their death. Some form
of grief is deemed incomplete because you’re never able to actually meet your deceased
loved ones but instead only live through their memories.
But this policy, that allows people to talk and live with an imitation of their deceased loved
ones, would let people recollect, grieve, and have their own closure in a safer way. Because
they could actually ask the AI questions or do stuff with the AI without having to question
the reactions or answers from their loved ones. Therefore she believes that the existence of
this policy would be better than other alternatives and that the affirmatives hold onto this
belief.

The Prime Minister have relayed broad, detailed, and emotion-inducing examples for the
form of grieving and what could it do to a person. The way of how she put herself in other
people shoe is understanding and understandable to the observer for this debate. She
believes that this policy would be a better solution for that and would minimize the chance
of people romanticizing their deceased loved ones in an unhealthy way.

On the other side of the house, Jacob Rock from Australia Macquarie University as the
Leader of Opposition started their opposing by reminding everyone on the sense of
responsibility that would be burdened to the people who acquired these AIs. The most
important sense of responsibility that they talked about is how people would eventually
need to turn off and get away from this AI which is really hard and almost impossible. If
you are not responsible for these deceased deaths on the first place, then when the AIs exist
then you would be responsible for those.

The Leader of Opposition relayed that he would mainly talk about; (a) consents and (b)
reasons on why this policy would instead won’t let you move on. They believe that during
the consent, actors involved are currently in a state of emotion vulnerability, therefore they
might act irrationally and unable to make decisions. Despite of that, they’re still responsible
to take care and close the time of the day of living with those AIs. What the affirmative side
promised in this policy is the sense of recollection which implies a long-term uses, while
with this condition present, then individuals would instead be unable to say their goodbye.
Aside from that, an AI, which they presume could be in a form of robot, for example,
doesn’t really have the exact capability of sentience.

The Leader of Opposition also provided the reminder on how the AI would also have the
negative feelings, and during those moments of emotional vulnerability then the users
wouldn’t be able to cope well with those things. And after the impact of using the AIs,
there are still these huge possibilities of pressures and resentments from families and other
closest people from your life due to their different beliefs or opinions on the existence of
the AI. What he really emphasized here is the possibility of the AI users to be harmed even
more by the supports from this AI.