The Role of AI in National Online Forensics: A Tool, Not a Replacement
At National Online Forensics, we understand the growing presence of AI in many facets of life, including education and communication. Speech and debate are no exception. While AI has the potential to enhance how we craft and refine ideas, we believe that it should be seen strictly as a tool—not a substitute for the creative and critical work competitors and judges bring to each tournament.
Competitors: The Ideas Start with You
We encourage competitors to view AI as an assistant. Whether it's brainstorming, improving the structure of a speech, or finding the perfect wording, AI can help facilitate the process. However, the core of every argument, every point, and every speech must come from the competitor. The ideas and the passion behind them need to be your own.
Remember, in every round, you are responsible for what you present. If inaccuracies are challenged—whether they stem from your research, your own writing, or AI-assisted editing—you alone are accountable. AI might provide suggestions or polish your speech, but it cannot (and should not) replace your understanding and ownership of the material.
Judges: The Responsibility of Fair and Specific Feedback
Judges, too, may use AI to enhance feedback, but the same principle applies: AI is a tool. Judges are expected to provide constructive, detailed feedback specific to the speeches and performances they have evaluated. Generalized feedback, or comments that could apply to any competitor in any round, do not align with our expectations—whether they are generated by AI or not.
Judges hold a critical role in shaping the learning experience of our competitors, and their feedback must reflect the quality of engagement with the round. Every comment, piece of advice, and observation should be authentic and rooted in what actually happened in the round, not a generic template.
AI: Useful but Limited
At National Online Forensics, we see AI as part of the future, but we are firm in our belief that it cannot replace the intellectual rigor, creativity, and engagement that come from humans—whether they’re delivering speeches or evaluating them. Competitors and judges alike must understand the boundaries of AI’s use and ensure that the spirit of debate and speech remains firmly human.
In short, AI can help shape ideas, but it should never replace them. And just as with any other tool, the responsibility lies with those who wield it.