The Great Debate Today | A
Report
II MA English Class
#inclass
Friday, 5th December 2025
Leaders of the teams: Ms. Lara Violet and Mr. Kalaiagaran
Official Time-Keeper: Ms. Dency Jayaraj
Official Photographer: Ms. Nikita
Official Transcriber: Ms. Nivedhaa
Today’s Debate in the II MA English Class was unique for any many reasons.
For the first time, the class was equally divided in their yays and nays for the topic, and the topic for today’s debate was –
AI in Education: Should the Use of Generative AI Tools (like ChatGPT) be banned / be integrated into academic assignments and testing in Higher Education?
Almost half the class supported a BAN, while an equal half vouched for Integration of AI into academic assignments and testing.
And we had a lovely guest – Dr. David Wesley who gave his memorable final verdict as well.
In addition, the spirit of a good debate was in action today. I could see students appreciating their opponents when good ideas where given.
Mr. Kalaiagaran led the supporters for AI, while Ms. Lara led the BAN AI team.
The arguments were newsworthy by all means!
Kalai won the toss for their team, and gave the opponents the chance to start the debate!
Reji started the “BAN AI in Assignments and Testing” brigade, with a crisp yet terse opening punchline –
Humans are natural beings, and so they don’t need ‘artificial’ intelligence. We need to eliminate AI in education. Let humans be humans NOT artificial!
But integrating AI in education is not eliminating the human element. Rather it makes this easier for us, giving us lots of time to focus on other pressing things, replied Anagha.
I would rather want my washing machine to be AI-driven, to make my life easier. AI can be used for my laundry, but not when it comes to Intelligence, and Education. I want the human touch to my poetry, and I wont want any AI to ‘write’ my poems for me, Lara retorted.
Well, the choice is ours – to depend on AI or Not! Maybe as time evolves, even AI might be integrated into our laundry, remarked Kalai.
Wait, do you guys really write all your essays? Don’t you think AI interferes and intrudes into all our intellectual exercises, asked Sivasankari.
But don’t you think AI saves us time. Earlier, we used to read 15 pages to get that one answer. But now, in a jiffy you get the answer. Aint it? asked Divya.
Exactly! Reading those 15 pages is indeed Learning. AI has taken away our learning by providing us with instant answers, said Aleena from the BAN AI team.
Most of us are from the COVID batch. ChatGPT was our ever-present help, back then, remarked Pooja.
But ChatGPT just summarises things for us. You cannot evaluate human beings and their merit, their intelligence and their capabilities with ChatGPT.
I wish to counter what Lara said. I guess we are moving away from the main topic. Let’s bring the topic back to education. We need AI in higher education. Else we will become irrelevant soon, remarked Divya Rhenius.
Don’t you think humanity needs to stay true to itself, and for that, we need to eliminate AI from our lives, said Lara. Everything we write, we say, we do, should be powered by humanity, not by AI, she added.
85 million jobs are expected to be lost in the future, and mass layoffs are already happening. Even surgeries today require AI. So if we are not prepared enough to adapt to AI, then we will lose out soon, said Safa, quoting statistics to back her points.
But don’t you think job losses are there only because we are trying to push AI into jobs?, retorted Sivasankari. Just imagine a situation – if teachers use AI for teaching, and students use AI for writing, who do you think benefits at the end? Asked Amy Christina.
I feel that we are limiting the potential of AI when we look up to ChatGPT as a source for knowledge. Don’t look it up as the source, but as a companion, said Anagha. I do brainstorming with ChatGPT to aid me, that’s it. I don’t rely fully on it, she added.
I feel that, AI entails
abandoning human potential, said Reji.
Well, human potential is not curtailed by AI. It’s like how people (bricoleur) in the stone age, used whatever was available at their disposal, and made the best use of it to their advantage! Same with AI, responded Kalai.
But soon, it will replace human potential, and it will become the only source, opined Aleena. When your Professor asks you about your favourite memory of childhood, while discussing Tintern Abbey, you are able to connect with the poem, and recollect a memory. But if the poem were written by AI, how do you relate to it? she added.
You should understand
that, we are not copying what AI gives us. we are just using it as a means to
an end, not the end! Also, it is a way, not the way. Moreover it gives us a
clear structure on which to base our writing, or our arguments, said Terese
Maria Broosily.
But you should also realise that, the more you rely on AI, the more you’ll lose all your inherent capabilities and potential that make you human, averred Lara.
Coming to AI in Education, don’t you think they help in facilitating discussions, especially when we are starved of ideas, asked Pooja.
That’s right, but the facilitator is a human, and not AI, retorted Shobhana.
Well, we don’t blindly support AI but we just advocate integrating AI into education. Take the case of Psychometric Tests that are done with the aid of AI. Some students may have goals for their lives, but students who do not have proper goals for their lives take the help of these AI-assisted psychometric tests, that evaluate their passion, their interests and their sphere of excellence, and gives them specific outcomes, said Safa.
But Psychometric tests are done by human! AI is just collection of information that’s available on the internet. When you search for Silappadikaram or Manimegalai, it gives you wrong information, saying Manimegalai married Hussein.
That’s exactly why we need AI in education. How can such people use AI responsibly? averred Anagha.
The debate continues….