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!
Here goes the Report by Ms. Nivedhaa -
DEBATE REPORT
DATE: 05.12.2025
TOPIC: AI in Education: Should the Use of Generative AI Tools be banned or be integrated into academic assignments and testing in Higher Education?
Reji kickstarted the debate by stating that inculcating Artificial Intelligence in Education will become a potential barrier to the cognitive abilities, Humans are natural beings and no artificiality is needed.
Anagha countered it from the affirmative team by saying that bringing AI into education will not eliminate human element rather will enhance the human abilities. Further, AI is time conserving as it helps in collecting data and meanwhile the focus can be diverted to better things.
Lara brought a new perspective saying that it would be useful if AI could help with daily chores like laundry rather than integrating with intelligence. She asserted that for a noble art like poetry, emotions should come from higher intelligence, not pasted from AI.
Kalai refuted it, he said bringing AI into education is the first step to growth, it will evolve as time progresses.
Sankari raised a point regarding the disadvantage of AI that it interferes with her intellectual exercise, the AI which is not even original material.
Rajasri countered it by pointing towards the advantage of AI that earlier, In google we have to read through 50 pages for one single summary whereas in AI, it is one single prompt and the answer is provided in a single page.
Aleena gave an apt reply saying skimming through 50 pages is the point of studying, if we begin to rely for everything on AI, then Artificiality will be reflected in everything.
Pooja reflected on how AI was helpful during the Covid Pandemic and how it served as a source to study even when offline classes were shut.
Amy replied that during pandemic, there were online class which is not same as AI and it should not be forgotten that even AI is formulated by human brain only.
Divya gave a rebuttal to Lara’s point that we are dealing with how AI should be integrated with education, not any art like poetry.
Lara said she would rather be irrelevant than being powered by AI, focusing that humanity is in everything.
Safa talked about how all the job roles are now integrated with AI, she said we cannot be ready for the future by rejecting AI.
Sankari gave a counter to Pooja talking about covid batch, she was also a student of Covid batch and how she has never used AI.
Kalai put forth a point that how AI should only be seen as an integration and not creation, which is just to help.
Amy raised a very relevant question asking if teacher is evaluating with the help of AI, if students are studying with the help of AI, then who is to benefit?
Anagha added to Kalai’s statement that AI should be seen as a companion, she gave her example that she has been brainstorming with AI for her research which helped her to save so much of her time.
Aleena questioned that if AI becomes the only source, there will be no human touch, we should connect with the personal experience.
Terese said it is not only a source but also a tool to correct the mistakes and allows to analyze our own work.
Lara emphasized that the more we rely on AI, the more we will lose our human capabilities. She stated we learn through our experiences and not by AI.
Pooja countered it by stating that it actually polishes the human intelligence as it integrates all the process together, it makes the class interactive, it also facilitates critical thinking.
Shobana gave an important point that human beings should be the facilitator not the AI.
Safa pointed out how AI even facilitates Psychometric Analysis skills, it helps the clueless students in understanding how they want their future, it evaluates everything and gives a specific output according to the individual.
Lara politely disagreed and said Psychometric tests are being done by human and AI only produces what is there in internet, she gave a funny example of how AI misguided that Manimegalai is married to Hussain.
Anagha said this is why it should be integrated with education, someone who does not know how to use AI will only rely on rubbish, people should have the correct knowledge to use it.
Kalai again added that it is about how AI is used, it should be used ethically.
Aleena questioned the ethical usage
of AI by how students cheat in the exams using AI. While using AI as source, we
are simply searching and not deeply researching about the topic.
Divya brought back everybody to the topic saying that AI is integrated into education, there will be a structure that how exactly AI should be used, how much is to be used. Therefore, there will be no partiality and subjective feelings. Nitish again raised the bot point by talking about the competitive motive in social media and how these bots can influence others to indulge in such unethical practices.
Prakalya refuted that AI affects our basic human level thinking, It also breaches our privacy.
Terese brought back from the digression that integrating it in education, it helps in paraphrasing the main points.
Reji countered it by saying that if AI is meant to paraphrase and make students understand, then what are professors meant for? If AI could decide future then why is there a need for Rufus Sir’s appointment to consult about future?
Anagha said it is important to know ourselves and our interests before taking consultation from any big Professor, so that we can keep our thoughts in a very clear way and she added that AI has become a part of everybody’s life and we have to learn to survive with it by using it ethically.
Sankari spoke from her personal experience that she has survived it without using an AI too so why cannot others do it.
Kalai gave an apt point stating AI is not corrupting humans, rather it is humans who are corrupting AI.
Lara gave a metaphorical example that integrating AI into Education is like giving a gun to a child and asking them to use it ethically.
Kalai concluded the debate by giving another metaphorical example that it can also be viewed as teaching a child to play safely.
Prof. Wesley officially ended the debate by giving his concluding remarks that both the sides are important. Checks and balances have to be there on AI exactly like how Protestants emerged to keep a check on Catholic Churches, moving forward with resistance only make the Reformation possible.
