Transformers vs. Escapists: Art as a Shield or a Sword? | The Great II MA English Showdown ❤️

To Comfort or to Confront? The Great Saturday Debate

II MA English Class | #todayinclass #classactivity

29th August 2026

Today being a Saturday, the II MA English class was all geared up for their customary debate – a habituated weekend activity for the vibrant class.

Well, before we start out on a debate in class, I usually orient or rather re-orient them to the essentials of a good debate. In that vein, today, yet again, I reiterated to the class, on how a person’s arguments, should not tie to their personal identity!

‘Attack the argument, not the person’ is the mantra! 😊

Moreover, in a ‘timed’ or ‘time-bound’ debate, students are aware of the restrictions of time, and hence learn to put their ideas into a nutshell, and present them in such clear, impactful, and persuasive rhetoric.

Today’s debate had all the essentials of a lovely, lively interactive and engaging exercise, where each and every student spoke out their thoughts loud and clear.

So happy that every student got the chance to put across their own arguments in such a persuasive and convincing manner.

Time-keeper for today’s debate: Ms. Preethi

Official Photographer: Ms. Samitha

Group Leader for Team ‘Transformers’ - Ms. Swarna Rekha

Group Leader for Team ‘Escapists’ - Ms. Jothika

The topic for today’s debate -

What is the Purpose of Art? To Comfort or to Confront?

So happy to note that, the team had equal representations on both sides.

‘The Escapists’ won the toss, and asked their opponents – The Transformers - to open the first attack!

Then, before we went headlong into the debate, I outlined the debate prompt –

It is commonly acknowledged by literary souls far and wide, that, the primary function of literature and art in times of crisis should be to provide aesthetic comfort and emotional relief, rather than to provoke moral or spiritual questioning.

On the other hand, there are literarians who strongly believe that, art must confront difficult truths. Literature should challenge the reader, induce spiritual crisis, and force moral growth, even if that process is deeply uncomfortable or agonising.

So what then is the Purpose of Art? To Comfort or to Confront?

With these introductory debate prompts, the floor started out to give their arguments and their defences.

Aarthi began a spirited defence for the Transformers’, stating that, unless literature interrogates the maladies and social evils, there cannot be a transformation in society, and hence, the essence and purpose of literature is to inspect and to interrogate the status quo in society.

Joel, for the Escapists side, said that, ‘We come to the comforting power of good literature during our tough times, and it helps us overcome our tough times. As such, the main aim of literature is to comfort.

Rangineetha speaking for the ‘Transformers’, citing Lee Maracle, spoke of how her stories highlight the effects of colonialism and genocide on the physical, cultural, and spiritual well-being of Indigenous people, which helped in the transformation of the people. It is only by confronting the problems, and presenting the solutions that literature really lives out its full potential.

Lydia spoke for the ‘Escapists’, on how literature becomes therapy by helping us cope with loneliness. When we empathise with a character in a novel or in a short story, it reduces our sense of loneliness, and instantly we feel a great sense of solace, and comfort.

Preethi for the Transformers, then foregrounded the transformative power of good literature, saying that, only through a representation of the traumatic incidents of the past, like racism, sexism etc., do we come to know about the horrific pasts and the embodied experiences of the oppressed.

Jothika, for the Escapists, highlighted Philip Sidney’s views on poetry, saying that, ‘Natural world is brazen, limited and imperfect, whereas the poetic world created by the imagination is golden, rich, idealised, and superior’. In that sense, aestheticism contains within itself the ‘moral, transformative’ factors. So literature need not confront. It can remain as a ‘comforting, therapeutic’ zone forever.

Swarna, speaking for the ‘Transformers’, said that, if that comfort or therapy should be long-lasting and enduring, literature should focus on social change and transformation.

Jovita, speaking for the ‘Escapists’, said that, sometimes even when we scroll through a poem, we find that its power is so comforting or therapeutic, that we feel refreshed after reading it. That’s the comforting power of literature.

Samitha, speaking for the ‘Transformers’ quoting from the opponents, pointed out that, ‘tough times’, or ‘overcoming’ difficult situations, or ‘end-product’, itself means that literature has been ‘utilised’ for transformative purposes. Swarna added to augment the views of Samitha, saying that, ‘Too much of aestheticism in literature would be like keeping it on a showcase, with no other ‘use-value’. Hence to view literature for its aesthetic merits alone, is a passive engagement with literature!

Irene, speaking for the ‘Escapists’, highlighted the ‘happy little moments of life’ – be it as simple as the joys of viewing a sunset – they have a great therapeutic impact on us.

Jothika, disagreed with the view that, ‘To view literature for its aesthetic merits alone, is a passive engagement with literature’. Quoting from Coleridge’s concept of ‘the willing suspension of disbelief, from his 1817 Biographia Literaria, she said that, a reader or viewer temporarily puts aside logic and doubt to accept unlikely or magical things in a story for the joy of the art! Hence, viewing art as didactic means, art comes loaded with a pre-determined message. Art hence becomes propaganda!

Jesica speaking for ‘Transformers’, said that, while escapism is important, transformation is more important, as new ideas and new solutions can come up only when we challenge the existing status quo!

Nihita, speaking for the ‘Escapists’ said that, we experience something, for the sheer joy of experiencing it. It could be as simple as sipping a cup of coffee, or having a cup of our favourite ice-cream – likewise it is the felt experience that literature gives us – that matters more!

Natasha, speaking for the ‘Transformers’ said that, Literature has such immense potential. When we look upon literature as a mere comforting and therapeutic tool, we are not fully making use of its immense potential.

Joshua, speaking for the Escapists, said that, Poetry is a spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings. Poets hence express their raw emotions, their felt emotions, which proves to be a source of great comfort – not only for them but also for their readers. Citing his internship in May, at a famous museum, he said that, visitors were taught on how, even the very act of watching or paying attention to a work of art, could prove to be such great therapy. He also highlighted on how the ‘art’ of diary writing can be therapeutic. Art also has this power of uniting families especially during those memorable get-togethers, be it through the movies, or the music, he averred.

To be continued… (I’m running out of time now, 😊 so please excuse this abrupt end. Hope to continue it tomorrow…)

On the whole, it was a very rewarding debate in every way. For the first time, I could see students not using Geminis or ChatGPTs! Each of them spoke out their thoughts and ideas, from their hearts in such impactful ways.

And on a personal note, I feel that, the greatest takeaway from today’s session is that art refuses to be just one thing!

It is both a mirror and a hammer. It is both a shield and a sword!

It is the warm, comforting cup of coffee 😊 on a rainy day, and it is also the high-beam torchlight exposing the darkest corners of society.

And by defending these dualities in such sharp analytical ways, both the ‘Transformers’ and the ‘Escapists’ have proved beyond doubt that the ultimate function of literature is to keep us profoundly, unmistakably human! 😊

Kudos, II MA Class!

Be an ‘Admirer’ of Success | Seven Principles for Your College Journey ❤️

The ADMIRER’s Guide to Academic Success

#PGFreshers #today

Today I met the newly enrolled students of the I MA English Class. The class was packed to capacity with all seats having been filled up. Speaks to the huge demand for the English Language and Literature Programme in MCC.

I went to class 10 minutes ahead of time, and I was surprised to find almost everyone seated in class. only two students came at 8.30 am – time the class officially started! 😊

I was happy to interact with them all. I also gave them the mnemonic term – ADMIRER, to make the most of their brief but impactful time in their PG programme in MCC.

If you want to make your academic life in MCC as a purpose-driven journey, here you’ll find the ADMIRER roadmap for a rewarding, excuse-free experience in your college life.

A - Appointments: Honour your meetings and communicate absences promptly to build unshakeable trust, reliability, and credibility.

D - Deadlines: Meet (or beat!) your due dates to earn respect, achieve your goals, and boost your self-esteem.

M - Map Your Journey: Visualise your entire academic programme from a bird’s-eye view to stay motivated and plan effectively.

I - Idea About Your Destination: Keep a clear outcome in mind to ensure your daily efforts remain purposeful and satisfying.

R - Routes to Take & Avoid: Choose your academic and personal paths wisely to ensure you are always progressing joyfully toward the right destination.

E - Excuses Are A Strict NO!: Stop making excuses; they only devalue your skills, limit your potential, and push people away from you.

R - Refuel: Make time to restore your energy through relaxing activities like solitary walks, outdoor games, therapeutic music, yoga, art, or reading.

Three Quick Tips to Simplify Your Life

Schedule Daily Downtime: Dedicate quiet time every day to write in a diary, read the newspaper, or sit in the library.

Practice a Digital Detox: Keep your mobile phone off for 8 to 10 hours a day to reclaim your time and focus.

Maintain a Positive Approach: Enthusiastically encourage your peers, avoid speaking ill of others, and never let envy undermine your own capabilities.

Here’s wishing you a rewarding academic year ahead!

Signs, Systems, and Seasons: Decoding Culture in the Literature Classroom ❤️

Decoding Culture and Structure

Highlights from our Latest Talk Series

24th June 2026

Today’s Speakers

Fenula

Swarna

Jothika

Preethi

Rangineetha

Today’s Talk Series in the II MA English classroom, took us all on a rewarding journey of learning and understanding, by connecting postcolonial studies with the unique cultural rhythms of South India.

Students beautifully brought out the special features and the uniqueness of the vernacular calendars of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Kerala.

Presenting excerpts from the insightful presentations.

Fenula opened the series with a thought-provoking question: “What comes to your mind when you think of the word ‘Structuralism?’”

Delving into the theories of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, alongside Roland Barthes and Claude Levi-Strauss, Fenula broke down complex ideas into accessible concepts. Citing Peter Barry’s Beginning Theory, she emphasized a core tenet: things cannot be understood in isolation. Drawing a tree on the whiteboard, she asked the audience how they recognized it as a tree, explaining that we only know the meaning of a “hut” because we understand the concept of a “palace.”

Swarna elegantly took off from the thread, challenging the audience with another everyday example: “How do you describe an apple?”

When we think of an apple, we immediately signify it as a red, crunchy fruit with seeds. The brain processes this rich imagery even without a physical drawing. Meaning is always relational; we understand “hot” only because we have experienced “cold.” Similarly, the word “teacher” conjures an entire ecosystem - a classroom, chalk, a blackboard, homework. Every individual object within a system, Swarna concluded, helps in constructing the larger structure.

Shifting from linguistic structures to cultural ones, Jothika took the stage to discuss the 12 Tamil months and their profound significance.

She began with Chithirai, the first day that marks the Tamil New Year - a time for fresh kolams, special dishes, and new beginnings, and how it is celebrated in a grand way in Tamil Nadu, especially in Madurai with the grand Chithirai Thiruvizha. Then she spoke on the second month Aadi, also known as the monsoon month, featuring the Aadi Perukku festival, honouring the rising Cauvery River vital for sowing seeds. It is also a month dedicated to Amman temple festivals for protection against summer diseases.

Purattasi representing a month of discipline, making way for Karthigai, the Festival of Lights, when homes glow with clay oil lamps (agal vilakku), symbolising light triumphing over darkness, peaking with the magnificent beacon atop the Annamalai hill.

The month of Margazhi is considered entirely sacred and divine, human celebrations like weddings are paused. Women draw intricate kolams before dawn, the air fills with traditional chants, and modern Chennai transforms into a global hub for Carnatic music and Bharatanatyam.

Thai is considered to be the month of hope and harvest. Echoing the proverb “Thai pirandhal, vazhi pirakkum” (With the birth of Thai, a new path will open), this month kicks off with Pongal and ushers in the auspicious wedding season.

Rangineetha spoke next. She explored the unique interconnectedness of bioregions, culture, and society through the Telugu calendar. After engaging the audience with a nod to the Nani film Saripodhaa Sanivaaram, she highlighted a key difference: while the Tamil calendar is solar, the Telugu calendar is lunisolar, dictating specific social and spiritual rules.

The year begins with Ugadi celebrations in the month of Chaitram. The celebration is incomplete without Ugadi Pachadi, a dish blending six distinct tastes to represent the varied experiences of life. This month also features Sri Rama Navami and large-scale celestial weddings.

Ashadham is culturally known as the month of separation for newlyweds. Brides return to their parents’ homes to prevent pregnancies that would result in childbirth during the intense summer heat of Chaitram.

The month of Sravanam opens the floodgates for weddings and features Varalakshmi Vratam for family prosperity. Soon after, Aswayujam brings the massive nine-day celebration of Navaratri (Dasara).

Next comes Karthikam, a deeply spiritual month uniquely celebrated with community bonding. Families organise massive outdoor picnics (Karthika Vanabhojanalu) under Amla trees, while devotees observe strict fasting on Mondays (Karthika Somavaram).

Pushyamu is dominated by the three-day harvest festival of Makara Sankranti. The streets are transformed by women drawing massive rangolis decorated with Gobbemmalu (cow dung balls with turmeric and flowers), celebrating the region’s agrarian roots, she observed.

Wrapping up the series, Preethi shared insights into the Malayalam calendar, known as Kollavarsham, acknowledging her mother’s guidance in understanding its depths.

Established in 825 CE with the founding of the port city of Kollam, the calendar is a vital guide dictating the spiritual, agricultural, and social life of Kerala, she observed. Unlike purely lunar systems, Kollavarsham tracks the sun’s transit through zodiac constellations. This ensures major festivals like Onam (in Chingam) and Vishu (in Medam) remain perfectly synchronised with seasonal transitions.

Moreover, the calendar is an exemplification of bioregional ecological awareness as it is intricately tied to Kerala’s twin monsoons (Edavappathi and Thulavarsham). For centuries, it has served as an agricultural almanac, signalling the right times for planting, harvesting, and managing water reservoirs.

The Malayalam calendar also provides a standardised template and timeline for temple festivals like the Thrissur Pooram and ancestral rites, thereby fostering a shared identity among Malayalis globally.

Combining the traditional Panchangam with Kollavarsham, the calendar remains the essential framework for choosing auspicious dates muhurthams for weddings and business ventures, helping individuals align their lives with cosmic energies, she signed off.

Empowerment or Illusion? The Complex Reality of Women on Social Media ❤️

“Has Social Media Done More to Empower Women’s voices

or

Has Social Media Created Unrealistic and Harmful Standards for Women?”

#Women'sDaySpecialDebate

7th March 2026 (II MA Classroom)

Official Rapporteur: Ms. Catherin Sabu

Official Time-Keeper: Ms. Dency Jayaraj

Official Photographer: Ms. Anagha Anil

Group Leaders: Ms. Sivasankari & Ms. Terese Maria Broosily

A debate was conducted in class today on the topic, “Has Social Media Done More to Empower Women’s voices or has it Created Unrealistic and Harmful Standards?”.

The discussion brought together diverse viewpoints, theoretical references, and contemporary examples.

Ann Mariah began by referring to Gayatri Spivak’s famous question, “Can the subaltern speak?” She argued that social media has become a powerful platform for voices that were historically marginalised or silenced.

According to her, stories and perspectives that were once confined to history or small communities now have the possibility of reaching a global audience. She further noted that speaking “from a pedestal” is not always problematic if it helps bring attention to unheard narratives. 

Ann Mariah illustrated this by referring to the film Ayyappanum Koshiyum and the story of Nachiyamma, suggesting that social media and cultural discourse can make such characters and experiences visible to wider audiences.

Milind argued that social media as a platform does not inherently discriminate; it is an open space where anyone can participate.

He mentioned that he personally knows women who actively use social media to raise issues, share opinions, and participate in discussions about social and political concerns.

He further emphasised that women today are using social media as a powerful tool to promote their political voices and express marginalised perspectives.

While acknowledging that there are negative aspects, he argued that focusing on the positive potential of social media reveals how it can empower women and amplify their voices.

Pooja highlighted that social media empowers women across generations. She observed that both young and older women are increasingly using digital platforms to pursue their passions, share creative work, and build communities around their interests.

Sivasankari discussed the representation of tribal voices on social media. She pointed out that digital platforms allow tribal writers and artists to share their literature and cultural expressions, thereby gaining visibility and recognition that might otherwise be limited.

Sivasankari acknowledged the issue of unrealistic beauty expectations but argued that such standards are often linked to elite and capitalist structures rather than social media alone.

She referred to the expensive nature of cosmetic procedures like plastic surgery, noting that these ideals are accessible only to a privileged section of society. She also pointed out that beauty standards themselves are part of a larger capitalist framework and cannot be blamed solely on social media.

Additionally, she mentioned the growing conversations around gender nonconformity, which challenge traditional beauty norms.

Vasupradhaa shifted the focus of the conversation to health and well-being. She argued that fitness should not be understood purely in terms of body structure or appearance, but rather as a reflection of inner health and well-being.

Ann spoke about the influence of Korean beauty trends that circulate widely on social media.

She observed that some of these trends create unrealistic and unattainable standards for appearance. However, she also pointed out that social media has encouraged conversations around representation, such as the visibility of black skin and diverse beauty identities.

Ann also argued that judgment existed even before the rise of social media, often within small communities.

In contrast, social media can sometimes provide encouragement and support, as people with similar experiences come together and motivate one another through comments and interactions.

She further reflected on the concept of performativity, suggesting that even performative actions on social media can sometimes influence people positively and encourage social change.

From her perspective, social media celebrates diverse identities and experiences across the world, aligning with her understanding of feminism as allowing women to pursue what makes them happy.

Lindsay questioned whether social media truly reduces the idea of womanhood only to beauty standards.

She argued that while beauty trends exist, social media has also expanded opportunities for women in areas such as employment, entrepreneurship, and professional networking. She also highlighted the role of algorithms in shaping online experiences.

According to her, social media feeds are curated based on user preferences, meaning that what people see is often determined by the algorithm.

While capitalism continues to shape these platforms, she suggested that gradual change and awareness can still lead to more inclusive spaces. At the same time, Lindsay pointed out that judging others is an innate human tendency.

Audience responses, she noted, significantly influence how content is perceived and how individuals feel online.

Rajsri reflected on the changes brought about by social media in terms of visibility and fame. She argued that in earlier times, only powerful or influential individuals could become widely recognised. Today, however, even homemakers can become influential figures and “nationmakers” through their presence and creativity on social media.

Sivasankari referred to the ‘Me Too’ movement as a powerful example of how social media has empowered women.

The movement allowed women from different backgrounds to share their experiences and collectively challenge systems of harassment and silence. On the opposing side, Lara argued that social media frequently produces aestheticised and idealised standards, particularly in areas such as modelling and beauty culture.

Even when platforms claim to empower women, subtle expectations about appearance continue to exist. She also observed that trends such as celebrating brown skin can sometimes become performative or fashionable rather than genuinely transformative. In addition, she pointed out how audiences often harass influencers when their appearance changes, such as when they gain or lose weight.

Lara further emphasised that marginalised voices often receive fewer views and less engagement compared to mainstream influencers. She also highlighted the growing influence of plastic surgery trends, which contribute to unrealistic and harmful expectations about physical appearance.

She discussed consumer culture surrounding beauty and self-care, including trends such as Korean spas and the pursuit of “glass skin.” While often presented as self-care, she argued that these trends can create unrealistic expectations influenced heavily by social media marketing.

Lara also questioned the beauty industry’s standards, such as the idea of seasonal foundation shades for summer and winter, suggesting that these practices reinforce rigid expectations about appearance. She noted that many people are drawn toward trends that they can afford, which further reinforces consumer-driven beauty ideals.

In addition, she spoke about algorithmic bias on social media and the unequal distribution of visibility.

According to her, creators who genuinely empower women are often fewer in number compared to consumers, reflecting an “80–20 rule” where a small percentage produces content while the majority consumes it.

Lara also warned about toxic digital cultures, including podcasts and online communities that invite individuals only to shame or ridicule them.

She described such dynamics as creating cultlike social relations within social media spaces and argued that focusing only on empowerment risks ignoring the struggles faced by minorities.

Terese added that social media can also become a space of constant judgment. She suggested that such scrutiny may reduce confidence and encourage a superficial understanding of identity and self-worth.

Shobhana provided a critical perspective on representation and theory. Referring again to Gayatri Spivak, she argued that intellectuals often speak from positions of privilege while the real voices of marginalised communities remain unheard.

She also pointed out that documenting marginalised communities does not necessarily mean they are empowered. According to her, representation can sometimes be selective, highlighting certain voices while ignoring others. She further questioned whether digital performativity truly moves society away from capitalist mindsets.

Overall, the debate revealed the complex and multifaceted nature of social media.

While many participants emphasised its role in empowering women through visibility, activism, and opportunities, others highlighted the ways in which beauty standards, consumer culture, and algorithmic systems can create unrealistic expectations.

The discussion demonstrated that social media functions simultaneously as a space of empowerment and a site where societal pressures continue to evolve.

Deconstructing Privilege: An Electrifying Debate on the Reservation System ❤️

Merit vs. Social Justice: A Fiery Debate in the MA English Class

Topic: Reservation in Jobs & Education: A Boon or a Bane?

II MA English Classroom

#classactivities #debate

13th February 2026

If there is one thing Literature students know how to do, it is the art of dissecting a narrative. However, today, for once, we moved away from fiction to tackle a very real and pressing societal narrative: The Reservation System.

What started as a standard classroom discussion quickly evolved into a high-octane debate. The classroom became quite electric, each group putting forth their intense arguments in such a gentle and gracious manner.

Here is a quick report on how the battle of ideas unfolded.

The debate opened with a strong stance on social reality. Milind championed the pro-reservation argument, grounding his points in the harsh reality of social hierarchy. He argued that in a country where inequality has been systemic for generations, reservation isn’t a “handout” - it is a corrective measure.

“Statistics clearly show that minorities are underrepresented in many sectors. Reservation gives them a voice and ensures equality for all,” he averred.  

Lara backed this up by introducing the concept of power dynamics. She pointed out that representation is a prerequisite for power. Without marginalized communities in decision-making spaces, the claim of an “equal society” remains hollow.

The counter-argument was swift and sharp. Zibiah questioned the constant fixation on past hierarchies. Her argument centered on the individual: by constantly looking backward at caste, are we inadvertently discouraging merit and individual effort?, she opined.

Alphy took this further, advocating for a system where hard work is the sole determinant of success.

“Let those who truly deserve it get the opportunities, without preference based on caste,” she remarked.

Anagha added a layer of nuance that shifted the room’s perspective. She critiqued the current system for focusing heavily on caste while often overlooking economic background. She shared personal observations of how reservation can sometimes breed complacency, leaving deserving candidates from non-reserved categories - who might be economically struggling - out in the cold.

This sentiment was echoed by Aleena and Pooja as well, who reminded the class that the “General Category” is not synonymous with “Rich and Privileged.” They argued that struggles are universal and not limited to one specific section of society.

Just when the argument was leaning towards meritocracy, Nikita and Lindsay pulled it back to the ground reality of discrimination.

Nikita shared a personal incident where someone was rejected solely based on caste, proving that discrimination is not a relic of the past but a current reality.

Lindsay introduced the psychological aspect, speaking on “intergenerational trauma” and the continued influence of caste politics.

Lara returned to emphasise that while we say we are equal, we are not yet in a state of equal privilege. Until that balance is struck, she argued, the support wheels of reservation cannot be removed.

There was no simple winner, and perhaps that was the point.

The Pro-Reservation side (Milind, Lara, Nikita, Lindsay) successfully argued that until systemic hierarchy and historical trauma are eradicated, reservation is the only tool for equity.

And the Sceptics to Reservation (Zibiah, Alphy, Anagha, Pooja, Aleena) raised valid concerns about merit, economic oversight, and the struggles of the general category.

The MA English class proved today that we can disagree passionately while engaging deeply with the social structures that shape our world.  

A rewarding debate in every way! 

The Group Leaders of both the teams - [Standing in the Picture]

Rapporteur: Ms. Safa Salsabeel

Group Leaders: Ms. Zibiah and Ms. Nikita

Time Keeper: Ms. Terese Maria Broosily

Official Photographer: Ms. Vasupradhaa

To everyone’s surprise, only two people in the class were on team “Smart Work.” 🙃❤️

AI was always a tool. It is a tool. And it always will be a tool

If you use AI to brainstorm, your brain is not storming

The Great Debate | III BA English

12th February 2025

Report by Ms. Lekhaa MeenakshiSundaram

The topic of the day: Does AI scuttle or enhance creativity and critical thinking. The class divided themselves into two teams.

“Mind Wins” claiming that AI scuttles creativity and critical thinking, and “Smart Work” claiming that AI enhances creativity and critical thinking.

To everyone’s surprise, only two people in the class were on team “Smart Work.”

The photographer for the debate was Catherine and the time keeper was Libby. Lekhaa recorded the proceedings.

Team Mind Wins won the coin toss and opted to dispute. Gouri, from team Smart Work started the debate, talking about how AI began. She said that “AI was always a tool. It is a tool. And it always will be a tool.” She said that we don’t know how to use it properly, which is why problems arise. She stated that no one, including the companies that create AI systems say that it is replacing human intelligence.

Team MW, disputed this when she spoke about generative AI. She asked why there are so many artists talking about how their work was stolen by generative AI. She said that people are not willing to think about the ethics surrounding plagiarism. She said that art has been “commodified” and used to build tools further. She also said that if people stop to think and talk to other people, they can figure out the things that they need AI to do. For example, if one wants to know what places to visit in a place, say Chennai, they can do so by talking to the people around them.

Thang, for team SM, asked whether people in general – had the time to go figure things out in person. Even if they did, he asked if they really would go talk in person, or ask Google, or call other people. He believed that they would use Google or a similar search engine, as it is the best way to find places. He claimed that indirectly, people who claim to dislike AI rely on it.

Thang, for team SM, reasoned that if AI is a threat, why do global powers depend on and fight for AI. He talked about how AI could be a destructive weapon. Then, he said that AI can be a threat or be good in warfare, and that is both a threat and redeemer. It depends on how it is used.

Gouri, for team SM, said that AI is a tool, but it depends on ethics and the person using it. Anything can be used in a bad way. She said that everyone uses AI, but asked if that puts a lid on creativity.

Team MW, added that AI does not have a mind of its own. She talked about Intellectual theft and the consequences of stealing ideas that AI can not comprehend. She said that people are blatantly stealing ideas and styles. Similarly, Humanize AI (AI Humanizers) do not really humanize things, but instead they are what AI thinks a human thinks like.

Gouri, for team SM, talked about emerging intellectual property rights. She said that they can be used to counter the negative aspects of AI that Ann talked about. She reiterated that AI is a tool and assistant and that rights can be protected based on how people use AI

Team MW, revealed the harsh truth that our legal system is very slow. She said that many more important problems are not solved, and that those rights do not work. By the time the verdict in the court comes out, one’s idea is already stolen and there is going back. She said that in an ideal world, AI could be an assistant, but that it is not being used as such.

Team MW, talked about the damages caused by AI, such as picture morphing. She reiterated that we do not live in an ideal world. Often, the damage is done and people are suffering. Even if justice is served, it is still out on the internet and tarnishing people’s reputations. She said that the benefits do not outweigh the damages.

Gouri, for team SM, talked about free will. She said “if you are scared of it, just don’t use it.” She said that AI is a learning system, which will obviously take things from the internet. She said that we should be vigilant. Then, she said that if AI is so dangerous, we should use our free will and use it in a non-dangerous way.

Catherine, for team MW, said that the whole point of laws is because of the misuse of AI. She said that intellectual property rights have not caught up to ethics and that subjective morality comes into play when it comes to free will, not societal ethics. Without that boundary, it is hard to understand what’s right and what’s wrong. She said that only a small portion of people use free will correctly.

Team MW, said that the creation of art is political, not small scale. It reflects the society we live in and that we should want to live in a world filled with creativity. Without the process of learning, unlearning, and relearning, we hinder human empathy. She said that AI does not do this and that it’s recreation of art does not represent society.

Team SM, countered that AI is not everything. AI cannot completely disappear. It can help as an assistant and to brainstorm. She said that it is not our whole life, but it will be a part of life.

PS: You may want to look up an exciting debate on a similar topic, in the II MA English Class, three years ago, HERE on our blog. 

Laziness or Liberation? The Real Cost of Our Tech-Driven Comfort! Students Battle it Out! ❤️

Debate : Is Technology Making our Lives Comfortable? or Uncomfortable ?

Report by Ms. Jothika and Ms. Preethi, I MA English

Timekeeper: Ebenezer Dhanaraj ( Limit set to 1 min for per person )

Photography: Arundhati

Date: 07-02-2026

Time: 8:35 am

Toss was won by the Team Comfortable and they started the debate.

David Vimalraj, the team leader of Comfortable side, began the debate by stating that everyone today uses mobile gadgets and without technology, none of us would be here or connected. 

Elizabeth Sharon Preethi, from Uncomfortable side began to point out that technology became the reason for the disappearance of genuine love within family and it also ribs connection between them.

Fenulah Hepzhi, from Comfortable side countered by saying that technology brings people together. She argued that the choice is ours—when we are far away, technology helps us stay connected with our families.

In response Sharon pointed out the fact of writing diminishing from us. She brought a fact that we lost touch with our emotions. Words don’t touch us anymore and the words are moreover not from the heart.

Rufus sir on that point, points out the example of using HBD instead of Happy birthday. We find it easier using three letters than two words.

Vishnupriya added to Fenulah’s argument that if we face trouble in an unfamiliar place, technology enables us to immediately contact our parents or the police. 

Rangineetha from the Uncomfortable side, pointed out the rubbing of connection with neighbours. She made an important point of loss of ‘Thinai’ in front of most of the houses early. That loss makes a problem. She stated in the end ‘ Let’s reach out to our neighbours’. 

Rufus Sir appreciated the evolving nature of students’ speech in the middle and class felt immense joy.

Fenulah further argued that writing itself is a form of technology. She gave examples such as Telegram to show how communication technologies connect people.

Swarna Rekha countered by saying that technology should not drift people away from human connections, because human relationships are important. She emphasized the supremacy of human interaction and argued that people sometimes lose direct connection with others.

Sharon responded, it doesn’t make sense connecting emotions because we connect it by keeping stories and status. And libraries become dead. She also pointed out the recent news of closure of British Council Library in Chennai. Technology made us lazy.

Swarna Rekha defended her argument and added that technology helps in the holistic development of a country. Socially, social media connects people and provides an open platform to share opinions. Medically, technology helps store medical data and patient histories. Economically, technology supports growth and development.

She further argued, using examples from traditional parenting practices, that hierarchical systems often suppressed children’s opinions and emotional intimacy. In contrast, technology has positively changed these practices by allowing children to express their viewpoints and be heard.

Mithun, criticised the topic and made a point of writing is a ritual and it’s good when it wauts without blue tick or double tick. 

Rangineetha, argued on supremacy by stating that supremacy is also in technology. It also brings gender, caste bias. Supremacy is human based and it’s not dependent on technology.

Aarthi added to Rangineetha’s point by stating supremacy isn’t in home but still we find solace in mobile than accompanying our siblings and parents after college.

Fenulah shared her personal experience with the Internet Archive, which played a vital role in helping her access research articles when physical access was impossible. She argued that technology provides the capability to invent and customize tools according to our convenience, and she reiterated that writing is an offshoot of technology. 

Jael added that accessing books through technology helps economically underdeveloped students who cannot afford physical books. She also stated that technology has made publication easier and more accessible. 

Rangineetha pointed out technology is not available and it’s not affordable to everyone. In the name of comfortability people lose patience. Even though sometimes the research topic we use isn’t new but still we don’t spend in searching it.

Rufus Sir, reminded students of a tamil song,

Thedal endra ondru ulla varai, Vazhvil suvai irukkum - meaning “As long as there is a quest, life will be interesting”. 

Rangineetha pointed out that, to print a subject, we first have to write. And overusing and complete dependency on technology doesn’t work. 

Aarthi opined that, plagiarism invention came up when the stealing of idea came into existence. And she pointed out human thinking isn’t real progress. 

Fenulah further argued that technology is a means of searching and attaining knowledge. She stated that even books are a form of technology because the printing press is a technological invention.

Vishnupriya added that human authentication itself relies on technology, for example, plagiarism-checking software that provides authenticity certificates. 

Mithun ended the debate by stating technology is a tool, not just AI or books comes within it, even a hammer is a product of technology. 

Rufus sir appreciated the point and the debate came to an end by appreciating the class for active participation and encouraging each other in every other way.