Evidence · Advanced · About 5 min
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
a two-year review of 30 employers records 300 retained workers receiving 4% higher inflation-adjusted pay and working 37 rather than 40 hours per week after AI adoption.
The affirmative argues that productive tools can improve pay and time for many workers. The negative argues that concentrated losses and barriers to new work can outweigh those gains.
You will almost never have perfect evidence. Debate makes you take a side anyway. Say what the record shows, what your prediction assumes and why the reasons still favor your side.
Uncertainty can lower your confidence or change how you weigh things. It can even make a risk more important. It does not mean nobody wins. Hold the other side’s prediction to the same standard, and make the call you can defend.
The affirmative takes a clear position and still has to answer job losses and how far its evidence reaches.
The negative takes a clear position too, and can’t treat its own predicted harm as certain.
Later transition outcomes, the distribution of gains and better causal comparisons could strengthen one forecast over the other.
Split the measured result from what you infer and what you predict.
Explain which reasons and risks matter most.
Name the condition that would make your position stronger or weaker.
Give a negative judgment about rejection versus reform. Use the later cohort without overstating its cause, and name a finding that would weaken your case.
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
a hiring audit compares 100 lower-income and 100 higher-income applicants.
The affirmative argues that calling the existing process meritocratic legitimizes an advantage not explained by demonstrated ability. The negative argues that useful ability assessment and the improvement after reform are reasons to repair the practice rather than reject it. Neither side may treat this single practice audit as a description of all societies.
You can type or use your keyboard’s microphone to dictate. Your text stays editable. Practice is optional.
Loading your progress…
We favor… because… The later cohort supports… Our case weakens if…
Use the timer for a spoken attempt if it helps. Practice without recording, then note what you would improve.
Speaking is self-reviewed. No microphone or recording is required.
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
a two-year review of 30 employers records 300 retained workers receiving 4% higher inflation-adjusted pay and working 37 rather than 40 hours per week after AI adoption.
The affirmative argues that productive tools can improve pay and time for many workers. The negative argues that concentrated losses and barriers to new work can outweigh those gains.
The recorded pay and time gains show a credible worker-benefit pathway. We give its broad recurring value enough weight to defend a positive overall forecast.
The affirmative takes a clear position and still has to answer job losses and how far its evidence reaches.
The concentrated losses and incomplete transitions make that positive forecast unconvincing. We give their severity and possible persistence greater weight.
The negative takes a clear position too, and can’t treat its own predicted harm as certain.
Later transition outcomes, the distribution of gains and better causal comparisons could strengthen one forecast over the other.
Both sides should say what new evidence would change their view.
You can be careful and still make a clear, strong argument.
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
a two-year review of 30 employers records 300 retained workers receiving 4% higher inflation-adjusted pay and working 37 rather than 40 hours per week after AI adoption.
The affirmative argues that productive tools can improve pay and time for many workers. The negative argues that concentrated losses and barriers to new work can outweigh those gains.
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
Give a negative judgment about rejection versus reform. Use the later cohort without overstating its cause, and name a finding that would weaken your case.
a hiring audit compares 100 lower-income and 100 higher-income applicants.
The affirmative argues that calling the existing process meritocratic legitimizes an advantage not explained by demonstrated ability. The negative argues that useful ability assessment and the improvement after reform are reasons to repair the practice rather than reject it. Neither side may treat this single practice audit as a description of all societies.
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
We favor reform because relevant work-sample assessment carries useful performance information and the later cohort’s shortlist gap was smaller after changes to preparation and screening. That supports a credible route to improvement, not proof of which reform caused it or that all barriers disappeared. Our case weakens if persistent background advantages survive reforms that preserve useful assessment. We also need to answer whether retaining the meritocratic description itself legitimizes the remaining gap.
The negative gives the reform evidence an actual role.
The later cohort does not isolate each cause.
Useful reform is not automatically an answer to the affirmative’s criticism of the description.
The response takes a position, uses the record for a bounded inference and identifies both a condition for revision and an independent affirmative argument. It does more than list unknowns.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Loading your progress…
