I think it is very unfortunate that Pro conceded this debate. I was enjoying it as it was ongoing. I wish the participants could have agreed to simply skip round 3 and go right to concluding arguments. I still probably would have voted for Con, but it would have been a decision I'd have to actually think about. But as it stands, Con wins by default.
Pro presumably has the BoP, but Con argues first, which make the intended burdens a little unclear. I don't recommend making yourself go first as Con, as it gives your opponent an advantage. I will be operating under the assumption that Pro has the BoP.
Pro's case is pretty simple, arguing that passing off the work of another person is wrong and should be banned on a debate site, and that using AI to generate arguments is equivalent to doing so. Con argues that AI can't be considered a person since AI doesn't have true mental faculties and doesn't reason in the same way that humans can. Rather, it is a tool that humans use, and enforcing an AI ban would be difficult.
Pro counters the point about personhood by arguing that, whether one is using arguments written by another human or an AI, the effect is the same, since AI arguments are generally very coherent and human-like. Pro also counters the point about AI simply being a tool by pointing out how much more advanced it is than other tools like a spellchecker or a simple research tool, since none of those can generate an entire round of argument according to the user's wishes. Lastly, the point about enforcement is countered by pointing out how using work written by a different human may be undetectable in practice, but it would still be rational and arguably even common sense for a debate site to ban it. I think Pro's counters each win out over Con's here, as they have clear impacts regarding the ethical issues AI brings up which Con does not sufficiently respond to.
In summary, I don't think Pro's case is sufficiently undermined by Con's case to prevent them from meeting their burdens. Therefore, Pro wins.
