AI工具利弊之争 | 石门国际高二英语辩论赛初赛圆满落幕

4月23日，石门国际迎来了一场思维与语言的盛宴——高二英文辩论赛初赛激情开战。

围绕当下教育领域备受争议的辩题“The use of AI tools for school assignments is beneficial”（使用人工智能工具完成学校作业是否有益），正反双方六位辩手以流利的英语、严密的逻辑和敏捷的思维展开激烈交锋，为现场师生呈现了一场思想碰撞的视听盛宴。

On April 23, SMICC witnessed a true feast of wit and language as the sophomore English debate preliminaries kicked off with great passion. Centering on the highly controversial topic in current education—”The use of AI tools for school assignments is beneficial”—six debaters from the Proposition and Opposition teams engaged in a fierce clash. With fluent English, rigorous logic, and agile thinking, they presented a visual and intellectual spectacle for the teachers and students in attendance.

The Topic Hits a Nerve of the Times: Is AI a Foe or a Friend?

随着ChatGPT、DeepSeek等AI工具的普及，学生作业中“人机协作”的边界成为教育界热议话题。正方认为，AI是高效的学习助手，能帮助学生快速获取信息、优化表达，甚至激发创造力；反方则担忧过度依赖AI会削弱批判性思维，导致学术不诚信，甚至让学习沦为“技术表演”。这场辩论不仅是对语言能力的考验，更是对未来教育模式的深度思考。

With the proliferation of AI tools like ChatGPT and DeepSeek, the boundaries of “human-machine collaboration” in student assignments have become a hot topic in the educational community. The Proposition argued that AI serves as an efficient learning assistant, helping students access information quickly, refine their expression, and even spark creativity. Conversely, the Opposition expressed concern that over-reliance on AI could erode critical thinking, lead to academic dishonesty, and even reduce learning to a mere “technological performance.” This debate was not only a test of language proficiency but also a profound reflection on the future models of education.

正方认为AI能处理重复性工作，让学生专注创新思考。正方还表示，AI能更好地推动教育平等，指出偏远地区学生也可通过AI获取优质资源，弥补师资差距。自由辩论环节，正方以“医生用AI辅助诊断不代表放弃医术”类比，强调“工具的中立性取决于使用者目的”，赢得全场掌声。

The Proposition contended that AI can handle repetitive tasks, allowing students to focus on innovative thinking. They further asserted that AI promotes educational equity, pointing out that students in remote areas can also access high-quality resources through AI, thereby bridging the gap in teaching. During the free debate session, the Proposition drew an analogy that “doctors using AI for assisted diagnosis doesnot mean abandoning medical skills,” emphasizing that “the neutrality of a tool depends on the user’s intent,” which won applause from the entire audience.

反方则以“学术诚信是教育底线”切入，引用多所高校禁用AI工具的案例，指出“当作业变成‘AI代写+人工润色’，评价标准将失去意义”，且青少年大脑前额叶未发育完全，长期依赖AI会阻碍深度学习能力的形成。

在最精彩的自由辩论环节中，反方抛出犀利问题：“如果AI能瞬间完成作业，教育的目标究竟是培养人才，还是训练‘提问机器’？”令正方陷入短暂沉思。

The Opposition, on the other hand, started with the premise that “academic integrity is the bottom line of education.” Citing cases where multiple universities have banned AI tools, they argued that “when assignments become ‘AI-generated with human polishing,’ evaluation standards lose their meaning.” They also noted that since adolescents’ prefrontal cortexes are not fully developed, long-term reliance on AI would hinder the formation of deep learning capabilities. In the most thrilling part of the free debate, the Opposition fired a sharp question: “If AI can finish assignments in an instant, is the goal of education to cultivate talent or to train ‘question-asking machines’?” This left the Proposition in brief contemplation.

Judges’ Comments: 

Beyond Right and Wrong, Reflecting on the Future

比赛特邀多位石门国际英文教师担任评委。评委称赞辩手们“展现了惊人的语言驾驭力和批判性思维”，同时提出建议：“辩论需更聚焦‘使用场景’——适度使用AI查资料与直接复制答案有本质区别。辩论的意义不在于分出胜负，而在于引导同学们思考：在技术狂飙的时代，如何守住教育的初心？”

The competition invited several English teachers from Shimen International to serve as judges. The judges praised the debaters for demonstrating “astonishing command of language and critical thinking,” while also offering a suggestion: “Debates need to focus more on ‘usage scenarios’—there is a fundamental difference between using AI moderately to look up information and directly copying answers. The significance of debate lies not in determining a winner, but in guiding students to reflect: In this era of technological surge, how do we uphold the original intention of education?”

Conclusion: The Debate Ends, but the Reflection Continues

最终，正方以流畅的表述、严密的逻辑链条和极具说服力的论据赢得了比赛。同时，这场辩论让所有人意识到：AI不是非黑即白的“洪水猛兽”，而是需要理性驾驭的“双刃剑”。正如正方总结陈词所言：“真正的智慧，在于知道何时该按下键盘，何时该放下手机。”

Ultimately, the Proposition won the match with fluent expression, a tight chain of logic, and highly persuasive arguments. Meanwhile, this debate made everyone realize that AI is not a black-and-white “scourge,” but rather a “double-edged sword” that requires rational handling. As the Proposition stated in their closing remarks: “True wisdom lies in knowing when to press the keyboard and when to put down the phone.”

石门国际中心高二英语辩论赛初赛已落下帷幕，但关于AI与教育的对话仍在继续。期待复赛中，辩手们能带来更深刻的洞见，也愿每一位学子在数字浪潮中，始终保持独立思考的勇气与能力。

The preliminaries of the SMICC Sophomore English Debate have come to a close, but the dialogue regarding AI and education continues. We look forward to the debaters bringing even deeper insights in the semi-finals, and we hope that every student maintains the courage and ability to think independently amidst the digital wave.