Red herring - Is an attempt to mislead and distract an audience by bringing up an unrelated issue to falsely oppose the

issue at hand; is an attempt to change the subject and divert attention elsewhere. (E.g. The real issue isn't whether AI
should be used in schools but how students can better prepare for future jobs. AI is going to take over many industries,
so we should focus more on teaching students coding and other technical skills rather than discussing AI's impact in
education.)

Bandwagon logical fallacy - Basing the validity of our argument on how many people believe or do the same thing as we
do; claiming that something must be true simply because it is popular. (E.g. Many schools around the world are already
using AI in their classrooms, so we should implement AI in our schools too.)

Straw man logical fallacy - Distortion of an opponent’s argument to make it easier to refute; exaggerating or simplifying
someone’s position, one can easily attack a weak version of it and ignore their real argument (E.g. Opponents of AI in
schools think that AI will completely replace teachers, making education cold and impersonal. But that's unrealistic—AI
is just a tool to assist teachers, not replace them)

Slippery slope logical fallacy - Asserts that a relatively small step or initial action will lead to a chain of events resulting in
a drastic change or undesirable outcome; no evidence is offered to prove that this chain reaction will indeed happen.
(E.g. If we don't adopt AI in schools now, our education system will fall behind, and students will miss out on
technological advancements.)

Hasty generalization logical fallacy - Use a small sample or exceptional cases to draw a conclusion or generalize a rule.
(E.g. AI works perfectly in a few schools that have implemented it, so it will definitely work well in all schools across the
country.)

Appeal to Popularity - something is deemed true or good simply because many people believe it or do it. (E.g. Everyone
is using AI in their classrooms, so it must be the best way to enhance education.)

Appeal to Authority - Claims that their view is endorsed by a relevant authority figure; speaker isn’t an expert in a given
subject. (E.g. AI should be widely adopted in schools because famous tech experts like Elon Musk and Bill Gates have
endorsed the use of AI in education.)

Appeal to Ignorance - Presents an argument as fact simply because there is no readily available evidence to prove the
contrary (E.g. There's no concrete evidence that AI will harm students' social skills or interactions, so we should assume
it’s perfectly safe to implement in schools.)

Appeal to Pity - Appeals to the emotions of another by exploiting their feelings of guilt or pity (E.g. We should
implement AI in schools because many teachers are overworked and stressed.)

Causal Fallacy - Presumes that because there is a single clear explanation for an effect, that this must be the only cause.
(E.g. Since schools that have implemented AI have seen an increase in test scores, it’s clear that AI is the reason for these
improved scores.)

Circular Argument - Conclusion is included in the premise, essentially restating the same point without providing any
new evidence or reasoning (E.g. We should implement AI in schools because AI technology is necessary for education.)

Equivocation - word or phrase is used ambiguously in different contexts, leading to a misleading or unsound conclusion
(E.g. We should implement AI in education because AI can enhance learning experiences. After all, learning is just about
gaining information, and AI provides vast amounts of information.)

False Dilemma - presents a situation as having only two alternatives when, in fact, there are more options available.
(E.g. We can either fully implement AI in our classrooms to improve education or stick to traditional teaching methods
and let our students fall behind.)
Loaded Question Fallacy - employing rhetorical manipulation in order to limit the possible array of answers that another
speaker can rationally provide. (E.g. How much do you think using AI in classrooms will improve students' performance,
given that you already agree it’s necessary?)

Post Hoc Fallacy - “after this, therefore because of this”; one incorrectly attributes a cause and effect relationship
between two phenomena in the absence of proof that one causes the other. (E.g. After we implemented AI in our
classrooms, student test scores improved. Therefore, using AI caused the increase in scores.)
When agreeing to a yes/no question - Mr/Ms. Speaker can I elaborate my answer after answering your yes or no
question? If not then my point will be misunderstood without any explanation.

Contradiction of statistics - 89% of students uses ChatGPT for homework; 70% of educators believe that it constitutes to
plagiarism. Laura Tierney (March 5, 2024)

:Can you provide the date for your statistics, Mr. Speaker?

: (If older ila statistics) It appears that our statistics are contradicting each other. While your point is valid, the data
you're citing seems outdated compare to ours which is published on

Isn't AI just a tool that can assist students, rather than replace creativity? Can't it enhance creativity by handling the
mundane tasks?

While it's true that AI can assist with repetitive tasks, the concern lies in over-reliance. Instead of enhancing creativity,
many students may start depending on AI to generate ideas for them, skipping the important step of learning how to
think creatively. AI tools are great for efficiency, but creativity comes from actively engaging with ideas and developing
original thoughts, which AI cannot foster. It’s about finding balance—using AI as a tool but not letting it substitute the
critical thinking process.

Isn't it a bit alarmist to say that AI will stifle creativity? Can't students still choose to use their creativity if they want
to?

It might seem alarmist at first, but we need to recognize how easily students might fall into the trap of using AI for
convenience. When AI offers quick, ready-made solutions, it can discourage students from fully exploring their own
ideas, especially under time constraints or academic pressure. While students can still choose to be creative, the
temptation to take shortcuts is significant, and over time, this erodes the habit of thinking deeply and imaginatively.

Can you provide examples of how AI negatively impacts creativity in the classroom?

One clear example is AI essay generators. Tools like ChatGPT or other writing assistants allow students to input a topic
and generate entire essays. While this might save time, it prevents students from developing their own arguments,
exploring ideas, or learning how to organize their thoughts effectively. Similarly, AI-driven art programs allow students
to create impressive visual pieces with minimal effort, but this removes the opportunity for students to experiment with
techniques and styles that help them develop a unique creative voice.

Could schools develop guidelines to ensure that AI is used responsibly, and if so, would this address your concerns?

Yes, schools could implement guidelines to limit AI’s use, ensuring that it complements learning rather than replacing
critical skills. However, the concern is that even with guidelines, students may still over-rely on AI, especially in areas
where creativity and independent problem-solving are crucial. Without strict enforcement and a strong emphasis on
fostering creativity, the risk of diminished imagination remains. AI should supplement, not replace, the core educational
process.

What about students who struggle academically? Couldn’t AI help them by providing additional support?

AI can certainly help struggling students by offering personalized learning tools or by breaking down complex topics into
more manageable parts. However, there’s a fine line between assistance and dependency. We must ensure that these
students are still actively engaging in the learning process and not becoming passive consumers of AI-generated content.
The goal should be to empower students to develop problem-solving skills and creative thinking, not to rely on AI to fill
in those gaps indefinitely.

What do you think would be a better way to foster creativity in schools, if not through AI?

To foster creativity, schools should emphasize project-based learning, where students engage in hands-on activities that
require them to think critically and develop original solutions. Incorporating arts, music, and collaborative work can also
encourage imaginative thinking. Encouraging students to explore their ideas without relying on shortcuts, such as AI, is
key. The focus should be on creating an environment where students are encouraged to take risks and innovate, rather
than looking for quick fixes through technology.

Isn't AI an important part of the future workforce? Shouldn't students learn how to use it effectively in school?

Yes, AI is certainly a part of the future workforce, and students should learn how to use it responsibly. However, learning
to use AI should come after mastering the foundational skills of creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. We
don’t want to produce students who can use AI but are unable to innovate without it. The balance is essential: AI should
be a tool that enhances these skills, not a crutch that diminishes them.

Isn't it possible that AI enhances communication rather than diminishes it?

While AI can help people communicate, especially those who find social interactions hard, it often lacks the depth and
emotion of face-to-face conversations. AI can help start a conversation, but it can't replace the feelings and
understanding that come from real human connections, which are important for building meaningful relationships.

How do you address the argument that AI can provide personalized learning experiences that foster human
interaction?

AI can definitely improve learning experiences, but we must be careful that it doesn’t take away from human
interaction. The best learning often happens when students work together and engage with their teachers. If we rely too
much on AI for personalized learning, we might miss out on these important interactions.

What evidence do you have that AI directly causes social isolation?

While we can't say for sure that AI causes social isolation, many studies show a link between increased screen time and
feelings of loneliness. The Pew Research report points out a growing loneliness problem connected to digital interactions
replacing face-to-face connections. It's important to look at these trends when we think about how AI affects human
relationships.

Could AI serve as a bridge for those who are socially anxious or isolated?

AI might help people who feel socially anxious, but relying only on virtual interactions can make it harder for them to
engage in real-life situations. We need to use AI as a support, not a substitute for real human interaction. Encouraging
people to gradually take part in face-to-face interactions can help them build confidence and social skills.