Aurora Hons
Staff Writer
Idaho State University’s Rupp Debate Team hosted its spring 2026 public forum on April 1, to debate whether the university should teach or ban the use of generative AI in education.
The official topic was, “ISU should focus on teaching responsible generative AI use instead of banning it.” Students Maleah Dilworth and Alex Kuyper argued for the affirmative, and Chelsea Blanchard and Lazarus Clark for the negative.
“So our question can’t be whether it’s good or bad, our question has to be how an institution should respond to a technology that is simultaneously powerful, accessible, evolving and problematic?” said Dr. Jason Carr, the moderator of the debate.
Universities across the country are increasingly integrating AI to enhance education, with many focusing on ethical use and academic integrity. University of Idaho’s official policy on their website claims they strive for, “enabling novel and creative use of AI, while also ensuring adequate data protection and compliance.” But with generative AI being a relatively new tool to the academic world, an increasing number of academic professionals are concerned about student integrity with it being so widely accessible.
The affirmative team, led by Kuyper and Dilworth, argued that ISU should embrace instead of ban generative AI, framing it as a flexible and necessary tool for students.
“In the 1970s American schools tried to ban the calculator. Teachers feared it would destroy math skills,” Kuyper said during the debate. “Generative AI is our generation’s calculator, and just like it, banning it doesn’t stop the technology. It stops students from learning how to use it well.”
The main arguments were workforce readiness, critical thinking, and accessibility. They said the importance of AI literacy is equivalent to that of internet literacy in 2005. “According to 2024 World Economic Forum future jobs report, over 75% of employers say AI literacy is now a required skill for hiring and advancement,” Kuyper stated.
The negative team, led by Blanchard and Clark, argued that the risks of integrating AI into the university far outweigh any of the potential benefits, with their main arguments being AI eroding critical thinking and AI biases creating ethical liabilities.
“Giving students generative AI in the name of teaching is like giving a novice surgeon a chainsaw and calling it a scalpel,” Clark stated during their arguments. “It is too powerful, too unpredictable and too unregulated to be placed in the hands of learners whose cognitive foundations are still developing.”
The key clash during the debate came down to one key question: Does AI use (when taught) improve or destroy critical thinking and learning skills? The affirmative side continually framed the problem not lying within AI itself, but rather how students are using it, that teaching responsible use fixes the negatives that people are worried about. However, the negative claims the problem lies in AI itself, not just misuse. Even when taught, students can take shortcuts or trust outputs blindly.
As AI tools become more common in classrooms and careers alike, the debate ultimately reflects a larger uncertainty: whether these technologies will shape stronger thinkers or replace the thinking altogether.
One thought on “TO TEACH OR TO BAN? RUPP DEBATE TEAM ARGUES THE FUTURE OF AI IN EDUCATION”