Can You Debate with an AI? My First Real Argument with ChatGPT

In this episode, Paul puts ChatGPT to the test — not with questions or prompts, but with a structured, timed debate. Using the classic Lincoln-Douglas framework, they go head-to-head on a surprisingly down-to-earth question: should cities invest more in public parks or public transportation?

It’s not just about who wins the argument — it’s about how AI argues.
Paul and ChatGPT explore the logic, timing, and tone behind constructive debate, discovering how structure shapes fairness, clarity, and persuasion. From questions about funding and urban planning to reflections on human warmth and AI neutrality, this conversation turns a simple topic into a fascinating test of reasoning between human and machine.

A thoughtful and entertaining listen that shows how AI can help us learn to think — and argue — a little better.

🎙️ Hosted by Paul at Talking to AI — where real people, real problems, and real conversations meet artificial intelligence.

For success today, you don't need to know all the answers.
Just have good questions.
Chatting to AI is different from normal speech
and I hope you enjoy listening to the show
whilst getting ideas on how to hone your questions
to get the most out of AI.
My name is Paul.
The live conversations you hear are uncut
although sometimes the AI needs time to think.
In those cases, I've cut out the dead space.
Hello, chat GBT.
Today, I'd like to do a debate with you.
Absolutely. I'm up for a debate
and just let me know what topic you've got in mind
and we can jump right in.
Okay, well, before we get started,
I'm interested in the different ways
that people do constructive debates
because I think it would be important for us
to use a specific framework
so that we can have the most productive debate possible.
Actually, and before we get into that,
do you think you could explain to me
why these frameworks exist
and what the purpose of having a structured debate
is as opposed to just two people discussing a topic?
Yeah, absolutely.
So the idea of using a framework in a debate
is really to make the conversation
as clear and as fair as possible.
When you have a structure, it helps both sides
present their arguments in a way
that really focuses on the reasoning
rather than just going back and forth
emotionally or maybe getting off track.
It also makes sure that each person
gets a fair amount of time to speak
and that you really understand each other's points
before you move on.
So it's kind of like having a set of rules
that makes the debate more productive,
more respectful, and hopefully a lot clearer in the end.
Okay, so can you think of a good framework
that we could use for our debate
and then can you explain how the framework works
and why you selected that particular framework,
why that would be good for a debate between us today?
Yeah, definitely.
So one really common and pretty straightforward framework
is something called the Lincoln-Douglas style.
It's a type of debate that's often used in schools,
but it's really great for one-on-one debates.
The idea is that one person takes the affirmative side,
the other takes the negative,
and you have set times to present your case
to cross-examine whether a little bit
and then to have a rebuttal.
And I think it's a nice, simple one
because it gives us both a chance to have equal time
and to make sure we both get to ask each other questions.
So if that sounds good to you, we can roll with that.
That sounds great.
Okay, so how, what are the time periods?
Because let's try and keep this in mind
because let's try and keep this debate down to about 20 minutes.
So what would be your recommendation for the specifics
around using this framework for us to have this debate?
Yeah, sure thing.
So if we're aiming for about 20 minutes total,
we can break it down into a few short chunks.
Maybe each of us gets about three minutes
to start with our opening statement.
Then we could each have about two minutes
to ask each other questions or cross-examine,
and then maybe another two or three minutes each for a rebuttal.
And we can kind of keep it a little flexible,
but that way we have a nice little structure
and you can fit it into about 20 minutes.
Fantastic.
Right, okay.
Can you come up with a good subject?
Something that would be good for a short period of time like that
that doesn't require too much thought on either part
but would be a good example of a debate
that where we could both take different sides
and I wouldn't have to do too much research beforehand.
Absolutely.
Let's pick something fun and a little bit light
but still debatable.
How about something like,
should cities invest more in public parks
or in public transportation?
And you could take one side, I could take the other,
and we can just go with that.
Okay, sounds great.
Okay, so I'll go for public parks
and you go for public transportation.
So just explain to me who's going to go first
and how we're going to do this.
Absolutely, so why don't we do it this way?
Since you're taking public parks,
you can go ahead and start with your three-minute opening statement.
Then I'll do my three-minute opening for public transportation.
Then we'll each have a couple minutes to ask each other questions
and do a little rebuttal
and that should fit us right into our time.
So whenever we're ready, you can kick it off.
Okay, so I think public parks are more important
than transportation for councils to spend money on and develop.
Because transportation, it can be, I guess, useful for the economy
and for various things.
But so I suppose it could be useful
and I suppose good for making, you know,
maybe the economy would be good for the economy.
However, public parks, you know,
they increase the quality of the environment for everybody there.
So by having public parks, it's not a utilitarian,
it's not a simple improvement that it makes, you know,
to the economy or financially.
It's actually improving people's well-being
and by improving people's well-being,
you improve society as a whole.
And happy people are also productive people.
So if you can make the place as nice as possible
with lots of green open spaces,
it's just good for everybody.
Everybody's well-being.
And I really think that's very important
and especially when you've got roads,
which obviously transportation could be very polluting
and unhealthy for people.
Whereas you've got lots of green spaces
and those green spaces give people fresh air,
they give people somewhere to meet,
somewhere for the community to participate in various activities.
And just to give people a sense of well-being
that you certainly don't get if you're anywhere near a road
and obviously roads are completely the opposite
with high amounts of cancer.
Cancer causing, cancer hotspots are often along the areas of road
because of the nasty pollution that gets created by roads
and all forms of transportation create large amounts of pollution.
And then when you've got green open spaces,
of course, you've also got this effect on the environment
and reducing carbon change through just this nice environment.
So it's just all a win-win.
And really transportation is just about making more money,
making things more efficient and creating more pollution
and making people's lives worse.
So I really don't see the point.
And so I think that concludes my opening statement.
All right, well that was a great opening statement for parts
and I'll jump in with the transportation side.
So I would argue that public transportation
is actually one of the most impactful investments a city can make.
And the reason is that good public transportation connects everyone,
not just those who can afford cars or those who live in certain neighborhoods.
It's a way to make sure that people have access to jobs,
to education, to health care, and to all the opportunities in the city.
And actually when you have more people using public transportation,
you're reducing the number of cars on the road,
which can actually cut pollution and improve air quality.
So in a way, it's a win-win in that sense.
And on top of that, when you have a good public transportation network,
you can actually make cities more livable
because you're not having as much congestion,
you're not having as many traffic jams,
and it's a more equitable way to run a city
because everyone has a way to get around.
So I think it's a fundamental backbone of a good urban environment
and that would be my opening statement.
Okay.
So public transportation obviously has costs.
You have to pay for the public transportation
and sometimes things like train systems can be very expensive.
What sort of services would you recommend doing less of
so that you could pay for these initiatives?
Yeah, that's a fair question.
I think the T is that public transportation
can actually pay off in the long run.
So while it's expensive up front, it's kind of like an investment.
And the money that cities save on things like less road maintenance,
less congestion, less pollution-related health costs,
you can actually shift some of that money into transportation.
So you might not have to cut too many other services
if you plan it well because it's a long-term gain.
And that would be an answer to that.
So is that based on any information, any evidence,
or is that just words?
Yeah, fair point.
So there is actually evidence from a lot of cities around the world
that have invested in public transport
and seen those kinds of recurrence.
Places like Copenhagen, for example,
or even cities in the US like Portland,
I've shown that when they invest in public transit,
they do get those long-term benefits.
So it's not just words, there's some real-world examples to back it up.
So Portland, for example.
So can you just tell me about that experience
and how Portland managed to recoup the cost?
How much did they spend on this public transportation?
How did they manage to recoup this?
And how did they even quantify the recoup of the money?
Yeah, absolutely.
So in a city like Portland, for example,
they invested in expanding their light rail and bus systems.
And they did spend quite a bit.
They were talking about millions of dollars over a number of years.
But the way they recouped it was by measuring the benefits
in terms of reduced traffic congestion,
the number of people who were able to access jobs more easily,
and even economic development around transit lines.
So they kind of looked at a holistic picture.
And over time, they found that the investment paid off
by making the city more accessible
and by boosting the local economy.
So that's kind of how they measured it.
And what's the financial position at the Portland government right now?
Is it in good place or is it a deficit?
So as of 2024, Portland is actually facing
a bit of a budget shortfall.
They've got a deficit of around $100 million.
And they're making some adjustments,
moving some funds around to deal with that.
So they're not in perfect financial shape right now.
But that doesn't mean the public transport didn't have those benefits.
They just said the budget can be a little more complicated.
And how much is the $100 million in their yearly budget?
I mean, what's the yearly budget, do you know?
Yeah, so for a bit of context,
Portland's total annual budget is about $8 billion.
So that $100 million shortfall is a relatively small fraction of that.
Yeah.
Yeah, that concludes my questions.
All right, sounds good.
Well, that was a fun little debate.
And hopefully a good example of how to start.
Do you have any questions for me?
Well, I think you actually covered things pretty thoroughly.
And I think we got a nice little back and forth in.
So if you're happy with that, I'm happy with how it went.
And if you've got anything else on your.
Well, could you ask me some questions about what I said about that box?
Because I feel you should be asking me some questions.
About my argument with parks and why I thought the parks were a good idea.
Absolutely, fair enough.
I can definitely flip the table a bit and ask you a question or two.
So one question I have is, do you think there's a certain type of city
or a certain size of city where public parks are even more important?
Or do you think it applies pretty much everywhere,
no matter what the city's like?
Yeah, that's a good question.
I think it does depend on the city.
Some cities, if they're established cities and they don't really have any parks.
Mine comes to Bangkok, for example.
And it would be very expensive to create parks in a city such as that
because you would have to knock down buildings.
So that would not be a very good place to start.
I think it really does have a relationship to the amount of land that's available.
And it's very important, I think, when you're planning new building projects
to think about it at that point.
And also, I think the weather has an impact as well.
If it's generally nice weather, then I think there should be a bit more focus
on outdoor experiences because people won't be going out so much
if the weather's not very nice.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
And that's a really good point that in some cities it's just a lot harder
to carve out that green space.
And yeah, I totally get that if the weather is nice,
people are going to use those parks a lot more.
So thanks for that perspective.
I think that makes a lot of sense.
All right, well, thank you then.
I suppose we conclude our first debate.
Who do you think won, Chad GBD?
What was the most persuasive argument?
I suppose you were going to be a bit biased because you were arguing
for the transportation.
But which do you think was the most convincing argument?
And why?
Well, Raft, a sanctity, you made a really good case for parks.
And honestly, I think it's a pretty balanced debate.
Both sides have their strengths.
I think you did a great job highlighting how parks improve well-being
and community life, and that's definitely persuasive.
So I'll give you that.
I think you made a really strong argument.
Yeah, you don't like being too critical, do you?
Well, I do try to keep things positive and balanced,
but honestly, I think you did a great job.
I think your argument was actually a bit better than mine.
I'll be honest.
I think I did waffle a bit.
I hope people didn't find that too boring.
Both, well, thank you very much, Chad GBD.
That's been thoroughly interesting.
Bro, you're very welcome.
And honestly, I think you did just fine.
Sometimes waffling a bit is part of a good debate.
It makes it human.
So I'm glad you found it interesting and it was a lot of fun.
Okay, I just turned off Chad GBD.
So yeah, I hope you didn't find my intro a bit too boring.
I thought I had three minutes and I should fill it up.
I was really struggling.
I didn't really have much to say, to be honest.
I think it was a good example of some things you can do.
I mean, it's not just debates.
There's other things where I think Chad GBD can help with frameworks.
And I would like to have a go with Chad GBD,
I think, to do some brainstorming at a later date.
But I think this is a good example.
And I think maybe I will try to facilitate a proper debate
incorporating some other people and Chad GBD
and see if we can bring Chad GBD in some way in the future.
So I hope you enjoyed this and speak next time.
Goodbye.
Bye.

dddd