Italian Journal of Health Education, Sports and Inclusive Didactics
When Algorithms Learn to Speak: Debate as Affective Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Abstract
The expansion of generative artificial intelligence in educational and communicative contexts raises questions that go beyond technological integration. When an algorithm can simulate empathy, sustain credible conversations and produce emotionally engaging texts, two educational risks emerge: the homogenisation of language and the weakening of students’ affective and relational competences. This article presents a systematised narrative review with thematic synthesis, organised around three nuclei: generative AI, simulated empathy and persuasion; educational risks, linguistic homogenisation and communicative delegation; Debate, dialogic argumentation and affective literacy. The central argument is that Debate should not be understood as a simple antidote to AI, but as a pedagogical practice that restores time, presence, responsibility and relational exposure to speech. The more communicative technologies become persuasive and apparently empathic, the more schools need to educate students to the emotional and ethical awareness of communication.
Keywords
References
Asterhan, C. S. C., Howe, C., Lefstein, A., Matusov, E., & Reznitskaya, A. (2020). Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning. Dialogic Pedagogy, 8, S1–S16.
Biagini, G. (2025). Towards an AI-literate future: A systematic literature review exploring education, ethics, and applications. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/xxxxx
Cinganotto, L. (2021). The Handy Little Guide to Debate: How to foster debating skills in the EFL class. Pearson.
Creely, E., & Carabott, K. (2025). Teaching and learning with AI: An integrated AI-oriented pedagogical model. The Australian Educational Researcher, 52(6), 4633–4654.
Galli, F. (2025). Intelligenza artificiale, didattica e regolazione: opportunità, rischi e prospettive normative. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 1, xx–xx.
Gerlich, M. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6.
Goldberg, T., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Harnessing emotions to deliberative argumentation in classroom discussions on historical issues in multi-cultural contexts. Frontline Learning Research, 4(4), 7–19.
Guamanga, M. H., Saiz, C., Rivas, S. F., & Morales Bueno, P. (2025). Critical thinking and metacognition: pathways to empathy and psychological well-being. Journal of Intelligence, 13(3), 34.
Habermas, J. (1986). Teoria dell’agire comunicativo. il Mulino. (Opera originale pubblicata nel 1981)
Hackenburg, K., Tappin, B. M., Röttger, P., Hale, S., Bright, J., & Margetts, H. (2024). Evidence of a log scaling law for political persuasion with large language models. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14508
Lee, H. P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM.
Lee, Y. K., Suh, J., Zhan, H., Li, J. J., & Ong, D. C. (2024). Large language models produce responses perceived to be empathic. In Proceedings of the 2024 12th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII) (pp. 63–71). IEEE.
Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito. (2025). Linee guida per l’introduzione dell’intelligenza artificiale nelle istituzioni scolastiche. https://www.mim.gov.it/...
Moon, K., Green, A. E., & Kushlev, K. (2025). Homogenizing Effect of Large Language Models on Creative Diversity. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 100207.
Mosa, E., & Panzavolta, S. (2023). Diventare competenti con il Debate. RicercAzione, 15(2 bis), 143–161.
Ng, D. T. K., Wu, W., Leung, J. K. L., Chiu, T. K. F., & Chu, S. K. W. (2024). Design and validation of the AI Literacy Questionnaire: The affective, behavioural, cognitive and ethical approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 1082–1104.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/xxxxx
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique. Presses Universitaires de France.
Rapanta, C. (2019). Argumentation as Critically Oriented Pedagogical Dialogue. Informal Logic, 39(1), 1–31.
Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. (2025). From dialogue to metadialogue in classroom discussions. Learning in Context, 1(1–2), 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lecon.2025.100002
Rogiers, A., Noels, S., Buyl, M., & De Bie, T. (2024). Persuasion with large language models: A survey. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06837
Salvi, F., Horta Ribeiro, M., Gallotti, R., & West, R. (2025). On the conversational persuasiveness of GPT-4. Nature Human Behaviour, 9, 1645–1653.
Savoldi, B., Attanasio, G., Gorodetskaya, O., Marchiori Manerba, M., Bassignana, E., Casola, S., Negri, M., Caselli, T., Bentivogli, L., Ramponi, A., Muti, A., Balbo, N., & Nozza, D. (2025). Generative AI practices, literacy, and divides: An empirical analysis in the Italian context. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.03671
Sorin, V., Brin, D., Barash, Y., Konen, E., Charney, A., Nadkarni, G., & Klang, E. (2024). Large Language Models and Empathy: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, e52597.
Sourati, Z., Ziabari, A. S., & Dehghani, M. (2026). The homogenizing effect of large language models on human expression and thought. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, volume(issue), pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Tortuga, & Yellow Tech. (2025). Generazione AI: La nuova sfida della scuola. [Report]
Turkle, S. (2012). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books.
UNESCO. (2025). AI in the classroom: Empowering teachers for the future of learning. UNESCO.
Welivita, A., & Pu, P. (2024). Is ChatGPT more empathetic than humans? arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05572
Wilkie, K., & Ayalon, M. (2023). Learning to argue while arguing to learn. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(8), em2312.
Yang, R., et al. (2025). Enabling inclusive systematic reviews. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 32(11), 1718–1725.
Zuboff, S. (2023). The age of surveillance capitalism. In W. Longhofer & D. Winchester (Eds.), Social theory re-wired: New connections to classical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 203–213). Routledge.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32043/gsd.v10i3.1747
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2026 ITALIAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH EDUCATION, SPORT AND INCLUSIVE DIDACTICS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Italian Journal of Health Education, Sports and Inclusive Didactics
Publisher: Cares srl – REN Press (since 2026). Previously published by Gaia srl – Edizioni Universitarie Romane (2017–2025).
ISSN: 2532-3296 E-ISSN: 3103-5744