The Instigator
VenomousNinja
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
draxxt
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

Artificial Intelligence is impossible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,179 times Debate No: 3819
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (9)

 

VenomousNinja

Con

Out of pure respect for my opponent, I will give him to post his argument first and last.
Having said this, I think I should put down some rules for this debate:
1. We are arguing true AI, which is AI that can think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being.

Definitions from Dictionary.com
We will be using the listed definitions for this debate.
.Artificial - "Made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural)"
.Intelligence - "Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc."
.Impossible - "Not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc."

Good luck, and may the best debater win.
draxxt

Pro

Hello, once again, VenemousNinja. It will be my honour to debate you again.

For the following reasons, I urge this resolution be found true. I accept all definitions and terms.

I would also like to add one more:

Burden of Proof lies on both my opponent and myself in this debate for the sake of the hypothetical.

I will make this quick for the sake of our rounds.

A) AI is impossible because we cannot be certain anything truly exists.

B) My opponent has given me the definition to impossible with the word exist as a defining term. I propose to you that if you were to prove existance, you would surely win this debate.

C) If you cannot prove existance, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything.

For the quick-produced rapid and logical reasons above, you vote PRO.

Thank you,
-EG
Debate Round No. 1
VenomousNinja

Con

Thank you for accepting, Draxxt.

Now, onto your arguments:

"A) AI is impossible because we cannot be certain anything truly exists"
Wrong, we can be certain some things exist, such as, Debate.org, we know that exists, life, we know that exists, etc. .
However, that is not relevant to this debate. So, I will make an argument that is.
We are certain some AI exists, even if it is relatively simple. In fact, Debate.org has a good amount of AI in it, as it is smart enough to post our arguments for us.
Now, although we are arguing 'true AI', you said anything, thus allowing me to stray from 'true AI' for a moment.

"B) My opponent has given me the definition to impossible with the word exist as a defining term. I propose to you that if you were to prove existence, would surely win this debate."
I know, because if I was to prove existence, I would be proving that 'true AI' is possible.

"C) If you cannot prove existence, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything."
Incorrect. We are debating if it is POSSIBLE, not existing. Also, I can produce more than one notion of 'artificial anything'. Debate.org, for example, how about a Gamecube, both of those have artificial intelligence. Not 'true' AI, but they both do have AI.

Now, onto my argument:

1) Deep Blue. Deep Blue was a robot who was able to match the chess skills of Garry Kasparov, who is considered to be the best human chess player in the world. Now, if a robot can match superior chess skills, then a robot can do other things like humans.
Also, from my definition of 'true AI', Deep Blue would have 'true AI', as it is able to think very similarly or exactly like Kasparov, and that would fulfill the requirement of 'think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being'.
draxxt

Pro

Thank you.

My opponent, ladies and gentleman, has not refuted a SINGLE point in this debate. He has merely said: "I CAN prove existance."

If that were the case, prove it so.

"Wrong, we can be certain some things exist, such as, Debate.org, we know that exists, life, we know that exists, etc. ."

How? Prove it so.

"However, that is not relevant to this debate. So, I will make an argument that is."

It is as I made it a debatable point. You have yet to prove it so.

"We are certain some AI exists, even if it is relatively simple. In fact, Debate.org has a good amount of AI in it, as it is smart enough to post our arguments for us."

That's not intelligence, it's programming. Purely man-made and not intelligent unless you're refferring to the man himself.

"I know, because if I was to prove existence, I would be proving that 'true AI' is possible."

But you haven't. Please address my points or else you forfeit them to me.

"Incorrect. We are debating if it is POSSIBLE, not existing. Also, I can produce more than one notion of 'artificial anything'. Debate.org, for example, how about a Gamecube, both of those have artificial intelligence. Not 'true' AI, but they both do have AI."

1) Those are mere programs, not AI.

2) But if it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove existance, it is also IMPOSSIBLE to prove AI.

"1) Deep Blue. Deep Blue was a robot who was able to match the chess skills of Garry Kasparov, who is considered to be the best human chess player in the world. Now, if a robot can match superior chess skills, then a robot can do other things like humans.
Also, from my definition of 'true AI', Deep Blue would have 'true AI', as it is able to think very similarly or exactly like Kasparov, and that would fulfill the requirement of 'think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being'."

Can it think, feel, react to stimuli other than chess? No. It has no existance or being except to play chess. As you stated in your R1:

"We are arguing true AI, which is AI that can think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being."

We see that Deep Blue can only think on the chess portion of intellect. It can only deduce chess moves. It has no other functions. That is not true AI as you stated in R1.

As you can see my opponent has offered no proof of existance and his proof of AI itself is not under the condition he set in R1. Therefore, you vote PRO.

Thanks,
-EG
Debate Round No. 2
VenomousNinja

Con

"My opponent, ladies and gentleman, has not refuted a SINGLE point in this debate. He has merely said: 'I CAN prove existence.'"

I have refuted every one of your points, and I never said that I could prove existence.

"How? Prove it so"
Debate.org - We know it exists as we are using it right now to post our debates.
Life - We are living, and that is enough evidence to prove life.

"It is as I made it a debatable point. You have yet to prove it so."
It is not relevant because it does not relate to the resolution.

"That's not intelligence, it's programming"
The only way to get Artificial Intelligence is through programming. I shall now refer to the definition of intelligence:

".Intelligence - "Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths,"

Debate.org has intelligence, as it can learn and can understand. In fact, right now, it understands that I am writing an argument, and in a little while it shall understand that I wish to post this argument. Debate.org has also learned my password and username, among other things. Although that may be just programming, Debate.org's programming is part of Debate.org, and should be treated as such.
The gamecube, has intelligence. It can learn, although it may need help from memory cards, it has an understanding that I want to play games on it, it can reason the different types of ways I input commands through the controller, such as hitting one button or the other.

"Purely man-made and not intelligent unless you're referring to the man himself."
Once again, the only way to get Artificial Intelligence is through programming.

"But you haven't. Please address my points or else you forfeit them to me."
I know I haven't. I said that if I was, I would surly win this debate. I never said that I would prove existence, and the reason being is because this debate is weather 'true AI' is possible or impossible.

"1) Those are mere programs, not AI."
The only way to get AI is through programming.

"2) But if it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove existence, it is also IMPOSSIBLE to prove AI."
No, it isn't. I can prove AI. How about, this time around, a Radio?
It has AI. It can learn which stations I like through presets that I set, it can reason that I am on FM and not AM and that is should get FM stations, and it can understand what volume I want.
Of course, all of these features rely on human input, but the features still work and the radio still does its job because of it's Fake(Artificial) Smarts(Intelligence).

"Can it think, feel, react to stimuli other than chess? No. It has no existence or being except to play chess."
However, Deep Blue can match a human's intellect in the world of chess, so in the world of chess, Deep Blue has 'true AI'.
Let's bring up my definition of 'true AI', shall we?

"We are arguing true AI, which is AI that can think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being."
Deep Blue can think full and almost exactly like a human being while playing chess, so it would qualify for having true AI, even though all it does is play chess.
draxxt

Pro

Good job, CON, let's keep it up!

"I have refuted every one of your points, and I never said that I could prove existence."

"Wrong, we can be certain some things exist, such as, Debate.org, we know that exists, life, we know that exists, etc. ."

You have attempted to prove that existence is obvious ergo, you tried to prove existence.

"Debate.org - We know it exists as we are using it right now to post our debates.
Life - We are living, and that is enough evidence to prove life."

An illusion is something that tricks the senses. If we think we are typing a debate, but are not, that is a trick to the senses. You cannot prove existence.

"It is not relevant because it does not relate to the resolution."

I have already said it is because I have made it a debatable point.

"The only way to get Artificial Intelligence is through programming. "

Yes but in your case, Gamecube or Debate.org is simply programming, not AI. There is a difference between simple programming and human-like AI.

"Debate.org has intelligence, as it can learn and can understand. In fact, right now, it understands that I am writing an argument, and in a little while it shall understand that I wish to post this argument. Debate.org has also learned my password and username, among other things. Although that may be just programming, Debate.org's programming is part of Debate.org, and should be treated as such.
The gamecube, has intelligence. It can learn, although it may need help from memory cards, it has an understanding that I want to play games on it, it can reason the different types of ways I input commands through the controller, such as hitting one button or the other."

This is not learning. These devices are limited by their programming, they cannot learn.

"I know I haven't. I said that if I was, I would surly win this debate. I never said that I would prove existence, and the reason being is because this debate is weather 'true AI' is possible or impossible."

Thank you for conceding that point.

"No, it isn't. I can prove AI. How about, this time around, a Radio?
It has AI. It can learn which stations I like through presets that I set, it can reason that I am on FM and not AM and that is should get FM stations, and it can understand what volume I want.
Of course, all of these features rely on human input, but the features still work and the radio still does its job because of it's Fake(Artificial) Smarts(Intelligence)."

But again, that is not human-like intelligence it's man-made and man controlled.

"Deep Blue can think full and almost exactly like a human being while playing chess, so it would qualify for having true AI, even though all it does is play chess."

But to think even almost as a human being, you need emotion, understanding logic, etc.

My opponent is conceding, not refuting, and simply dropping points. You can only logically vote PRO.

Thanks,
-EG
Debate Round No. 3
VenomousNinja

Con

I will refute, at the very least, two of your statements, within a single point:

When you asked for evidence of AI, you used the word 'always' in your plea for evidence. Not in all of them, of course, but in the ones you are debating.

My Proof:
"If you cannot prove existance, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything"

"AI is impossible because we cannot be certain anything truly exists"

Now, onto more quotes!

"I have already said it is because I have made it a debatable point."
However, I said it isn't. Thus, it's your opinion against mine.

"You have attempted to prove that existence is obvious ergo, you tried to prove existence."
However, I never said that I could prove existance, now did I?

"An illusion is something that tricks the senses. If we think we are typing a debate, but are not, that is a trick to the senses. You cannot prove existence."
Thank you! You did my job for me by proving illusions!

"Yes but in your case, Gamecube or Debate.org is simply programming, not AI. There is a difference between simple programming and human-like AI."
However, once again, when I used the Gamecube and Debate.org examples to refute your statement, your statement included the word anything, which allows me to stray from 'true AI', as I call it.

My proof of this:
"If you cannot prove existence, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything." - Your Original Statement

Now, more quotes!

"This is not learning. These devices are limited by their programming, they cannot learn."
However, they can learn within the confines of their programming, as proved by presets and memory cards.

"But again, that is not human-like intelligence it's man-made and man controlled."
However, when I the statement I refuted with this example include the word 'anything'.

This is your original statement, which I refuded with my radio example:

"C) If you cannot prove existence, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything."

Now, although this is the original statement, here is the back-up statement you provided to refute my statement, which backs up the original statement, which I am refuting:

"1) Those are mere programs, not AI."
This was a statement made to refute a statement I made to refute the original statement displayed above.

"But to think as a human being, you need emotion, understanding, logic, ect."
Deep Blue has understanding and logic, as it needs those things in order to match the skill of Garry Kasparov, considered to be the greatest chess player in the world.

Now you could simply say that Deep Blue was programmed to play against Kasparov's style of playing, however, a true chess master would able to change his style of play mid-game, and onlookers of his past games would easily be able to defeat him by playing against his style of game.

"My opponent is conceding, not refuting, and simply dropping points. You can only logically vote PRO."

Both of these points are false.
I am refuting points, and I am not dropping points.

And you can only logically vote CON.

By the way, there are many things wrong with my above statement, as well as my opponents. Because my opponent gets to debate last, and he keeps stating that people can only vote PRO, people will believe him, no matter how false it is, and no matter how logically you must vote CON.
My proof of this: The last thing said sticks in your memory the best as it is the most recent statement out of all, and as such you will be able to recall it the best, and as an added effect you will not be able to recall many, if any, older statements.
This does, however, only apply to this debate because of the number of statements said before the last statement. It can apply to other debates, although.

Now, my arguments:
Scientists have created a very humun looking robot, and that robot has the possibility to do more than simply sit or walk, however, at present, it can only sit. (1)

Scientists also one day think that robots will be able to make us believe that they are human. (1)

References:
1) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
draxxt

Pro

Okay, thank you again for requesting I debate you on this topic.

" When you asked for evidence of AI, you used the word 'always' in your plea for evidence. Not in all of them, of course, but in the ones you are debating."

Never once did the word "always" come up in my debate until now. I defy you to prove otherwise.

"However, I said it isn't. Thus, it's your opinion against mine."

No. It became a debatable point therefore you either had to refute it or concede.

"However, I never said that I could prove existance, now did I?"

I said that since you provided evidence for things you considered existant, you tried to prove existance.

"Thank you! You did my job for me by proving illusions!"

1) I did not prove illusions, I merely said we may be illusory.

2) If you were to try and prove illusions, you would be conceding my point.

"However, once again, when I used the Gamecube and Debate.org examples to refute your statement, your statement included the word anything, which allows me to stray from 'true AI', as I call it."

No. I said human-like. When you create "human-like" as a rule, you automatically assume that all points consisting of AI will go by the rule of "human-like."

"However, they can learn within the confines of their programming, as proved by presets and memory cards."

Yes but humans are not limited by a certain amount of knowledge. Also, they may only learn certain things that correspond with their programming. They may not manipulate it in any way without human interaction, therefore they cannot think as a human does.

"However, when I the statement I refuted with this example include the word 'anything'."

Again, you go by the preset rules.

"Deep Blue has understanding and logic, as it needs those things in order to match the skill of Garry Kasparov, considered to be the greatest chess player in the world."

It has understanding of chess and nothing more.

"Now you could simply say that Deep Blue was programmed to play against Kasparov's style of playing, however, a true chess master would able to change his style of play mid-game, and onlookers of his past games would easily be able to defeat him by playing against his style of game."

Yes but try talking philosophically witht he machine and it would probably produce a rebuttal along the lines of "Bishop to queen's four." This is in no way "human-like" intelligence.

"By the way, there are many things wrong with my above statement, as well as my opponents. Because my opponent gets to debate last, and he keeps stating that people can only vote PRO, people will believe him, no matter how false it is, and no matter how logically you must vote CON."

If they are stupid. If they only go by the final demand, they haven't been paying attention. Saying "You can only logical vote XXX" Is a statement generally used to say "And this is why you should vote XXX"
If they do not read the debate aside from commands, it is useless debating. We may as well spend all of our rounds saying "Vote XXX"

"The last thing said sticks in your memory the best as it is the most recent statement out of all, and as such you will be able to recall it the best, and as an added effect you will not be able to recall many, if any, older statements.
This does, however, only apply to this debate because of the number of statements said before the last statement. It can apply to other debates, although."

If that were the case, every last round debater would win and that is not the case. Most logical people go by logical victors, not formal requests.

"Scientists have created a very humun looking robot, and that robot has the possibility to do more than simply sit or walk, however, at present, it can only sit. (1)

Scientists also one day think that robots will be able to make us believe that they are human. (1)"

However relevant that is is beyond me. It still does not have the capacities of a true human. It cannot love, feel, philosophically debate by opinion. It can only do what is within it's limitations that make it lesser than a human.

My opponent has made no sense this debate except to bring up a sitting robot that looks like a human. This in no way represents true AI as my opponent made the rule by. He has also dropped my existence contention and therefore, has already dropped half of the debate.

For the reason and refutation above, you vote PRO.

Thanks,
-EG
Debate Round No. 4
VenomousNinja

Con

"Never once did the word "always" come up in my debate until now. I defy you to prove otherwise."
So sorry, I meant to say 'anything'.

"No. It became a debatable point therefore you either had to refute it or concede."
It was not related to the resolution, however. Therefore, it did not need to be debated.

"I said that since you provided evidence for things you considered existant, you tried to prove existance."
However I never stated that I could prove existence, I merely attempted to.

"1) I did not prove illusions, I merely said we may be illusory."
And to be illusory, there must be illusions!

"2) If you were to try and prove illusions, you would be conceding my point."
Actually, I would be backing up my point that there are, at least, SOME things that we know to exist.

"No. I said human-like. When you create 'human-like' as a rule, you automatically assume that all points consisting of AI will go by the rule of 'human-like.'"
However, you still used the word 'anything', and, as I have stated before, that allows me to stray from 'true AI'. When you just say 'AI', or something similar, I will then assume that it fits into the rule of 'true AI'. However, you allowed me to stray from 'true AI' by your word choice.

"Yes but humans are not limited by a certain amount of knowledge. Also, they may only learn certain things that correspond with their programming. They may not manipulate it in any way without human interaction, therefore they cannot think as a human does."
Some humans are, in fact. While else would those people labeled as 'mental retards' have to live with a relative? Can they not take care of themselves by learning how the world works like a seemingly 'normal' person does?
Apparently, not. There are very few cases, if any, of a 'mental retard' taking care of him or herself.
Also notice that it does not have anything to do with their physical limitations, as it is called 'MENTAL retardation'.

"Again, you go by the preset rules."
Again, you used the word 'anything'.
Let's look at the word 'anything', shall we?

The first definition (from dictionary.com) says "any thing whatever; something, no matter what"
The second says "a thing of any kind."
The third says "in any degree; to any extent; in any way; at all"
Now, upon seeing the third definition, you may think that it proves your point, however, let's look at the example of the third definition: "Does it taste anything like chocolate?"
And, using the definition, we can see that this means "Does it, to any degree or extent, taste anything like chocolate?"

"It has understanding of chess and nothing more."
However, Deep Blue still has understanding and logic, although it may be only of chess.

"Yes but try talking philosophically with he machine and it would probably produce a rebuttal along the lines of "Bishop to queen's four." This is in no way "human-like" intelligence."
Now, that all depends on what one considers 'human-like' to be. I think 'human-like' intellect means it can do something intelligently. And it can, it can play chess intelligently. And, as such, Deep Blue has "human-like" intelligence by my standards.

"If they are stupid. If they only go by the final demand, they haven't been paying attention. Saying "You can only logical vote XXX" Is a statement generally used to say "And this is why you should vote XXX"
If they do not read the debate aside from commands, it is useless debating. We may as well spend all of our rounds saying "Vote XXX""
1) I never said they were stupid
2) I never said they could only go by the final command, I am saying that the final post sticks in your mind the most, and therefore probably influences you the most.
This does not mean that you posting "VOTE PRO VOTE PRO VOTE PRO" twenty times in your last post means they are going to vote for you. I'm just saying that, in many cases, the last one encounters is what influences them the most. In the "VOTE PRO" case, it would probably influence one to vote for me.
3) If so, why don't you just say the latter quote instead of misleading people with the former?
4) See 2).

"If that were the case, every last round debater would win and that is not the case. Most logical people go by logical victors, not formal requests."
Please see my above statement.

"However relevant that is is beyond me. It still does not have the capacities of a true human. It cannot love, feel, philosophically debate by opinion. It can only do what is within it's limitations that make it lesser than a human."
Once again, that all depends on what your definition of human is. Humans can be caring people, or they can be mass murders, or they can be limited because of some condition, or they can be a child, etc.

"My opponent has made no sense this debate except to bring up a sitting robot that looks like a human. This in no way represents true AI as my opponent made the rule by. He has also dropped my existence contention and therefore, has already dropped half of the debate."
I made much sense. Also, your existence contention does not represent half of the debate, and I did refute it. Look it the past arguments, you'll see.
draxxt

Pro

"It was not related to the resolution, however. Therefore, it did not need to be debated."

If a point is brought up in a debate, even by semantics, you must refute it. You refused to do so, therefore you have conceded it.

"However I never stated that I could prove existence, I merely attempted to."

Do I need to explain this again? You TRIED to prove existance. You could not. Simply trying alone leads me and everyone who may read this debate, even yourself, to believe that you CAN prove existance. Hence, you said you could prove existance.

"And to be illusory, there must be illusions!"

That's obvious and irrelevant in the point you tried to make.

"Actually, I would be backing up my point that there are, at least, SOME things that we know to exist."

No, because you would be proving existence itself as illusory therefore, you would help my case.

"However, you still used the word 'anything', and, as I have stated before, that allows me to stray from 'true AI'. When you just say 'AI', or something similar, I will then assume that it fits into the rule of 'true AI'. However, you allowed me to stray from 'true AI' by your word choice."

Like I said, If a rule is set in place (I.E. that True AI is meant by Artificial Intelligence) We must apply that to each of our cases. By saying anything, according to your rule, I was saying "Anything with true AI."

"Some humans are, in fact. While else would those people labeled as 'mental retards' have to live with a relative? Can they not take care of themselves by learning how the world works like a seemingly 'normal' person does?
Apparently, not. There are very few cases, if any, of a 'mental retard' taking care of him or herself.
Also notice that it does not have anything to do with their physical limitations, as it is called 'MENTAL retardation'."

That makes no sense. Computers are limited by the human programming, limitations of the human itself that prevents it from creating true AI. Retardation is caused in two known scenarios:

1) at birth

2) at some point in their life.

Ergo, This is not a man made AI reference. In this reference, though not nearly as complex, a computer programmer strays from one code. This causes the computer program to be somewhat unresponsive in areas. This does not mean that AI is achievable if there is a flaw in mankind.

"Again, you used the word 'anything'.
Let's look at the word 'anything', shall we?

The first definition (from dictionary.com) says "any thing whatever; something, no matter what"
The second says "a thing of any kind."
The third says "in any degree; to any extent; in any way; at all"
Now, upon seeing the third definition, you may think that it proves your point, however, let's look at the example of the third definition: "Does it taste anything like chocolate?"
And, using the definition, we can see that this means "Does it, to any degree or extent, taste anything like chocolate?"

Yes but, again, you set a rule. That rule is implied. I don't need to waste characters to explain true AI each time I reference, it's all limited within the preset rules.

"However, Deep Blue still has understanding and logic, although it may be only of chess."

Thank you for conceding that point. You say Deep Blue only has understanding of chess. I have yet to meet a human whose entire logic and reasoning is about, centered around, and rationalised by chess. This is not true AI or "Like or close to human intelligence." It is chess.

"Now, that all depends on what one considers 'human-like' to be. I think 'human-like' intellect means it can do something intelligently. And it can, it can play chess intelligently. And, as such, Deep Blue has "human-like" intelligence by my standards."

You set the terms. I will elaborate as I know you were thinking this as well:
human-like: Having almost or exactly the characteristics of humans.

Merriam-Webster:
intelligence as: "the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria"

Deep Blue can only react to chess. This is not applying knowledge or thinking abstractly, it is quite the opposite as it is in no way abstract or intuitive. It is chess. Merely this and nothing more. We cannot match the intelligence of a human as a whole with a computer. The human obviously wins.

"If they do not read the debate aside from commands, it is useless debating. We may as well spend all of our rounds saying "Vote XXX""
1) I never said they were stupid
2) I never said they could only go by the final command, I am saying that the final post sticks in your mind the most, and therefore probably influences you the most.
This does not mean that you posting "VOTE PRO VOTE PRO VOTE PRO" twenty times in your last post means they are going to vote for you. I'm just saying that, in many cases, the last one encounters is what influences them the most. In the "VOTE PRO" case, it would probably influence one to vote for me.
3) If so, why don't you just say the latter quote instead of misleading people with the former?
4) See 2)."

1) You're right. Neither of us called them stupid and I never claimed you did.
2) You missed my point entirely. I was saying they should vote on logic, not because I say to vote for whomever I want them to. I also said they haven't been paying attention otherwise.
3) Because I am confident enough to let people know that my case is the most logical, is that a problem?
4) This one was unnecessary.

"Once again, that all depends on what your definition of human is. Humans can be caring people, or they can be mass murders, or they can be limited because of some condition, or they can be a child, etc."

Yes but all of those things are far more complex than the "AI" they have out today. There is no real AI and I doubt if there ever will be. A mass murderer still can reason, as can a child (Though maybe flawed). They can also do so in corresponding situations that make them human. Deep Blue, the robot you mentioned, and the Gamecube cannot reason to any corresponding situation minus deep blue and the robot (But theirs do not compare to human response and intelligence.)

"I made much sense. Also, your existence contention does not represent half of the debate, and I did refute it. Look it the past arguments, you'll see."

You have failed to refute ANY of my points you simply began repeating yourself over and over again then, in R4, you brought up a new point that wasn't in your original contention that still did not prove your point.

I will not look at the past arguments. It is your duty to supply me with evidence that you refuted my points. "I say I have and I can back it up... but maybe you should find it because I don't
A) feel like it
2) think I can
3) have any evidence to support my claims."

My opponent has made no sense, conceded to half of my contentions, and applied logical that would have been accepted if not for his initial ruling.

For the above reason, logic, and common human intellect, you must vote PRO.

Thanks,
-EG
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by draxxt 7 years ago
draxxt
I was too >.<
Posted by VenomousNinja 7 years ago
VenomousNinja
You weren't a tool.
Posted by draxxt 7 years ago
draxxt
Why was I such a tool?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
All intelligence is artificial... :P
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
VenomousNinja - Before
draxxt- After
Draxxt - conduct - I must say VN - talking down to your audience is not a way to garnish points. The majority of members here are very intelligent. Saying that we only remember the last thing we see is not a way to win our hearts and minds. TskTsk
S/G - Tied
Draxxt - Arguments - the ability to learn new things is the hallmark of intelligence - Deep Blue could run circles around me in chess, but could it learn to crochet? (OK that was dumb, but I made my point)
Sources - Tie
Posted by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
Cloned Sheep and a baby but nothing further.
Posted by VenomousNinja 8 years ago
VenomousNinja
Woah, woah, woah, wait.
We can make clones? When did this happen?
Posted by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
Have you ever met a clone? Is it intelligent?
Posted by bizzer10 9 years ago
bizzer10
well, for now it is imposible for humans to create "true" AI

but dont forget that we are just 100 trillion little complex robots that come together in a specific way to create Consciousness.

but, since draxxt is a christian, then you have to admit that clones are human made men so in fact, AI is possible
Posted by awesome 9 years ago
awesome
The first half was spent debating what the debate was about. I didn't even read the whole thing.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
VenomousNinjadraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
VenomousNinjadraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by flor 9 years ago
flor
VenomousNinjadraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
VenomousNinjadraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by VenomousNinja 9 years ago
VenomousNinja
VenomousNinjadraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by b3rk 9 years ago
b3rk
VenomousNinjadraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DDRPsycho 9 years ago
DDRPsycho
VenomousNinjadraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
VenomousNinjadraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
VenomousNinjadraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30