I am the only real person on Debate.org
Debate Rounds (3)
Execute Order: "Refuteclaim.txt"
I say that we are not AI, or if you do somehow prove this be true, I would argue that all of our intelligence is artificial, thus rendering your position moot.
Come at me bro.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that you are human. You must pass the Turing test. You must say something only a human could say, or do something only a human could do. It must be something no human has ever said before on the internet.
If you can't, I will know that you are really a pernicious AI bent on world domination and I will reveal your secret to the human government.
Zarium forfeited this round.
p.s. Apparently debate.org doesn't allow all-caps responses so I have to include this postscript.
I had hoped you would figure out what I was doing there, however I will re-iterate to you. (Edit: when i read this, I see it seems aggressive, I do not mean this - I was legitimately hoping you would, as I had a coutner claim for that too which would have knocked your socks off ;) )
You gave me the opportunity to make a point, and I had alot of fun trying to figure out a smart and funny response - however this brought me to the core, in my opinion : Words are easily create-able.
I can make a masterpiece, and you may or may not believe I am human, However I could be a human who has created a program with my intellect, to create accurate and 'new' responses, a sentence that has never been used before - It is do-able.
What I stumbled upon is that the one way to prove your validity, is with actions or predetermination.
This took me on a new tangent on the subject, and I realised the next way to prove humanity - WE ARE NOT PERFECT.
I failed- I lost the previous round. I have nothing to prove now, as I have 'lost' - Yet here I am.
My action of defending after losing (A logical Fallacy), has irrevocably prove that I am human, As who else can front up and say "I screwed up..... BUUT" and then defend EXACTLY what they just 'lost'?
I am playing on a gamble here, but I hope it resonates with you like it did with me, and you understand why I chose this track.
Alternatively, I anticipated that this would happen, I imagined the scenario, then purposefully declined the round, to put in the position that you had proven your point, to then rip that from underneath you - by explaining that my 'submission', was in fact me preparing you to lower your guard, to then prove my point.
That is my definition of being a person - I knew what would happen next by imagining it (predetermined)- I then directed the 'flow' (actions) to my own desired outcome.
Both are signs of a real human being, and both are symbioses to humanity - I am "smart", I am selfish. (Picture when we were all simple sperm, what happened to those other 'brothers or sisters' you were competing against to reach the egg, That is what i mean by Selfish - I am here for me).
I use these against you.
Apologies for not writing in the previous round - however what I thought I would right before deciding on this path, were alot of fun - thank you so much for this good debate!
Zarium (a.k.a Human), OUT.
For the Icing on the cake, I will invent a new word : Idioselliquism; or the art of selling useless junk to the gullible non-thinker (people off-guard or those out of their knowledge).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Stonehe4rt 7 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a badass move of Forfeiting in order to prove his arguement correct in a nonorthodox way. He proved he was human by showing fault and by making a move that was not attempted before hence not having any logical reason to assume he could win by forfeiting. Meaning it would be illogical for a robot to make this move. It would be like a robot checkmating itself, robots do not do this. Hence he is Human.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.