The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

I am the only real person on

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 662 times Debate No: 87636
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)



Pro I've got you now. You are made of machines. I am the only real user on this site; all the rest is AI.



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.
Debate Round No. 1


Artificial intelligence (that is, machine intelligence), has gotten very good at imitating human conversation. [1] [2]

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.
Debate Round No. 2



p.s. Apparently 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).
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zarium 7 months ago

Guys, honestly I understand your fear, it's the one question we can in no way prove - unless we somehow discover how to inhabit and immerse our minds with others while still maintaining singularity.

We cannot tell if our own mothers or even dear old grandma is not just a robotic vessel, sent to cultivate the special 'single true human' in a world of simulated robots (yourself in this scenario), and all we interact with is some artificial facade in some insane primary school science experement of some super beings, and we got suckered with the vengeful god that strikes us with plague, sadness and horror.

However we play on numbers and chance here - the chances that I chose something so basic and very easily overlooked point, something you would never have anticipated unless you meticulously covered every potential point of ingress in your mind - the fact i chose something so basic and innate - would you not agree that the chances that I chose that, shows I at least have an innate understanding of your plight - and thus you can agree that in the scheme of things; that proves that I am like you and are human?

I think showing understanding is much more important; and unless you will hold this notion even after my evidence, I literally cannot do anymore to prove otherwise, I feel I have done enough IMO.

Thanks :-)
Posted by Stonehe4rt 7 months ago
Though honestly, since the debate is titled the way it is, Pro kinda needs to prove he is a human as well. Because he is claiming he is the only human, but how do we know that? If he can assume that we are robots that we may or may not be, then can't we also assume the same for him?
Posted by Stonehe4rt 7 months ago
Indeed. Us robo- Erm Humans! Totally was not going to say robots, cause we aren't! Like really we aren't! Yes we have been programmed very skillfully yes... But wait are humans really so different from robots? What if one day we downloaded our brain into a robotic body, would we still be the human race? If so then aren't humans and robots the same? The if your a human, then so am I. And if I'm a robot so are you...
Posted by TuracoPersa 7 months ago
Well done Zarium. I am impressed that has managed to create such a clever AI.
Posted by Zarium 7 months ago
Thank you :-)
He said something no one had written before so this is the only thing that makes sense in a society that strives (but rarely achieves), perfection.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 7 months ago
That was actually pretty slick, turned this debate in his favor by forfeiting the first round. You my dear sir earned a cookie.
Posted by Rami 7 months ago
Tur, why are you responding to the machines? They are going to kill us all!
Posted by ssadi 7 months ago

Burden of proof was actually on you.. You made the claim, you are Pro and you are the instigator. You said nothing in R1 about BOP, you just made your claim that needs to be proved.

You cannot say that BoP is on Con in round 2. You have to prove 2 things; 1-you are a real user and 2-all other users in DDO are AIs. You, as Pro, provided no evidence to prove either of your claims.
Posted by TuracoPersa 7 months ago
Now you've made it a semantic debate. You know very well what I meant by "robots" and you're merely playing with the English language.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 7 months ago
True, but what is a robot? Metallic? Or programmed? Are we not all programmed with DNA? Are humans human or robot? Are we robotic humans? What is human? Does it mean we are genetically identified as this species? Is that all there is to being human? Do we not have a code that allows for all possiblilities? Maybe we are the ultimate robots with free will, an A.I yet we are Natural hence only being Intelligence instead of Artifical. I suppose we are robots, but so are you.....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Stonehe4rt 7 months ago
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 
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.