The Instigator
eyeleapy
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
ShrimPman
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Is Logical Master a person, or machine? I say A.I all the way!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 2/13/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,336 times Debate No: 2622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (9)

 

eyeleapy

Pro

I say Logical Master is nothing but a pile of screws and bolts. If you have not noticed him/it in other debates, it clearly shows you its expression to act as a machine would act. He is no he but an it, which get very angry, "If machines can feel anger" when you tell it, it makes no sense on debates, what-so-ever.
ShrimPman

Con

You said..
((Logical Master is nothing but a pile of screws and bolts.))

sounds to me as though you are just angry at him and have no right to be saying this about him.. he is not just a pile of screws and bolts because a pile of screws and bolts could not right a message on here or be able to participate in a debate..

You said..
((He is no he but an it, which get very angry, "If machines can feel anger" when you tell it, it makes no sense on debates, what-so-ever.))

I'm sorry but I have no idea how to respond to this considering I don't know what this means..you are the one who is making no sense right now..
Debate Round No. 1
eyeleapy

Pro

My opponent previously stated

< ((Logical Master is nothing but a pile of screws and bolts.))

sounds to me as though you are just angry at him and have no right to be saying this about him.. he is not just a pile of screws and bolts because a pile of screws and bolts could not right a message on here or be able to participate in a debate..

You said..
((He is no he but an it, which get very angry, "If machines can feel anger" when you tell it, it makes no sense on debates, what-so-ever.))

I'm sorry but I have no idea how to respond to this considering I don't know what this means..you are the one who is making no sense right now..>>

then Logic Master stated

<>

I think he is trying to say something, or feel something. Maybe his Nutts aren't screwed on. Also my opponent is using the copy paste technique Cool, i know that one. Thats the one which "Logic Amature" uses, all the time. I think Logic Amature thinks he's a real boy. Look at it trying to type feelings. It soo funny. Plus i have seen other machines on the street before.
ShrimPman

Con

I am not going to debate here because you gave me nothing to work with thank you for this wonderful oppurtunity to debate you.,.,..,.,.
Debate Round No. 2
eyeleapy

Pro

My oponent previously stated

"I am not going to debate here because you gave me nothing to work with thank you for this wonderful oppurtunity to debate you.,.,..,.,"

I guess he consedes and i have an automatic victory, but if she should return, then she should read this in which was posted by Logic Masterdebater, since that is what it chooses to be called.

"My opponent suggests that the faulty voters would merely have to read the first round to rig the system, but this is incorrect. In my description of the plan, I state that quizzes would be allowed to be created for each round. The voters would have to pass ALL of the quizzes before being allowed to vote.

My opponent aggrees that my plan could coerce people into reading/comprehending the debate, it would not coerce them into voting for the individual who they honestly believed to have won. However, nowhere in my opening argument have I promised that my plan would do that as I don't believe there to be any reasonable means of coercing someone to do such on this website. What my plan does is drastically decrease the chances of voters voting without even being aware of what was being debated. If voters merely wish to come and vote for who they came to vote for in the first place, the debaters can make it very difficult for those kinds of voters through providing the right questions. For if those voters fail the quiz, they don't get to vote. ;)

No, my plan doesn't completely halt those with multiple accounts, but neither does my opponent's plan (more on that later). However, my plan can discourage it as taking a quiz X (the number of accounts) times over will be rather tedious. It will be even more tedious if the debater who makes the quiz decides to make it very difficult for those who haven't read or for those don't COMPLETELY understands the entire debate. Lets not forget that users who have multiple accounts are typically easy to spot as they tend to have the same IP addresses.

As for taking time, I believe it's fair to suggest that my opponent has no knowledge of the inner workings of this website; he does not know the capabilities of the website's administration (not to mention that many online quiz programs are inexpensive or free even for a website of this size). However, my main focus of this rebuttal is the fact that I make no mention of when this program should be accessible within my opening argument. I'm merely advocating that it's a good idea (if you'll notice, I don't urge immediacy). Thus, this is straw man on my opponent's part. Claiming that it will take one 20 minutes to drive to Wal-Mart in no way negates the claim that Wal-Mart lettuce is healthy.

Now let's address my opponent's plan:

The first glaring problem with my opponent's plan is that it only allows debaters with 20 wins/ties to join. This is problematic as MANY (many) debate.org users have not attained that many wins. Many have other activities to attend to. Heck, one of the more skilled debaters of this website (http://www.debate.org...... ) has been on this website for months, and yet he doesn't qualify for my opponent's plan. Surely my opponent doesn't intend to uphold the value of time as it will surely take quite a long time for many users of this website to be qualified.

Re #1: Voters: My opponent does my job for me through pointing out the problem with faulty voters. As my opponent suggests, creating faulty accounts and having them debate against one another is quite common on debate.org. That said, my opponent's means of countering these nefarious acts completely defeat the purpose. He suggests that members of the "Debate 20 group" be allowed to decide who is worthy of getting into the group and who is not. If it's up to the members to decide who is worthy of getting in, members could very well keep certain members out on the basis of spite. Not only that, but the idea of members being able to kick someone out of the group on the basis that they THINK someone else has been cheating is truly problematic to the purpose which my opponent wishes to uphold as there are many legitimate cases where members win the kind of debates my opponent mentions.

Re #2 : Through usage of multiple accounts to "win" debates, it is hardly difficult. My opponent suggest a means of preventing such a tactic, but I've already covered the problems with that above.

Re #3: Actually, debaters having to win 20 debates will take quite a long time. Even if we consider what my opponent believes to be a flaw in my plan, all members would have access to it when the program was initiated. As for my opponent's plan, getting access to this group which he proposes would be an inconvenience for many.

Creating my opponent's high debate society sounds nice at first glance, but with the problems mentioned, it will no doubt produce more complaints than what the Debate.org Administration is already receiving; it is far more trouble than it's worth.

I now stand ready for my opponent's second rebuttal (well actually, I'm not really standing, but you get the picture)."

you see what I mean... It's stupid and make no sense. I think this machine need to be rebooted for debating so long.
ShrimPman

Con

wow, wtf, why would anyone write that much in such technical form, maybe he is a robot that is crazy I didn't even read everything because it was too much I got bored and my head started hurting...holy cow...I'm gonna take some motrin...
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sweatycreases 9 years ago
sweatycreases
EYELEAPY: LOGICAL MASTER AND KLEPTIN ARE THE SAME PERSON. LOOK IN TO IT.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Seriously, this is a godly quote.

"It is a tale told by an idiot . . . told with sound and fury . . . signifying nothing."

So perfect for this site. I'm jealous x.x
Posted by eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
LOLThats a great one Kleptin, i should've thought of that :D
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
I'm thoroughly convinced that Logical-Master is not quite human, but definitely not a machine. I find the quote under his profile pic to be far too witty and relevant to this site for it to have been selected by a machine XD

He's probably Vulcan.
Posted by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
haha..i laughed at that one....i thought logical amatuer was at least slightly clever...
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
LogicAmature? That's all you could come up with? Illogical Masterbater would have at least provided a chuckle. :(
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Yep, that's one of the reasons I don't put too much stock into voter turnouts.
Posted by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
That is not good logical. The same happened to me, as someone I know voted against me in most of my debates. Very bad, the voting system will bring down this website if its the only thing that does.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
ShrimPman, just so you know, the guy is obsessed with me. He has even spent time voting against me in most of my votes.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
A debate made in my honor? I'm deeply flattered. :D

Next thing you know, I'll be seeing someone use my username while pretending to be me.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by spinnerclotho 9 years ago
spinnerclotho
eyeleapyShrimPmanTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
eyeleapyShrimPmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Vote Placed by kcougar52 9 years ago
kcougar52
eyeleapyShrimPmanTied
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 SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
eyeleapyShrimPmanTied
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 YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
eyeleapyShrimPmanTied
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
eyeleapyShrimPmanTied
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 Logos 9 years ago
Logos
eyeleapyShrimPmanTied
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 eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
eyeleapyShrimPmanTied
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 Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
eyeleapyShrimPmanTied
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