The Instigator
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

No government can ever be %100 flawless

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,311 times Debate No: 68652
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (0)

 

GamrDeb8rBbrH8r

Pro

First round is acceptance.

Government- the governing body of a state, nation, or community

%100 flawless- completely without problems; perfect
Debate Round No. 1
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r

Pro

P1) Government is made by people
P2) People are flawed
C1) No government can be %100 perfect

Support of P1

P1 is self evident and known for a fact



Support of P2

Everybody has their strengths and their weaknesses. We all do something wrong and are logically wrong here and there.
Commondebator

Con

C.1 Government does not have be made by people therefore, it does not have to be flawed

My opponent defined government as "the governing body of a state, nation, or community." My idea of artificial intelligence of governing is not a contradiction to the definition, therefore valid. The point is, it does not have to be people. We can always program robots in a way so their technique is perfect. And who knows? We perhaps may indeed create the a perfect artificial intelligence. It is theoretically possible with the correct tools therefore the robot governing will be flawless.

C.2 The perfect robot can meet everyone's needs

In order to have a flawless government it needs to meet everyone's need which is within that government. The simple solution to that is brainwash the people so they do not even have needs! With this government plan, no consent is needed as the government is simply "governing". For an example, North Korea has a type of government and it brainwashes people without consent. Still a government.

Better yet, have the people be robots! That way, you can program the artificial intelligence to not even have needs.

In order to be flawless, it must also meet environmental needs. Simple way is to have the residence be perfect for living. With robots, they will not really have an environmental need.

C.3 Have a one man government

Having a one man government and treating yourself however you like it is still a valid government plan. You make up the rules to your desires, and since it is subjective it is impossible to prove otherwise. For an example

-I now live in a clean place that does not have any diseases
-There is no one there, and I love it
-I now declare this to be my own government, and since I like it , it is flawless

Now on to rebuttals

R.1 The government does not have to be people

My opponent's entire argument revolves around the idea that people control the government, and people are flawed therefore the government must be flawed. My argument is that it does not have to be people. Or it can just be one person and that person can treat him/herself however he/she wants to be treated.

Debate Round No. 2
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r

Pro

Rebuttal to C1:

"We can always program robots in a way so their technique is perfect."

Robot programming =/= perfection. Even robot logic can be errant.


"We perhaps may even indeed create the perfrcr artificial intelligence"

Perhaps, but because of slow scientifc progress, we may not have enough time befoere the end of the world for that.


Rebuttal to C2:

This argument is no good if my opponent cannot prove that a perfect AI will ever be made.


Rebuttal to C3:

If we brainwash the people, we are violating their right to think as they choose, thus still an imperfect government. Furthermore, brainwashed=/=lacking needs. Religious people are brainwashed, but they still have needs. Robots also have the following needs: Batteries, proper temperarure, and a way to keep water out of their bodies.

False. All one-man governments are either dictatorships or monarchies with no other side to be the head of government. And we all know what happened in monarchies before parliament was invented: religion was forced onto people.


"I now declare this to be my own government, and since I like it, it is flawless"

This is an appeal to authority.


Rebuttal to R1:

Like I said before: if it's robots, they can still have logical errancy just like people. And no one-man government did not have a greedy ruler.
Commondebator

Con

R.1 Robots do not have to be man made

"Robot programming =/= perfection. Even robot logic can be errant."

What? I believe my opponent is implying since humans are flawed and since robots are flawed therefore robots are flawed as well? Who said the government had to be human? It could be a perfect species or an all powerful being that made the robots.

In fact, I can bring up the statement that I am part of a perfect god like species and I rule myself, and my opponent will not be able to disprove that.

R.2

"This argument is no good if my opponent cannot prove that a perfect AI will ever be made."

This is irrelevant since this debate is not about weather a perfect AI can be made. Rather if a perfect AI can govern, which I have proven that it can.

R.3 Brainwash and dictatorship

"If we brainwash the people, we are violating their right to think as they choose"

AI can be programmed to not have rights. And since rights do not exist, you are not violating them. Rights promised and are given by the government, so the functioning government will still be perfect if it never had rights

-In order for a government to be perfect it must guarantee rights
-Rights do not exist in that government

"Robots also have the following needs: Batteries, proper temperarure, and a way to keep water out of their bodies."

I believe my opponent meant temperature? Anyway, that part of my opponent's argument is a blind assumption. There may be a time when waterproof robots can withstand extreme temperature and have batteries as long as they function.

"All one-man governments are either dictatorships or monarchies with no other side to be the head of government. And we all know what happened in monarchies before parliament was invented: religion was forced onto people."

How is this true? I may have an alter ego and dictatorships is still a type of government since they are governing the area.



Debate Round No. 3
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r

Pro

R1: "It could be a perfect species or an all powerful being that made the robots."

There is no proof of either.


"In fact, I can bring up the statement that I am part of a perfect god like species and I rule myself, and my opponent will not be able to disprove that."

Perhaps you can. But to say so would be the BoP fallacy.


R2: "This is irrelevant since this debate is not about weather a perfect AI can be made. Rather if a perfect AI can govern, which I have proven that it can."

Actually, a perfect AI cannot govern if it is not made, which you have not proven that it can. So yes, it is relevant to this debate.


R3: "AI can be programmed to not have rights. And since rights do not exist, you are not violating them. Rights promised and are given by the government, so the functioning government will still be perfect if it never had rights"

But if rights do not exist, then there is no right of the government to force the citizens into thinking how it wants them to.

"-In order for a government to be perfect it must guarantee rights

-Rights do not exist in that government"

If both of these are true, then by your logic, the government you propose is imperfect.


"There may be a time when waterproof robots can withstand extreme temperature and have batteries as long as they function."

Perhaps that may happen. But they would still have one need: Batteries. Even if they ran on solar power, they would go out when there was no sunshine at night.
Commondebator

Con

Commondebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r

Pro

I guess my opponent gives up? :(
Commondebator

Con

Many apologies for the earlier forfeit. Loss in conduct will have no objection, however any further points rewarded in regards to forfeit with no further RFD will be considered a vote bomb.

R.1 AI does not have to be made by humans

So, my opponent brings up the claim that no government can be 100% flawless. His only argument for that is that since humans are imperfect, the government has to be imperfect. This is not true simply because theoretically, it is possible for a perfect species to exist. Or even a perfect being to exist, and we cannot perceive it. Now, there is no evidence for that however, flaws are subjective. There is no evidence whether you can claim that others perceive something as flawless or not. This can be done by manipulating and or brainwashing to be in my favor.

R.2 “But if rights do not exist, then there is no right of the government to force the citizens into thinking how it wants them to.”

Rights are given by the government. If the government does not give rights, therefore rights to not exist. If rights do not exist, then the government can manipulative its people, because it is not about whether the government has rights to do that or not. Why? Because rights do not exist! Government rights are subjective as the government is creating them. Rights are not fixed. If there are no rights, then the government does not have to worry about manipulating its people.

When did rights have to be justifiable mean of a flawed or flawless government? If rights never existed, then within that perception that government is flawless.

My argument in regards to a one man government stands. Flaws are subjective and if I believe it is flawless, therefore it is. Similarly, I can have a group of people, AI, or clones agree with me.
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GamrDeb8rBbrH8r 2 years ago
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
AnonymousTipster, why is it subjective?
Posted by GamrDeb8rBbrH8r 2 years ago
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
EX: laws may not be easy to pass.
Posted by TheAnonymousTipster 2 years ago
TheAnonymousTipster
Give me an example of what you consider a flaw, and then I'll tell you why it's subjective.

For me, there's no flaw in me being a powerful dictator that rules and enslaves the entire world. However I can just assume my planet full of slaves might object to this idea.
Posted by GamrDeb8rBbrH8r 2 years ago
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
@ the anonymous tipster: please explain how flaws are "subjective?"
Posted by GamrDeb8rBbrH8r 2 years ago
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Lol at that Al Gore part.
Posted by TheAnonymousTipster 2 years ago
TheAnonymousTipster
100% flawless is subjective. An AI would indeed be 100% flawless in terms of sticking with it's programming, but a person would have to program that AI, so whether it is flawless is still subjective. And I'm sure we've learned from sci-fi movies that you never give an unguided AI full control of the human species... all it would have to do is download some Al Gore speeches and all of a sudden it will be eradicating us all to protect the Earth from global warming, haha.
Posted by GamrDeb8rBbrH8r 2 years ago
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
How's it possible that everyone in the world could be brainwashed at once?
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
which is theoretically possible
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Exactly. Therefore brainwashing is a valid way.

And im talking about in a perfect world
Posted by GamrDeb8rBbrH8r 2 years ago
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
I never defined brainwashing. And different dictators are thwarted different ways.
No votes have been placed for this debate.