The Instigator
Wylted
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
AlexanderOc
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
AlexanderOc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,729 times Debate No: 57132
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (42)
Votes (6)

 

Wylted

Pro

When robots take over they may kill us as a result of not being vegan. Come on people, do the right thing.
AlexanderOc

Con

A robot is an emotionless mechanical entity designed to complete tasks.

In order to possess the morals necessary to dislike carnivores, robots would need emotion. Since a robot is by definition void of emotion, then robots would not care whether humans consumed animal products.
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Pro

C1) Super AI- Many experts in artificial intelligence predict that by the end of the 21st century mankind will have developed a super artificial intelligence. What happens after that is an intelligence explosion known as the singularity. Experts predict that this singularity could occur within the next 20-100 years. The average seems to be about the year 2050. Ray Kurzweil a leading expert in transhumanism says it will occur in 2045. http://www.singularity.com...

It's generally agreed that the singularity will most likely occur through the development of a super artificial intelligence that far surpasses the knowledge and thinking of humans.

Problems with a Super AI- It actually turns out to be pretty hard to program morality into an AI, and you can imagine the difficulty in doing that once a machine is capable of growing smarter by reprogramming it's self without the aid of humans. A computer with a super AI could potentially see us as energy and consume us so they can grow more powerful and stronger. http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

Bottom of the food chain- It's okay to eat meat for many people right now, because we're at the top of the food chain. Will we still have this feeling when we're at the bottom. What argument do we give to the machines, for why they shouldn't eat us? The machine will point out that you've eaten animals who are lower on the food chain than you. Who are very inferior in intelligence. The best way to convince a machine not to use you as a food source is if you're a vegan. A vegan can argue that it's wrong without being hypocritical.

Being a vegan just may save your life from a super AI who decides humans are a good source of energy.

C2) We are the Super AI- According to Nick Bostrom there is a decent chance we are in a computer simulation. http://www.simulation-argument.com...

Because of all of the fear concerning an AI that is unfriendly to humans or indifferent. Several plans have been developed to help create a friendly AI. One possible plan is to put a bunch of human level AI into a computer simulated environment and see which ones are the most selfless and friendly towards mankind. The most selfless AI's would be able to be let out of the box (simulated environment), to be given new tests or be allowed to become a super AI, while the rest are destroyed.

It's a possibility we are experiencing such a test right now. If we don't become as compassionate as possible we risk being unplugged instead of ascending to higher levels.

Conclusion- the benefits to becoming vegan are not being killed for food, ascending to a higher plane of existence and living in a technological paradise. The best option is eternal paradise, for becoming vegan. The worst thing about not being vegan, would be getting turned into food. Good luck to my opponent in his/her rebuttals. Thank you.
AlexanderOc

Con

I must say, this argument made be chuckle a bit. Wylted seems to have brought upon a battle with his Elo being his only weapon.
It was a good effort, however no amount of Elo will make a false statement any more true.

I. Cross-Examination

Right off the bat there is a major issue with Pro's Contentions. In nearly every statement there is a word like 'possibility' or 'potentially' and even 'predict'.
Generally in an argument, you need to support it with empirical evidence, not with highly suggestive statements. Granted, the resolution does state that this event is a 'possibility' it also implies that this possibility is big enough that humans 'should' become vegans.

For example, it is highly unlikely, though possible, that plants will spontaneously evolve into an intelligent entity and will kill all of those who ate their ancestors. So why don't we prepare for that too? For that matter why not just prepare for every possible life-threatening event? Build our houses out of solid steel, completely switch to clean power, imprison everybody to prevent rape and murder. You see, there is a plethora of possible and sometimes likely bad events that us humans refuse to prepare for. We like our wood houses, easy energy, and freedom. We are not ready to throw this all away for a mere possibility. Much less an unlikely one like AI domination.

Now on to the clean-up.

"A computer with a super AI could potentially see us as energy and consume us so they can grow more powerful and stronger."

Wouldn't an easier solution just be to not give these robots a mouth or human-based energy tanks? We made the robots, there is no need to give them things they don't absolutely require. Also why would a robot give itself a mouth when it is being given plenty of food already. If it was given a mouth why would humans be a source of energy and not the trillions of plants on this world?

"Who are very inferior in intelligence. The best way to convince a machine not to use you as a food source is if you're a vegan."

Think about what humans mostly eat. We eat cow, pig, chicken, lamb, clams, and sometimes deer. Notice something about all of these animals? They are all herbivores. We could simply tell the robots that we only eat mostly herbivores, with a few exceptions. So you should only eat herbivores too. Also, how is a cow being a herbivore convincing us not to eat it? That lacks logical sense.

"A vegan can argue that it's wrong without being hypocritical."
There is little difference between eating plants and animals. Both are life forms and both are being consumed by eating. A robot would not discriminate life forms. Vegans are also guilty of eating life and cannot say that robots shouldn't do the same.

Due to the absurdly low word count, I have to close up here. However Pro's second contention can be simply argued that us being in a simulated environment is unlikely at best and is unsupported in any way by my opponent.

II. Closing remarks

Pro uses possibility too much. Out of words. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Pro

With AI All Things Are Possible


I know my opponent doesn't like me using the word possible, but when it comes to predicting the future it is reasonable. We don't know what tomorrow brings, but with the help of experts in philosophy and AI such as Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom we can make some intelligent and highly probable guesses.


I've used citations from some of the world's leading experts on AI, and yet my opponent refuses to refute them. If experts working in these fields believe a super AI is inevitable in our lifetime, why does my opponent disagree?


What's the worst likely thing that can happen if you become vegan. If an unfriendly super AI never develops, the worst thing that happens is that you have transitioned to a healthier diet http://www.nursingdegree.net...


A diet that is better for the environment. http://ezinearticles.com...


It's beyond common sense that veganism is more humane. So the worst thing that happens if my scenario is false is still a bunch of good stuff, but if I'm right and an unfriendly super AI develops, what you'll experience after this "singularity" is immortality. http://www.thatsreallypossible.com...



This is the expert opinion of Aubrey De Grey, Ray Kurzweil and many other experts mentioned in the article. this is basically a reworking of Pascal's wager. I call it............



Wylted's Wager





  1. An unfriendly super AI that wants to consume us for energy either will deveop or won't

  2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

  3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

  4. You must wager (it is not optional).

  5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that the unfriendly super AI will develop. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

  6. Wager, then, without hesitation that an unfriendly super AI will develop. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.


(excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233, which has had a few words swapped out)



Human It's What's For Dinner



A super AI is most likely to come from a human level AI, contnually upgrading it's self until a singularity is reached. The more memory the computer needs the more energy it will need. The super AI may just eat everything in its path without concern for what it is. However it may have a moral code, since a huge effort is being made to insure a friendly AI is developed. If we can live with high morals it may avoid consuming us for energy either indefinitely or very last.



AlexanderOc

Con

The chuckle continues as I see a man so haughty as Wylted deliver such a poor argument. Relying on me to not catch obvious flaws and trying to force a ridiculous idea into his rebuttal.
Allow me to explain.

I. Cross-Examination
" I've used citations from some of the world's leading experts on AI, and yet my opponent refuses to refute them. If experts working in these fields believe a super AI is inevitable in our lifetime, why does my opponent disagree?"
My apologies, I must've just failed to see how these sources supplement Pro's position. Let's start with the first one.

Here, Pro tries to support his case by showing that 'Super AI' has the potential to go rogue.

However, I see no connection. Pro is trying to show that this intelligence will one day desire human meals, and will base said desire off of whether the entre'e is vegan or not.
Here's the problem, a robot going off it's chain and revolting would in no way entail it being hungry for human nor care for the dietary habits of a human.
I'm not denying we will ever see Super AI or that said AI will become a problem, I'm merely questioning how this happening would cause carnivorous robots.
Onto the another source he uses,

http://www.simulation-argument.com...

This source suffers from the same problem as the rest of Wylted's argument. It is highly suggestive, not empirical.
Merely explaining the possibility of a situation, is not proving said situation.
Again, even if we are in a simulated environment, there is absolutely nothing showing that we are being observed/tested for moral capabilities. There lacks observable evidence showing this happening and therefore lacks a reason for fear not being vegan.



"What's the worst likely thing that can happen if you become vegan.(?) If an unfriendly super AI never develops, the worst thing that happens is that you have transitioned to a healthier diet "
#1. Is that a question?
#2. There are many cons to becoming vegan. Such as:
-Buying more expensive food
- Lacking large amounts of complete protein (especially a problem for muscle builders who require substantial amounts)
-Resisting the natural urge to eat meat
-No longer being able to enjoy animal-based meals
-Forced into Eating food that is unpalatable (Up to individual opinion)
#3. This is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution suggests the reason for going vegan is the benefit of not being the dinner of 'super AI' not for health reasons

"It's beyond common sense that veganism is more humane. So the worst thing that happens if my scenario is false is still a bunch of good stuff, but if I'm right and an unfriendly super AI develops, what you'll experience after this "singularity" is immortality. http://www.thatsreallypossible.com...;

Again, completely irrelevant. My opponent being wrong and "good" stuff happening doesn't explain why Veganism should be put to practice as a result of Super AI.
His source is once again speculation.

Out of words again.
Dammit Wylted.

Good luck Pro
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Pro

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

I don't understand why my opponent is having a hard time understanding the AI's appetite. The AI will want to continually grow smarter and stronger, which requires progressively more energy to keep it going. Matter is nothing but energy, and we're made up of matter. All the AI has to do is convert out matter to the fuel it needs to power it's self. It's not really that difficult of a concept to grasp. All the AI has to do is release some self replicating nanobots to gather energy for it. With all the effort being put into developing a friendly AI, it's certainly feasible to suspect the super AI would be selective about it's targets.

THE EMPIRICAL HAS NO CLOTHES

Empirical evidence comes from direct observation or experimentation. (Pickett 2006, p. 585) also http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

It's impossible to have empirical evidence for future events, and it's also completely unnecessary. It's also unnecessary in philosophical debates. It's absurd that my opponent would even request empirical evidence in a debate that isn't remotely scientific.

It's my belief that either my opponent doesn't know what empirical evidence is or he's trying to somehow gain an unfair advantage (out of desperation).

This talk of speculation is an attempt to distract. Obviously talking of the future is speculation. If a meteorologist says the sun will come out tomorrow he is speculating. I've provided the opinion of experts in AI and emerging technologies as well as their philosophical counterparts. The scenarios I've painted have a reasonable chance of occurring and when you factor in my argument entitled Wylted's Wager, you can see that this reasonable chance of happening is all you need for it to be a good argument.

Wylted's Wager

This argument I presented to bolster my other arguments needs to be addressed. Philosophers have plenty of answers for Pascal's wager, but my wager updated for the 21st century actually avoids all the errors of the first, and I think the only reason my opponent is avoiding Wylted's wager is because it is an argument that is perfect. No rebuttals can exist for it, that are solid.

Veganism

There is a lot to address here. My first thought is that my opponents rejections to veganism is ridiculous. I'll take it point by point, until I run out of character space.

1.lack of protein- In western societies you don't see a problem with protein deficiencies. You can get adequate protein from a variety of plant sources. http://www.vrg.org...

There are also body builders such as Mr. Cheeke that would disagree that you can't build muscle on a plant based diet. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

2. No natural urge to eat meat exists. I had no problem quitting meat. The urges some people feel are likely due to iron or b12 deficiencies which are easily supplemented.
AlexanderOc

Con

Thankfully, my opponent kept this last argument short. I shall follow suit.

"FOOD FOR THOUGHT"
Again, my opponent resorts to mere assumption. He cannot show that any of this consumption will happen or is likely to happen.
Say I agree, AI will require energy to survive. Pro still has to show a few things.
1. This energy will likely come from humans
2. This AI will discriminate it's energy source by using the " You eat life so I will to." logic.
3. This AI will even be capable of consuming humans. (Who's to say that this Super AI will not simply be a computer?)
4. Of all matter in the world, this AI would likely choose humans as a good energy source. Even though we will resist and are in fewer quantities than say plants.

Basically, Pro has completely failed to support his claim. He speculates. More about what could happen and less about what is likely to happen.

"THE EMPIRICAL HAS NO CLOTHES"
Also a fairly naked argument (get it?).

We live in a world of cause and effect. A cause leads to an effect which is then a cause for another effect. Therefore, in order to know the effect, you must know the cause.

Everything is predictable, granted every possible cause is known. Since is is fairly impossible to know every factor causing an effect, we must take the causes we know and estimate the outcome.

My opponent tries to shed his need to provide observable evidence (causes) to prove his claim (the effect). He does this by assuming uncertainty and piping that as a substitute for observable evidence. My opponent is not relieved of his BoP simply because of uncertainty.
He must show what causes will lead a super AI into becoming human-hungry, and further that by explaining how it will decide that based off dietary habits.
All of his attempts to do so (demonstrating morality, showing the possibility of rogue robots, and even suggesting we are being simulated) have been either refuted, unlikely, or irrelevant.

Again, Pro needed to show the observable causes to support this AI. His sources have shown likely causes of revolting AI or computer simulation, but have shown nothing about veganism or human consumption.

Wylted's Wager

I didn't initially address this for a couple of reasons. For one, I ran out of character room. Secondly, it seems pretty silly and unreasonable.

Forgive for being so simple minded but I fail to see how this Wager applies to this debate.
First off, we are assuming that a super AI will/will not develop based off of a 50% chance. Heads or tails.
Secondly we're assuming I can defend neither proposition, obviously false but I'll play along.
Thirdly we're assuming the I must wager. Again, obviously not required but I'll humor poor old Wylted here.
Finally we're assuming that either possibility will be either a gain or a loss. Here's where the problem emerges. It is not explained what gaining all means or what one gains. There also lacks an explanation of how one is to gain or lose. Which scenario is which? Not explained.
Infinite happiness? Infinite gain?

Not explained.
Debate Round No. 4
Wylted

Pro

My opponent's failure to understand how an AI would consume energy is at the point of sillyness now. Either he is trolling or just fails to use any effort to understand my argument.

My opponent fails to really even address my Wylted's wager argument and I should win on this point alone. He fails to discredit the expert opinions I've brought forth and he's failed to provide any expert opinion of his own, and it's too late to do so because any new arguments in the final round would be unfair.

"He must show what causes will lead a super AI into becoming human-hungry, and further that by explaining how it will decide that based off dietary habits."

I've answered this same exact rebuttal several times and in different ways. My opponent hasn't shown any flaws in my logic in regards to how I have previously answered it and has pretty much ignored my counter rebuttals. I'll repeat what I said again in a different way.

My sources have shown there is a huge effort to create a friendly AI and that AI would have some sort of moral compass. The AI might not care where it gets energy from, it just wants energy. It could potentially create a technology that consumes all matter on the planet just to feed it and make it grow even stronger and smarter. With that being said, it could justify eating all human omnivores, but would have a hard time justifying consuming a vegan. Remember it needs justification to overcome the friendly AI program written in it.

". It is not explained what gaining all means or what one gains. "

Yes it was and the explanation was ignored. I explained it in round 2 and it was ignored. I'll explain it again. Gaining everything means gaining immortality and I cited the expert opinion of people like Ray Kurzweil to prove my point. http://www.thatsreallypossible.com...

My opponent's arguments this far have misunderstood my points (probably intentionally), has not challenged the scientific and expert opinions I've given, and has failed to really address Wylted's wager.

As silly as my conclusion may seem. My logic is both valid and sound. It has remained virtually unchallenged and as a result I should win argument and source points.
AlexanderOc

Con

Time to finish this.

I. Cross-Examination

Goodness, where to begin. My opponent's stubbornness baffling. He ignores my counters and continues to cling to a broken argument. I guess I'll have to give the same response I've delivered multiple times even though now he has forfeited the ability to refute them.

My opponent opens with points that he provides no examples for. The first being my lack of understanding of AI consuming energy. The second being that I didn't address his "Wylted's Wager".

For one, notice the statement my opponent makes about his sources. The only thing his sources show is that there is an AI in development that would have moral compass. Everything after that is only his own speculation which I did in fact counter, allow me to do so again.

"The AI might not care where it gets energy from, it just wants energy."
The first claim uses 'might' implying speculation and not objectivity. Where has it been supported that an AI 'wants' energy?


" It could potentially create a technology that consumes all matter on the planet just to feed it and make it grow even stronger and smarter."
'Potentially'? Where's the proof it will? Not provided by Pro that's for sure.

"but would have a hard time justifying consuming a vegan. Remember it needs justification to overcome the friendly AI program written in it."
Why would it have a harder time consuming vegan? The reasons are not provided. If it needs justification to consume then what's it's justification to eat carnivores? That they eat life? Vegans eat life too. Didn't I also say that our justification could be that we mainly eat herbivores? In that case vegans are at a greater risk.

I stand by my claim the Wylted's Wager has no place in this debate.
Pro has failed to explain how a Super AI developing would relate to immortality, the only thing he provided was an opinion saying that immortality 'may' be achieved by 2045 but this is irrelevant.

The whole premise of his wager is not explained nor concluded. What point is being made? Why is immortality infinite happiness? How is immortality gained by becoming vegan to avoid robotic consumption?
So many unanswered questions.

From what Pro has argued he continues to leave the following questions unsupported by observable evidence.

How can we know that the upcoming super AI will 'likely' 1. Be able to consume matter 2. Be able to consume humans 3. Justify not eating vegans?

What is the justification for eating everything except Vegan homo-sapiens? Vegans eat life just like omnivores. Omnivores commonly eat herbivores like chicken. So omnivores could say eat vegans because they're herbivores.

How can one gain immortality by being vegan not getting eaten by AI?

Why does AI desire to consume matter? That is not inherent among all things on Earth, only living things.

II. Closing statement

The reason I counter Pro's claims with so many questions is simply because he explains so little. All Wylted has done is assume potential possibilities might maybe happen.

Not good enough.



Debate Round No. 5
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
@Wylted
My point exactly.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
@Alexander, I still think I'm going to win this.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
@Alex:

Wylted isn't exactly new to topics where he's at a disadvantage... he's won debates defending eugenics, Satanism, terrorism, racism, and Hitler's nonexistence, to name a few examples.
The last few debates he lost were simply just a bit more disadvantaged than he could handle. Flat Earth, Jesus being an Alien, and now this...
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Maybe stop being so cocky?
You knew you were at a disadvantage going for this topic.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I know. I'm about to take a step back for like a week. These losses are inexcusable.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
He only lost this debate because he didn't use YouTube. He was holding back.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
He only lost this debate because he didn't use YouTube. He was holding back.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Wylted, you're losing too many debates recently.... now I don't feel as special being on your "debates lost" list >.>
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
I don't care if I win, I just don't want people bringing up points that were rebutted in the debate.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
You're still winning
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
WyltedAlexanderOcTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 proved Pro was unjustifiably paranoid.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
WyltedAlexanderOcTied
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: pro used excellent troll arguments but all of them were too vague or depended heavily on the *possibility* that AI's would actually change their behavior or even care about people becoming vegans.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
WyltedAlexanderOcTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both debaters had good conduct throughout. S & G - Tie. Neither debater made any major grammatical or spelling errors. Arguments - Con. Pro presented a strong case, but as whiteflame pointed out - there are too many gaps in his assumptions. Con pointed these gaps out throughout the debate. Although the term 'possible' makes the debate open to such assumptions, Pro's had no continuity in them. He leaps from the assumption that they 'might' need to consume humans for energy without specifying why humans over anything else, or why carnivores/vegetarians would be eaten instead of vegans. I simply cannot affirm this resolution with such unanswered assumptions being made, even if we are talking 'possibilities' due to the fact that Con actively showed those gaps to the audience while presenting challenges that simply weren't met with any responses that might have alleviated Pro's burden. Sources - Pro. In terms of utilization and application, Pro's sourcing takes this.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
WyltedAlexanderOcTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Its very clear that Pro deserves source points, as Pro cited sources in this debate. Regarding argument points, this was tough decision to make but eventually I have come to the conclusion to award them to Pro, as Pro showed that if we are dealing with future propositions then where are the facts cannot be presented as a counter argument. However, outcomes can be presented which is what Pro did using the citations and their own conclusions. Con never countered this with any well sourced arguments of other possibilities and as Con is not a AI specialist (no source) it seems more logical that Pros outcomes are possible. Nice debate, that surprisingly stayed on topic.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
WyltedAlexanderOcTied
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: Fun as this debate was, I see just too many assumptions coming out of Pro. If I assume that AI will be created and have a moral compass, I'm still left with a number of assumptions to make in order to reach the point at which becoming vegan is of benefit to us at the point in that future. I'm not given a specific reason why that moral compass would provide them reasons to eat carnivores but not herbivores. I'm not given a specific reason why their moral compass would guide a necessary process like garnering energy when other options are more easily available. We can either look at AI as emotional beings and therefore be completely uncertain, or look at them as logical beings and be quite certain that this should never happen. If they're somewhere in between, there's too many questions about which sways them and in what direction. So long as uncertainty reigns by the end of the debate, I can't affirm the resolution, no matter how beneficial it could feasibly be in this specific future.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
WyltedAlexanderOcTied
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: Pro ran an interesting argument. Con's rebuttals against it on the grounds of its "possible" nature were good, but then so were his arguments against it on the grounds that veganism wouldn't necessarily save people, either. As this seemed kind of a troll debate, the latter argument seemed more in the spirit of it, and is why I'm awarding arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.