Instigator / Pro

seldiora

1417

rating

158

debates

32.59%

won

Topic

#2587

A person without feelings or motivations cannot have rights

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 8 votes and with 34 points ahead, the winner is...

Theweakeredge

Tags

Philosophy

Parameters

Publication date: 11.04.2020 02:39PM
Last updated date: 12.04.2020 04:28PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 5,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Theweakeredge

1706

rating

debates

80.3%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

seldiora

11.04.2020 03:07PM

Pro

Haha! I tricked you into accepting the equivalent of Super AI having rights!

My argument is simple. Our founders established basic rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But the super AI, also person with no feelings or motivation, has no need for liberty; computers do not complain despite locked up, life is similar, as destruction of your own computer is harmless. Finally computers cannot feel happiness. There is no need to enforce these rights because this person does not care for such rights. And it would likewise be impossible to infringe upon them, even if you stab a computer it will merely respond with error message rather than being hurt.

As you can see persons without feelings or motivations cannot have rights. Rights are used to protect people, but have been waived under many circumstances. The super AI, with its actions determined by other humans (no desired itself), can’t possibly be protected.

Theweakeredge

11.04.2020 03:50PM

Con

Resolution: A person without feelings or motivations cannot have rights

Opening Statement:

Thanks for the debate Seldiora, my opponent has not provided anything except for a single line of argument (As in, one premise to demonstrate their claim), and thus I can define each word as I please, until contested by Pro. I will also point out Pro's blatant attempt to trap people using a resolution, their downfall will be their lack of effort in the debate thus far.

BoP: The burden of proof is shared, while I con must demonstrate the proposition "A person without feelings or motivations can have rights", Pro must demonstrate the inverse is true that, "A person without feelings or motivations cannot have rights."

Structure: I will begin by constructing my own case for the ability to have rights without feelings or motivation. After that, I will rebut pro's claims as nothing but bunk. Finally I will conclude and leave my sources in listed format

Key Terms:

1. Human

2. Artificial Intelligence

3. Human Rights

4. Personhood

People w/o feelings or motivations CAN have rights

Legally - This is true
Philosophically - this is true

Legal Proof for Con

The resolution says - can not have rights - this means in every single scenario or situation, but this is blatantly false from a legal setting.

The Bill of rights are a list of 10 amendments (or changes to the original work after publication), which protect several rights of the people. The constitution and therefore the bill of rights are giving rights to all people who are citizens of that nation. This is common knowledge, essential learning in every middle school class room, how pro missed the obvious point is beyond me.

Constitutioncenter.org states:

"The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, guarantee essential rights and civil liberties"

On December 10th, 1948 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was constructed, ensuring rights to all people. What you may notice is that, just like with the bill of rights, this does not exclude people without feelings or motivations, people with sociopathy and psychopthy still have rights for example. To prove this I take this short bite from the preamble of the document:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

Philosophic Proof for Con

P1: People without feelings and motivations have personhood

P2: People have rights based on living and personhood

Con: Therefore people w/o feelings or motivation still have rights

Essentially - personhood is the condition of being an individual person, there is no stipulation that one cannot be "programmed" and also be a person, them being a human with natural sentience is the other proof.

Cross apply definition of personhood. If Pro believes that human rights are endowed in some other way, please present them.

Rebuttal:

Pro's essential misinterpretation of their resolution is whether people without feelings or motivations deserve right, whereas the resolution states, have them, though I proved they should have them in my philosophical proofs as well, this means their argument does not fit within the resolution/non-topical.

There is a core difference between A.I and Humans, whereas humans naturally are capable of sentience, consciousness, etc, A.I's are only the study of having some of the characteristics of a human, they do not have this natural sentience. Therefore the comparison is false.

Conclusion

Pro fails out of the gate, providing an argument which is logically flawed, and not even correctly interpreted to the resolution, which makes it not topical in the first place. Con (Myself) establish two contentions on which People w/o feelings or motivations have rights, therefore concretely establishing my BoP.

Back to Pro.

Sources:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/personhood

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/human-rights

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/artificial-intelligence

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/human

Round 2

seldiora

11.04.2020 03:57PM

Pro

Oops. I messed up. Concede.

Theweakeredge

11.04.2020 04:02PM

Con

Pro has conceded the round.

Therefore, as Pro leaves all contentions uncontested, extend all arguments from r1

Pro has conceded the debate - Vote Con

Round 3

seldiora

11.04.2020 04:02PM

Pro

ded

Theweakeredge

11.04.2020 04:04PM

Con

Extend all arguments

Vote Con

Round 4

seldiora

11.04.2020 04:23PM

Pro

just seeing if ASCII works on dart. Vote con.

(Your Name movie poster)

...............Z$ZOOOOOOZZZZZ$OOOOOOOOOZZOZZ$=,=7?I7777ZZI$..................

..................O88OOOZZ$OZZZZZOOZOOOOOOOZZZ7I+II?77I7$77I77..................

..................O8888OOOZZOOOOZOZZZ7IZ$$7OI7$?7?I7I77Z$$$$$$..................

..................OOOOOOOZZZZZZZZZ$$$777II7II7I7+77$Z$7$$$ZZZO..................

.................,OOOOOOOOZZZOZZZ777Z777I$7I+++?I7$$$$$$ZZZ$O$..................

.................,OOOOOOOOZZZZ7777ZZZZZZZ$I+=?I7I$$7$$$$$$7778..................

.................,OOOOOZOOOZ$ZZ$ZZZZZZZZ$I+=?II7$$$$ZZZZZZZZOO..................

.................IOZZOOZZOOZ$$ZZZZZZZZZ$7~+=?I7$$$ZZZZZZZZZZZ+..................

.................OOZZZZO$ZOZZZZZZZZZZZ$7=+?=I$$$ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ,..................

.................OOZZZOZOZOOZZZ?+?+$$$~~~?~:I=$=ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ,..................

.................ZZZZZZOZZZZOZZ$$$$Z$7?+++7=$ZZZZZZZZZ$$$$$$$,..................

.................ZZZZ$$7ZZ8O,OZ$77IZZ7~++=77ZZZZ$$+7$$$$$$$$$...................

.................$$$$$$$ZZZDZZZ$$Z7II.++II=I7$$,$7$7777777777...................

.................Z$Z$$$Z$$ZO88?$7777=+??I$$$I77$I.777$I77I777...................

.................$Z7II7I77?II$=ZI7I?+??II77I?777IIIIIIIIIIIII...................

.................$$$7777??+==~~~II?=+?IIIIII??77IIIIIIIIIIIII...................

.................777$7?====+~::III:+?IIIIIIIII77I7IIIIIIIIIII...................

.................7???I??~=~~=IIII?+?I+I=I7IIIII?7III77IIIIIII...................

.................7II???I?IIIIIIII~?IIIIIIIIIIII?III+++II+?III...................

.................??=~?=+~:IIIIII?+III??IIIIIIIIIIII++?++=++II...................

.................???=:~~~7?IIII?:???????IIIIIIIIIIII+++++++??...................

.................I???=+~~::?:.?II??III??IIIIIIIIII??+?++++=++...................

.................=++++++=~,:,,,????????+?IIIIII?IIII?I?++====...................

.................+?++====~=~:,?I???????=???III?????????+++==+,..................

.................,?~:===~=~88::::??????~??????????????????+++=..................

.................,=+~:~~:~:DZ+==~=~?I??+???I????II???????I++++..................

.................:++=~:++II?~?===?III??+??I?????IIINO?????++?+..................

..................=++~=~NIIIII=~~~==7II+?II???IIIIZDD????IIII~..................

..................=++?+=+77ZI?$=~=~~~7?+?II???IIIIIII8????III=..................

..................+===+=~+8DI++====~???=+II??=????DI$7?++~=?+=..................

..................?=~===$88O8I~~===I:??++++???+??=D~?I+++==~~=..................

..................==~~==88D88$7=~~~:~=?==+??+++=:I8888+??=+=~~..................

..................====~++~888:Z:,?I7+====.==+===+888OO8$==~=~~..................

..................I~:~~:::7?=.,,:~::,.,,,,,.,,:,,.~:~=I~~~~::...................

..................=++=~~~~O87=~~:I7I,~:::,~::::::::I:I::::,:.,..................

..................+++=?===OOZ==7:+7?:,==~+Z$+,:.,.,?:?..,.,O7O..................

..................+ZZ~:$I??O$OZ7~II?~~~~=$7IZ8ZZ,,~?=??I77Z7$Z..................

..................OOI=ZOO=+OZ$ZZ777?=??+7$Z88OOOOI$IIO$$$7$$+I..................

.................,Z8$?ZI7$8O$ZII7ZOZ?$??$O$ZOO8D7OI?$7$?OZ$I7I..................

..................~,:+7I=~?+=~+++?Z$7$:+77IZI+?III?II$$$$Z$778..................

.................,$ZZZOOZZOZ$ZO$7~.,::==7$??7II7$$ZO$OO8OZ$OZ...................

Theweakeredge

11.04.2020 04:28PM

Con

Closing Statement

This was a potentally very interesting debate, I do hope that Pro challenges me to a better worded resolution in the future. For now at least, Pro has dropped all arguments by conceding, therefore still not establishing their BoP as fulfilled as well as automatically losing the debate due to concession. I have proved my point with no contentions. Thank you Seldiora,

Vote Con.

MisterChris

11.30.2020 01:03PM

#11

-->

@Theweakeredge

It's mostly to artificially inflate our vote count than anything else. I'm going to try to vote on some of the other debates if Undefeatable doesn't respond within the day again lmao

Theweakeredge

11.30.2020 11:31AM

#10

-->

@Barney

@MisterChris

@Trent0405

Guys I really appreciate the vote, but I also have like two other debates with no votes, I-I won this at a Concession, guys there's no need, I just don't want the other ones to end up ties. lmao.

Intelligence_06

11.05.2020 12:24AM

One is glad to be of service.

Theweakeredge

11.04.2020 04:30PM

-->

@seldiora

Is that debate open? I'd be fine with arguing either point. The problem with a lot of these resolution are:

A) The wording - they make it very easy to argue some extreme or exception
B) They often correlate to false equivalences, automatically making your arguments fallacious.

seldiora

11.04.2020 04:27PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

you know, I feel like you'd be the perfect person (or maybe MisterChris) to see try to refute the con side of pressing the button that revives your most loved one. Your insight makes me feel you could penetrate the complete BS argument and figure out what's wrong with it lol

Theweakeredge

11.04.2020 04:03PM

-->

@seldiora

I'd be more than happy to argue with your revised resolution, just have the opponent be me.

seldiora

11.04.2020 03:59PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

oops... "cannot"... I worded it wrong lol

Theweakeredge

11.04.2020 03:54PM

-->

@seldiora

Did this surprise you?

Theweakeredge

11.04.2020 03:13PM

-->

@seldiora

There's a third option, a person without feeling or motivation is not an ai

seldiora

11.04.2020 03:08PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Either you’re really good at AI related research, or you failed to realize this is basically the equivalent of having sufficiently advanced AI

Theweakeredge

11.04.2020 02:55PM

-->

@seldiora

We're fighting now

Trent0405

11.30.2020 06:14AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Concession

MisterChris

11.30.2020 12:42AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con cess ion

Barney

11.30.2020 12:41AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Concession.

PoliceSheep

11.11.2020 02:09AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Concession

Tradesecret

11.04.2020 11:51PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Concession.

RationalMadman

11.04.2020 09:39PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Concession

SirAnonymous

11.04.2020 06:30PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Concession.

fauxlaw

11.04.2020 06:01PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Argument: Pro's initial argument featured a flaw that Con identified and successfully refuted: that AI exhibits personhood. As it represented Pro's only argument, which Con successfully rebutted, both in terms of lack of personhood by AI, as well as demonstrating that the founding fathers recognized both the status of personhood, and that all persons are endowed with rights, Con successfully presented winning arguments.

Sources: Pro offered no sources to underpin the single argument. Con's sources fully supported the rebuttal, arguments offered, plus provide definitions for the debate not provided by pro. Con wins the points.

S&G: Although Pro offered complete nonsense in R4, Pro had already conceded in R2, so the gibberish, though completely within the definition of "incoherence" is excused, Tie.

Conduct: Both parties exhibited good conduct. Concession not withstanding, which, itself, demonstrates good, not bad conduct, the conduct is considered as sufficient by both participants.