Instigator / Pro
3
1465
rating
30
debates
58.33%
won
Topic
#5565
There is a possibility that Savant is not actually human
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Owen_T
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
9
debates
33.33%
won
Description
He could be a robot, alien, ect.
Round 1
Savant seems to be your average person on the internet...
...but not all things are as they seem.
From a distance, savant's profile picture appears to be that of an ordinary human, but on closer inspection, it is nothing but. Upon further investigation, one finds that savant has no personal information.
I understand that this is not conclusive evidence Savant is a robot lizard, but there is definitely the possibility.
I ask you one question. Do you have any evidence proving that they are human?
STATEMENT: "There is a possibility that Savant is not actually human"
PRO'S ARGUMENT:Savant seems to be your average person on the internet......but not all things are as they seem.From a distance, savant's profile picture appears to be that of an ordinary human, but on closer inspection, it is nothing but. Upon further investigation, one finds that savant has no personal information.I understand that this is not conclusive evidence Savant is a robot lizard, but there is definitely the possibility.I ask you one question. Do you have any evidence proving that they are human?
PROBLEM: "Do you have any evidence proving that they are human?"
SOLUTION FOR PROBLEM:
Premises (1) The user and the website
- 1. Debateart.com has a "captcha" checker to check if there is a robot attempting to sign in/log in to the website. (Debateart.com uses hCaptcha)1.2. Savant's Debateart.com page says "A member since March 19, 2023" (source: https://www.debateart.com/members/Savant)1.3. "member" is defined as " a person, animal, or plant belonging to a particular group."1.4. "member" is also defined as a member on this website called "debateart.com"
- 2.1 To create an account on this website or to become a member of this website, in part of the whole process of creating an account, someone must solve the captcha (the puzzle problem that identifies whether is someone is a human or not) in order to gain access this website. Without solving the captcha correctly, without solving the puzzle problem correctly, no one and not anything can create their account. (Sources : https://www.debateart.com/auth/sign-up, within this website just simply go down the page and you will see the words "This site is protected by hCaptcha and its Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply."
- 3.1. Having the captcha solved correctly means that you are a human, in order, this should help achieve the member status in this website.3.2. Being A member of this website means that you are a human because you've solved the Captcha, or because you've solved the puzzle problem.3.3. Savant's been A member since March 19, 2023, therefore he must've and he's accomplished the captcha on this website.
1.8. Savant's account exists on this platform(debateart.com), Savant has the "member" word within his source page https://www.debateart.com/members/Savant, therefore Savant is being a member because savant exists on this platform(debateart.com).
Premises (2) The member and Person
- Since any member here who has completed the hCaptcha or captcha checker is proven to be human, or is human by the identifier the captcha has, a member is therefore a human because they are proven to be human by hCaptcha.
- CONCLUSION: A member is therefore a human because they are proven to be human by hCaptcha. Savant is being a member because savant exists on this platform(debateart.com). Being a member is therefore a human, hence Savant is therefore a human because savant is being a member on this platform(debateart.com), also because savant is proven to be human by hCaptcha.
Round 2
Your argument is that since Savant is a member, and has passed the captcha, means he is human.
Your argument has several flaws. Most notably that there is no reason that a non human could not pass the captcha.
All you have proven is that Savant is not a mindless robot. He still could, however, be a hyper intelligent lizard, an alien, or an artificial intelligence.
Savant could also be an immigrant, which according to Donald Trump, are in fact, not humans.
These, and more, are all things that could pass a captcha test, and that are not human. These are also all things that Savant could potentially be.
Pro doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that hCaptcha's task is to prove if anyone solving the puzzle correctly is human.
Whoever solves the hCaptcha is proved to be human regardless of anything. There is no flaw in that because proving someone to be human is the whole task of hCaptcha regardless of anything(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA)
. Hence, Pro has failed to prove how there is a flaw in that.
If Pro could list evidence on the evidence of hyper intelligent lizards, aliens, or a highly intelligent artificial intelligence, then this debate can be continued without illogical claims intervening (illogical claims; having no logical explanation or actual logical basis).
So far, I see many illogical points without evidence backing them up. There's too many "could" as in the reference to having possibilities or the materials having possibilities. However my argument has had inductive reasoning included, not possibilities. I had proved that Savant is a human by the aid of hCaptcha and some definitions as well as the sources coming from debateart.com (with the use of inductive reasoning and provided material sources).
"These, and more, are all things that could pass a captcha test, and that are not human. These are also all things that Savant could potentially be."
Sure they could, however, the main purpose of captcha is to prove that the user is a human, so if someone solves the captcha correctly, they are proved to be human by captcha regardless of anything, therefore captcha has completed their task of proving that the user is human regardless of anything. So in this case, Savant is proven to be human by hCaptcha regardless of anything and hCaptcha has completed their task of proving that savant is human.
Round 3
Whoever solves the hCaptcha is proved to be human regardless of anything. There is no flaw in that because proving someone to be human is the whole task of hCaptcha regardless of anything(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA). Hence, Pro has failed to prove how there is a flaw in that.
Just because something was designed to fulfill a purpose, does not mean it always succeeds. That's absurd. You want evidence? Here it is: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2023/08/17/captcha-tests-keep-more-humans-than-bots-out-study-shows/70609691007/
"Captcha tests keep more humans than bots out"
This not only shows that captcha is capable of failing, it also shows that Savant still might be a robot.
Pro could list evidence on the evidence of hyper intelligent lizards, aliens, or a highly intelligent artificial intelligence
Very well.
AI:
AI is most certainly intelligent enough to solve a captcha. Especially if it is AI developed by a breed of hyper intelligent space lizards.
I know that because I am a hyper intelligent space lizard myself. You probably don't believe that statement. But can you definitively prove me wrong? Therefore, there is a possibility, however minuscule, that space lizards exist and are on this planet. The universe is a big place.
These are only two of the possibilities of things that could pass a captcha. He could be a higher power, an incredibly lucky monkey, or, of course, an immigrant.
In order to win this debate, you would have to prove that there is not even a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that Savant is any of these things.
Good luck!
Just because something was designed to fulfill a purpose, does not mean it always succeeds. That's absurd. You want evidence? Here it is: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2023/08/17/captcha-tests-keep-more-humans-than-bots-out-study-shows/70609691007/"Captcha tests keep more humans than bots out"This not only shows that captcha is capable of failing, it also shows that Savant still might be a robot.
Firstly, I do not think the website you've sourced is a trustable or valid and reliable source at all because it starts with "study shows" at the end and the contents within seem ridiculous. (personal opinion as well)
Secondly, Captcha accomplished its task therefore Captcha has succeeded in accomplishing their task. There is no flaw in this, please understand. It is not absurd, because there is no flaw in Captcha succeeding in accomplishing their task. Their task was to verify if the "person" solving the puzzle is human, if Captcha allows the access for the "person" in verifying their proof of being human, then the "person" is verified or proven to be human. This clearly shows that the captcha has succeeded in accomplishing their task, therefore it means that the captcha has succeeded in accomplishing their task. In this case, Savant is a member therefore he is human as described in my previous arguments, that is because he has accomplished the puzzle the captcha has given correctly judging based on his "member" title or role in his account page and therefore has been proven to be human. This means that savant is proven to be human by Captcha. "does not mean it always succeeds" is disproven and is illogical because since Captcha has proven savant to be human, savant is therefore human by Captcha's proof.
Thirdly, the link your sourced says that it keeps more humans than bots out (which supports the idea that the captcha is succeeding at being more efficient at keeping more humans than bots (thereby supporting my point, though my point was not that captcha keeps humans in, this is absurd to assume so because my point is more focused on the task of the bot and it's "undying purpose" and how it proves anything or anyone solving the material to be human, which is a different situation/case as a hyperbole), however this does not mean that every website using captcha is keeping bots in, unless if you have proof of this website holding in bots (which you can not provide because there are no upcoming rounds remaining)-- so this can be ignored, though I find it very absurd for Pro to say "this not only shows that captcha is capable of failing", because anything capable of succeeding is capable of failing. Anything or anyone capable of action is capable of either success or failure, therefore Pro has not provided any strong point in the quotation.
Very well.AI:AI is most certainly intelligent enough to solve a captcha. Especially if it is AI developed by a breed of hyper intelligent space lizards.
First link, the first link has poor source reliability since most of the sources that the first link has is simply not properly established inside and it is flawed generally due to the errors it has within (The first link has errors). One example is "Today, bot operators looking to sidestep a CAPTCHA can easily find a cheap (or free) “solver” online. “It’s a constantly evolving scenario,” Ting Wang, an AI and cybersecurity researcher at Penn State, tells Inverse." within the link.
Of course, the first link has failed to link the person named "Ting Wang" which makes the whole argument from authority fail within the link. It is an argument from authority since Ting Wang says it's a constantly evolving scenario!
Second link, The second link is from October 28, 2013, which is quite a ridiculous difference of date considering that this source is about 11 years old (approximately), Cybersecurity has advanced and so has Captcha puzzles, the captcha puzzles do not often look the same as listed in the source anymore (Which is important to consider).
Overall, the links appear to support me further just by aiding in the proving of humans as through solving the captcha.
Second link, The second link is from October 28, 2013, which is quite a ridiculous difference of date considering that this source is about 11 years old (approximately), Cybersecurity has advanced and so has Captcha puzzles, the captcha puzzles do not often look the same as listed in the source anymore (Which is important to consider).
Overall, the links appear to support me further just by aiding in the proving of humans as through solving the captcha.
AI is most certainly intelligent enough to solve a captcha. Especially if it is AI developed by a breed of hyper intelligent space lizards.I know that because I am a hyper intelligent space lizard myself. You probably don't believe that statement. But can you definitively prove me wrong? Therefore, there is a possibility, however minuscule, that space lizards exist and are on this planet. The universe is a big place.These are only two of the possibilities of things that could pass a captcha. He could be a higher power, an incredibly lucky monkey, or, of course, an immigrant.In order to win this debate, you would have to prove that there is not even a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that Savant is any of these things.
Sure, there is a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that Savant is not even any of these things, not 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.
Overall this is a ridiculous probability of percentage made, since it is very generic and not even in specificity, it's almost as if it was pulled out of someone's ass hole.
"These are only two of the possibilities of things that could pass a captcha. He could be a higher power, an incredibly lucky monkey, or, of course, an immigrant."
There are no only two possibilities, but more than those two possibilities, since those given possibilities are not the only possibilities.
Again, there are limited evidence on the existence of hyper intelligent space lizards and their existence are not clear, therefore no one can actually judge if they exist or not, even if they tried to (especially based upon the evidence we have nowadays) then they will have poor materials or reasons to work with that would not be sufficient enough to even prove the existence of highly intelligent lizards, or even show us that hyper intelligent lizards exist. Just because a possibility of something is given, it does not imply existence of something.
Overall, Pro hasn't provided much evidence aside from sources of links that just contain errors in general. Also his statements seem awfully absurd judging generally. I have explained furthermore in my previous arguments on how this adds up, this should have some serious inductive reasoning involved. Also just a side note, please do not mistaken the point I made, which is "Captcha accomplished its task therefore Captcha has succeeded in accomplishing their task. There is no flaw in this, please understand." by understanding this, you would then understand how it's not flawed coming from the arguments I made and that Pro observed.
Overall, Pro hasn't provided much evidence aside from sources of links that just contain errors in general. Also his statements seem awfully absurd judging generally. I have explained furthermore in my previous arguments on how this adds up, this should have some serious inductive reasoning involved. Also just a side note, please do not mistaken the point I made, which is "Captcha accomplished its task therefore Captcha has succeeded in accomplishing their task. There is no flaw in this, please understand." by understanding this, you would then understand how it's not flawed coming from the arguments I made and that Pro observed.
> pretty obvious. when caseyrisk said "I think it was pretty clear from the outset that this was intended to be a humorous debate and not meant to be taken seriously. Despite this, Con, perhaps trying to game the system, took it dead seriously. If someone goes into a serious debate and tries to turn it purely into a comedy/troll one without making any serious arguments, I don't think that should be rewarded. I think the converse is also true - trying to turn a comedic debate into a completely logical/rational one should not be rewarded either. In my eyes, the win can only go to Pro.” rubbish.
Not normally a moderated vote, but piggybacking someone elses falls short of even the lowered standards for this, as does counter vote bombs... Just vote on the debate, and ignore the other votes as best you can.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Casey // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
Also for this type of debate, it was a good detailed vote.
**************************************************
I thing LogicalDebater01 may actually be Trump in disguise.
Like someone read this:
-----------------------------------------
"When it comes to debating what’s possible and what’s not I think the win will most often than not go to the person arguing as PRO regardless of the debate being serious or not. Absolute knowledge is very hard to prove for basic things that we experience let alone for something like this.
PRO states that there is a possibility that Savant is not human and is a robot/bot/AI (along with other more unrealistic beings).
Now I think in 2024, the existence of AI is pretty common knowledge and advanced AIs have wide range of capabilities. PRO states that there is no evidence that Savant is human based on the lack of personal information we have about him (true but in my opinion wont change anything even if we had it because the information could be fake). This is a weak argument but it serves its purpose to just present the idea that the possibility exists and from now on I don’t know how CON could have even proven absolute certainty.
CON’s whole argument is based on Captcha and that if Savant is a member of the website he had to pass it which proves that he is a human.
The obvious problem as PRO mentioned is that bots and AIs are capable of passing through those captchas pretty easy. I don’t really need sources for that claim because I consider it common knowledge. PRO still provides sources tho with studies done on this topic that clearly state that bots are capable of passing through captcha with high accuracy.
CONs rebuttal to PROs arguments is solely focused on sources and that they are not reliable and “seem ridiculous”. I don’t see however how CON justified those claims.
CON: “because it starts with "study shows"”
“Its from 2013”
“Argument from authority”
“Are you smarter than a robot? Study finds bots better than us at passing CAPTCHA tests”
- I don’t see a problem with how this article starts. Sure the author of the article might’ve missed an “A” infront of “study” but he wasn’t the one who did the experiments and it’s laughable that CON tries to dismiss a whole article because of a missing “A” and not engage with the actual content.
The articles contained the actual studies done and experiments made by scientists which prove PROs claims.
Only one source was from 2013, the others were from 2023. Even if all were from 2013 that means nothing. CONs objection is that captcha has been improved since then and? AI has been improved too arguably way more than anything else. And where is CONS source that captcha has been improved? Based on PRO sources AI can still pass captcha today.
His other objection is that one of the articles is making “an argument from authority” but fails in that (which is good if they were making one lol). In the article there were many scientists quoted not only the one he couldn’t find and there were also linking the studies done which is way more important.
Another interesting thing from the same article, that debunks the idea that captcha has evolved so much:
“But there’s a problem with designing better CAPTCHAs: They have a built-in ceiling. “If it is too difficult, people give up,” Cengiz Acartürk, a cognition and computer scientist at Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland, tells Inverse.
Acartürk and his colleagues conducted a 2021 study in which they scanned the brains of volunteers…”
(They also link the study done so its not argument from authority which CON still doesn’t know what it is).
Those are also interesting statements from CON:
“Sure, there is a 0.0000...1% chance”
“Just because a possibility of something is given…”
Well if CON agrees the possibility is given and theres a small chance (doesn’t matter how small) the debate is won for PRO. But that part of the debate is not too significant for my decision since legibility was not great and somewhat confusing.
CON also very desperately tried to defend Captcha with nothing but assertions that it proves someone is human “regardless of anything”. This phrase “regardless of anything” and “please understand that it works regardless of anything” has been repeated like 200 times and CON just doesn’t understand that you can’t say something works regardless of anything even when someone shows you a direct example of that failing its purpose. Just because something passed captcha and is human ACCORDING TO CAPTCHA does not make it a human. AI doesn’t turn into human once it passes captcha just because captcha thinks that was a human.
“There is no flaw in this, please understand."- sad attempt to save his case without actually acknowledging the flaws of captcha presented to him."
----------------------------------------------------------------
It seriously has so many flaws, holy shit.
I'm convinced that baggins is a walking low-functioning robot at this point.
Your vote is schizo.
A voter is spreading a contagious parasitic disease called "cooties" through internet by having the vote displayed in "votes" section of the website. It must immediately be exterminated by deleting the atrocity of the contagious parasitic disease (this is through deleting the vote).
Delete the atrocity in the votes. Clearly Pro has stated that this is no laughing matter.
What is the cancer my eyes are seeing in votes?
The threat of a space lizard spy is no laughing matter.
The threat of a space lizard spy is no laughing matter.
This debate is hilarious.
I am the one cooking now
I'm cooking, hold on.
There is a possibility a robot lizard is spying on us. Is that a joked to you?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrIFInKjZ80&ab_channel=bikashsaikia95
This has to be a meme debate.