There is a possibility that Savant is not actually human
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
He could be a robot, alien, ect.
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?
- 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.
- 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.
"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."
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.
Pro could list evidence on the evidence of hyper intelligent lizards, aliens, or a highly intelligent artificial intelligence
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pro's case was amazing, and glad to see he could adapt when robot was disproven. Could have been improved by showing a gecko or something bypassing the human check.
con did disprove the robot, and while he doesn't need to disprove everything else there's still a few factors missing... Like for comedy, taking a joke of a debate like this so suriously was amusing, but in too disturbing of a way for me to count it as a significantly favorable argument.
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.
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.
Also, Pro actually claiming to be a hyper-intelligent space lizard was my favorite part of this debate. I think this could have been a good comedy debate if Con hadn't decided to be all "Umm, ACKSHUALLY..."
> 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.