AI girlfriends are often useful 😁

Definition of "useful" from Cambridge dictionary:

helping you to do or achieve something

AI girlfriends dont need to achieve anything my opponent expects them to here, making his entire round 1 irrelevant to this topic. AI girlfriends just need to achieve some things and some purpose for some people often, which they obviously do as they are used every day and every hour by many different people. My opponent might complain, but he agreed to topic when he accepted it, thus trying to change the topic now is too late. Unless my opponent negates case where I demonstrate that AI girlfriends often achieve some purpose or want, he loses.

AI is the safest possible relationship a person can have. Since it has no broken bonds, it is safer than real relationships, as broken bond is more harmful than even having no bond, and people generally feel worse when relationship breaks than they feel when they are just lonely. Imagine the emotional trauma which happens when a relationship you put years or decades into just breaks. AI helps people be more satisfied, thus it makes it less likely that real relationships will break, as people who are in relationships can find additional fulfillment in AI which might be lacking in real partner. Some of us have a great network of friends or can afford a real-life therapist. Not everyone has these options. AI is always available, even at 2 a.m., when you’ve just been dumped over text. It’s also free, thus much cheaper than a human psychologist and helps those who are poorer. Chatbots can also make us feel loved by offering consistent companionship and alleviating feelings of loneliness. AI companions are designed to respond in a sympathetic, realistic way when you share your thoughts or problems. These digital friends are always available and eager to chat, and will never leave you or turn against you.

Talkie AI positions itself as a more emotionally supportive virtual companion, designed to help users with daily conversations that foster emotional well-being. Rather than focusing on fictional interactions, Talkie AI's primary aim is to provide genuine companionship, offering users a space to engage in comforting, supportive dialogue.

Many people even go to prison, lose property, commit suicide and suffer greatly because of relationships with real girls. These relationships arent safe.

In almost 20 percent of all marriages and intimate partnerships, couples slap, shove, hit, or otherwise assault each other. Emotional abuse—verbal threats, humiliating or degrading remarks, and controlling behavior—is even more common.

True by tautology. And since definition of useful is about fulfilling some purpose(want), topic is true by tautology. Also, AI isnt limited to just men. It also works for girls, LGBT persons, and many other people who have uncommon desires which they cannot ever even fulfill in real world. It enables people to get what they want.

Definition of useful does not exclude things which dont possess emotions, thus this argument is meaningless and irrelevant to debate.

Definition of useful does not exclude things which are incapable of physical sexual activity, but AI does provide AI text porn, AI images, AI videos and porn AI chat, which helps with masturbation and causes arousal, and masturbation is healthy and safe.

AI doesnt need to fulfill all human roles to be useful, nor does everyone even want to reproduce, nor is it good for everyone to reproduce due to overpopulation. But AI doesnt prevent reproduction or real relationships, thus this argument is irrelevant too, as AI improves communication skills, especially with people who are lonely and have no other way to practice communication skills.

This also is irrelevant, as the debate is about it being useful, not it being a romantic companion. But AI is capable of producing romantic texts and speak in a romantic way, so this point is not only irrelevant, but false.

My opponent is contradicting himself. First he said that AI cannot be an emotional fulfillment, and now he says AI can be. As for unnatural, thats not an argument as my opponent didnt define it. As for dependencies, actual human relationships tend to cause unhealthy dependencies much more. This debate isnt about AI always being good, but just often being useful, and useful is defined as fulfilling desires and achieving some purpose, and AI obviously fulfills desires and achieves the purposes people use it for, otherwise people wouldnt use it.

AI is much smarter and better informed than most humans. In fact, AI can answer much more questions and much better than 95% of humans. Most humans cant even answer 1% of questions AI can. AI is also always willing to answer, while humans arent always even willing to talk. Thus, AI gives much more conversation and much more education.

My opponent conceded to the definition of useful by not challenging it, and last round is too late for challenging definitions, which is crucial for this debate, as debate depends on definitions of words in topic. With definition provided, topic is true, and my opponent's arguments are irrelevant. AI must only be able to achieve something for topic to be true. It doesnt have to achieve it better than humans, just has to achieve it. It has to have some use, achieve some want of people, which it has, which is why people use it. My opponent had a very simple task of negating my goalposts, which he failed to do, as my goalposts arent even challenged in this debate.

The benefits of AI, thus its usefulness in many areas, even in improving communication skills of people who have no one else to talk to, wasnt challenged. Extend.

The dangers of real relationships, often failing to get what you want in real relationships, cheating, manipulation, control, lies, break ups, failed marriages, crimes associated with real relationships, and the common lack of any good real relationships arguments werent challenged at all. Extend.

This tautology argument wasnt challenged. If AI didnt achieve something for people, people wouldnt want to use it, as being useful is other way of saying "fulfilling some wants". Thus, topic is true by tautology. Extend.

No, the argument was that AI can do much more than humans the form of text. Able to produce more text, faster, and give much more knowledge, support and desired chat at any time.

This isnt even the topic. Useful =/= always superior.

The point about AI level of knowledge wasnt challenged, and now my opponent is making arguments against his own position.

Sadly, the definition of useful isnt limited to human creativity, emotional reasoning...ect. This argument is circular reasoning, because it says that humans are better than AI because AI isnt human. But again, not even the topic of the debate, because if humans can achieve something better than AI, it doesnt follow that AI cant achieve it at all, and it doesnt follow that AI isnt useful or more useful for other things.

So argument here is what? That AI can sometimes cause harm? So can real-world relationships. So can anything. With no any numbers, statistics or number comparisons provided by my opponent, his arguments are rambling. They are also irrelevant to this debate, since this isnt debate about health or harm or dependency or complexities.

Not even the topic of the debate, as "useful" isnt limited to preventing dependence and loneliness. ChatGPT is useful for giving me information I need quickly, even if it doesnt make me less lonely. All people are emotionally dependent, either on other people either on something else. As for loneliness, lonely people are more likely to use AI specifically because real-world relationships failed for them. If real-world relationships worked for them, maybe they wouldnt need to use AI. But also, AI doesnt mean person cant have real-world relationships as well. Also, some people prefer AI over real girls. It was already pointed out that not all people can have real-world relationships. There were plenty of lonely virgin people before AI, and number of lonely people was rising way before AI appeared. AI gave them someone to talk to, which is why they use it. My opponent's argument here too is circular reasoning, because he assumes that loneliness means lack of other humans, and then because AI isnt other human, it means people who use it are lonely by definition. But this ignores that AI gives people someone to talk to, and makes them feel better. AI doesnt need to be human to help people. In fact, in some studies, AI psychologist performed better than average human psychologist, and we know that average psychologist is smarter than average human, thus AI shows much better abilities in some areas than average human. Therapists were unable to reliably discriminate between human-AI and human-human therapy transcripts. Therapists were accurate only 53.9% of the time, no better than chance, and rated the human-AI transcripts as higher quality on average. People find AI more compassionate than human mental health experts, which means AI can help promote compassion, a crucial quality for society. Two thirds (66%) of 25-34-year-olds would prefer to talk about their feelings with Artificial Intelligence. Study even showed that AI reduced suicidal thoughts and reduced suicides on average. We cant say that all real girls are better than AI. Also, some people have sexual desires which are only okay to do in fantasy world, so better to encourage it to stay in fantasy world.