I don't think you get the fact that I do not condone abusing children. I simply saw an opportunity to exploit your poor resolution. I'm not to sure why you have created this debate, as it there is hardly any controversy that 12 year old's should not be abused. I also recommend you change your current resolution to "Children the age of 12 should not be treated as inferior, even if they are less mature, by the government and online, compared to teenagers at the age of 13" as adding "who are just as mature" is sneaking in a premise which could be debated.
The legibility point is “awarded as a penalty of EXCESSIVE abuse committed by the other side, wherein section of the debate become ILLEGABLE or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher”. Personally I have never seen someone loose a legibility point in any Dart debate, but nevertheless, could you point out where I committed EXCESSIVE ABUSE, or where my debate became outright illegible? Moreover, the sources point is also odious. The point is supposed to go to the side with a STRONG QUALITY LEAD, not because one provides source for what is meant to be a thought experiment. If we once again inspect the document authored by you, “a side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case”. Which did I use which was unreliable? The one about artificial photosynthesis provided by the future of life institute? Or the one about the Kardashev, a well known theory?
I think this vote was a little too harsh. To recall, the resolution is the following.
-In theory, it is possible to create a machine which is capable of thinking in a similar manner to humans-
You stated that
"Pro’s resolution sets a standard that even Pro fails to uphold, losing ground in just the second round by claiming: “It is impossible for a machine to be identical to a human being.”"
Of course! If it were identical to a human being, then it would be a human being! The debate isn’t “is it possible to make a human being” it is, “can the process of thinking be replicated through electronic means”.
If we revisit the BoP, we can find that I do not need to create a human being, I just needed to imitate the process of thinking and evaluating information. The purpose of this debate, as I have stated during the debate, isn't to test the current capabilities of technology, and to discuss whether in the future, a thinking machine is possible.
“By contrast, in Con’s first round, his rebuttal applies the clear separation of mind and body function”
I have already demonstrated that the “mind vs body” issue does not affect the course of this debate. If in fact the mind is real, then the question becomes why can the mind connect with a fleshy brain but not a metal one with the only difference being material. I posed this question and was rebutted with “The immaterial mind is strange, we only believe in it because we experience it ourselves”. To say that the only justification for the mind is personal experience is justifying murder on the basis that “I personally enjoy it”.
“Pro drops Con’s free will argument by the simple claim, unsubstantiated by argument other than that the free will does not exist by claim that thinking is like seeing. These are entirely different functions.”
Completely incorrect. To recall, I stated “Even though I don't believe in free will, your major premise is still incorrect” and then went on to rebutting the free will argument, by pointing at the flaw of assuming that just because two beings participate in the same act, this does not make them the same thing.
“Pro buries his argument by two contradicting phrases: “With perfect technology, we can do quite literally anything,” which is followed by [a bit later] “this is not a debate about technological possibilities, but about whether theoretically, this is possible.”
Incorrect. My first statement was a response to my opponents constant complaint that “this is not possible”. To debunk that claim I showed that 1) that the claim is incorrect and that 2) the claim is not even relevant.
Sourcing.
“Pro offers very little in sourcing, claiming it unnecessary in a “thought experiment,” yet offers a source on the Kardashev Scale in R2”
This is completely ludicrous. I only offered the Kardashev Scale simply because my opponent strayed away from the original thought experiment regarding the debate. It would not have been given if we stated on track. It is completely ridiculous to penalise someone for using sources.
If we read the DaRT Voting Policy, under sources, it clearly states that "(sources) goes to the side that (with a strong quality lead) better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof."
A STRONG LEAD. Have you demonstrated that my opponent has a strong lead?
“Con’s sources systematically support his arguments and rebuttals, such as his rebuttal of AI-hard, and more particularly by his defining of neuron, cell, and think”
And my sources show that different processes can be mimicked by different things, such as the process of photosynthesis. You have essentially given a point for defining terms, something both parties did.
Spelling.
“Pro’s reversals of argument [as demonstrated in Argument, above] loses his legibility point”
This is ridiculous. If we once again visit the DaRT Voting Policy, under the Legibility section, we can find that this point is
Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
Terrible punctuation throughout.
Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
Please show me where my wall of text, terrible punctuation and word confusion is.
In my argument, am I allowed to use a being from the clone wars or comics, as it is in star wars? I know you said "from the movies", but you've already eliminated the force, anti electric weapons and reinforcements, which severely skews the debate in your favour
" The only problem I have with your claim is that a brain is not thinking, rather it is organising information - the mind is thinking."
It's great that you've said that it may be possible for an AI brain to be created. The question then becomes, if I were to slowly replace the neurons in your brain with the artificial neurons, at what point will you cease function.
you don't. Using the Occam's razor, you can conclude that questioning everything in your life is unnecessary. Consider the following.
Imagine if I told you that there were intangible, invisible, inaudible and undetectable fairies inside my garden bed. There would be practically no way for you disapprove of this. After all, they cannot be detectable. What would be your reaction. Should you near live your life believing that these things exist?
Of course the Occam's razor states that you should pick the easier option. No, there are no garden fairies because their is no reason to believe not to.
Returning to my existence, I exist because I can experience the things around me. There is no reasonable reason for me to doubt my existence.
I'm playing devils advocate for a topic I am truly against, just saying. Wasn't too keen to wasting my time constructing a debate which I knew was faulty.
Thanks. I figured that out after reading your first argument. Nevertheless, I attempt to rebut this popular position in my argument. Thanks for a good debate like usual, benny boy.
I mean, it's a brief first round with no rebuttals so i'll be interested to see how this plays out. On second thoughts, the "flaw" I saw is more of a kritik. I'll mention it after the debate is over.
Judging by that statement, it's clear that you love to victimise minorities. "A white person cannot complain about racism, A man cannot complain about abortion, Men should stop dominating women", all bs from the left.
Am I missing something? How can you have a debate about Trump without mentioning literally everything about him?
I do not believe that kids should be mistreated for their age either. What is the issue.
I do not believe that kids should be mistreated for their age either. What is the issue.
I don't think you get the fact that I do not condone abusing children. I simply saw an opportunity to exploit your poor resolution. I'm not to sure why you have created this debate, as it there is hardly any controversy that 12 year old's should not be abused. I also recommend you change your current resolution to "Children the age of 12 should not be treated as inferior, even if they are less mature, by the government and online, compared to teenagers at the age of 13" as adding "who are just as mature" is sneaking in a premise which could be debated.
Time to bring out Alex O'Connor
^^^
Rewording a faulty vote does not justify the vote.
Thanks! I haven't even bought in the sith army :)
The legibility point is “awarded as a penalty of EXCESSIVE abuse committed by the other side, wherein section of the debate become ILLEGABLE or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher”. Personally I have never seen someone loose a legibility point in any Dart debate, but nevertheless, could you point out where I committed EXCESSIVE ABUSE, or where my debate became outright illegible? Moreover, the sources point is also odious. The point is supposed to go to the side with a STRONG QUALITY LEAD, not because one provides source for what is meant to be a thought experiment. If we once again inspect the document authored by you, “a side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case”. Which did I use which was unreliable? The one about artificial photosynthesis provided by the future of life institute? Or the one about the Kardashev, a well known theory?
final vote push
I think this vote was a little too harsh. To recall, the resolution is the following.
-In theory, it is possible to create a machine which is capable of thinking in a similar manner to humans-
You stated that
"Pro’s resolution sets a standard that even Pro fails to uphold, losing ground in just the second round by claiming: “It is impossible for a machine to be identical to a human being.”"
Of course! If it were identical to a human being, then it would be a human being! The debate isn’t “is it possible to make a human being” it is, “can the process of thinking be replicated through electronic means”.
If we revisit the BoP, we can find that I do not need to create a human being, I just needed to imitate the process of thinking and evaluating information. The purpose of this debate, as I have stated during the debate, isn't to test the current capabilities of technology, and to discuss whether in the future, a thinking machine is possible.
“By contrast, in Con’s first round, his rebuttal applies the clear separation of mind and body function”
I have already demonstrated that the “mind vs body” issue does not affect the course of this debate. If in fact the mind is real, then the question becomes why can the mind connect with a fleshy brain but not a metal one with the only difference being material. I posed this question and was rebutted with “The immaterial mind is strange, we only believe in it because we experience it ourselves”. To say that the only justification for the mind is personal experience is justifying murder on the basis that “I personally enjoy it”.
“Pro drops Con’s free will argument by the simple claim, unsubstantiated by argument other than that the free will does not exist by claim that thinking is like seeing. These are entirely different functions.”
Completely incorrect. To recall, I stated “Even though I don't believe in free will, your major premise is still incorrect” and then went on to rebutting the free will argument, by pointing at the flaw of assuming that just because two beings participate in the same act, this does not make them the same thing.
“Pro buries his argument by two contradicting phrases: “With perfect technology, we can do quite literally anything,” which is followed by [a bit later] “this is not a debate about technological possibilities, but about whether theoretically, this is possible.”
Incorrect. My first statement was a response to my opponents constant complaint that “this is not possible”. To debunk that claim I showed that 1) that the claim is incorrect and that 2) the claim is not even relevant.
Sourcing.
“Pro offers very little in sourcing, claiming it unnecessary in a “thought experiment,” yet offers a source on the Kardashev Scale in R2”
This is completely ludicrous. I only offered the Kardashev Scale simply because my opponent strayed away from the original thought experiment regarding the debate. It would not have been given if we stated on track. It is completely ridiculous to penalise someone for using sources.
If we read the DaRT Voting Policy, under sources, it clearly states that "(sources) goes to the side that (with a strong quality lead) better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof."
A STRONG LEAD. Have you demonstrated that my opponent has a strong lead?
“Con’s sources systematically support his arguments and rebuttals, such as his rebuttal of AI-hard, and more particularly by his defining of neuron, cell, and think”
And my sources show that different processes can be mimicked by different things, such as the process of photosynthesis. You have essentially given a point for defining terms, something both parties did.
Spelling.
“Pro’s reversals of argument [as demonstrated in Argument, above] loses his legibility point”
This is ridiculous. If we once again visit the DaRT Voting Policy, under the Legibility section, we can find that this point is
Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
Terrible punctuation throughout.
Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
Please show me where my wall of text, terrible punctuation and word confusion is.
Please try better next time.
I smell a forfiet.
In my argument, am I allowed to use a being from the clone wars or comics, as it is in star wars? I know you said "from the movies", but you've already eliminated the force, anti electric weapons and reinforcements, which severely skews the debate in your favour
No problem, take your time.
You've already defined EVE as the second protagonist from the movie Walle. Not much room to kritik. At least not on this front.
You stated that you would waive the round before I accepted. You stated you would waive 2 days ago, and I accepted less than 1 day ago.
Waive the round.
What’s wrong with that kritik
vote bump
Also, could you change the argument time to at least a week?
Change it to "An entire starwars army could defeat Eve" and then change your position to Con and you've got yourself a debate.
A very intense first debate for me. Thx for the opportunity.
Chill ur pill
Damn, at least I know deep down that I still have a 100 percent win rate.
Still confused as to how I lost. I did show the difference between real and exists... Anyways, best of luck.
How do u enjoy doing these kind of debates which have little to no relevance to life.
Yeah I guess
Chill man I’m taking my time
No, it just reminds me of Mall bolding his whole debate, which was a much more painful viewing experiencing.
Highlighting your whole argument in italics is rather odd.
The kritik has been kritiked.
Thanks for the kritik!
Fancy voting again, since your vote was removed?
vote bump
Damn I really took a fat L here. Had to try this kritik though, it was too fun not to.
" The only problem I have with your claim is that a brain is not thinking, rather it is organising information - the mind is thinking."
It's great that you've said that it may be possible for an AI brain to be created. The question then becomes, if I were to slowly replace the neurons in your brain with the artificial neurons, at what point will you cease function.
so common ground..?
you don't. Using the Occam's razor, you can conclude that questioning everything in your life is unnecessary. Consider the following.
Imagine if I told you that there were intangible, invisible, inaudible and undetectable fairies inside my garden bed. There would be practically no way for you disapprove of this. After all, they cannot be detectable. What would be your reaction. Should you near live your life believing that these things exist?
Of course the Occam's razor states that you should pick the easier option. No, there are no garden fairies because their is no reason to believe not to.
Returning to my existence, I exist because I can experience the things around me. There is no reasonable reason for me to doubt my existence.
I'm playing devils advocate for a topic I am truly against, just saying. Wasn't too keen to wasting my time constructing a debate which I knew was faulty.
Thanks. I figured that out after reading your first argument. Nevertheless, I attempt to rebut this popular position in my argument. Thanks for a good debate like usual, benny boy.
I mean, it's a brief first round with no rebuttals so i'll be interested to see how this plays out. On second thoughts, the "flaw" I saw is more of a kritik. I'll mention it after the debate is over.
Hmm...?
Do you believe in the statement "I think, therefore I am"
Or you can change the resolution to "I chose to cut my hair" and change the word limit to 20 000 and you'll have an opponent.
Change it to "I, with 100 percent certainty, cut my hair" and raise the word limit to 10 000 and you've got an opponent.
Judging by that statement, it's clear that you love to victimise minorities. "A white person cannot complain about racism, A man cannot complain about abortion, Men should stop dominating women", all bs from the left.
I have a pet snake so jokes on you.
Thanks for a great debate ben!
Anyone still following this very intense debate?
I disagree with the way you use the word.