Artificial Intelligence is impossible

"Never once did the word "always" come up in my debate until now. I defy you to prove otherwise." So sorry, I meant to say 'anything'. "No. It became a debatable point therefore you either had to refute it or concede." It was not related to the resolution, however. Therefore, it did not need to be debated. "I said that since you provided evidence for things you considered existant, you tried to prove existance." However I never stated that I could prove existence, I merely attempted to. "1) I did not prove illusions, I merely said we may be illusory." And to be illusory, there must be illusions! "2) If you were to try and prove illusions, you would be conceding my point." Actually, I would be backing up my point that there are, at least, SOME things that we know to exist. "No. I said human-like. When you create 'human-like' as a rule, you automatically assume that all points consisting of AI will go by the rule of 'human-like.'" However, you still used the word 'anything', and, as I have stated before, that allows me to stray from 'true AI'. When you just say 'AI', or something similar, I will then assume that it fits into the rule of 'true AI'. However, you allowed me to stray from 'true AI' by your word choice. "Yes but humans are not limited by a certain amount of knowledge. Also, they may only learn certain things that correspond with their programming. They may not manipulate it in any way without human interaction, therefore they cannot think as a human does." Some humans are, in fact. While else would those people labeled as 'mental retards' have to live with a relative? Can they not take care of themselves by learning how the world works like a seemingly 'normal' person does? Apparently, not. There are very few cases, if any, of a 'mental retard' taking care of him or herself. Also notice that it does not have anything to do with their physical limitations, as it is called 'MENTAL retardation'. "Again, you go by the preset rules." Again, you used the word 'anything'. Let's look at the word 'anything', shall we? The first definition (from dictionary.com) says "any thing whatever; something, no matter what" The second says "a thing of any kind." The third says "in any degree; to any extent; in any way; at all" Now, upon seeing the third definition, you may think that it proves your point, however, let's look at the example of the third definition: "Does it taste anything like chocolate?" And, using the definition, we can see that this means "Does it, to any degree or extent, taste anything like chocolate?" "It has understanding of chess and nothing more." However, Deep Blue still has understanding and logic, although it may be only of chess. "Yes but try talking philosophically with he machine and it would probably produce a rebuttal along the lines of "Bishop to queen's four." This is in no way "human-like" intelligence." Now, that all depends on what one considers 'human-like' to be. I think 'human-like' intellect means it can do something intelligently. And it can, it can play chess intelligently. And, as such, Deep Blue has "human-like" intelligence by my standards. "If they are stupid. If they only go by the final demand, they haven't been paying attention. Saying "You can only logical vote XXX" Is a statement generally used to say "And this is why you should vote XXX" If they do not read the debate aside from commands, it is useless debating. We may as well spend all of our rounds saying "Vote XXX"" 1) I never said they were stupid 2) I never said they could only go by the final command, I am saying that the final post sticks in your mind the most, and therefore probably influences you the most. This does not mean that you posting "VOTE PRO VOTE PRO VOTE PRO" twenty times in your last post means they are going to vote for you. I'm just saying that, in many cases, the last one encounters is what influences them the most. In the "VOTE PRO" case, it would probably influence one to vote for me. 3) If so, why don't you just say the latter quote instead of misleading people with the former? 4) See 2). "If that were the case, every last round debater would win and that is not the case. Most logical people go by logical victors, not formal requests." Please see my above statement. "However relevant that is is beyond me. It still does not have the capacities of a true human. It cannot love, feel, philosophically debate by opinion. It can only do what is within it's limitations that make it lesser than a human." Once again, that all depends on what your definition of human is. Humans can be caring people, or they can be mass murders, or they can be limited because of some condition, or they can be a child, etc. "My opponent has made no sense this debate except to bring up a sitting robot that looks like a human. This in no way represents true AI as my opponent made the rule by. He has also dropped my existence contention and therefore, has already dropped half of the debate." I made much sense. Also, your existence contention does not represent half of the debate, and I did refute it. Look it the past arguments, you'll see.