A revolution by robots alone which overthrows the government is impossible.

i understand your work life is caught up with your debating time. Because he has not rebutted any of the points I have made, they still stand unless he rebuts them in Round 3. Now to challenge his 'Impossible is nothing' theory. My opponent claims that over time, 'Nothing will be impossible' To an extent, this is true. 200 years ago, we wouldn't dream of the internet, or cell phones. Microwaves would be a mere dream of something that could cook anything near instantly, and the satellite would be unimaginable. However, the thing about all the above items is, nobody thought they would exist 200 years ago. People predicted other things, but not satellite dishes, or cell phones. People will probably laugh at us for thinking of such ridiculous possibilities in 30 years time. For those of you who have watched the 'Back to the Future' trilogy , the ideas were crazy. The thought in 2015 we would have hover boards and flying cars. This was back in the 1980's, a less than 20 years ago. Society is not progressing as fast as we think it is. We may hear in the news such as the Virgin Galactic space trips : . http://news.bbc.co.uk... or Human cloning : ttp://www. independent. co. uk. .. but the question is how long is it until this technology is practically applied to every day life? How long is it until the average family holiday gives the option of The Bahamas, China or an orbit of the earth? Or how long until parent' can be reimbursed with a clone if their child were to die? Sadly, the above technologies take time. Travelling to space requires alot of expensive training, something only the mega-rich could afford. Cloning is also a long process, and the baby must be placed inside the mother, not just poofed up out a machine. To add to this, my opponent has admitted this is a 'what if' scenario. He acknowledges then that we cannot predict what will and what won't happen. He therefore acknowledges his argument cannot stand without extensive proof. Let's take an example: There have been numerous car crashes on Green Street. - In the first week of January there were two crashes. - In the second week of January there were no crashes. - In the third week of January there were three crashes. - In the fourth week of January there was a single crash. - How many crashes will occur in the first week of February? Now, in this scenario, it is almost impossible to accurately predict how many crashes will occur in February. There is no clear pattern. Could we turn to previous records? No, the weather is always changing. There could have been a pour down of snow last February. So are car models, so whilst one year we may have a bad Honda car that has poor handling, we may have a better Honda car this year with much better handling. therefore this cannot be calculated. Like we cannot predict how many crashes will occur on Green Street in February, we cannot predict how much we will advance in the 21st century. There are simply too many variables. My opponent says 'given enough motivation and time, robots could very well take over'. Firstly, you mention motivation. Motivation is abstract, it is an emotion. As aforementioned in my previous post, it would take 'million of programming man-years' to give them such emotions. And, also aforementioned is the question of why would we give Robot's emotions to motivate themselves to kill and wipe out the Human race. My opponent's logic leaves me dumbfounded. Secondly, you mention 'Robots could take over'. Now, how would robot's rule the earth. How would their society operate? Surely they would have to be programmed to lead a nation with the right decisions. This once again leads to the question why would we give Robot's such a power?