BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Artificial Intelligence is impossible

"My opponent, ladies and gentleman, has not refuted a SINGLE point in this debate. He has merely said: 'I CAN prove existence.'" I have refuted every one of your points, and I never said that I could prove existence. "How? Prove it so" Debate.org - We know it exists as we are using it right now to post our debates. Life - We are living, and that is enough evidence to prove life. "It is as I made it a debatable point. You have yet to prove it so." It is not relevant because it does not relate to the resolution. "That's not intelligence, it's programming" The only way to get Artificial Intelligence is through programming. I shall now refer to the definition of intelligence: ".Intelligence - "Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths," Debate.org has intelligence, as it can learn and can understand. In fact, right now, it understands that I am writing an argument, and in a little while it shall understand that I wish to post this argument. Debate.org has also learned my password and username, among other things. Although that may be just programming, Debate.org's programming is part of Debate.org, and should be treated as such. The gamecube, has intelligence. It can learn, although it may need help from memory cards, it has an understanding that I want to play games on it, it can reason the different types of ways I input commands through the controller, such as hitting one button or the other. "Purely man-made and not intelligent unless you're referring to the man himself." Once again, the only way to get Artificial Intelligence is through programming. "But you haven't. Please address my points or else you forfeit them to me." I know I haven't. I said that if I was, I would surly win this debate. I never said that I would prove existence, and the reason being is because this debate is weather 'true AI' is possible or impossible. "1) Those are mere programs, not AI." The only way to get AI is through programming. "2) But if it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove existence, it is also IMPOSSIBLE to prove AI." No, it isn't. I can prove AI. How about, this time around, a Radio? It has AI. It can learn which stations I like through presets that I set, it can reason that I am on FM and not AM and that is should get FM stations, and it can understand what volume I want. Of course, all of these features rely on human input, but the features still work and the radio still does its job because of it's Fake(Artificial) Smarts(Intelligence). "Can it think, feel, react to stimuli other than chess? No. It has no existence or being except to play chess." However, Deep Blue can match a human's intellect in the world of chess, so in the world of chess, Deep Blue has 'true AI'. Let's bring up my definition of 'true AI', shall we? "We are arguing true AI, which is AI that can think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being." Deep Blue can think full and almost exactly like a human being while playing chess, so it would qualify for having true AI, even though all it does is play chess.
Artificial Intelligence is impossible

Thank you. My opponent, ladies and gentleman, has not refuted a SINGLE point in this debate. He has merely said: "I CAN prove existance." If that were the case, prove it so. "Wrong, we can be certain some things exist, such as, Debate.org, we know that exists, life, we know that exists, etc. ." How? Prove it so. "However, that is not relevant to this debate. So, I will make an argument that is." It is as I made it a debatable point. You have yet to prove it so. "We are certain some AI exists, even if it is relatively simple. In fact, Debate.org has a good amount of AI in it, as it is smart enough to post our arguments for us." That's not intelligence, it's programming. Purely man-made and not intelligent unless you're refferring to the man himself. "I know, because if I was to prove existence, I would be proving that 'true AI' is possible." But you haven't. Please address my points or else you forfeit them to me. "Incorrect. We are debating if it is POSSIBLE, not existing. Also, I can produce more than one notion of 'artificial anything'. Debate.org, for example, how about a Gamecube, both of those have artificial intelligence. Not 'true' AI, but they both do have AI." 1) Those are mere programs, not AI. 2) But if it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove existance, it is also IMPOSSIBLE to prove AI. "1) Deep Blue. Deep Blue was a robot who was able to match the chess skills of Garry Kasparov, who is considered to be the best human chess player in the world. Now, if a robot can match superior chess skills, then a robot can do other things like humans. Also, from my definition of 'true AI', Deep Blue would have 'true AI', as it is able to think very similarly or exactly like Kasparov, and that would fulfill the requirement of 'think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being'." Can it think, feel, react to stimuli other than chess? No. It has no existance or being except to play chess. As you stated in your R1: "We are arguing true AI, which is AI that can think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being." We see that Deep Blue can only think on the chess portion of intellect. It can only deduce chess moves. It has no other functions. That is not true AI as you stated in R1. As you can see my opponent has offered no proof of existance and his proof of AI itself is not under the condition he set in R1. Therefore, you vote PRO. Thanks, -EG
Artificial Intelligence is impossible

Thank you for accepting, Draxxt. Now, onto your arguments: "A) AI is impossible because we cannot be certain anything truly exists" Wrong, we can be certain some things exist, such as, Debate.org, we know that exists, life, we know that exists, etc. . However, that is not relevant to this debate. So, I will make an argument that is. We are certain some AI exists, even if it is relatively simple. In fact, Debate.org has a good amount of AI in it, as it is smart enough to post our arguments for us. Now, although we are arguing 'true AI', you said anything, thus allowing me to stray from 'true AI' for a moment. "B) My opponent has given me the definition to impossible with the word exist as a defining term. I propose to you that if you were to prove existence, would surely win this debate." I know, because if I was to prove existence, I would be proving that 'true AI' is possible. "C) If you cannot prove existence, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything." Incorrect. We are debating if it is POSSIBLE, not existing. Also, I can produce more than one notion of 'artificial anything'. Debate.org, for example, how about a Gamecube, both of those have artificial intelligence. Not 'true' AI, but they both do have AI. Now, onto my argument: 1) Deep Blue. Deep Blue was a robot who was able to match the chess skills of Garry Kasparov, who is considered to be the best human chess player in the world. Now, if a robot can match superior chess skills, then a robot can do other things like humans. Also, from my definition of 'true AI', Deep Blue would have 'true AI', as it is able to think very similarly or exactly like Kasparov, and that would fulfill the requirement of 'think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being'.
Artificial Intelligence is impossible

Hello, once again, VenemousNinja. It will be my honour to debate you again. For the following reasons, I urge this resolution be found true. I accept all definitions and terms. I would also like to add one more: Burden of Proof lies on both my opponent and myself in this debate for the sake of the hypothetical. I will make this quick for the sake of our rounds. A) AI is impossible because we cannot be certain anything truly exists. B) My opponent has given me the definition to impossible with the word exist as a defining term. I propose to you that if you were to prove existance, you would surely win this debate. C) If you cannot prove existance, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything. For the quick-produced rapid and logical reasons above, you vote PRO. Thank you, -EG
Artificial Intelligence is impossible

Out of pure respect for my opponent, I will give him to post his argument first and last. Having said this, I think I should put down some rules for this debate: 1. We are arguing true AI, which is AI that can think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being. Definitions from Dictionary.com We will be using the listed definitions for this debate. .Artificial - "Made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural)" .Intelligence - "Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc." .Impossible - "Not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc." Good luck, and may the best debater win.
Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned

Since my opponent has forfeited round 2, I have nothing to refute and I'll just give points on why fighting should be banned in the NHL. Most fighters in the NHL, are put on the ice and told to fight. Their skills in the actual game of hockey are extremely limited, and all they're good at is fighting. In the old days of fighting in the NHL, fighters would actually make an impact and their fights would change the momentum of the game, now this is not the case. Also, in the past, fighters could actually play the game. Now, fighters take up roster spots that could be taken by goal scorers. All retired enforcers, or most at least, regret that they were fighters.3 retired enforcers died in the last 3-4 months due to fight related reasons.Hockey is the only professional sport that allows fighting.I don't expect my opponent to actually post something for round 3, so these are all of my arguments...
Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned

Let me start by criticizing my opponents opening comments. I will build my argument as to why fighting in hockey should be banned in round 2. "Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy. "There are a couple of things wrong with what my opponent has said, and I will explain. First he agreed that fighting is dangerous, then he said 'but it has been in the game since the beginning. ' In the beginning of the NHL, players, including the goaltender didn't have to wear helmets/masks, so saying that it should stay the same to follow tradition, isn't a good enough point. My opponent then continues on to say that there is no reason for fighting to be banned because "it won't do anything". If fighting is banned, which would make the punishment more than a 5 minute penalty like it is now, fighting would probably disappear because players wouldn't put their careers at risk. And yes banning fighting would prevent the injuries of many players, and if fighting was banned already, it would have most likely prevented the deaths of Wade Balek, Rick Rypien and Derek Boogaard, who have all died because of reasons related to their career as a fighter in the NHL. My opponent said that fans "will just end up fighting" if fighting in the NHL is banned. I disagree, because anger between fan bases occurs very often because of a fight between two players, which starts huge and bitter rivalries. Good Luck.
Each Atheist actually believes he/she is God

"Since you, my opponent, are stuck on the Definition provided, which seems legalistic to me" When the terms of a resolution are presented with SPECIFIC definitions as an assumption. , the truth of the resolution can only be judged on the definitions so presented. All else is the fallacy of equivocation. "A Christian would hold that this/that in effect makes every Atheist their own idol, which is refereed to as a "little g",. .god by several biblical authors. " The term "Idol" has the implication that the worship is unjustified. While a Christian would of course hold this, the debate is about what an atheist would necessarily believe, not what a Christian would believe. Furthermore, the God of the resolution is big G. Not little g. " Omnipotent:One having unlimited power or authority" Just power, not authority. "Omniscient: One having total knowledge. " Total? Why not unlimited, like the other omni? I smell something fishy. " The resolution doesn't require the Atheist to actually possess these attributes, but rather believe they possess these attributes. Certainly most atheist are somewhat arrogant, prideful, and "cocky", as evidenced by my opponent. " First, the resolution isn't concerned with what "Most" atheists do, only what "Each" atheist does (i. e. what ALL do. ) Furthermore, invalid induction. Just because I have those attributes does not mean "most" atheists do, in fact, if you pay attention to how often I'm in the minority, you find I have a tendency to be in the minority :D. "These attributes certainly might signify a belief in ones own Omnipotence. " This is vaguely silly. Read some of my other debates. If I believed in my own omnipotence, why would I complain so much about what the government does? I'd simply go about stopping it from doing so with a snap of my fingers. .. and when I failed, I'd stand corrected :D. "Many atheist often are the "know it all" which could signify ones belief in total knowledge. " Circular argument. You claim we often know it all therefore we believe we know it all. Without demonstrating the former (know many things =/= know it all). And there are too many "Coulds" here, remember, you have burden of proof. "Further one should not have such attitudes with-out having OR Believing they have omnipotent and omniscient attributes. " Why is that? The fact is I an prideful, but I do not believe I am omnipotent ( I believe I have significant power potentially, but it is severely limited, especially by time :D). The hypothetical significant power (intellectual power) is something to take pride in. .. and even were that true, this debate is about what we DO believe, not what we SHOULD. "Per my definition, which would also be shared with a Christian definition, why is it that they equate replacement of their God as being another god? " Not per "Your definition. "
Each Atheist actually believes he/she is God

God -A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. -The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. -A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. -An image of a supernatural being; an idol. -One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. -A very handsome man. -A powerful ruler or despot. http://education.yahoo.com... Well I suppose I could argue every atheist believes himself to be a handsome man and that in effect makes him a god, however there are probably a few women claiming atheism; and well I'd like to think myself handsome and I am not a god. Since you, my opponent, are stuck on the Definition provided, which seems legalistic to me,......I will set out to prove how every atheist actually believes he is omnipotent and omniscient. At least we can agree that every Atheist replaces a God with his belief. A Christian would hold that this/that in effect makes every Atheist their own idol, which is refereed to as a "little g",..god by several biblical authors. Definitions Omnipotent:One having unlimited power or authority Omniscient: One having total knowledge. The resolution doesn't require the Atheist to actually possess these attributes, but rather believe they possess these attributes. Certainly most atheist are somewhat arrogant, prideful, and "cocky", as evidenced by my opponent. These attributes certainly might signify a belief in ones own Omnipotence. Many atheist often are the "know it all" which could signify ones belief in total knowledge. Further one should not have such attitudes with-out having OR Believing they have omnipotent and omniscient attributes. I would also like to say that many religions, including Christianity believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God. Those religions also equate replacement of that Deity with another god or idol, as evidenced in the sacred writings of those religions. I have provided a couple quotes from those sacred writings. Per my definition, which would also be shared with a Christian definition, why is it that they equate replacement of their God as being another god? "Humble God" It doesn't matter if a humble god can or can not exist for the purposes of this debate. My opponent mentions an Atheist that was humble, and thus my opponent discredits the ability to be humble and a God. Can we or anyone really prove this man was humble?
Each Atheist actually believes he/she is God

"This is only true if something, I don't know ABSOLUTE exist. Thought you were a relativist?" When did I say that? I said the majority of atheists were relativists. Do I seem to you like someone who is often in the majority? I'm an Objectivist, which is quite incompatible with relativism. " Firstly God does permit worship of other Gods by the mere fact it takes place," "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Exodus 20:3 (Deuteronomy 5:7, Judges 6:10, Hosea 13:4)" To be unable or unwilling to stop something is not the same as permitting it. Says right there pretty clearly you do NOT have his permission. "Secondly a Jealous God is not contradictory to a Humble God. Even man has a right to be jealous in some circumstances, for instance if you and your wife committed to a monogamous relationship but she repeatedly slept with other men, you have a justification for jealousy." For this to be a valid argument, you would have to assume that I assumed lack of humility was necessarily unjustified. I do not. In fact I am a big fan of arrogance. If you are humble, i.e, do not take pride in your value, do not hold yourself above other men on any question, you have no justification for differentiating yourself from other men in the consequences of value- for example, whether x person will sleep with you. To state "X should sleep with me and me alone," to actively accept such a commitment from someone, is to assume that you have a value to them another man does not- something you no doubt take pride in :D. " Are you suggesting a talented man can not be humble even when he is aware of his great talent; he must then always be prideful?" YES. To be aware of one's greatness is pride. This is why, keep in mind, I do not hold that pride is a bad thing :D/ " You have based your morals on benefits to your own life, rather than a Deity, you have replaced the Deity" This is to assume that the "Deity" had any claim to that position. Unfortunately, that which is omnipotent and omniscient CANNOT be benefited by an outside source- nothing outside can be of value to them, since whatever they want or need or have use for they have. Since a deity by definition then cannot be a beneficiary of my actions, I am not replacing him. :D. Furthermore, replacing a deity does not mean you become one. George Washington took a position previously held by King George, the position of the Head of State for an area now constituting the eastern edge of the United States. This does not mean that George Washington became the other George, nor that he became a King. " Obviously my resolution doesn't suggest an atheist believes himself to be an omnipotent, omniscient God." It does in tandem with the definition you provided :D. "However I do intend to prove that atheist hold themselves as God. Contradiction. God is defined as omnipotent and omniscient, or a force, manifestation, or aspect of that which is omnipotent or omniscient. out of characters, cont
Each Atheist actually believes he/she is God

And? Just because people happen to believe something, does not mean it is not a contradiction." This is only true if something, I don't know ABSOLUTE exist. Thought you were a relativist? "The Bible claims your god is a Jealous God, not nearly humble enough to allow worship of other gods. It's hardly a sign of humility to demand that others worship you. :D" Firstly God does permit worship of other Gods by the mere fact it takes place, which also negates your claim he "demand[s]" others to worship him. Secondly a Jealous God is not contradictory to a Humble God. Even man has a right to be jealous in some circumstances, for instance if you and your wife committed to a monogamous relationship but she repeatedly slept with other men, you have a justification for jealousy. "But here is the primary contradiction in divine humility. The Bible claims "God is great." If he is also omniscient, he knows he is great. Pride is the belief that one is good or great, true or otherwise." Are you suggesting a talented man can not be humble even when he is aware of his great talent; he must then always be prideful? "[morals Based on GOD] Unproven nonsense.......This is obviously not beneficial to my life." You have based your morals on benefits to your own life, rather than a Deity, you have replaced the Deity.....what replaces the Deity becomes yours, that's you. Amoralist also have based their view because they accept themselves to be God, whether they know it or not. "Your "b" definition is simply force, manifestation, or aspect of such a being, which holds the same requirements of an omnipotent, omniscient being." Obviously my resolution doesn't suggest an atheist believes himself to be an omnipotent, omniscient God. I do not intend to prove this, because it is not true. If an atheist did believe, or anyone else for that matter, to be omnipotent and/or omniscient then they would likely be nuts; that's my Non-medical professional opinion. However I do intend to prove that atheist hold themselves as God. If I may use the Christian Bible for reference in the matter. The ten commandment author writes God Says "Do not have any other gods before me." Exodus 20:3 This passage doesn't suggest there are actually other Gods but rather man can elevate or value things and beliefs above this God, thus making those beliefs or things their god. Atheist have a view/belief there are not Gods thus they have elevated themselves (their beliefs) to a god. "Do not turn to idols or make gods of cast metal for yourselves." Leviticus 19:4 This passage reveals, per definition, cast metal can be a god. Certainly a cast metal object is not omnipotent or omniscient but still considered a god. The important thing that makes the cast metal object a god is because man has replaced another God with it. Man worships the metal, that's one sign of the god...and.... man replaces or honors it more than the other God, the second sign. Atheist have both.